U.S. Supreme Court Cuts Back Police Officers' Vehicle Search Options

[Facial_King]

I see this as probably a good move - strange split on the Court's decision, though (almost makes me suspicious!):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22scotus.html?_r=1&hp

Excerpt:
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 21, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday significantly cut back the ability of the police to search the cars of people they arrest.

Police officers have for a generation understood themselves to be free to search vehicles based on nothing more than the fact that they had just arrested an occupant. That principle, Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged in his majority opinion, “has been widely taught in police academies” and “law enforcement officers have relied on the rule in conducting vehicle searches during the past 28 years.”

The majority replaced that bright-line rule with a more nuanced one, and law enforcement officials greeted it with dismay. “It’s just terrible,” William J. Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said of the decision. “It’s certainly going to result in less drug and weapons cases being made.”

In a dissent, four justices said the majority had effectively overruled an important and straightforward Fourth Amendment precedent established by the court in a 1981 decision, New York v. Belton.

Justice Stevens denied that. The precedent of Belton had often been applied too broadly, he said. Vehicle searches should be allowed only in two situations, he wrote: when the person being arrested is close enough to the car to reach in, possibly to grab a weapon or tamper with evidence; or when the arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to the very crime that prompted the arrest.

and here's the Washington Post article on same:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102125.html

====

Your thoughts?

 

[ChefChiTown]

That's funny that we were just talking about this (sort of). I agree with this part...

“It’s certainly going to result in less drug and weapons cases being made.”

 

[Legzman]

why shouldn't they be allowed to search a vehicle if an occupant was arrested?

 

[Torre82]

why shouldn't they be allowed to search a vehicle if an occupant was arrested?

Correct me if I'm wrong here... and no offense, either.. BUT ARENT YOU A POTHEAD?!?

How can you disagree with this further limiting of the police?! Now we're one step closer to concealed weapons (liberty, bearing arms, etc) and safely smoking weed in public (driving to work while toking up? They cant search that shit if this rule is 100% legit!)

 

[Legzman]

Correct me if I'm wrong here... and no offense, either.. BUT ARENT YOU A POTHEAD?!?

How can you disagree with this further limiting of the police?! Now we're one step closer to concealed weapons (liberty, bearing arms, etc) and safely smoking weed in public (driving to work while toking up? They cant search that shit if this rule is 100% legit!)

True, but if I were arrested for whatever reason I would expect them to search my vehicle. I wouldn't be mad about it if I was already arrested! I only ever carried a quarter on me at a time anyway. Its been over a year since I've smoked that shit. Not by choice but because of my fucking random drug test bullshit at work.

 

[Will E Worm]

law enforcement officials greeted it with dismay. “It’s just terrible,” William J. Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said of the decision. “It’s certainly going to result in less drug and weapons cases being made.

:weeping: :thefinger :tongue:

They might have to do actual work.

Oh, noez.

 

[Facial_King]

People should keep this court decision in mind as to how it should effect them when they are pulled over. That said, they should study it carefully, preferably with a lawyer.

 

[Rattrap]

The majority replaced that bright-line rule with a more nuanced one, and law enforcement officials greeted it with dismay. “It’s just terrible,” William J. Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said of the decision. “It’s certainly going to result in less drug and weapons cases being made.”

I think while this may be true, it seems like it'll be the more minor possession cases (in the case of drugs, at least) - the sort of stuff that should be on low to no priority anyway. For the bigger trafficking/dealing cases, I imagine all it would take is a phone call to a judge to have a warrant faxed over right away.

They can do that, right?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

When an arrest is affected, they'll impound the car in question, get a sympathetic judge to sign off on a warrant and search it anyway. It may take longer but the same results will be had.

 

[hedonis]

More awesome lawmaking from the courts.

And when some guy drives away from a traffic stop with the handgun the police weren't allowed to search for, and murders someone, CNN will make up cool new theme music for the "Tragedy at _________", and then we'll get more gun laws.

Yay! Absolute governmental control! Sweet!

