Court allows search and seizure in Virginia case

[Friday on my mind]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jloUQDq8P-iiT6iMWYzQ708nQQqAD907KDI81

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police can conduct searches and seize evidence after arrests that sometimes violate state law.

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and to let the driver go.

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

Courts allow warrantless searches following arrests in order to disarm suspects and preserve evidence.

The Virginia attorney general said an arrest is constitutionally reasonable if the officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime.

Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors."


This court is restricting individual rights.Traffic offense ,lets search him.Even the supreme court in Va decided it was unlawfull but not our US supreme court which is getting more right wing all the time with the appointments by republican presidents.That may be one of the better arguements for a dem president to be elected IMO.

 

[negator]

doesn't this happen on cops every night at 7:00?

 

[Peter Gazinya]

That may be one of the better arguements for a dem president to be elected IMO.

Or move to Costa Rica, or not to smoke crack, or to do your damnedest to avoid Virginia. It's always been mideval gestapo commonwealth were the smallest of offenses are exorbinantly punished. And the president won't matter. Supreme Court justices are only replace when they die or retire, they don't come in with every new administration.

But anyway, here we go again. Guy gets 3 1/2 years in the joint for having a bag of something in his possession. He wasn't hurting anyone, he wasn't vandalizing or stealing anyone's property, he wasn't sexually assaulting somebody, he simply was not a danger to anyone and he did not violate the rights or property of another person. And now he gets to spend 3 1/2 years in a miserable institution, trying to keep things out of his asshole. And he will come out a ruined man. The system will take him from being just a person to becoming a miserable monster, mad at the world and devoid of any passion or spirit. Fuck you government.

My truck got broken into 2 months ago. I lost my identity, my wallet, a ton of cash, pictures of my family, my trust in humanity, and $3,000 worth of some of my most prized possessions. They'll never find the piece of shit who did it. But I looked into it to see what would happen if they did. The most common punishment for this type of crime is a suspended sentence and 1 year probation. To put this in simple terms, our justice system likes people who destroy other's property and steals everything a man values more than it does harmless losers who smoke things.

The irony here is that the dirt surfer probably broke into my truck to get money to buy drugs. If this country didn't have such an irrational, draconian approach to drugs and mental health, where getting the drugs is a highly criminal activity, he probably wouldn't have needed to break into my truck and destroy my life in the first place. Elevating simple drugs to this unobtainable status does nothing more than create a highly criminal culture surrounding it.

To Recap:

Vandalize someone's $30,000 truck and steal everything they've ever had from them: Probation and a stern talking-to.

Smoke a little rock to escape your miserable existence for 10 minutes: 3 1/2 years of ass rape and a life thereafter forever destroyed.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.....

 

[Friday on my mind]

Or move to Costa Rica, or not to smoke crack, or to do your damnedest to avoid Virginia. It's always been mideval gestapo commonwealth were the smallest of offenses are exorbinantly punished. And the president won't matter. Supreme Court justices are only replace when they die or retire, they don't come in with every new administration.

But anyway, here we go again. Guy gets 3 1/2 years in the joint for having a bag of something in his possession. He wasn't hurting anyone, he wasn't vandalizing or stealing anyone's property, he wasn't sexually assaulting somebody, he simply was not a danger to anyone and he did not violate the rights or property of another person. And now he gets to spend 3 1/2 years in a miserable institution, trying to keep things out of his asshole. And he will come out a ruined man. The system will take him from being just a person to becoming a miserable monster, mad at the world and devoid of any passion or spirit. Fuck you government.

My truck got broken into 2 months ago. I lost my identity, my wallet, a ton of cash, pictures of my family, my trust in humanity, and $3,000 worth of some of my most prized possessions. They'll never find the piece of shit who did it. But I looked into it to see what would happen if they did. The most common punishment for this type of crime is a suspended sentence and 1 year probation. To put this in simple terms, our justice system likes people who destroy others property and steals everything a man values from him more than it does harmless losers who smoke things.

