SCOTUS is really a scary group of people

[Gryff]

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

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]

So the elitist "Government knows best" infection has spread to the SCOTUS, it's time to batten down the hatches.

[PatriotnMore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here is a little light reading for some folks.....

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

[dustoff31]

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]

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]

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]

So I take it nobody on here understands that a citation IS an arrest, and always has been?

[Gryff]

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?