SCOTUS is really a scary group of people

[jjperl]

WOW... this isn't good. If the arrest is no good, how is there reasonable search and seizure?

[MrTuffPaws]

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]

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]

WOW... this isn't good. If the arrest is no good, how is there reasonable search and seizure?

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]

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]

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.

[Piper]

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]

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.

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

[scootergmc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.