Mike Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Supreme Court says police may search even if arrest invalid WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated 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 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. Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law. The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors. The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency. Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Frnaklin Wise words. To think that they were spoken well over 200 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 ^ I heard that quote being used quite a bit in the years 2002 and following I don't think any politicians really care about that though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 With all due respect to Mr. Franklin, who I admire and respect fully, the worst people could do 230 years ago was strap a musket ball around their chest and walk into a grist mill. Times change, and so too, security issues. Do you feel children should not have to pass through metal detectors going to school or into an airport departure terminal today? I mean afterall, I did neither when I went to school. Are those acts a removal of one's freedom to access or an address to specific issues of public security? Those whose role it is to protect the common good, cannot weigh their decisions against whether or not you or I will feel freer or more constained as a result of those decisions. Neither do I feel that freedom loving individuals, especially those in the public eye, willingly take the freedom of others, as a course in some nefarious plot to rule the world. Any official whose job it is to maintain public safety also is charged to keep us free from the injustices prompted by those who would harm society. Keep in mind that I offered that last paragraph as a generality. In the specific case of finding drugs during the course of a traffic stop, I feel there is a better solution than merely jail time and/or a fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Wait just a second, I don't have a problem with metal detectors or "reasonable" searches. But what stops them from randomly "suspecting" you of something, pulling you over because maybe you "look guilty" and then searching for "anything" they want to in order to charge you with whateveer they may find. I don't think so! 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 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. How did they know his license was suspended, by the way his tail-lights flashed when he stepped on the brake? Uh-huh, sure. I remember when i used to smoke pot in my late teens and would get pulled over for speeding, they did not have the right to turn my car inside out "just to see" if I might have something they could further charge me with. This is absurd!!! We should not stand for this! ....deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.... Ever heard of this before? It's right here.... http://www.friendsacrossamerica.com/declaration.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I dont know if the guy was pulled over for a traffic violation and then was discovered to have a suspended license, or if they may have pulled him over before and knew his license was suspended. Or is it possible that the paper made a mistake? Anyway, in California, driving on a suspended license is a misdemeanor, and you can be taken to jail for positive identification, then cited and released once the results of the fingerprinting return. If his license was suspended, there is a good chance he did not have a picture ID, thus was taken in. As far as the drugs, there are two ways that they could have found them. One, when a person is taken into custody, they are searched and contraband is often located at that time. That is know as a "search incident to arrest." Second is by odor. If a cop comes up to the door of a car and smells the odor of marijuana (burnt or not) that gives the officer the probable cause they need to search the car for the source of the odor. Marijuana possession is a citable offence and is treated like a traffic ticket. Possession of cocaine or any other drug, unless you are selling it, will get you "Drug Diversion" classes. I dont know about Virginia, but thats the way it is in LA County. Also, if there was any problem with the arrest, the DA here would not even file the case. It has happened before and will happen again. It is usually when a newer officer puts the cart before the horse. When this happens, the DA, the station detectives, and the more experienced officers set the new guy straight so he or she know what they did wrong and do not do it again. None of us want one of our co workers to be unprofessional, as it casts a bad light on us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamisammy29 Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 If a cop comes up to the door of a car and smells the odor of marijuana (burnt or not) that gives the officer the probable cause they need to search the car for the source of the odor. If a guy just cut a fart in the car, does that give the officer probable cause to search his ass? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I remember when i used to smoke pot in my late teens and would get pulled over for speeding, they did not have the right to turn my car inside out "just to see" if I might have something they could further charge me with. This is absurd!!! We should not stand for this! What you are saying is that when you chose to operate outside the boundaries of the law (speeding,) you felt it absurd that a person whose job it is to enforce the law would then press to see if your initial actions could possibly be indicators of further abuses of the law. Hmmm. If that same officer, the next day, stopped a speeder and found a dufflebag full of burglary tools and a handgun; and that person was on their way to your house to steal your pot, anything else they might desire and do you bodily harm should you resist; would you think it an abuse of the burglar's rights to interrupt their progress based on a mere speeding ticket? "But, that is different!" Not to the police, it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 If that same officer, the next day, stopped a speeder and found a dufflebag