Community | April 21, 2009 | 40 comments

Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Vehicle Searches

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22scotus.html?hp

Image
current89
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday put new limits on the circumstances under which police officers who lack a search warrant can search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after an occupant is arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the person arrested could still gain access to the vehicle, or if the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the arrest, the court said.

In a 5-to-4 ruling that cut across the liberal versus conservative stereotypes of the current lineup of justices, the court affirmed a ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction and three-year prison sentence against Rodney J. Gant of Tucson on a drug charge.

End of Excerpt

Source: The New York Times Online

Just another example of our fine Republic.
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Learn
  2. tags:
    News,  US Politics,  Current Radio News,  Supreme Court
  3. recommended by:
    ClipsFC
  4.     
    |

40 comments // Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Vehicle Searches

  • yaget1chance
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  

    • "Officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after an occupant is arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the person arrested could still gain access to the vehicle"
      This should have been obvious in the first place

      "or if the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the arrest, the court said."
      But, this sounds similar to what it was before. If the cop has "enough reason" to believe there are evidence in the car relevant to the arrest, he will search the car.

    • 3 years ago
  • chasingame
    • 0
      chasingame  

    • The headline should read "Supreme Court Gives Back Some Limits on Vehicle Searches." Does this really change anything though? The police can still, under the right situation, search your vehicle. It is going to be the same as pulling people over in the first place. They can't pull people over for no reason so they say you crossed the center line. Once they have you pulled over they look for something like DUI, open bottle, no seat belt, or whatever to charge/ticket you for. So now they can't search your car unless it is directly related to why you are arrested. My money says they will find a "related" reason to search your car every time. It's just the way it has been as long as I can remember. Laws are for us to follow and the police to stretch.

      By the way I hope I am wrong about this.

    • 3 years ago
  • seeker561
    • 0
      seeker561  

    • "ALWAYS REFUSE ANY UNWARRANTED SEARCH!!!

      AND:

      Exercise your right to remain silent. Never answer questions without a lawyer present.

    • 3 years ago
  • cerealforeal
  • TheBelmontSessions
  • artemis6
  • jh64487
  • BigJoeSixPack
  • hunzedog
  • tdcarbonbased
    • 0
      tdcarbonbased  

    • The Fourth Amendment is a powerful item when the courts actually USE The Constitution!!!! Way to go!!!

      Know your right people, ALWAYS REFUSE ANY UNWARRANTED SEARCH!!! Cowboy police orifice-ers count on you not knowing your right to REFUSE a search. He's going to search you anyway, but when you get to court, if you verbally refuse his search, ESP on camera, at least you MAY have a leg to stand on.

    • 3 years ago
  • keithponder
    • 0
      keithponder  

    • Great News,

      My son is locked up in South Alabama from an illegal search. All that the cop found was a 4oz.bottle of prescription cough syrup.Because the label was torn off,and they don't know who the bottle belongs too,Escambia County grand jury has handed down an indictment of a minimum mandatory 10 year and maximum life sentence without parole.His bond is set at $1.5 million dollars.They won't accept a possession plea. No one has ever been tried before a grand jury in Alabama over a bottle of cough syrup.Because Tylenol 3 is derived from codeine,with is opium based, they actually want to charge him with trafficking opium.

      Like JSmith44 said, the cop never asked him could he search his car, he just intimidated him into to thinking that he could do whatever he wanted to do

      We're going to fight them back with everything.

    • 3 years ago
  • azulagua
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • Cmon everyone this is OBVIOUSLY a ploy by the Bilderburg group and the NWO working together to get people to think that the supreme court decides things for themselves. Duh.

    • 3 years ago
  • current89
  • jh64487
  • lucidstone
  • TheEmpireGuy
    • 0
      TheEmpireGuy  

    • Nice job!

      A perfect example of the Republic we are supposed to live in.

      When ever a cop walks up to my window I only keep it open so much and if he asks me to roll it down more, I politely say, "No, I can hear you and you can hear me, that's good enough."

      "Are you hiding something?" (me) "No, this is just what I do every time I meet an officer like this."

