PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS is really a scary group of people


Gryff
04-23-2008, 11:55 AM
I thought it was bad when they said Eminent Domain can be used for non-publically owned profit-making ventures, but now they say that evidence seized in a search after an illegal arrest is usable in court. I am pro-law enforcement, but only within the constrains of the Constitution.

As it stands, you can now be arrested for changing lanes without using a signal, and whatever the LEO finds in your car can be used against you in a separate prosecution. I hope that I am missing something here, because this seems to tear another chunk out of the Constitution.

Supreme Court says police may search even if arrest invalid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search_4;_ylt=AiSeCZiyrtpXwRU.UXGI8s4E1vAI)

Supreme Court says police may search even if arrest invalid

By PETE YOST, Associated Press WriterWed Apr 23, 12:02 PM ET

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.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-23-2008, 12:02 PM
So the elitist "Government knows best" infection has spread to the SCOTUS, it's time to batten down the hatches.

PatriotnMore
04-23-2008, 12:06 PM
So the elitist "Government knows best" infection has spread to the SCOTUS, it's time to batten down the hatches.

This will have a whole new meaning after the D.C gun ban decision if they rule in favor against what the Consitution clearly intended in its declaration.

Lines will be drawn, and people are going to be forced to make some hard decisions concerning our Government, SCOTUS, and Law Enforcement.

MrTuffPaws
04-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Let me see if I get this straight.

Cops pulls over guy.

State law demands that the police officer issue a court summons and let the offender off.

Instead, the officer arrests the suspect (This is where I have issues.....I'll get to it) Then search the car.

They find drugs, and use that in court and get a drug convection.


Now here is where I have issues. Did the officer arrest the guy for driving with an invalid license, or did they arrest him on suspicion of drugs. If the former, then this sucks and is a direct violation of state law. If the later, then there isn't an issue here. A cop can pull someone over for a light being out, and then if he suspects other illegal activity, then he can legally search, but would have to prove probable cause.

Of course, this leads to the whole issue of if the cop arrested the guy to gain probable cause to search. ugh....

mymonkeyman
04-23-2008, 12:11 PM
This is a pretty narrow ruling. First of all, you have to understand that SCOTUS invented the exclusionary rule, it wasn't in the Constitution and was directly against what the English common law rule was: fruits of an illegal search are admissible. Instead SCOTUS has held that if the officers violate the 4th amendment, the evidence can be excluded (subject to certain exceptions).

What this case is about is whether the federal exclusionary rule requires evidence gained in violation of the state's statute regarding arrest procedure (as opposed to lacking probable cause to believe the crime actually occurred), must be excluded. SCOTUS ruled because the violation of the state arrest statute doesn't violate the 4th amendment, it isn't eligible for the exclusionary rule.

This is because under the 4th amendment, nothing requires the state to not arrest you when you speed or for other traffic infracitons. Virginia chose to extend you a right not required by the 4th amendment, so violation of that right does not require the exclusionary rule, which is already an add-on to the 4th amendment, to apply.

This does not at all stop the state from choosing, either by statute or by the state court's interpretation of its own constitution, to exclude such evidence.

Holding otherwise would just incentivize states to permit arrest whenever any violation of law has occurred, so it would generally be worse for everyone.

mymonkeyman
04-23-2008, 12:19 PM
Let me see if I get this straight.

Cops pulls over guy.

State law demands that the police officer issue a court summons and let the offender off.

Instead, the officer arrests the suspect (This is where I have issues.....I'll get to it) Then search the car.

They find drugs, and use that in court and get a drug convection.


He was first arrested on the suspended driving violation. He was subsequently searched for drugs on his person, where they found the crack, and then charged with both violations. The search would only be legal as a search incident to arrest. The issue was that the arrest was with probable cause but in violation of state law regarding arrest procedure.

A cop can pull someone over for a light being out, and then if he suspects other illegal activity, then he can legally search, but would have to prove probable cause.

You are firstly conflating the "suspects" aka reasonable suspicion standard applicable to Terry stops and searches (such searches only applying to weapons) and the general authority to search a person or a car (or almost anything other than a domicile) upon probable cause without a warrant. In this case there was no reason to believe the perp. had evidence on his person, and it was only a search incident to arrest.

kurt_r
04-23-2008, 3:05 PM
The police won't just let you go if you are found to be driving on a suspended licence.
At the very least: your vehicle will be impounded if nobody in the vehicle has a valid drivers license. They won't allow you to continue driving on a suspended license.
At the most: they will arrest you, search you and your car, impound the car, and take you into custody.

bridgeport
04-23-2008, 3:18 PM
It is the war on drugs, not terror, that has stripped the average US citizen of
rights which were commonly held prior to its inception, and the controlled substance act of 1970. Notice that with Scheduling, the government was granted control to regulate a substance simply by moving its classification on the schedule. When the government decides to "bundle", look the heck out.
Example: lead ban on rimfire via regulation, not legislation. Insidious.