H

 

[D-rock]

I don't see why the police should get to search somebody unless they have reasonable cause to do so for a crime they reasonably suspect the individual did either. It's not any more right than them getting to search the entirety of your home and other properties when there is no reasonable cause to because you were arrested for something like drunken driving.

Just because a means is effective at stopping a potental future crime that maybe will happen doesn't make it right. Otherwise the government might as well require we all set up video cameras and have them pointed at us at all times. It sure would prevent crime.

 

[Facial_King]

More awesome lawmaking from the courts.

And when some guy drives away from a traffic stop with the handgun the police weren't allowed to search for, and murders someone, CNN will make up cool new theme music for the "Tragedy at _________", and then we'll get more gun laws.

Yay! Absolute governmental control! Sweet!

H

Huh?? How did you take a Supreme Court decision that actually reduces government control (cops are government agents, you know, and when they search your car during a traffic stop they're asserting authority and control) to attempt to make a case that this will lead to "absolute governmental control"???

The guy who was speeding and gets pulled over and who has a gun just might possess that gun legally, and then, days, months, or years down the road might kill someone with it. I don't really see what your point is, or how it makes any sense...

 

[Hot Mega]

When an arrest is affected, they'll impound the car in question, get a sympathetic judge to sign off on a warrant and search it anyway. It may take longer but the same results will be had.

Even if that's the case...that's the way it's supposed to work according to what I read in the 4th amendment....assuming they produce sufficient probable cause for the judge to consider.

I'm surprised it took this long to square this away in the courts.

A stop for suspicion of dui gives you license to go through an individual's vehicle and search evidence beyond plain view??? I don't think so.

 

[shayd]

A stop for suspicion of dui gives you license to go through an individual's vehicle and search evidence beyond plain view??? I don't think so.

I think in certain cases that would be acceptable, specifically if there's reason to believe there's an open container in the car.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think in certain cases that would be acceptable, specifically if there's reason to believe there's an open container in the car.

I think that should fall under the plain view doctrine. I guess it boils down to whether police can legally search a vehicle's trunk under those circumstances when for example open containers are legal to have in the trunk.

We police have the right to search a vehicle, that extends to the whole vehicle. Why would it be reasonable to search a trunk of the car of a suspected drunk driver for evidence of an open container when it's legal to possess on there?

 

[shayd]

I think that should fall under the plain view doctrine. I guess it boils down to whether police can legally search a vehicle's trunk under those circumstances when for example open containers are legal to have in the trunk.

We police have the right to search a vehicle, that extends to the whole vehicle. Why would it be reasonable to search a trunk of the car of a suspected drunk driver for evidence of an open container when it's legal to possess on there?

It's a slippery slope. A friend of mine actually was cited for having an open container in the trunk, and I tend to think that if there is probable cause that there is alcohol anywhere in the car, and a person appears drunk, that there's reason to search. At least, that's my interpretation of TEA-21.

 

[Hot Mega]

It's a slippery slope. A friend of mine actually was cited for having an open container in the trunk, and I tend to think that if there is probable cause that there is alcohol anywhere in the car, and a person appears drunk, that there's reason to search. At least, that's my interpretation of TEA-21.

TEA-21 compliant states must merely ban open containers in spaces readily accessible to the driver. In most jurisdictions for purposes of transporting open container alcohol and firearms, a vehicle's trunk is not considered readily accessible to the driver.

I don't know what the particular circumstances were in your friend's case and certainly laws still vary state to state but clearly we know everything police do in executing stops, arrests, etc. are not always consistent with their legal authority. In the overwhelming majority of cases evidence is stacked against suspects and the legitimacy of how it was obtained is never challenged in court as many cases are simply plea bargained.

 

[ChefChiTown]

It's a slippery slope. A friend of mine actually was cited for having an open container in the trunk, and I tend to think that if there is probable cause that there is alcohol anywhere in the car, and a person appears drunk, that there's reason to search. At least, that's my interpretation of TEA-21.

