Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches

[parrot 789]

Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches

By MARK SHERMAN – 1 day ago

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

 

The court's 5-4 decision in a case from Arizona puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect, particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a traffic violation.

 

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest.

 

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...usFnXgD97N1DS80

 

I like this ruling.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

A search warrant? Yeah right.

 

Get K-9 unit; circle car; yank on chain; dog yelps; no search warrant necessary.

[wiffleball 4,797]

warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest.

 

This may be the most worthless ruling I've ever read. Do you know any vehicles short of a focking bus where the passenger compartment ISN'T within reach of someone in the focking car?

 

 

if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

 

All the cops are going to do now is NOT lock the guy up in the cruiser while they search his car.

 

 

Geesus, I haven't seen this many qualifiers since the last Nascar race.

[RLLD 4,275]

I imagine Bush is cowering in a corner and punching his head over and over right now over this....

[torridjoe 48]

the point is that you can't search when there's no specific reason to search based on the probable cause you have. There's nothing in the car that will provide evidence of the particilar crime he's under suspicion for.

 

What knocked me out was the makeup of the majority! Craaaazy.

[parrot 789]

A search warrant? Yeah right.

 

Get K-9 unit; circle car; yank on chain; dog yelps; no search warrant necessary.

 

Where does it say that a K-9 hit exempts them from the warrant requirement?

[parrot 789]

This may be the most worthless ruling I've ever read. Do you know any vehicles short of a focking bus where the passenger compartment ISN'T within reach of someone in the focking car?

All the cops are going to do now is NOT lock the guy up in the cruiser while they search his car.

Geesus, I haven't seen this many qualifiers since the last Nascar race.

 

True it's still not an ideal situation, but I think it gets us closer to where we should be Constitutionally than with cops having carte blanche anytime they pull someone over.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Where does it say that a K-9 hit exempts them from the warrant requirement?

 

Dogs aren't people. Ipso facto, Res Ipsa. Dominos Pepsi.

 

It's legal stuff, you wouldn't unnerstand. Get Titans to explain it to you.

[surferskin 30]

A search warrant? Yeah right.

 

Get K-9 unit; circle car; yank on chain; dog yelps; no search warrant necessary.

Why would a K-9 unit be involved?

[parrot 789]

the point is that you can't search when there's no specific reason to search based on the probable cause you have. There's nothing in the car that will provide evidence of the particilar crime he's under suspicion for.

 

What knocked me out was the makeup of the majority! Craaaazy.

 

True dat.

[edjr 6,876]

EVery episode of cops is the same thing, they are going to have nothing left to film if they do this.

 

 

Pull some shady looking people over for having a light out, or some dumb violation.

 

Take people out, search car, find drugs, arrest people.

[NewbieJr 541]

I do this- I don't have anything in my car that would get me arrested, even if they did search it.

 

Pretty simple and it keeps crap like this from being important.

 

Another useful tip from your Uncle Newbie.

[wiffleball 4,797]

True it's still not an ideal situation, but I think it gets us closer to where we should be Constitutionally than with cops having carte blanche anytime they pull someone over.

 

Yeah, I agree with the intent: "you can't search when there's no specific reason to search based on the probable cause you have."

 

Certainly the intent was to cut down on a lot of "he's black and has a busted tailight, so he MUST have drugs in there somewhere!"

 

But good lord, writing from the majority with that many focking qualifiers just invites sustainable challenges and easy work-arounds.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

What knocked me out was the makeup of the majority! Craaaazy.

 

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.

 

Scalia

[parrot 789]

Dogs aren't people. Ipso facto, Res Ipsa. Dominos Pepsi.

 

It's legal stuff, you wouldn't unnerstand. Get Titans to explain it to you.

 

I'm pretty sure it's a prima facie habeas corpus a posteriori deal.

[kilroy69 1,265]

Where does it say that a K-9 hit exempts them from the warrant requirement?

A K-9 hit would be Probable cause to search the car I would have to assume.

[wiffleball 4,797]

I'm pretty sure it's a prima facie habeas corpus a posteriori deal.

 

Well, that goes without saying, now doesn't it?

[wiffleball 4,797]

A K-9 hit would be Probable cause to search the car I would have to assume.

 

Given the intent of this ruling, I think calling in a K-9 unit to sniff a car with a bustored tail light would be the poster child of what the majority had in mind.

[kilroy69 1,265]

Given the intent of this ruling, I think calling in a K-9 unit to sniff a car with a bustored tail light would be the poster child of what the majority had in mind.

The problem is that no matter what the SC says you are going to have situations just like wiff was saying. Bring in a dog and make it appear as though the dog alerts on something and you have no need. Cops have way too much power and they abuse it.

 

Best thing is to just be a white guy driving a chevy S-15. They never get pulled over.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Where does it say that a K-9 hit exempts them from the warrant requirement?

 

A K-9 unit "alerting on the vehicle" (i.e., barking at it) gives the police probable cause to search for guns or drugs. They still have to get a warrant, but its pretty much just a formality at that point. They get it telephonically from the scene and *boom*, your car is subject to search all because some dog yelped at it.

[Greedo 13]

The problem is that no matter what the SC says you are going to have situations just like wiff was saying. Bring in a dog and make it appear as though the dog alerts on something and you have no need. Cops have way too much power and they abuse it.

 

Best thing is to just be a white guy driving a chevy S-15. They never get pulled over.

 

It shouldn't surrpise you that the vast majority of traffic stops, such as those for speeding envisioned in the ruling, do not involve K-9s.

[kilroy69 1,265]

It shouldn't surrpise you that the vast majority of traffic stops, such as those for speeding envisioned in the ruling, do not involve K-9s.

Oh I don't doubt that. But I would say that the cops will just move to new ways of getting what they want by just calling in a K-9 and acting as if the dog alerted.

 

I just dont trust cops. I think they are just big swinging dicks that probably got picked on in high school.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

It shouldn't surrpise you that the vast majority of traffic stops, such as those for speeding envisioned in the ruling, do not involve K-9s.

 

What do you think happens when a cop requests permission to search a car and is denied?

 

 

[tikigods 76]

What do you think happens when a cop requests permission to search a car and is denied?

 

He has to draw up a warrant and get it signed by a judge. Civics 101.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Man

[TheBlade 3]

Some of you all are like sharks in bloody water. Geez. Did you even comprehend what the ruling said. It prevents officers from searching your car AFTER arrest and ONLY in situations where they do not reasonably believe that there are "fruits of the crime" in the car, or the person arrested poses a safety risk by being able to access a weapon in the car. It's for those reason why you ALWAYS get searched when you get arrested. The officer is looking for weapons (so that you are not a threat to him) or fruits of the crime (stolen property, drugs, etc.). The searchable area includes anything within arms reach of the bad guy. That's why up until this ruling, the interior of a vehicle could always be searched if the person arrested had come from the vehicle, because anything in the interior of the car is considered "within arms reach." What that means is that if the driver is stopped and arrested for not having a driver's license, then the officer cannot search the interior of the car unless he can establish some sort of credible threat to his safety (which would be hard to do in that situation). BUT, if you get popped for DUI and have an open container in plain sight, then the officer gets to search your car for "fruits of the crime" that is the open container. Once they're legally in the car, they can search it, period.

 

As for people like Wiff who think this affects an officer's ability to search a car in ANY situation other than POST ARREST, you're off base and wrong. Worms mentioned getting a search warrant telephonically, and it may work that way in the federal system, but in the state system, we follow the Carroll Doctorine. This was another SCOTUS ruling that says that because of the mobile nature of vehicles, anytime an officer has probable cause to obtain a search warrant for a vehicle, they can search the vehicle WITHOUT obtaining the warrant (meaning they are allowed to conduct a warrant-less search). And provided the dog is certified in drug detection, a K-9 that alerts on a car DOES provide probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog and handler must a trained and certified K-9 team with properly documented training records that can show a reliable history of the dog alerting when drugs are present. Also, the odor of marijuana also is enough by itself to establish probable cause to search the vehicle. You don't even need a K-9 alert. The training records protects you conspiracy theorists who think that "yanking on the leash making the dog yelp" is how K-9 handlers operate . The dogs don't alert that way anyways.

 

Most cops don't just stop and search cars without having the legal backing to do so. Of course, there are sh!theads out there that think they are above the law, but they should be arrested just like any other crook. Good cops either establish probable cause through any number of ways or they get consent to search from the driver (and no, Tiki, cops don't have to get a warrant to search a car if the driver says they can search ). This ruling does not affect those situations in the slightest.

[wiffleball 4,797]

As for people like Wiff who think this affects an officer's ability to search a car in ANY situation other than POST ARREST, you're off base and wrong.

 

Aparrently reading comprehension is an elective at the academy.

[tikigods 76]

(and no, Tiki, cops don't have to get a warrant to search a car if the driver says they can search ).

 

I know...the question was if they don't consent to the search.

[wiffleball 4,797]

I know...the question was if they don't consent to the search.

Aparrently reading comprehension is an elective at the academy

[surferskin 30]

Aparrently reading comprehension is an elective at the academy.

I'm confused. What is he wrong about in that statement?

[parrot 789]

I'm confused. What is he wrong about in that statement?

 

The original scenario was if they didn't consent to the search, The Blade said if the do consent to the search.

[surferskin 30]

The original scenario was if they didn't consent to the search, The Blade said if the do consent to the search.

But that's not what Wiffle quoted?

[IGotWorms 4,062]

The Blade really knows his sh!t.

 

But this ruling will have a huge effect on law enforcement. Before, if any recent occupant of a car was arrested, the police could automatically search the car (but not the trunk) without any other reason. Now, they have to show either 1) that an arrestee could still have access to the vehicle (so basically a scenario where one cop rolls up on a vehicle with 4 people...arrests some of them but can't control the whole scene himself) or 2) if the cops have reason to believe that there will be evidence of the crime in the car.

 

It's still much easier to search a car than a house, but it is no longer automatically given that the cops can search a car when they arrest a recent occupant.

[TheBlade 3]

I know...the question was if they don't consent to the search.