The irony here is that the dirt surfer probably broke into my truck to get money to buy drugs. If this country didn't have such an irrational, draconian approach to drugs and mental health, where getting the drugs is a highly criminal activity, he probably wouldn't have needed to break into my truck and destroy my life in the first place. Elevating simple drugs to this unobtainable status does nothing more than create a highly criminal culture surrounding it.

To Recap:

Vandalize someone's $30,000 truck and steal everything they've ever had from them: Probation and a stern talking-to.

Smoke a little rock to escape your miserable existence for 10 minutes: 3 1/2 years of ass rape and a life thereafter forever destroyed.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.....

But if it had been up to the court in Virginia it would have been thrown out.And yes your right about no all presidents get to choose new members but the next one is.Couple of the current ones are very old and expected to retire soon,they are actually the more liberal ones and may be holding on hoping someones else besides a republican gets to make the choice of their replacements.

 

[ballzano]

your car has never really been treated as sanctuary, if you are on public roads it is treated as a privilage to use (legally). if he was pulled over (we do not know all circumstances) who gets the benefit of doubt the police or the suspect? crack is illegal period, how is it to seize something he was illegally possessing be unlawful?

 

[calpoon]

fuck me. so they did or didn't overturn his charges?

BallZ, the way that it is supposed to work, which they kind of mentioned in this article, is that the cops can't just search you for no reason. they have to have some reasonable suspicion.they see you walking down the street and think maybe this guy is doing something illegal, maybe he isn't- doesn't count as reasonable suspicion.

now let me back this up a minute, cuz we are already getting off track here. In case you don't know the whole point of these constitutional laws is that old constables of england used to (yeah, used to) treat people like dirt and haul your ass in jail for no good reason. That's why they made these laws that cops have to follow to ensure that they are treating people failry and respecting that crazy old idea of liberty and freedom.

So to make it perfectly clear, they ain't supposed to be searching jack shit unless they have a nice little paper signed by a judge that says they have a compelling argument for why they should. So when they say "can we search you?" you say hell no! and they will proceed to call up the judge, getting him out of bed at 4 am, to ask "can we have permission to look up this guys ass for the Lindberg baby?" and he'll say hell no!

For their safety they can do a check (NOT a "search" as defined by the 4th amendment). like the article said. but about this "looking for evidence" that is bullshit. Sure, they are supposed to be looking for evidence OF THE CRIME THEY ARE ARRESTING YOU FOR. so let's back it up here again. they think you are committing a crime (reasonable suspicion/ probable cause) they pull you over and see that you are in fact committed such a crime, they collect evidence if necessary to tie you to the crime they arrest you. This guys crime was speeding or whatever. what reason did they have to suspect he had drugs and what connection did that have to the crime he stopped for? none. they had no reason to search him for that.

So back to those "safety checks". there really isn't any procedure for doing this. SOO what that means is yeah, a lot of times they are going to check to see if you have a knife or a gun because you are a black guy in Pennsylvania, and Hey, just lookee here, they "happened" to find some rock. Better get you a non-court appointment attorney and You Might have a hope.

When it comes right down to it what it says and what it is aren't always the same thing, as you know. You Might just end up with judge dipshit who wants to motion to have your red light running upgraded to murder one citing dipshit vs shmuck, which just happened to be the case right before yours. In which case you are screwed. but like I said, get a decent lawyer and who knows, maybe the court will decide to abide by it's own rules for once.

 

[D-rock]

What I don't understand is even if they didn't think he had a constitutional right to have the evidence thrown out, why wouldn't they let the state impose it's own even stricter regulation on what the government can do. You would think that the states can restrict their own state government even more than what the federal constitution calls for if they wanted to do so.

Of course this also leads to the question if they can do that what’s to keep an officer of the law from just trumping up something on you in order to search you if they don’t have any reasonable cause to do so but want to anyhow. There is no penalty for them doing it if they can find something you did technically wrong after the fact, and proving that they are just doing that to search you when they know they don’t have any good reason would be virtually impossible in a lot of situations.

