Supreme Court says police may search even if arrest invalid

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search

[LakeSamish706]

1. Just one more step in our rapidly coming police state. n/t

[midnight]

33. It has been here for sometime. We are just hearing about

those defendents who have legal representation that uses their understanding of the constitiution.

[superconnected]

41. Now watch all the DU defenders of this stand up...

:puke:

[Solly Mack]

2. Damn good thing we have a Constitution

snicker

[OKthatsIT]

51. Maybe Pelosi should read it, then.

If Pelosi hadn't strongarmed Congress into submission, we would have impeach their criminal asses..IMMEDIATELY.

With both Bush and Cheney found guilty of criminal charges...we could have proceeded to impeaching their corporate justices!!!!!!!!

[Dogtown]

3. So much for "fruit of the poisonous tree"

and the 4th Amendment

[BadgerLaw2010]

11. This isn't new. Arrest on probable cause for traffic violation is not unconstitutional.

Once arrested, search incident to arrest is lawful, and anything that is found can be used as evidence. There is no distinction made in "degree" of arrest or offense.

There's really no challenge here to the existing Constitutional standard, hence the 9-0.

[uppityperson]

15. It angers me, but it is not new.

If you get pulled over for a minor offense, you don't have to give them permission to search you. However, if you deny them permission, they may get you with (not sure of legal term) not complying with an officer in the line of duty.

[Dogtown]

28. "failure to obey a lawful order

of a police officer."

"lawful order" They cannot lawfully order you to submit to a search except under very narrow guidelines.

Incident to a lawful arrest (only the area within ready reach of the arrestee, hence not the trunk of a car, for example).

A custodial search of property, in the event they have custody of the property. An example would be a towed car, inventoried so that the towing company is responsible for the inventoried property. If they inventory contraband, it's admissable.

Under the aegis of "Terry Vs Ohio", a limited pat-down search can be conducted to search *for concealed weapons*; if certain dangerous conditions can be established that suggest harm to the officer, ie, darkness, suspicious location or activity, etc

And, of course, if they have a lawful warrant to search issued by an appropriate authority.


This decision alters the first to be so inclusive that probable cause need no longer be observed if they want to arrest/search anyone. If they can arrest you UNLAWFULLY and search incident to that unlawful arrest AND MAY STILL USE THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT YOU there will be a SHARP increase in convictions.

[High Plains]

20. Right. As in the case of the Texas mother not wearing a seatbelt.

The court held that the cops could arrest for any offense, even ones that are normally ticketable.

Just another in a long series of asinine rulings by this court. My favorite is the one that held that having a drug dog sniff you car is not a search. It's bizarro world.

The Constitution is only as good as the high court that interprets it. We're fucked.

[Dogtown]

26. I beg to differ

"even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law."

Hence, fruit of the poisonous tree. Search must be incidental to a "lawful arrest" or the search is unlawful.

This changes that in that it justifies a search, even if the arrest itself was unlawful.



One by one, our rights disappear.

[sakabatou]

4. What?!

Goddammit, this ruling violates Constitutional law!

[Thothmes]

43. Not any more

[sakabatou]

48. Well fuck

[islandmkl]

5. 'bad tail-lights' to 'felony prison time' in one easy step...

"Can we see your papers." - Germany 1933

"Can we see your papers." - USA 2008

[Hugabear]

6. Making racist cops jobs that much easier

Because you know that they won't use this as an excuse to search minorities.

:sarcasm:

[zbdent]

7. I wonder if this Supreme Court would hold corporations to the same high standards

if a person was arrested for a crime in a business, and his desk had evidence indicating that the business was involved in illegal activities ... nah ...

[93ncsu]

13. Apples and oranges ...

Just think about it for a minute ...

[Robbien]

8. It is no wonder that obtaining conservative judges was what the GOP was all about

Judges which strip liberties from the common man and increase the rights of corporations/ownership society.