Gryff
04-23-2008, 3:18 PM
The police won't just let you go if you are found to be driving on a suspended licence.
At the very least: your vehicle will be impounded if nobody in the vehicle has a valid drivers license. They won't allow you to continue driving on a suspended license.
At the most: they will arrest you, search you and your car, impound the car, and take you into custody.

Okay, but this ruling (as reported) means that they can search your car (and prosecute you for what they find) for driving two miles an hour over the speed limit, even if you have a clean driving record. They can search it because they can arrest you for speeding (even if the speeding arrest is later thrown out).

Doesn't really sound fair to me, but then again I don't like the fact that the county can now eminent domain my house to allow a Wal-Mart to build on the property. SCOTUS says that this perfectly fine by them.

Hopi
04-23-2008, 3:30 PM
Here is a little light reading for some folks.....

http://www.escapeartist.com/freedom/monitor.htm

dustoff31
04-23-2008, 3:43 PM
I'm confused. There must be more to the story. If:

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

and

Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

Then how was:

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

Was it a federal prosecution?

tyrist
04-23-2008, 7:36 PM
Driving on a suspended license is a misdemeanor and therefore there is no Constitutional protection since a crime was comitted and an arrest made even if the state call for just a citation in lieu of. It's the difference between the constitution and the state's authority I can see how it makes sense although at first glance it's strange.

Yes he could have been tried under federal law and since he comitted a misdemeanor the search would be admissable.

MrTuffPaws
04-23-2008, 7:41 PM
I'm confused. There must be more to the story. If:



and



Then how was:



Was it a federal prosecution?

No. State. The State Supreme Court overturned it, but the prosecutors took it to the SCotUS.

DesertGunner
04-23-2008, 7:47 PM
So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

Gryff
04-23-2008, 7:51 PM
So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

And that gives them the authority to search any part of the car they wish? I know that they can search the immediate area around the driver to insure the safety of the officer, but what about the back seat, trunk, etc. Those can be searched for not stopping behind the stop light limit line?

jjperl
04-23-2008, 7:54 PM
WOW... this isn't good. If the arrest is no good, how is there reasonable search and seizure? :confused: :eek:

MrTuffPaws
04-23-2008, 7:54 PM
So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

The state laws stated that the officer was to issue a summons and allow the perp to go, so in this case, no, it is not an arrest. If it was an arrest, then any issuance would be cause to search, which is obviously not the case.

Please show your source on your opinion.

MrTuffPaws
04-23-2008, 7:55 PM
And that gives them the authority to search any part of the car they wish? I know that they can search the immediate area around the driver to insure the safety of the officer, but what about the back seat, trunk, etc. Those can be searched for not stopping behind the stop light limit line?

Once arrested, the cop has every right to search your vehicle. You have no 4th rights once arrested.

MrTuffPaws
04-23-2008, 7:57 PM
WOW... this isn't good. If the arrest is no good, how is there reasonable search and seizure? :confused: :eek:

At the federal level, the arrest wasn't an issue. A police officer can arrest you for anything. That being the case, once arrested, the office can search you and your car. At a state level, the arrest was illegal, but at a federal level, it was okay.

Classic show of federal law trumping state.

Gryff
04-23-2008, 8:41 PM
So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

Once arrested, the cop has every right to search your vehicle. You have no 4th rights once arrested.

So DesertGunner says that any traffic stop IS an arrest, and MrTuffPaws says that once arrested (regardless of the reason), you car can be fully searched.

That means that 1 mile per hour over the speed limit gives the police the right to search your car.

It also appears that the police can arrest you for doing 50 in a school zone (even though you were only doing 25), search your car, arrest you for the shooting bag in your trunk that you forgot to put the lock on properly. And while you may skate on the speeding charge since it was bogus, they can legally prosecute you for the improper transportation of a firearm since it was discovered during the course of an arrest (regardless that the arrest was bogus).

Again, I am hoping that there was more to the ruling that is reported, because the potential for abuse by law enforcement is monumental. They can effectively make up whatever reason they want for the initial arrest, and then prosecute you for whatever they find in the resulting search. That's rather terrifying.

Bruce
04-23-2008, 9:01 PM
FWIW, this is nothing new and has basically been the way the cops have operated for years. They don't need a warrant for every search they conduct.
The Virgnia law is not absolute. If the presiding judge of a judicial district says it's okay to arrest rather than cite, then the cops can arrest.
If detectives made the traffic stop, you can bet they were looking at him for something else.