 

[calpoon]

right, like you said d-rock. they technically could do that, because the state legislator can pass any law that they want to.

it was intended for states to be able to pass their own laws, with checks and balances ensuring that those laws are upholding the constitution.

I sincerely believe that the constitution is one of the very best legal documents created, but those same checks and balance that ensure your liberty also have a way of screwing you over.

That law is unconstitutional, it is in violation of your right to avoid unlawful search and seizure under the 4th amendment . But a state CAN pass a law that is unconstitutional, because it's not up to them to interpret the constitution. It's then up to the people to take it to the supreme court and have them overrule it and throw out the law... but it could be that they never get the case brought up to them, or they choose not to consider it (they don't have to) and then you'll have a lot of people unjustly rotting in jail in the meantime.

 

[ballzano]

they seized crack! duh

 

[ballzano]

in Amsterdam, crack is illegal

 

[calpoon]

this wasn't in amsterdam. this is America. we have laws here.

 

[ballzano]

the police may have had probible cause, they pulled him over for an expired tag, if crack smoke pored out..... well?

 

[calpoon]

smelling crack cocaine (is that even possible?) and, obviously, if they actually saw it constitutes probable cause, but they still need a warrant to search your vehicle.

 

[ballzano]

the police pulled over a man for a tail light out. there's someone in the trunk banging the trunk lid. "Sir is there something in your trunk?" (sounds like a womens voice screaming help!). Ahhhh no, just my dog, the cops say damn! "wish we had a search warrant"...........probible cause? cocaine is processed with kerosene to pull the active ingredient from the leaf, the band lynard skynard has a song "that smell" its about the white stuff.

 

[calpoon]

if it's an emergency, as in necessitating life-saving action, than yes, they could go ahead without it. still, possession of coke (a misdemeanor) doesn't qualify.

dude, don't ask me. I don't decide these things. I'm just telling it to you the way that it's written down. remind me never to go driving around in your town.

 

[bombardier52]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jloUQDq8P-iiT6iMWYzQ708nQQqAD907KDI81


This court is restricting individual rights.Traffic offense ,lets search him.Even the supreme court in Va decided it was unlawfull but not our US supreme court which is getting more right wing all the time with the appointments by republican presidents.That may be one of the better arguements for a dem president to be elected IMO.

Good lord man, it was a unanimous decision. Ginsburg is somewhere left of Lenin and she agreed. I think this might have more to do with the law then politics. I just read the opinion, because I am a geek of epic proportions and the case comes down to this:

"The meaning of the 4th amendment has never depended on the laws of the state in which the search took place. States practices vary from place to place and time to time but the 4th amendment's protections are not so variable and can not be made to turn on such trivialities." and "A warrantless arrest satisfies the Constitution as long as the officer as probable cause to believe the suspect has committed or is committing a crime."

The officers were out looking for this guy because they had gotten a report that he was out driving with a suspended DL. Thus, he was committing a crime and liable for arrest and a search.

 

[senob44]

This issue has me torn. I'm tempted to say "I've got nothing to hide, so I couldn't care less if a cop can go and search anyone's car without their consent." But for a lot of people, a lot of generally or even wholly GOOD people this would be a problem, even if only for the inconvenience. I think I side with the Supreme Court's ruling, but just oh-so barely.

 

[calpoon]

A warrantless arrest satisfies the Constitution as long as the officer as probable cause to believe the suspect has committed or is committing a crime."

so a warrant is for circumstances where they don't have any probable cause to think there was a crime? I mean if probable cause is enough for a search, then why do they ever need a warrant? that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[bombardier52]

so a warrant is for circumstances where they don't have any probable cause to think there was a crime? I mean if probable cause is enough for a search, then why do they ever need a warrant? that doesn't make any sense at all.

That line bothered me today so I looked it up. You can arrest someone without a warrant when you catch them (as in actually see) them commit a crime.

If there was a murder that a cop did not see committed he would need a warrant to arrest a suspect.

 

[ArabJames]

it is unconstitutional for an unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th amendment UNLESS they were granted a warrant