[AZ Criminal JD]

21. Liberals were part of this ruling too.

[WilyWondr]

9. Traffic stops aka. Fishing expeditions

Did you ever notice that everyone drives over the speed limit? 5..10 or more mph over the speed limit. I believe that this enables the police to pull over whoever they want in order to look for "other violations".

There are plenty of streets in my town where you get run over if you do the speed limit. You will never see that new beemer pulled over either, but you will see that 88 Monte Carlo getting pulled over every day.

This decision is completely expected by anyone paying attention to the search and seizure laws in the US.

[niyad]

12. in this state, the cops not only examine the driver when pulled over, but all other occupants of the

car. more money in the coffers, more criminals.

[eShirl]

10. What could possibly go wrong?

:banghead:

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. Good bye, "probable cause"

Now, police can stop someone "just because" and conduct a search of their person. Two hundred plus years of judicial opinion, thrown out the window.

Is it fascism yet?

[TransitJohn]

16. What magic device

let the cops know that driver's license was suspended?

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license.

[93ncsu]

17. Probably one of those ...

computer thingies that are all the rage.

You see, it probably went something like this :

Driver makes some small error

Cop runs plate

Cop finds out car owner has suspended license

Cop figures that car of owner with suspended license should probably not be on the road

Cop notices that driver is same gender as person with suspended license

Cop pulls over vehicle to see if said person is the one with the suspended license


There rest happens from there.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Cop overlooks the law.

"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."

The only thing I didn't notice in the article was whether the motorist was driving while African American, of course I'm sure that would have no impact on cop overlooking the law of which he's supposed to enforce.

[93ncsu]

22. Yes, they did not follow Virginia law ...

Oddly enough , though, what they did was apparently not un-Constitutional. The Constitution usurps any local or state law. Had the court's decision been a 5-4 decision, then I might be more skeptical. But it was unanimous.

Perhaps the Virginia law needs to be updated.

I do find it interesting that it was city detectives that arrested him. I wonder if they were the ones that pulled him over or if it was a patrol car.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm just curious

as to the reasoning the Supreme Court used to determine that Virgina law violated the Constitution?

Edit for P.S. I'm also wondering whether this decision has any connection to the brewing FLDS case in Texas?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3280273&mesg_id=3280273

Nevada Father Submits DNA, Lashes Out At Raid

[93ncsu]

34. Based on the story ...

it sounds like this was the reasoning :

"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."

"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."

Here's the opinion : http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf">Virginia v Moore

[Uncle Joe]

36. Well, this part seems to be the saving grace in this decision, by Ginsburg.

"Moore would have us ignore,
however, the limited consequences Virginia attaches to a
police officer’s failure to follow the Commonwealth’s summons-
only instruction. For such an infraction, the officer
may be disciplined and the person arrested may bring a
tort suit against the officer. But Virginia law does not
demand the suppression of evidence seized by an officer
who arrests when he should have issued a summons."

It seems to me Moore could bring civil suit against the officer for violating Virgina State law and the officer could be disciplined by the state.

Apparently though from what I can tell of this decision, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection against unreasonable search and seizure as a person can be arrested for anything, speeding, jay walking, running a stop sign, looking at an officer in an insolent manner, not saying good morning to the arresting officer, maybe the officer just doesn't like you, legally where does it stop? From what I can tell here, no where.

From this decision, combined with more states taking DNA from people being arrested yet not convicted of a crime, there literally is no privacy for the people under current interpretation of the Constitution by this court. To me this seems to turn innocent until proven guilty on it's head.

[93ncsu]

37. Yes, I see your point ...

if the SC is going to say that officers can just usurp state law with little to no apparent consequence, then I think we need to make sure that state laws are in place to provide a more severe consequence for an officer that makes a bogus arrest just to snoop around.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Yes, especially as the people most likely hurt by this decision will be those least able to afford

adequate representation in a civil suit. I imagine the mega rich will make out ok, but for anyone else it will be a major uphill fight if they can afford to fight at all.