From another board on the same subject:
Let's go through some typical situations where no warrant is needed:

Traffic stop, driver is arrested, and taken to jail. The officer should search the entire car for inventory purposes, he is now responsible. In that inventory search, if he finds contraband, charges may be filed for the possession of that contraband. (This is what appeared to happen in the cited case) Now, in Texas, you can be placed in jail for allmost all traffic violations, with the exceptions of no insurance and speeding within certain limits. In Texas, driving with a suspended license will earn you a trip to jail as it is no longer a minor (class C) offense. Apparently things are different in Va. But I wonder why the state would suspend your license and still let you drive????

Traffic stop with no arrest In this case, the courts have held that the officer can search the area in which the suspect has immediate access for weapons. If the officer comes up with contraband, and was not beyond the search parameters for possible weapons, bad guy goes to jail. Then, the officer can do a full search of the rest of the vehicle pursuant to the inventory search above.

Terry stop Officer approches someone on the street to talk to him and there is suspicion of a crime. The officer has a right to pat the person down for weapons for his own protection. He can investigate further if something feels suspicious. If he finds contraband, the bad guy goes to jail.

Plain sight. The officer is in a place he has a right to be, and he sees contraband in plain sight, the person in possession can be charged with it. This is not uncommon in a domestic violence call. The officer is called to the house, he is admitted to investigate the call (has a right to be there) and contraband is on the kitchen table. Happens all the time because some folks just don't have their act together.

All of these searches are reasonable, and all without the necessity of a warrant or probable cause. I don't think that folks are ranting here, but most of the exceptions to the necessity of a warrant are based on common sense. None of these particular examples gives a reasonable opportunity or necessity to go get a warrant.

What's scary is the level of paranoia that exists on firearms/shooting related message boards these days.:TFH:

Piper
04-23-2008, 9:13 PM
So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

That's understood, but is driving on a suspended DL an infraction or misdemeanor ? In California, if you're cited for an a violation of law and it's an infraction, it's not an arrestable offense (as in taken into custody) unless you refuse to sign the cite. However, driving on suspended license (14601) in California is arrestable.

Gryff
04-23-2008, 9:29 PM
FWIW, this is nothing new and has basically been the way the cops have operated for years. They don't need a warrant for every search they conduct.

No, but outside the list you provided, they traditionally DO need a warrant. Now, apparently they can make up whatever charge they want, and you are screwed if they find anything the politicians have decided is illegal.

It used to be that a bogus arrest invalidated the items found in the resulting search. Not anymore. Don't you think that undermines our 4th Amendment right just a bit?

What's scary is the level of paranoia that exists on firearms/shooting related message boards these days.:TFH:

Sorry, but that is spoken like a true California Democrat.

scootergmc
04-23-2008, 9:36 PM
Sorry, but that is spoken like a true California Democrat.

And that's spoken like a true California gun board member.

I'm off to stand in line to buy rice.

Gryff
04-23-2008, 9:44 PM
And that's spoken like a true California gun board member.

Very true! Politics is not supposed to be a spectator sport, and sparking discussion and commentary isn't the same as paranoia. Or perhaps it is, but I'm a huge fan of the Constitution in an era when people are more-and-more willing to trade freedom for safety.

Bruce
04-23-2008, 9:50 PM
No, but outside the list you provided, they traditionally DO need a warrant. Now, apparently they can make up whatever charge they want, and you are screwed if they find anything the politicians have decided is illegal.

It used to be that a bogus arrest invalidated the items found in the resulting search. Not anymore. Don't you think that undermines our 4th Amendment right just a bit?



Spoken like a jailhouse lawyer.

mymonkeyman
04-23-2008, 10:25 PM
So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

"Arrest" has many meanings in the law depending on the context. For the purposes of this case, you are wrong, SCOTUS makes a distinction between citation and arrest as there is no search incident to citation exception to the 4th amendment's warrant requirement, but there is a search incident to arrest exception.

mymonkeyman
04-23-2008, 10:29 PM
No, but outside the list you provided, they traditionally DO need a warrant. Now, apparently they can make up whatever charge they want, and you are screwed if they find anything the politicians have decided is illegal.

It used to be that a bogus arrest invalidated the items found in the resulting search. Not anymore. Don't you think that undermines our 4th Amendment right just a bit?



Sorry, but that is spoken like a true California Democrat.