      And if he asks to look in my car the answer is always "No".

      (officer) "Why not"

      "I have a right to my property, sir, and to do with it what I see fit."

      Article 6, Amendment 4 clearly states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      That part there, "No warrants shall issue, without probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" says a lot.

      Currently, a police officer can search your car if they see something suspicious from their vantage point. That is their "probable cause". That, or they need a warrant.

      To me, that part in the Bill of Rights, on warrants says that a warrant can't even be ISSUED without a probable cause, let alone search my car (effects) on suspicion without a warrant.

      Well, I'm not an expert at interpreting legal documents, but, then again, I don't really know anyone that is.

    • 3 years ago
  • revolutioninamerica
  • kennymotown
  • Robroy1
  • Venom7
  • Saladin
  • pjacobs51
  • Khidrock
  • unimatrix0
  • ClipsFC
    • 0
      ClipsFC  

    • As Slarabee pointed out, I hope they take the same liberal approach to Strip searching of under age students in Schools.

    • 3 years ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • ClipsFC:

      Strip searching children .... that's just an atrocity. What age do they feel is appropriate? They better have some damn good reason before they search a child with their clothes on, in my opinion!
      This opens a whole new can of worms. Who has the authority to call for a search? The principle? the school nurse? the teacher? this is just a real mess waiting to happen. I can see how the quiet kids will get bad teachers that abuse the situation... ie. we had gym teachers that watched us change and watched us shower it always made me very uncomfortable. One used to smack our butts to make sure we weren't wearing girdles????
      If they have some kind of proof the kids a problem I can see keeping an eye on kids. But if they're looking for drugs, I just think this is discusting.
      Some schools have metal detectors to check for weapons, now I understand that after some of the killings.
      But strip searches that's going too far.

    • 3 years ago
  • skybluskyblue
    • 0
      skybluskyblue  
    • ClipsFC:

      Nurse did you read about the child who got strip searched for alleged ibuprofen?The suspected it might be from a Rx so the had a zero tolerance of illegal substances being shared. Rx strength? All you do is take 4 pills then you have the equivalent for OTC. They never did find ANYTHING on or IN her!My god!

    • 3 years ago
  • JSmith44
    • 0
      JSmith44  

    • True but a friend of mine who is a cop in Wisconsin said they just laugh at these things. He said intimidation of a driver gives them access to the car most of the time. Plus other things I can't say here. But trust me if they want to search your car, they will.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • JSmith44:

      Yeah, J, your comment is consistent with my experience as well (I worked in a city prosecutor's office for a year). BUT the Supreme Court decision at least gives the defendant's attorney the opportunity to argue that the search was wrongful because it did not fit the circumstances approved by the Court. And you are right, in some cases the defense attorney will have to show coersion of the invitation to search and THEN a wrongful search (which is pretty difficult, especially if there was no other credible witness to the conversation, like a relatively disinterested passenger in the car).

      The article says that those who follow the court closely would not be surprised by the ruling. I TRY to follow their rulings closely and am nonetheless surprised that Scalia did not change his mind despite his line of questioning during oral argument. I will also be surprised if this ruling does not turn out to be something of an aberration. I HAVE to think that Scalia and Thomas are sharpening their knives, waiting for the Democratic Congress and Obama to enact legislation that can in any way be challenged as unconstitutional,.

    • 3 years ago
  • AlexBush
  • akassan
  • derwind
  • slarabee
  • ClipsFC
  • USWGO
    • 0
      USWGO  

    • I am glad the Supreme Court still helps supporting the Constitution even though the Neocons, and the Bilderbergs are considering anyone who follows and/or enforces the Constitution is a right wing extremist/Terrorist.

      Remember the Constitution is a contract between the people and government. If the government considers the Constitution to be terrorism then maybe we are all terrorists that need to be tortured.

    • 3 years ago
  • banditalamode
    • 0
      banditalamode  

    • This is how it is supposed to work. Of course it doesn't mean that police won't still use illegal tactics against ignorant citizens, it's important to know your rights and use them.

    • 3 years ago
  • sickinjersey
more from Community:
from the community

top videos