Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supreme Court Decision on car searching
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 34 (506030)
04-21-2009 10:58 PM


Top court clips police authority to search cars - CSMonitor.com
In the spirit of this forum, I have chosen an article from the christian science monitor for this subject.
quote:
Washington - Ending a decades-long trend favoring law enforcement, the US Supreme Court has moved to restrict the ability of police to conduct open-ended searches of automobiles during traffic stops.
In a 5 to 4 decision announced Tuesday, the nation's highest court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit police to conduct a warrantless search of a car unless the search is immediately necessary to safeguard the arresting officer's safety or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.
The decision means that police cannot rely on a mere traffic violation to authorize a general search for guns, drugs, or other contraband. Such searches created "a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.
"The character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment — the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."
The ruling in Arizona v. Gant narrows a 28-year-old rule that had authorized law enforcement officials to conduct car searches without a warrant during traffic stops. In a subsequent decision, the high court expanded that rule to allow searches without a warrant even after a motorist was being held securely in police custody.
Now, police will have new rules to follow. Justice Stevens said the location of the arrested person is important. If that person is still "within reaching distance of the passenger compartment" — in other words, able to potentially disturb evidence or grab a weapon — police can conduct a warrantless search, he wrote. The majority justices said the justification for a warrantless automobile search disappears once the motorist has been handcuffed and placed safely in a patrol car. After that, police must obtain a court-authorized search warrant from a neutral judge.
Stevens added that a warrantless search would also be justified "when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
The ruling is expected to require retraining at police agencies across the country.
In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the high court's new rule may endanger arresting police officers. He said it will also confuse law enforcement officials and judges "for some time to come."
Justice Alito added: "The court's decision will cause the suppression of evidence gathered in many searches carried out in good faith reliance on well-settled case law."
Tuesday's decision stems from the August 1999 arrest of Rodney Gant by the Tucson Police Department. Officers were investigating suspected drug activity at a house in Tucson. They had encountered Mr. Gant at the house earlier in the day.
A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Gant's arrest for failing to appear on a charge of driving with a suspended license. That evening, Gant was arrested on the outstanding warrant shortly after he parked and exited his car near the house.
Once arrested, Gant was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a patrol car. The police then searched Gant's car, where they found cocaine and a handgun.
Gant was charged with possession of cocaine for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.
At trial, Gant's lawyer moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that police had conducted an unreasonable search of his car by failing to first obtain a search warrant or Gant's permission. Prosecutors argued that the case triggered an exception to the warrant requirement. Because Gant had only just exited the car, they said, police were entitled to search the vehicle in connection with his arrest.
The trial court upheld the search. Gant was convicted and sentenced to a three-year prison term.
The Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court both ruled that police violated Gant's Fourth Amendment privacy rights by conducting the warrantless search of his car.
They ordered the seized evidence suppressed. The courts reasoned that at the time of his arrest, Gant was not in close proximity to his car, so police officers had no reason to initiate an immediate search of the car.
Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In addition to Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer dissented.
You guys agree or disagree with this? I'm not sure what to think considering I personally know police officers that have found illegal guns, drugs, and dead bodies during these searches.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the quote text from small (1) to normal (2) size. Was too much fine print (IMO).

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:32 PM Taz has replied
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 04-22-2009 5:21 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-06-2009 12:58 PM Taz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 2 of 34 (506033)
04-21-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-21-2009 10:58 PM


My reading of the constitution leads me to believe that those broad searches "because they can" are out of bounds.
I agree with this decision.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-21-2009 10:58 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 04-21-2009 11:36 PM Coyote has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 34 (506034)
04-21-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coyote
04-21-2009 11:32 PM


From my understanding, part of the reason why cops search the vehicle after a traffic arrest is to inventory what's there so the subject can't come back 2 days later claiming there was a million dollar diamond ring in the trunk or something like that that was gone by the time he got to it after the arrest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:48 PM Taz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 34 (506036)
04-21-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
04-21-2009 11:36 PM


From my understanding, part of the reason why cops search the vehicle after a traffic arrest is to inventory what's there so the subject can't come back 2 days later claiming there was a million dollar diamond ring in the trunk or something like that that was gone by the time he got to it after the arrest.
Sorry. That's as phony an excuse as you could ever find.
Past history suggests that they don't care much about contents, but they do care about evidence that can be used in a criminal case--or large amounts of cash which they can misappropriate for their own department.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 04-21-2009 11:36 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 12:15 AM Coyote has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 34 (506040)
04-22-2009 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
04-21-2009 11:48 PM