full of burglary tools and a handgun; and that person was on their way to your house to steal your pot, anything else they might desire and do you bodily harm should you resist; would you think it an abuse of the burglar's rights to interrupt their progress based on a mere speeding ticket? so if I understand you right, the person should be persecuted by the law because he had the tools ready to commit a crime? even though the crime itself hasn't happened yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamisammy29 Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I have to agree with the courts on this one. What if they pulled him over and found a dead body in the car? If the driver does something illegal in the first place, then the bust is okay. If it turns out he was pulled over because the cop "don't like the color of your car, pal", then that guy just got away with murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I have to agree with the courts on this one. What if they pulled him over and found a dead body in the car? If the driver does something illegal in the first place, then the bust is okay. If it turns out he was pulled over because the cop "don't like the color of your car, pal", then that guy just got away with murder. Uhm, a dead body? Ok, it's getting out of context. We don't know what cause there was to pull over or search. But I don't think we can assume anything. I was merely pointing out that law enforcement should not be allowed to apply a "shotgun" approach to discovering violations. If the violation is in "plain sight" (like your dead body analogy) then yes, by all means this would be legitimate. But to randomly search based on a "hunch" or even non-substantiated suspicion is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 What would Martin want the police to do if Martin had inside information that this guy, who Martin does not know, was on his way to Marin's house? Would you really say, "Let him have his gun and his burglary tools. He hasn't done anything wrong?" Really? Although I do think that in many locations, possession of those types of items in combination constitutes reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and as such is against the law, just as possession of massive amounts of drugs is not just considered usage possession, but "intent to distribute;" a much more serious charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 What would Martin want the police to do if Martin had inside information that this guy, who Martin does not know, was on his way to Marin's house? Would you really say, "Let him have his gun and his burglary tools. He hasn't done anything wrong?" Really? that's not what you said in the first place, there you said that the police stopped a speeding car and found tools that may be used for burglary in the trunk - nothing about additional informations the police might have what would Ron have the police do if Ron was speeding because Ron was late getting home after buying a brand new chainsaw to cut down a tree in Ron's garden? have him locked up for suspicion of manslaughter? :wacky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I said a dufflebag full of burglary tools and gun. I would think anyone stopped, carrying a chainsaw, had a need to trim a tree. Common sense is needed for the common good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 ah yes, I must have overread the "handgun"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 after buying a brand new chainsaw to cut down a tree in Ron's garden? have him locked up for suspicion of manslaughter? mayhaps if there was a wood chipper involved. "Fargo": Marge Gunderson: And I guess that was your accomplice in the woodchipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) I posted the quote more as a comment on the situation overall than the specific case. I don't want to live in a country where everyone feels suspicious of their neighbors and I believe the current climate in our country (aided by the president himself) is headed that way. If the police felt there was cause to search this particular person's vehicle, fine, but I don't think it should be made a policy that anyone is subject to a search if they are stopped. Edited April 25, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 (edited) I posted the quote more as a comment on the situation overall than the specific case. I don't want to live in a country where everyone feels suspicious of their neighbors and I believe the current climate in our country (aided by the president himself) is headed that way. If the police felt there was cause to search this particular person's vehicle, fine, but I don't think it should be made a policy that anyone is subject to a search if they are stopped. I (still) fully agree Edited April 25, 2008 by Guest less confusion that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Sorry, Martin, I just edited my post. Same intent, though. I just was afraid someone would ask me for specific examples and I'm not that versed in politics. Mostly speaking my mind on the overall political climate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Thanks for understanding. I try to stay out of political discussions, generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious_Peaches Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 mayhaps if there was a wood chipper involved. "Fargo": Marge Gunderson: And I guess that was your accomplice in the woodchipper. Good grief, Shawna, that brought to my mind the case that partially inspired Fargo. Everyone in Connecticut was positively consumed with this story back in the 80s. I still threaten Mr. Peaches with a woodchipper every once in a while. The Crafts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 If a guy just cut a fart in the car, does that give the officer probable cause to search his ass? Just wondering. nOT USUALLY, BUT IF IT WERE YOU, YOUR FART WOULD PROBABLY SMELL LIKE WEED AND THAT COP WOULD BE PUTTING ON HIS RUBBER GLOVES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamisammy29 Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 nOT USUALLY, BUT IF IT WERE YOU, YOUR FART WOULD PROBABLY SMELL LIKE WEED AND THAT COP WOULD BE PUTTING ON HIS RUBBER GLOVES! Okay, good point. That seems fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now