I'm glad you brought that up, about the trunk. I was in a bad car accident in which alcohol played absolutely no part at all. But, when the police officer arrived at the scene, my trunk was busted open, due to the impact. The trunk itself wasn't WIDE open, but it was clearly unlocked. So, the officer asked me to open my trunk (after he checked to see if I was alright) and I complied. Inside my trunk was a bottle of liquor which was unopened. The officer made me pour out the bottle and made me submit to a breathalyzer. Afterwards, he searched my car.

Now, some might say that common sense should tell that officer that there was no way that I could've taken a drink out of an unopened container, so he should have no right to assume that I was drinking. But, real common sense will tell you that if somebody has a bottle of liquor, chances are...they have more; chances are, they could've drank out of a different bottle before they got behind the wheel of a car.

So, was that officer in the right or was he wrong?

It all depends on how naive you want to be and how unrealistic your view of reality is. Seeing a bottle (unopened or not), is more than enough of a reason to assume that someone has been drinking.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm glad you brought that up, about the trunk. I was in a bad car accident in which alcohol played absolutely no part at all. But, when the police officer arrived at the scene, my trunk was busted open, due to the impact. The trunk itself wasn't WIDE open, but it was clearly unlocked. So, the officer asked me to open my trunk (after he checked to see if I was alright) and I complied. Inside my trunk was a bottle of liquor which was unopened. The officer made me pour out the bottle and made me submit to a breathalyzer. Afterwards, he searched my car.

Now, some might say that common sense should tell that officer that there was no way that I could've taken a drink out of an unopened container, so he should have no right to assume that I was drinking. But, real common sense will tell you that if somebody has a bottle of liquor, chances are...they have more; chances are, they could've drank out of a different bottle before they got behind the wheel of a car.

So, was that officer in the right or was he wrong?

It all depends on how naive you want to be and how unrealistic your view of reality is. Seeing a bottle (unopened or not), is more than enough of a reason to assume that someone has been drinking.

Where do you live? Iran? The law is clearly against your perspective on this. The cop had no reason to make you destroy your property (the unopened bottle of alcohol) nor any reason to assume alcohol was involved merely based on an unopened container.

Some still confuse what some police do with what's within their legal authority. When you don't know your rights some police take advantage of that to build a more challenging case against you. The presumption is that it will never go to trial in the first place as most cases don't.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Where do you live? Iran? The law is clearly against your perspective on this. The cop had no reason to make you destroy your property (the unopened bottle of alcohol) nor any reason to assume alcohol was involved merely based on an unopened container.

Some still confuse what some police do with what's within their legal authority. When you don't know your rights some police take advantage of that to build a more challenging case against you. The presumption is that it will never go to trial in the first place as most cases don't.

This happened in Cleveland, OH.

Do you have any sense of reality? I was 21 years old at the time (I think). What 21 year old, with a bottle of liquor in their car, doesn't have anything to be suspicious about?

When the police officer arrived at the scene, this is what he saw...

Me, standing outside of my car in the rain. My car, ripped in half, trunk destroyed. Semi-open trunk with a bottle of liquor inside.

Now, what would YOU assume happened if you saw that? You would assume exactly what the officer did:

21 year old male + mangled car + bottle of liquor = drunk driving accident

I was IN that situation and even I don't think the officer did anything wrong. So, I poured out a bottle of liquor? So what? I knew I didn't HAVE to, but what did I honestly care? Also, he had every reason to search my vehicle, stemming from the little math equation that I previously stated.

Instead of a bottle of liquor, what if I had a bag of weed? What if that bag of weed was tightly sealed and clearly unopened? Do you think the officer is going to assume that I haven't smoked weed before that point or do you think he's going to assume that I have smoked weed before that point? Of course he's going to assume that I smoked weed before that point, as common sense would tell you that I probably did. At that point, the officer would have every reason to search my car, as a bag of weed probably means that I have a bowl or some other paraphanalia in my car and possibly even more drugs. The same goes for liquor in the trunk. If someone has liquor in their trunk, they could very well have more of it lying around; maybe even an open container.