Taz writes:
From my understanding, part of the reason why cops search the vehicle after a traffic arrest is to inventory what's there so the subject can't come back 2 days later claiming there was a million dollar diamond ring in the trunk or something like that that was gone by the time he got to it after the arrest.
Coyote writes:
Sorry. That's as phony an excuse as you could ever find.
Taz, you are close on your understanding. Searches as you describe are generally acceptable if the car is impounded. They are routinely conducted when cars are impounded, for the reason you describe, as well as to secure any valuables that the arrested person may actually have in the car so they don't disappear from the car before the arrested person can get back to it. Although I haven't yet read the recent opinion, it appears to me that this rule is still good law. At least from the write-up that the CSM did, it doesn't look like this case involved a routine inventory search. What's more, the doctrine of inventory searches is so well established, I can't imagine that it would be discarded without significant discussion of the matter which this opinion doesn't appear to have.
Coyote, the excuse isn't phony as applied to impound cases. It's important to keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It doesn't require a warrant in all cases. Look at it this way. Imagine you are arrested for an unpaid parking ticket you forgot about and, at the time of the arrest, you have a laptop computer in your car. Would you want the police to leave that in the car as it sits in the impound lot, or take possession of it until such time as you sort out the ticket?
If the police department has an established policy of conducting an inventory search of all seized vehicles, any search conducted pursuant to this policy is reasonable, because there's a rational for the search other than looking for incriminating evidence.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2009 12:20 AM subbie has replied
 Message 9 by LinearAq, posted 04-22-2009 8:05 AM subbie has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 34 (506041)
04-22-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
04-22-2009 12:15 AM


Coyote, the excuse isn't phony as applied to impound cases. It's important to keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It doesn't require a warrant in all cases. Look at it this way. Imagine you are arrested for an unpaid parking ticket you forgot about and, at the time of the arrest, you have a laptop computer in your car. Would you want the police to leave that in the car as it sits in the impound lot, or take possession of it until such time as you sort out the ticket?
If the police department has an established policy of conducting an inventory search of all seized vehicles, any search conducted pursuant to this policy is reasonable, because there's a rational for the search other than looking for incriminating evidence.
No problem then.
Of course, any incriminating evidence would just be incidental to the true purpose of the search, and would be dismissed.
Right?
Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 12:15 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 12:56 AM Coyote has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 7 of 34 (506043)
04-22-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
04-22-2009 12:20 AM


No problem then.
Of course, any incriminating evidence would just be incidental to the true purpose of the search, and would be dismissed.
Right?
Right?
Uh, no.
There is another well-established doctrine that will likely never be modified, that provides that if the police are conducting a reasonable search for one purpose, evidence of other criminal activity found pursuant to the search is admissible. The idea behind this is that if the police are lawfully searching something or someone, they aren't required to close their eyes to evidence they discover during that search.
However, the discovery must be truly incident to the lawful search. For example, if police have a warrant to search a resident for drugs and they find a stolen piano incident to that search, they can use that. However, if they have a warrant to look for a stolen piano and find drugs in a desk drawer, that evidence would be suppressed. There would be no reasonable basis to conclude that evidence of a stolen piano might be found in the drawer.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2009 12:20 AM Coyote has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 8 of 34 (506057)
04-22-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-21-2009 10:58 PM


the high court's new rule may endanger arresting police officers
Am I the only one who reads that as the rule could endanger the act of arresting police officers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-21-2009 10:58 PM Taz has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 9 of 34 (506070)
04-22-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
04-22-2009 12:15 AM


So what changed?
csmonitor writes:
Now, police will have new rules to follow. Justice Stevens said the location of the arrested person is important. If that person is still "within reaching distance of the passenger compartment" — in other words, able to potentially disturb evidence or grab a weapon — police can conduct a warrantless search, he wrote. The majority justices said the justification for a warrantless automobile search disappears once the motorist has been handcuffed and placed safely in a patrol car. After that, police must obtain a court-authorized search warrant from a neutral judge.
subbie writes:
Taz, you are close on your understanding. Searches as you describe are generally acceptable if the car is impounded. They are routinely conducted when cars are impounded, for the reason you describe, as well as to secure any valuables that the arrested person may actually have in the car so they don't disappear from the car before the arrested person can get back to it. Although I haven't yet read the recent opinion, it appears to me that this rule is still good law. At least from the write-up that the CSM did, it doesn't look like this case involved a routine inventory search. What's more, the doctrine of inventory searches is so well established, I can't imagine that it would be discarded without significant discussion of the matter which this opinion doesn't appear to have.
It seems that if you remain in your car, they can search it because you could be in reach of a weapon but if you get out of your car and are arrested, they search the car anyway. I must be missing something...probable cause that you have a weapon, perhaps?
Seems that the only way to keep your car from being searched is to step out of it once you are stopped. They frown on that here in Maryland....and they're the ones with the guns.
The reason that I bring up probable cause is because my wife was stopped for "speeding" and the trooper right away asked if he could look through the car. She said "no" and he said "Ok" and wrote up the traffic ticket.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 12:15 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 8:58 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 10 of 34 (506080)
04-22-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by LinearAq
04-22-2009 8:05 AM