[uppityperson]

30. Maybe personal recognition?

[zanne]

18. Is it wrong to wonder which one of them will die first?

Of natural causes, of course.

[pattmarty]

24. One word to describe this; BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

[truthisfreedom]

25. What??? I'm not pro-crack, but this is license for cops to do ANYTHING to search someone.

Total bullsh*t.

[cstanleytech]

27. Ok, why the anger?

It looks like on the face of it that in this case the guy "did" commit a crime, a minor one true but one nonetheless which gave the police then just cause to conduct a basic search of him and his car so can you explain to me please why you think its total bullsh*t?

[Uncle Joe]

29. But that's not what happened from my understanding of this article.

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.

Apparently the search was made after the arrest, so what grounds did they arrest him on? I believe this to be just another step down a major slippery slope of individual privacy and freedom.

[Dogtown]

31. I believe in this instance,

the police lied. They stopped someone they recognized orsuspected and searched him. It could have been a valid recognition, profiling, or a hunch, but they searched him and found drugs.
Then they got stupid or lazy and used his suspended license as an excuse and justification for the search. I assure you, in the 1970s, this case would never had made it to court, OR these cops would have worked harder and perjured themselves more thoroughly.

It disturbs me that they needn't bother to lie anymore.

[cstanleytech]

35. So what? Reprimand them then for not following policy but

the justices seem to think it was ok and its damn rare that they all agree so in this instance I am going to trust their decision.

[Uncle Joe]

40. I think it's great they all agree, but that in it self doesn't make it right.

Regarding being reprimanded, what if your state government has been corrupted? I know there's a snow ball's chance in hell of something like that ever happening, but what if it did become corrupted?

[cstanleytech]

44. Then hopefully a 3rd party from outside the state like the feds

will handle it but hey, sometimes they wont.
Fact is no system is perfect, but that aside there is no reason why we should stop trying to make it as good as we can.

[Uncle Joe]

45. This decision seems to have given all the power regarding

the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects protections against unreasonable searches to the state.

I agree, there is no perfect system but I believe this decision will fundamentally make our system less perfect.

Many states are already passing laws to take your DNA upon arrest, prior to the conviction of any crime.

This decision allows the state to arrest you for anything, legal or not and if a corrupted police, D.A. or state government in general bent on political prosecution plants evidence on you and uses that to press charges not even related to the original arrest, what is your recourse?

As I stated in an above post, this turns "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head.

[cstanleytech]

49. Fourth amendment only goes so far,

if the guy commited a crime then the police had probable cause to search, thats what this is really down to.
Now if the guy wants to sue the cops in civil court for the arrest as far as his being arrested for illegally driving with a suspended license then feel free and good luck but the cops still had probable cause to conduct a legal search in my opinion.

[Uncle Joe]

50. I believe this decision basically guts the Fourth Amendment..

It wasn't the crime of running on expired tags that warranted the search, it was the arrest. So if an invalid arrest doesn't count, they can arrest you for anything, speeding, running a stop sign, jaywalking, maybe the cop doesn't like you and makes something up, busts out your taillight and plants incriminating evidence. If you have a corrupted police, DA or state government, this makes it far easier for them to abuse the civil rights of the American People. I am sure there is only a snowball's chance in hell of having a corrupted police officer, DA or state government in general, but when it happens, your life will become a living nightmare.

As for recourse, the mega rich will be far less likely, although not entirely, to be abused because their assets will allow for adequate representation. For the middle class and the poor, it will be SOL.

[cstanleytech]

52. Well yeah if you break a law

they can search you, thats all the court is affirming as for the planting evidence, I really think thats reaching to try to use that as a defense against the decision.
Course I could be wrong and it could be common that there is alot of cases of planting of evidence but do you have a link handy that shows that it is a real issue that we should be worried about if anyone here is ever pulled over?

[Uncle Joe]

53. Actually , the way I read it, if you're just accused of breaking a law

gives them opportunity to arrest and in an increasing number of states take your DNA, no conviction of a crime is necessary for that to happen, just simply for being arrested.

