Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches

[TheBlade 3]

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.

Different perspectives. The amount of drugs, illegally possessed weapons, and stolen property taken off of the street by this type of search is astronomical when looked at nation-wide.

 

Most supporters will use the "police state" argument to defend this ruling, but the previous ruling has been in place for almost 30 years, and we're not exactly a police state now. Far from it. JMO from the cop's perspective.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

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.

 

I've seen it used quite a bit to charge felon in possession of a firearm. I think it will have a pretty big impact, but then again you can still search the car if you impound it and have a consistent departmental policy to that effect, so that might be the new way to conduct these kinds of searches. The community caretaking doctrine could also see some significant expansion.

[Strike 5,975]

Different perspectives. The amount of drugs, illegally possessed weapons, and stolen property taken off of the street by this type of search is astronomical when looked at nation-wide.

 

Most supporters will use the "police state" argument to defend this ruling, but the previous ruling has been in place for almost 30 years, and we're not exactly a police state now. Far from it. JMO from the cop's perspective.

 

It's not a question of a police state. It's a question of constitutionality and what's right. And just because a ruling was in place for 30 years doesn't make it right.

[TheBlade 3]

It's not a question of a police state. It's a question of constitutionality and what's right. And just because a ruling was in place for 30 years doesn't make it right.

I never stated that the previous ruling was right because it had been in place for 30 years. I simply said that we've been following that ruling for 30 years and we don't have a police state now.

 

You obviously like the ruling, I don't. Either way, it's binding case law that law enforcement must abide by. But, as Worms mentioned, there are legal ways around it.