 

My bad, I read the post too quick and missed the part about consent being denied.

 

ETA: GobbleDog asked the question about consent being denied, but he was making a statement that many times once consent is denied by the driver, cops will have a K-9 do a walk around of the car. If the dog alerts on the car, then a search is permissible.

 

Once again, my bad to you Tiki.

[TheBlade 3]

Aparrently reading comprehension is an elective at the academy.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest.

 

This may be the most worthless ruling I've ever read. Do you know any vehicles short of a focking bus where the passenger compartment ISN'T within reach of someone in the focking car?

And you talk about my reading comprehension, @ss-dart. The passenger compartment being within reach has to do with the person that was taken out of the car and arrested, not somebody still in the car. Dude, you must get audited a lot.

 

Certainly the intent was to cut down on a lot of "he's black and has a busted tailight, so he MUST have drugs in there somewhere!"

 

Given the intent of this ruling, I think calling in a K-9 unit to sniff a car with a bustored tail light would be the poster child of what the majority had in mind.

Neither of these quotes mentions anything about a post-arrest search situation, and could easily be interpreted to be talking about a pre-arrest search. Last time I checked, driving a car with a busted taillight is not a criminal offense so nobody would be getting arrested, which means your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the ruling that the SCOTUS just made. And an officer can have a K-9 do a walk around on a car just about any time they want to provided a few simple criteria are met.

 

Also, see Edjr's quote below where he specifically talks about a pre-arrest search.

EVery episode of cops is the same thing, they are going to have nothing left to film if they do this.

Pull some shady looking people over for having a light out, or some dumb violation.

 

Take people out, search car, find drugs, arrest people.

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I blew it on Tiki's quote, but I admitted it and apologized to Tiki. You, however, ought to think twice about casting stones since you haven't seen the ball since kickoff.

[ROBOKOP 0]

I objectively ask one simple question: What is the intent on reversing this decision that has been held true for so long? Have peoples rights been somehow oppressed? A lot of drugs have been taken off the streets because of this rule. Win one for the bad guys.

[TheBlade 3]

I objectively ask one simple question: What is the intent on reversing this decision that has been held true for so long? Have peoples rights been somehow oppressed? A lot of drugs have been taken off the streets because of this rule. Win one for the bad guys.

Yea, this ruling blows balls, but you know how us abusive cops are, always violating peeps civil rights.

 

On a different note, I hope you're staying safe out there, brother.

[torridjoe 48]

Yea, this ruling blows balls, but you know how us abusive cops are, always violating peeps civil rights.

 

On a different note, I hope you're staying safe out there, brother.

 

Seriously? Preventing completely unrelated, non-threat searches post-arrest blows balls? Boo. We're already way beyond the Warren/Burger legacy on the 4th in my view, and frankly I blame some of the Justices from Carter and Clinton for letting it happen.

[GettnHuge 2]

:heh:

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I objectively ask one simple question: What is the intent on reversing this decision that has been held true for so long? Have peoples rights been somehow oppressed? A lot of drugs have been taken off the streets because of this rule. Win one for the bad guys.

 

I think it is a problem that police officers have been trained for 28 years on the rule that they can always search a vehicle incident to arrest, and now that is suddenly no the case anymore. The majority's opinion in Gant is almost flippant on this matter--like they don't even realize the significance of the ruling (though I'm sure they do). But the reason that I like this ruling is that the prior rule was really poorly reasoned. The whole reason why you allow a search incident to arrest is to make sure that 1) an arrestee can't get to a weapon to injure a cop or 2) the arrestee can't destroy evidence. How the hell are either of those rationales applicable when someone is in handcuffs in the back of a squad car? It was just a really poorly reasoned rule to begin with. Even Scalia and Thomas thought that, and they are not usually on the side of a guilty defendant.

[TheBlade 3]

I think it is a problem that police officers have been trained for 28 years on the rule that they can always search a vehicle incident to arrest, and now that is suddenly no the case anymore. The majority's opinion in Gant is almost flippant on this matter--like they don't even realize the significance of the ruling (though I'm sure they do). But the reason that I like this ruling is that the prior rule was really poorly reasoned. The whole reason why you allow a search incident to arrest is to make sure that 1) an arrestee can't get to a weapon to injure a cop or 2) the arrestee can't destroy evidence. How the hell are either of those rationales applicable when someone is in handcuffs in the back of a squad car? It was just a really poorly reasoned rule to begin with. Even Scalia and Thomas thought that, and they are not usually on the side of a guilty defendant.

I've gone on record stating that I don't like this ruling, but part of that may be ingrained history as you've already mentioned. At least you have a logical reasoning for supporting the ruling, instead of most of the "all cops suck and abuse their power" schtick that you hear around these parts quite a bit.

 

In reality, the ruling doesn't change much of anything in today's legal climate. Any more, it's d@mn near impossible to get any sort of constructive possession charge on a person, even in the case that it's readily apparent to the most casual observer that the subject was in constructive possession of the illicit items. Finding drugs in a vehicle post-arrest is almost a waste of time anymore, anyways because of this. It's just nice to occasionally take a stolen firearm or property off of the streets.