They don't search you for speeding or running a stop sign unless they believe your DUI, in this case they found evidence after or subsequent to the arrest, apparently they never charged him for DUI, just expired tags; which was against state law, so this decision tells me they can arrest you for anything.

I don't have a link or statistics as to the planting of evidence but I can't imagine it doesn't happen anymore than I can't imagine false testimony doesn't happen. To deny that possibility is to say police corruption doesn't exist.

I believe the people being released from death row speak to the flaws in the system and I don't think it would stop there. It would be easy to frame people for political reasons as what seems to have happened with former Governor Seigleman of Alabama.

I just believe this decision is another major step down the slippery slope; (and I know some people hate that phrase) of the American People losing any right to privacy or freedom for the individual to the ever-growing power of a *Big Brother type state.

*Which by the way it doesn't surprise me that the corporate media by their television programming has subconsciously instilled the idea in the American People's Psyche that Big Brother means big bucks if your lucky. I don't even believe they teach the real meaning of Orwell's Big Brother in school anymore, that nightmare scenario idea is being co opted by the very corporations that helped enable Bush to power to begin with.

[cstanleytech]

55. *shrug* DNA is no more of an issue than fingerprints which

have been used for decades and only the truly paranoid complain about fingerprints these days let alone DNA, sure in theory either can be abused but so far just about all the conspiracies about either that varies people dream up from time to time have not happened.
No they dont search you for speeding or running.....usually however they do have the legal authority to do so and later on a judge can decide if the arrest was legal or not, thats why we have the courts.
As for privacy, kinda of moot issue in this day of the internet what with things like myspace and companies selling peoples name and addresses without their ok.

[Uncle Joe]

56. I believe if after eight years of Cheney/Bush shredding the Constitution and

you're not at least a little bit paranoid, you're not paying attention.

The point of this decision is that it makes no difference what the judge decides regarding the legality of your arrest.

The Virginia Supreme Court even upheld the fact that state law did not allow for the arrest because of expired tags and the drugs were inadmissible to be used as evidence. They didn't arrest this man for DUI or find anything until after the arrest. Those drugs were not but could just as easily have been planted by corrupt police.

If you believe this is a vague conspiracy, there were a lot of innocent people put in jail in Texas for drug charges that were thrown out years later because the corrupted justice system framed them. I don't remember whether it was the DA, the police, a false witness or a combination of them all, but I vaguely remember 60 Minutes running this story last year. It might have been another news program but I believe it was 60 Minutes.

I believe anyone that believes conspiracies don't happen, hasn't studied history. Just think about this for a minute 100% of drug users or criminals of any kind haven't been put in prison or exposed, logic should tell you the same holds true for conspiracies and there have been many exposed. If you ask me to list some I will be happy to do so, but I could be here all night.

As for privacy, just because some corporations may abuse that, I don't believe the government should join in.

[closeupready]

32. Remember, this is the same court that made that eminent domain ruling

that so angered people (who then seemed to have quickly forgotten about it). People will forget about this, too, and learn to live with a diminished range of civil rights.

[-..__...]

46. You mean Kelo v City of New London?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v_New_London

Justices in that case were...

William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer.

And it was the supposedly liberal judges (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer), joined by Kennedy, that ruled your property rights can be taken from you for someone else's personal gain.

[notesdev]

39. You have the right

to comply with the police state.

The Supreme court has now found that cops violating the law is "reasonable" enough to satisfy the demands of the Bill of Rights.

[LynnTheDem]

42. Next step; don't worry about making any arrests. Just search & seizure at will!

"and I'm proud to be American, where at least I know I'm freeee!"

Only, not so much.

[Vidar]

47. Our next revolution is way overdue. The French have had six.

[Doctor_J]

54. And there are many who ID themselves as Dems who don't think we're

living under fascism yet. As long as the tanks aren't rolling down 5th Ave I guess