|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Can the police search a car sans warrant once suspect secured and in custody? US Supreme Court
#8092550 - 03/02/08 01:53 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This is from a reuters blog.
As acknowledged here, it seems like the fourth amendment doesn't apply to cars anymore, as evidenced by the huge number of crimes and arrests arrising out of an officer pulling someone over.
What I want to know, is why do these state supreme courts always rule a search impermissable on US Constitutional grounds, when they're vulnerable to appeal that way? Couldn't they claim the state constitution prohibits the search, therefore removing jurisdiction from the Feds?
On a related note, its sad that the Supreme Court's conservative members are the ones siding with police... Since when does limited government involve police searches? --
The Supreme Court has granted cert in Arizona v. Gant, per ScotusBlog and How Appealing. This should prove to be an interesting case, where the issue is whether the police can search a defendant's car after the defendant has been handcuffed, taken into custody and the scene is secured.
In this case, the defendant, sought by police, drove up to the scene, got out of his car and walked over to a police officer, who promptly arrested him. He was placed inside the police car. But there was still the matter of what, if anything, might be inside his car, which was lawfully parked and otherwise wholly unrelated to the cause for arrest. The police then searched the car, and found a gun and cocaine.
This case will test whether the old fallback, that the car may contain something of "imminent danger" to the cops, giving them a right to search for weapons. Of course, it poses the question under circumstances where the potential for harm was non-existent, since the defendant was already cuffed and in the police cruiser.
According to Reuters,
The Arizona case will require the Supreme Court to reexamine its 1981 ruling that risks to officer safety and the preservation of evidence justify a warrantless car search as part of the arrest.
Arizona officials said the state Supreme Court effectively overruled the 1981 ruling in requiring that the police show that inherent dangers actually existed at the time of the search.
This is yet another example of remembering the rubric and forgetting the rationale. The rationale for creating this exception to the warrant requirement was to protect the safety of police officers from imminent harm. Fair enough, but once the defendant is away from the car, the contents of the car no longer present any threat. End of story? Not even close.
Automobile stop jurisprudence is a wreck. More often than not, judges just throw up their hands whenever a car is involved, say that magic words, "automobile exception," and let cops search at will. Basically, they figure that the cops are going to end up searching one way or another, given that there are more exceptions than rule. But the Arizona Supreme Court held this search unconstitutional.
So what will SCOTUS do? Will Scalia, in a fit of reason, demand that the rationale for ignoring the 4th Amendment be honored and affirm the Arizona decision, or will the Court reverse and proclaim that when it comes to cars, there's no 4th Amendment anymore?
Arizona v. Gant is a great case to test the integrity of the Supreme Court. There is no rational justification for permitting this search under any existing exception. No threat. No search incident to arrest. No inventory search. No risk to preservation of evidence. Nothing. If they uphold the search, then they will prove that they have abandoned the 4th Amendment as to cars entirely, removing all reason from the equation. It will take some mighty efforts to explain away that one, but they are smart cookies.
If ever there was a case that screamed "search warrant," this is it. We shall see whether there's any vitality left in the 4th Amendment when it comes to searching automobiles. http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/domestic?type=domesticNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B9IYAiV6g03xWUXstkq1JR&src=blogBurst_domesticNews&bbPostId=Cz80EFTrwEk78Cz27MvIfQd6EICz4po9GR0dtbjCz9fRcgU01rEU&bbParentWidgetId=B9IYAiV6g03xWUXstkq1JR
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Can the police search a car sans warrant once suspect secured and in custody? US Supreme Court [Re: johnm214]
#8112693 - 03/06/08 07:01 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Seems like some think the court might rule for more freedom...
Will be interesting to see how this shakes out...
Car exception to the bill of rights.... I must have missed that clause in high school...
Quote:
Prospects for the continuing validity of Belton appear shaky. The last time the Court addressed a Belton issue was in the 2004 case of Thornton v. U.S. There, the Court extended the Belton rule to cover an arrestee who first makes contact with the police after he has exited the vehicle. However, in a critical opinion concurring only in the judgment, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote that when an arrestee is safely in custody, a Belton search is justified only where it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest will be found. Footnote four of the main opinion declined to take a position on the merits of Justice Scalia's novel argument because it had not been raised by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings, providing insufficient reason to reconsider Belton "at this time." In a strong symbolic gesture, Justice O'Connor refused even to join footnote four, rendering that footnote a plurality opinion, written by the Chief Justice and joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. Justice O'Connor opined that Belton is built on a "shaky foundation" and that "the approach Justice Scalia proposes appears to be built on firmer ground." Justice Stevens, in an opinion also joined by Justice Souter, dissented because he did not think Belton should apply when, as in Thornton, the police first make contact with the arrestee when he is outside the vehicle.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2008/03/more-on-arizona.html
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Can the police search a car sans warrant once suspect secured and in custody? UPDATE [Re: johnm214]
#10592111 - 06/29/09 12:17 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thought I'd update this thread to state that the court did indeed rule for a bit more freedom from unreasonable search in automobiles (probably the least protected area for fourth amendment purposes).
From the syllabus (unofficial summary):
Quote:
(b) This Court rejects a broad reading of Belton that would permit a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest even if there were no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s exception authorize a vehicle search only when there is a reasonable possibility of such access.
This seems quite obviously the correct result even if you accept the sad state of affairs regarding cars and the fourth amendment.
One thing that should be of interest to you all is Scalia's concurrence. Often people mistakenly believe liberals=personal freedom on the bench. Scalia is among the most conservative on the bench by many analysises, but he's also among the most honest, in my opinion, about interpreting the constitution to mean what it says only.
Here's what he had to say:
Quote:
"In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."
It is indeed a charrade.
Scalia would have gone further, not because he is a criminal coddler, but because he respects the constitution. He also views flag burning to be constitutionally protected, warantless infrared searches of homes to be unreasonable, and staunchly defends a person's right to counsel, to proceed as their own attorney, and to make their own legal decisions regardless of a court's preference.
Just remember that next time you guys here the oft-repeated notion that conservatives are bad for individual rights on the bench.
PS.
This is a good example of the court just rewriting history. They act as if Belton didn't allow the conduct occuring here, but that is exactly what it did:
Quote:
Our reading of the cases suggests the generalization that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary item. Chimel, supra, at 763. In order to establish the workable rule this category of cases requires, we read Chimel's definition of the limits of the area that may be searched in light of that generalization. Accordingly, we hold that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach.
Yes, they gave a reason for the right of police, but did not limit the right upon that reason. Nevertheless, the court acts as if this was the law all along, in their opinion.
It is another example of the court making precipitous rulings premised upon facts they presume to be present in all cases, but which obviously aren't. The legislature and the courts both like to make a rule for a particular reason but then not limit that rule to that reason, with ridiculous results- such as the PATRIOT act being enacted for terrorism and being used to investigate cock fighting, with any attempt to amend met by the "protection from terrorists" excuse.
|
|