Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: VA Supreme Court limits searches of car passengers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    http://thenewspaper.com/news/29/2909.asp

    (Ruling in PDF is available at the link above.)


    The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday ruled that police may not search vehicle passengers without a specific reason to believe that they may have committed a crime. The case began on April 19, 2006 when Suffolk police officers pulled over a car with four people on board at around 3pm.

    Once stopped on the side of the road, Officer J.B. Carr used his drug-sniffing dog, Xanto, to check the vehicle in question. Xanto "alerted by sitting and waiting for his reward" on the rear passenger's side. Officer Jay Quigley ordered the vehicle's occupants out so that the car could be thoroughly searched. Nothing was found.

    The police officers then proceeded to search the driver and two of the passengers. Nothing was found. Finally, passenger Travis Stacey Whitehead was searched and officers discovered two syringes and a bottle cap later identified as containing heroin residue. Whitehead was convicted of drug possession and sentenced to serve twenty-two months in jail.

    Whitehead appealed, insisting that police cannot simply search every passenger of a vehicle without individualized probable cause for each person examined. He added that police had no reason to suspect him of criminal activity. The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, stating that the process of elimination pointed to Whitehead's guilt. The high court disagreed.

    "After the positive alert by the trained narcotics detection dog, Officer Quigley unquestionably had probable cause to search the vehicle," Justice Cynthia D. Kinser wrote. "However, without something more, the positive alert did not provide probable cause sufficiently particularized as to Whitehead to allow the search of his person."

    The high court examined US Supreme Court precedent on the matter which established the principle that mere proximity to criminal activity does not constitute probable cause justifying a warrantless search. The case law suggested that establishing a common criminal enterprise between the passengers would have been one way to meet the constitutional standard for a proper search.

    "The Commonwealth presented no evidence, other than Whitehead's status as a passenger in the vehicle, indicating that Whitehead and the other passengers were involved in any common enterprise involving criminal activity," Kinser wrote. "There also was no evidence indicating Whitehead individually was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a criminal offense."

    The court found that the police had a strong suspicion after the drug dog alerted, but that it was just as likely that the dog had responded to an "old odor," as his handler admitted in court testimony. Performing a search on this weak basis violated the Fourth Amendment, the court found. Courts in Idaho, Illinois and Maryland have also ruled that a drug dog alert is not sufficient to justify the arrest and search of passengers.


  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Interesting... the "reasoning" that "the first three didn't have any drugs, so therefore the forth must" is almost as comic as the recent case where the guy was "about to commit a crime" because "if we had asked him to leave and he didn't, then that would be trespassing".

    Convenient that the lower courts found he didn't have standing to challenge the first three searches, since obviously the process of elimination hadn't kicked in yet, so the "justification" for those searches didn't exist.

    It's circular reasoning, how can you find that a fourth search is legal, when it is identical to three other searches, which had to have already taken place in order to make that fourth search legal. That is just bad thinking all the way around, and it's an embarrassment to sound thinkers everywhere. The court even admitted there was some luck involved that the guy with the drugs was searched last, and it seems fairly clear that if he had not been searched last, all the justification for the search would have disappeared. Maybe I'm picky, but for some reason, I don't think one's fourth amendment protection should rest on the random order in which one gets searched!

    One thing I don't understand though, why didn't they just line up the 4 occupants and let the dog sniff each one individually? Is that not allowed?

    TFred


  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    SNIP One thing I don't understand though, why didn't they just line up the 4 occupants and let the dog sniff each one individually? Is that not allowed?
    Don't give them any ideas.

    Is it perhaps already illegal? Its a search of a person, as opposed to a search of a car?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the info, KBCraig.

    First time I was named in the descriptive line of a thread title (chuckle).
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •