Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-24-2009, 02:32 PM   #1
Dasher
http://wp.me/L6Wr
 
Dasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,035
Dasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableDasher is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

From The Associated Press

updated 1:36 p.m. CT, Tues., April 21, 2009

WASHINGTON - 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 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.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court, 28 years ago, first authorized warrantless searches of cars immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said.

Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. "What this rule permits in a variety of situations is entirely unclear," Alito said.

Stevens conceded that police academies teach the more permissive practice and that law enforcement officers have relied on it. Yet, he said, "Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result."

Big impact on traffic arrests
Fordham University law professor Dan Capra said the ruling "will have a major impact when the driver is arrested for a traffic offense." When police have probable cause to arrest someone for drug crimes, Capra said, they ordinarily will be able to search a car in pursuit of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Prosecutors and police instructors were generally disappointed with the decision.

Tom Hammarstrom, executive director of the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, said training for law officers would be adjusted to conform to the high court's ruling.

Devallis Rutledge, special counsel to the Los Angeles County district attorney, said he was working on formulating advice for prosecutors on how to apply the court's decision.

"It's not the kind of clear-cut guidance that police officers, lawyers and judges need. It substantially overrules a 28-year-old precedent that we've all relied on," Rutledge said.

Police officers have been "doing the safe thing" by searching vehicles after securing suspects to make sure they aren't a safety threat. "That's been the way they've been taught and the way they've been trained," Rutledge said. "Now, we will lose the evidence they obtained" in some cases.

He said the new rules might even make it harder to catch criminals, noting that evidence found during a vehicle search when someone is arrested for a relatively minor crime can lead to greater charges, such as drug offenses or even murder.

Backs Arizona high court ruling
The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had secured the scene and thus faced no threat to their safety or concern about evidence being preserved.

Gant was placed under arrest for driving on a suspended license and he already was at least 8 feet away from his car when he was arrested.

Arizona, backed by the Bush administration and 25 other states, complained that a decision in favor of Gant would impose a "dangerous and unworkable test" that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers.

But civil liberties groups argued that police routinely invade suspects' privacy by conducting warrantless searches when there is no chance suspects could have access to their vehicles. The groups also suggested that police would not increase the danger to themselves by leaving suspects unrestrained and near their cars just to justify a search in the absence of a warrant.

Unusual divide
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 said in a separate opinion that he would allow warrantless searches only to look for "evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred." He said he joined Stevens' opinion anyway because there otherwise would not have been a majority for that view and Alito's desire to maintain current police practice "is the greater evil."

Quote:
The case is Arizona v. Gant, 07-542.
Dasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 04:20 PM   #2
InspiredLebowski
Roy Hibbert Super Star
 
InspiredLebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birthplace of basketball
Posts: 26,285
InspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

Doesn't "there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest" give an immediate out to those who search w/o a warrant?
InspiredLebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 04:28 PM   #3
v-unit
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,149
v-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterv-unit is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

It's kind of funny. There have been many times where the police wanted us to open up our trunk (we had booze). They can't make us open it, but if we open it and they see something then they can arrest us. They would say "clean up your mess, you can just put it in the trunk" we would be like "no it's fine we'll just put it in the back" and they just angry.
v-unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 04:28 PM   #4
JayGuevara
Hellbound
 
JayGuevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,799
JayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspiredLebowski
Doesn't "there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest" give an immediate out to those who search w/o a warrant?

Exactly. More often than not it becomes your word vs. the officer in question. If he says he has probable cause, well, he had probable cause, and he's searchin your ****. I fail to see what difference this will make.
JayGuevara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 04:30 PM   #5
johndeeregreen
Oh yeah, Mitch Kramer?
 
johndeeregreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,638
johndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterjohndeeregreen is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayGuevara
Exactly. More often than not it becomes your word vs. the officer in question. If he says he has probable cause, well, he had probable cause, and he's searchin your ****. I fail to see what difference this will make.
Exactly what I thought when I read this. It's still a lose-lose. Either the cop finds nothing when he searches with "probable cause" and it blows over or he finds something and then you REALLY have no case. Like, who's going to enforce this?

Basically means nothing at all will change.
johndeeregreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 04:58 PM   #6
JtotheIzzo
Admlnlstrator
 
JtotheIzzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wolviapolis
Posts: 14,161
JtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

We'll see how smart you are when the K9s come...
JtotheIzzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 04:59 PM   #7
JayGuevara
Hellbound
 
JayGuevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,799
JayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterJayGuevara is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Warrantless Car Searches

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndeeregreen
Exactly what I thought when I read this. It's still a lose-lose. Either the cop finds nothing when he searches with "probable cause" and it blows over or he finds something and then you REALLY have no case. Like, who's going to enforce this?

Basically means nothing at all will change.

Yep. A couple weeks ago I was with this girl, and she is driving me to some place she wanted to show me (Note: It is generally not a good idea to accompany someone blindly in an area outside of your comfort zone without them telling you what/where it is. But I was high), and we're driving back and got pulled over. Now we're pretty deep in the suburbs, it's prolly around 2 AM on a Saturday night/Sunday morning, I'm slightly buzzed and high as a kite. But, when faced with law enforcement, that adrenaline and survival kicks in and I sober up immediately and keep my cool. So that's not a problem, but she has a bowl and a grinder in the car (no actual dope though)

And then they search me too, and first of all the dude copped a feel on my meat, that was awkward. But I had just cashed my check that morning, and collected an IOU also, so I got a lil bit of money in my pocket, so I'm accused of being a drug dealer, as I'm in a car with a white girl that has paraphernalia. Now at that point, they could have stated probable cause to take both of us in cuz she had paraphernalia and I had money.

Thankfully for us, I think the officer enjoyed what he felt so he just confiscated her **** and let us go. That worked out about as well as it could, minus getting fondled by the long arm of the law, but what was their reason for searching me, her, or the vehicle?
JayGuevara is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy