New Supreme Court Ruling

imported post

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Car Searches
http://www.newsmax.com/us/supreme_court_car_search/2009/04/22/205976.html

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the
vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a
patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.The court's 5-4
decision in a case from Arizona puts new limits on the ability of police
to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect,
particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a
traffic violation.

Yata hey

imported post

Already been posted... but recently it's like the Supreme Court found what it had been looking for. Don't you guys think??

Here is our scenario:

Supreme Court: "Where is it? I know I put it here somewhere..."

Keeps searching....

Supreme Court: "Come on! I know I left it around here!"

No luck yet...

Supreme Court: "It's here! It has to be here! I know that....."

Finds it...

Supreme Court: "There's the Constitution! I knew I'd find it if I looked hard enough! Maybe I should start reading from it again!"

imported post

Hooray!! A SCOTUS decision that actually supports 4th Amendment rights. Thomas and Scalia on the side of liberty again.

Make sure your vehicle is locked if an officer asks you to step out of your vehicle.

imported post

Ooooops!

Yata hey

imported post

Here is the part of the ruling that I like:



Notably, none of the dissenters in Chimel or the cases that preceded it argued that law enforcement reliance interests outweighed the interest in protecting individual constitutional rights so as to warrant fidelity to an unjustifiable rule.

The experience of the 28 years since we decided Belton has shown that the generalization underpinning the broad reading of that decision is unfounded. We now know that articles inside the passenger compartment are rarely “within the area, into which an arrestee might reach,’”



[align=center]VI[/align]
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Car Searches
http://www.newsmax.com/us/supreme_court_car_search/2009/04/22/205976.html

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the
vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a
patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.The court's 5-4
decision in a case from Arizona puts new limits on the ability of police
to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect,
particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a
traffic violation.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Of course you still have those people who don't properly understand you have every right to say "No thank you" with no repercussions when Officer Snoopy McSnooperson asks your permission to rifle through your trunk.

Yes the po-po may still require a warrant; but owner/operator's permission to search absent a warrant is still able to occur.