First of all, read my first post, this ruling was no surprise, that is why it was a 9-0 ruling. It was pretty much already decided. The fruits of a search incident to an arrest that is bogus under the 4th amendment will be thrown out. This ruling has nothing to do with 99% of illegal searches / arrests.

All this says is that the fruits of a search incident to an arrest that is bogus under a state statute proscribing when to arrest (or similar state statutory limitations) will not be thrown out under the 4th amendment's exclusionary rule. That is, the state statutory framework and the 4th amendment are separate, and you don't cross remedies of one with the violations of the other.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-23-2008, 10:46 PM
I'm genuinely trying to understand what you are saying.
How does this ruling not make it so a LEO can arrest someone for something that does not warrant arrest, so they can search without consent? Doesn't it mean that if you get pulled over for not using your blinker and do not consent to a search an officer can arrest you for not using your blinker and search anyway?



All this says is that the fruits of a search incident to an arrest that is bogus under a state statute proscribing when to arrest (or similar state statutory limitations) will not be thrown out under the 4th amendment's exclusionary rule. That is, the state statutory framework and the 4th amendment are separate, and you don't cross remedies of one with the violations of the other.

mymonkeyman
04-23-2008, 10:55 PM
I'm genuinely trying to understand what you are saying.
How does this ruling not make it so a LEO can arrest someone for something that does not warrant arrest, so they can search without consent? Doesn't it mean that if you get pulled over for not using your blinker and do not consent to a search an officer can arrest you for not using your blinker and search anyway?

The point is, irrespective of the outcome in this case, the state can choose whether or not to have you arrested (and therefore searched incident to arrest) for whatever violation they want. The state can make failure to signal before a lane change an arrestable offense. This may sound unbelievable, but many states do give the officers discretion to arrest or issue a citation. In that case, there is clearly no 4th amendment violation when you are searched incident to that arrest. Similarly, the state can create a statutory remedy for excluding evidence for when the officer's arrest when the statute requires citation. All this ruling says is that states can split the baby, they can give you, through statute, something above and beyond what the 4th amendment requires, such as the right to be issued citation instead of arrest. However, if the state chooses to do so, they aren't compelled to face the 4th amendment remedy of exclusion. If you don't like the outcome, you should complain to the state legislature rather than the court because it really isn't a constitutional violation.

If you don't want officers to find something illegal in your car during a search incident to arrest, don't break the law in the first place to get pulled over & arrested, and don't have illegal things in your car.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-23-2008, 11:09 PM
Basically you are saying that even before this ruling CA had the ability to make all traffic violations grounds for a search? Maybe this thread should be deleted so they have to figure that out on their own.


If you don't want officers to find something illegal in your car during a search incident to arrest, don't break the law in the first place to get pulled over & arrested, and don't have illegal things in your car.

This sounds awfully close to, "If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind if we search"

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2008, 11:09 PM
The defendant in this case committed a crime...driving on a suspended license, which in most jurisdictions is a misdemeanor.

Infractions are not crimes. When you fail to stop at a red light, that is an infraction, not a crime or misdemeanor.

The issue here is State law called for the person caught driving on a suspended license to be cited and released, EVEN THOUGH A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. I imagine the law was put in place to ease crowding in the jails and save costs for both processing and housing those alleged to have committed a relatively minor crime.

My adventures in traffic court allow me to give you a perfect example, based on CA Vehicle Code.

In CA, when a LEO alleges you drove recklessly, according to VC 40303, the officer MUST cite and release you with a promise to appear.

40303. (a) Whenever a person is arrested for any of the offenses
listed in subdivision (b) and the arresting officer is not required
to take the person without unnecessary delay before a magistrate, the
arrested person shall, in the judgment of the arresting officer,
either be given a 10 days' notice to appear, or be taken without
unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the
offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has
jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible with
reference to the place where the arrest is made. The officer may
require that the arrested person, if he or she does not have
satisfactory identification, place a right thumbprint, or a left
thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured
right thumb, on the 10 days' notice to appear when a 10 days' notice
is provided. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the
identity of the arrestee, a person or entity shall not sell, give
away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a
database with, this print.
(b) Subdivision (a) applies to the following offenses:
(1) Section 10852 or 10853, relating to injuring or tampering with
a vehicle.
(2) Section 23103 or 23104, relating to reckless driving.



The only exception comes from 40302 which reads:


40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this
code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in
which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who
has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible
with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the
following cases:
(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license
or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise
to appear in court.
(c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance
before a magistrate.
(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section
23152.

So, even though you have allegedly committed a crime, a misdemeanor, and are under arrest, the law calls for you to be released on the spot unless you meet one of the exceptions in 40302.

