SCOTUS is really a scary group of people

[Harrison_Bergeron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.