Stopped versus arrested
For an ordinary traffic stop, such as a speeding ticket, police need either permission, probable cause to believe that there is evidence of criminal activity, or an articulable suspicion that you are armed before they can search your car. In Arizona v. Gant, the issue is the standard for a search incident to an arrest.
The change that Gant makes is that it clarifies that a car can be searched incident to arrest for safety reasons only if the arrested person is within reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by LinearAq, posted 04-22-2009 8:05 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 11 of 34 (506120)
04-22-2009 6:32 PM


As a friend of mine told me, who is a cop for the city of Miami, keep anything you don't want seen locked in your glove box, or trunk.
If it is locked, at least here in Miami, they need a warrent to search it.
As someone who carries the occational "stick-o-pot" I'm glad they changed the law.
Felt it went with the theme of the thread, enjoy: search car for drugs

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 8:22 AM onifre has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 12 of 34 (506720)
04-28-2009 3:11 PM


it doesn't really sound like it changes anything. the cops will still just lie and make things up to conducet a search or whatever they want to do.
I was with a firend two weeks ago and we got pulled over around 9pm, comming back from a gaming day (D&D). The 1st thing the cops says is "is your muffler a factory muffler?" (I was riding in a cheap factory KIA, there was nothing suped up about this ride at all). then the next comment was "you know its against Virginia law to have anything hanging from your review mirror (as he pointed to an air fresener that dagled a mere 4inches from the mirror). basically we were pulled over for no reason, and he was making up reasons to stop us and see if we were drunk or high (thank god we had are nerdy gaming t-shirts on, we look not even cool enough to find a beer). The Cops are the worst criminal on the street, they break the laws and the constitution at will on a daily basis, this ruling doesn't really say much to me.
PS Fuck the police.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by kjsimons, posted 04-28-2009 3:35 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 14 by onifre, posted 04-28-2009 4:14 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 13 of 34 (506723)
04-28-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Artemis Entreri
04-28-2009 3:11 PM


I have had a couple of bad experiences with the police, but mostly they've behaved well. To call all cops liars and criminals and the like is just juvenial. Many police cars are equiped with video cameras and the officers conduct can be reviewed to see if it was proper. If neither of you filed a complaint against the officer who pulled you over then how do you expect to correct his behavior?
I think this ruling may make it harder to conduct some car searches and may impede law enforcement, but it's not unreasonable to require the police to have to reasonable cause or a search warrant to search a car.
Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.
Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-28-2009 3:11 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 14 of 34 (506729)
04-28-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Artemis Entreri
04-28-2009 3:11 PM


PS Fuck the police.
Yes, your badass D&D self has really proven his point, here, quietly in this forum... But how did you answer the cops during the "supposed" investigation of your vehicle?
Did you go Ice - T on them and tell them to go fuck themselves? - Fuck Da Police!
Or did you retreate to your D&D world and promise to "get them one day"...?
- Oni
PS: Never start off a post with "I was playing D&D..."... then end it with "Fuck the police"... no one will believe you actually have the balls to say that!
Edited by onifre, : shits and giggles

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-28-2009 3:11 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 15 of 34 (506855)
04-29-2009 8:20 PM


kisimons writes:
I have had a couple of bad experiences with the police, but mostly they've behaved well. To call all cops liars and criminals and the like is just juvenial. Many police cars are equiped with video cameras and the officers conduct can be reviewed to see if it was proper. If neither of you filed a complaint against the officer who pulled you over then how do you expect to correct his behavior?
I think this ruling may make it harder to conduct some car searches and may impede law enforcement, but it's not unreasonable to require the police to have to reasonable cause or a search warrant to search a car.
I would not file a complaint as I was the passenger, and in no way of being charged with anything.
Since they can pull us over and literally make things up in front of us I don’t see the benefit in filing a complaint, as they could simply target the complainer every time they saw him/her on the road and simply make up infractions.
Juvenial (I think you meant juvenile)!?! What would you call someone who broke the law everyday of the week while at work, and lied to people at the same time about it?
onifire writes:
Yes, your badass D&D self has really proven his point, here, quietly in this forum... But how did you answer the cops during the "supposed" investigation of your vehicle?
Did you go Ice - T on them and tell them to go fuck themselves? - Fuck Da Police!
Or did you retreate to your D&D world and promise to "get them one day"...?
- Oni
I wasn’t driving, hence the reason I specifically mentioned riding. I did not speak to the officer, I refuse to talk to them, ever. Their job seems to be to get citizens to incriminate themselves with sly questions and horrible assumptions, not unlike your assumption of the situation I described, or your assumptions about people who play role playing games.
PS: I would never say that to a cop, even if I was Duke Nukem and had balls of steel. It has been my best experience to not even talk to police officers, and carry a passport so when they demand ID you can give them a US ID (which they have to accept but has no specific information on it except your name). They only get to see my drivers license if they pull me over while I am driving my truck.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by kjsimons, posted 04-30-2009 9:19 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 05-05-2009 10:18 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 21 by onifre, posted 05-06-2009 6:38 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024