New Search and Seizure Law

[tha joker]

This is in reference to a recent US Supreme Court Case and means a drastic change in the law for law enforcement. Frankly, it has pissed a lot of cops off.

The supreme court has stated in the past that any search conducted absent a warrant were per se unconstitutional. There were several exceptions to this, one of which was the "motor vehicle exception". Up until recently, the supreme court had found that any police officer who arrests the occupant of a motor vehicle had the right to conduct a search of the entire passenger compartment incident to the arrest without a warrant. This allowed the police to seize any evidence of a crime they found and present it in court. This stems from the US Supreme Court case Belton vs. New York.

Recently, based on a case out of Arizona, the supreme court ruled in a 5-4 decision, with Clarence Thomas surprisingly splitting from his conservative counterparts, that the police could no longer conduct a search incident to arrest of a motor vehicle after arresting an occupant without having a search warrant.

What does this mean? It will be much more difficult for law enforcement in general to conduct a search of your car. There are still times where the police may legally conduct a search of your car without a warrant. They may conduct a search without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe your vehicle contains "evidence of a crime", if you give your consent, if they conduct an inventory of the contents of your car prior to towing it, or if they have "reasonable suspicion" that an occupant is armed or dangerous, which allows a "frisk" of the passenger compartment. A "frisk" would be a limited search for weapons and only in areas that could reasonably conceal a weapon.

If you have questions, let me know.

 

[SpyWizard]

inventory before the tow... that's the one they'll use..

 

[gaw31]

just when i think i cant stand another blood sucking lawyer........... lawyers like you totally redeem your profession!!! lol!!!!

 

[JumpBallWinner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they arrest you for anything, your car/truck will be towed. They aren't just going to leave it there on the side of the road, correct?

So they can still take an "inventory" of the items in the vehicle before towing, hence pretty much always having the reason to go through and search after an arrest?

I missing anything here? I thought this was pretty much the way it always worked before?

I have a friend who works on a local dept in a somewhat small rural county. He invited me on a nightshift ride along, and during it he did a few traffic stops and found drugs in one of the cars. He's a K9 officer who keeps a dog in the back of the car. I asked him "what would you do if you knew without question for whatever reason that the person had something illegal in their car, but your dog didn't give you a hit on anything when you were trying to get probable cause, and they refused to let you search?" His answer was "Any traffic violation in this state is an arrestable offense. So say I pulled them over for a tag light being out, I could just take them to jail for that and then search them before the car was towed."

Seems like a way the state legislature figured out to always be able to search a vehicle if they wanted to regardless of probable cause etc.

 

[needmassnow]

Don't stop on the side of the road. Pull into a Walgreens, or gas station and legally park. Then they cannot tow your vehicle, hence, no inventory search.

 

[princeshock]

What stops them from searching your car or towing it at wall greens or any place?

 

[hwydopehound]

Don't stop on the side of the road. Pull into a Walgreens, or gas station and legally park. Then they cannot tow your vehicle, hence, no inventory search.

Yes they can tow your vehicle. The new Az v. Gant case actually is in reference to an "inventory search" of the vehicle. what happened was cops were finding drugs after arresting people for violation they didn't normally arrest for. For instance, if someone denied consent to search they would arrest them on the traffic ticket reason they stopped the person for(perfectly legal in many states, mine included) and would then search the car incident to arrest. This can no longer be done depending on how your Attorney General reads and interprets the law. I don't have the issue because I never did that to begin with. I'll either call a judge and get a warrant based on what indicators of criminal activity I observed in my interview, call a dog or get consent. All that assuming I don't get probable cause to begin with.

That said, it has pissed a lot of (lazy) cops off. Not me, because if I want to get in your car I will do it legally because I will know when you are dirty. I mostly don't care about steroids because I would use them if they were legal. Don't really care about misd. weed either. If it's not a felony I don't fuck with it normally. Except dui.

Oh, princeshock-nothing. So be nice and don't pull a half mile down the road to your house or a walgreens. I actuallly had one towed OUT OF A GARAGE last week because the guy traveled the 3/4 mile to his house. I would have let someone come get that car had he NOT pulled that shit with me. But, he knew he was drunk and thought he could get away with it.

here are pulled quotes from the case law...


In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."


what happened and the lamens terms...

cop stops shitbag driving down the road.. shitbag pulls into his driveway and starts walking away.. multiple shitbags on scene.. cops detain all shitbags, including the driver, and then search the drivers car.. shitbag's attorneys claim that they had no reason to search his car because the traffic violation had nothing to do with what was inside his car.. courts agreed and now you have az v. gant......... had he called a dog or gotten consent the case would not even be here.. but, he pushed the limits of the law and made bad caselaw for ALL OF US(me included) and lost a case on some cocaine(a good bit, actually-enough to charge him with poss. for sale) and a gun.. basically, if you cannot articulate why you were searching the car and why you belive it contained illegal contraband, the case will be thrown out...