Now, even though CA law clearly states that you, the alleged reckless driver, should be cited and released, treated much like a run of the mill infraction, if the citing officer decides to search your person or vehicle, not a Terry cursory search, and finds new evidence of a separate crime, the new evidence will stand.

So, this shouldn't really bother you unless you break some serious rules of the road that constitute misdemeanor crimes such as reckless driving, DUI...etc..etc.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2008, 11:13 PM
Basically you are saying that even before this ruling CA had the ability to make all traffic violations grounds for a search? Maybe this thread should be deleted so they have to figure that out on their own.



This sounds awfully close to, "If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind if we search"

When CA decided to move violations of the Vehicle Code from misdemeanors to infractions in 1968 they lost the ability to charge you with a crime for violating the VC.

So no, VC infractions are NOT grounds for a search short of those exceptions already understood, such as Terry...etc..etc.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-23-2008, 11:21 PM
When CA decided to move violations of the Vehicle Code from misdemeanors to infractions in 1968 they lost the ability to charge you with a crime for violating the VC.

Was this done in a way that prevents them from undoing it? That seems like something that our PRK masters would jump at the chance to do.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2008, 11:26 PM
Was this done in a way that prevents them from undoing it? That seems like something that our PRK masters would jump at the chance to do.

Sure, they could, but if they did everyone charged with violating the VC would be entitled to jury trials. Not something I think we are going to see. The current system, which calls for the vast majority of VC violations to be charged as infractions is a huge cash cow for the state and local jurisdictions...they aren't gonna give that up anytime soon.

Just stay away from misdemeanor VC violations and you wont notice a difference.

WokMaster1
04-24-2008, 7:31 AM
the guy already has a record. Won't it make a difference? A felon caught driving w/out a DL...... no rights, bend over.

DesertGunner
04-24-2008, 11:13 AM
An arrest does NOT give LE the right to fully search your vehicle (They can only search the passenger compartment) unless contraband is found that would invoke the Carroll doctrine (then any part of the vehicle that could be concealing more of said contraband is up for search), or other PC is developed.

If the vehicle is seized then an inventory search would be conducted, but this is limited in scope.

And a state law mandating that a summons be issued does not make the traffic stop NOT an arrest. There is a violation of the law and a seizure of a person. You sign a piece of paper at the scene in which you are pleading guilty.

Try applying for a federal government job and NOT including traffic tickets (they usually only ask for tickets in excess of $150) in the arrest section of the background check form. (This is rhetorical, don't really do that).

ETA: All I am arguing is that this decision did not really change anything.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-24-2008, 12:07 PM
9-0 decision by SCOTUS.

If you run afoul of an LEO for any reason where they have probable cause and you have contraband, you go to jail.

Is this not how I am supposed to read the decision?

radioactivelego
04-24-2008, 12:08 PM
If you are driving around with a bunch of eight balls and $500 in your pocket on a suspended license, you gotta be pretty dumb to pull that off.

Regardless it sucks that in the end we all have to pay for him for being in jail primarily because of the drug charges.

radioactivelego
04-24-2008, 12:09 PM
9-0 decision by SCOTUS.

If you run afoul of an LEO for any reason where they have probable cause and you have contraband, you go to jail.

Is this not how I am supposed to read the decision?Misdemeanor.

Mis-de-meanor.

As in you just commited a crime, not an infraction.

GUBBERMENT GUN TAEK RRR GUNSSSSSSS!!!!!!

Smokeybehr
04-24-2008, 3:40 PM
I'm off to stand in line to buy rice.

Just don't ship it off to the Philippines... :D

Oh, and contrary to what everyone has been saying, a traffic stop is not an arrest; it's a detention. If it's an arrest, then someone is getting hauled to jail for booking.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-24-2008, 8:59 PM
Just don't ship it off to the Philippines... :D

Oh, and contrary to what everyone has been saying, a traffic stop is not an arrest; it's a detention. If it's an arrest, then someone is getting hauled to jail for booking.

The US Court of Appeals disagrees with you.

Under California law, a traffic citation is considered an "arrest," see Cal. Pen. Code S 853.5 (West Supp. 1996), for which an officer must have probable cause. See, e.g., People v. Parnell, 16 Cal. App. 4th 862, 875, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 302, 309 (1993).

Take a look at Easyriders v Hannigan, 92 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1996).

DesertGunner
04-25-2008, 7:11 PM
Just don't ship it off to the Philippines... :D

Oh, and contrary to what everyone has been saying, a traffic stop is not an arrest; it's a detention. If it's an arrest, then someone is getting hauled to jail for booking.

You need to study up on what an 'arrest' is.



ETA: Never mind, somebody beat me to it.