 

[needmassnow]

Yes they can tow your vehicle. The new Az v. Gant case actually is in reference to an "inventory search" of the vehicle. what happened was cops were finding drugs after arresting people for violation they didn't normally arrest for. For instance, if someone denied consent to search they would arrest them on the traffic ticket reason they stopped the person for(perfectly legal in many states, mine included) and would then search the car incident to arrest. This can no longer be done depending on how your Attorney General reads and interprets the law. I don't have the issue because I never did that to begin with. I'll either call a judge and get a warrant based on what indicators of criminal activity I observed in my interview, call a dog or get consent. All that assuming I don't get probable cause to begin with.

That said, it has pissed a lot of (lazy) cops off. Not me, because if I want to get in your car I will do it legally because I will know when you are dirty. I mostly don't care about steroids because I would use them if they were legal. Don't really care about misd. weed either. If it's not a felony I don't fuck with it normally. Except dui.

Oh, princeshock-nothing. So be nice and don't pull a half mile down the road to your house or a walgreens. I actuallly had one towed OUT OF A GARAGE last week because the guy traveled the 3/4 mile to his house. I would have let someone come get that car had he NOT pulled that shit with me. But, he knew he was drunk and thought he could get away with it.

here are pulled quotes from the case law...


In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."


what happened and the lamens terms...

cop stops shitbag driving down the road.. shitbag pulls into his driveway and starts walking away.. multiple shitbags on scene.. cops detain all shitbags, including the driver, and then search the drivers car.. shitbag's attorneys claim that they had no reason to search his car because the traffic violation had nothing to do with what was inside his car.. courts agreed and now you have az v. gant......... had he called a dog or gotten consent the case would not even be here.. but, he pushed the limits of the law and made bad caselaw for ALL OF US(me included) and lost a case on some cocaine(a good bit, actually-enough to charge him with poss. for sale) and a gun.. basically, if you cannot articulate why you were searching the car and why you belive it contained illegal contraband, the case will be thrown out...

Can you say ROOOOOOOOOOOOOKIE! You are probably some highway patrol 'specialist'. When you come work the road for a few years, then we can talk. I don't know what your department's policy is, but if you are legally parked in a public parking lot and are getting 15'd for no DL or something similar, you CAN NOT tow the vehicle. If they stop on the side of the road, you can, hence the inventory 'search'. Unless you are forfeiting the car because it was used in the commission of a felony, you are not towing a legally parked vehicle from a traffic stop.

Your notion of "I know when he's dirty" is horse shit. If you are 99% sure that the guy you stopped has 100 kilo's of cocaine in the trunk, and you don't have a dog available, and he doesn't give you consent and/or you don't smell the odor of marijuana/smoked crack/smoked Oxycontin, you are not getting in that car unless you are are arresting him for something and have grounds to tow the vehicle.

And your notion of "indicators of criminal activity during my interview" screams new-cop bullshit. Every shitbag you talk to gives you "indicators of criminal activity". How about the 20 year old black guy with dreads, gold teeth, driving a 100k masserati with more jewelry on than you could afford in your lifetime, yet he has no job. I'd say that is an "indicator of criminal activity", yet, that does not qualify as PC to get in the car. Reasonable suspicion does not allow you to search a vehicle. You can't even conduct a terry stop of an individual anymore unless you are able to articulate why you feel that person is currently armed when you patted them down.

Leave that traffic-stop agency you work for and get with a real agency and then you'll sound like you know what you are talking about.

 

[needmassnow]

What stops them from searching your car or towing it at wall greens or any place?

It's not that pulling into a walgreens stops them from searching or towing your vehicle, because it doesn't. But let's say you are pulled over and your DL is suspended (which is/can be a criminal offense in your state, depending on the circumstances). So the officer decides you are going to "take the ride" to jail for the suspended DL. The new case law indicates that you cannot search a vehicle incident to arrest if no other evidence of the crime you are arresting the driver can be found in the vehicle. Obviously, if you are arrested for a criminal traffic offense, the officer is not going to find any further evidence of that traffic offense by searching the vehicle, so under the new case-law he can not search the vehicle.

HOWEVER, if you stop on the side of the road, or are not stopped somewhere where it is legal to leave your car, the officer may tow your vehicle and conduct an "inventory" of the vehicle. Anything found during the inventory of the vehicle is admissible in court (i.e can be used against you). Now, if you stopped in a walgreens or public parking lot and are being arrested for a traffic offense, the officer can not tow your car just because he wants to fuck you. Unless he has additional probable cause to conduct a search which could be the odor of marijuana, a drug K-9 hitting on your vehicle, or contraband in plain-view, he will not get into your vehicle without consent.

Hence, the notion of legally parking before pulling over for a traffic stop keeps you safe from the "search incident to arrest" clause, but will not prevent the officer from searching your vehicle for any of the other aforementioned probable cause indicators.

 

[doublebicep]

Not me, because if I want to get in your car I will do it legally because I will know when you are dirty.

How about if you have probable cause. I don't see how your "wants" are relavant. It sounds like a bit of a power trip. Upholding the law has nothing to do with your wants.