• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fourth Circuit allow Virginia cops to violate their own search policies

skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Novacop & GWRedDragon -

You both seem to be conflating "search incident to arrest" with "inventory search" in your attempt to convince us that the court has correctly interpreted the Constitution, let alone the decisions from SCOTUS Bentinethat should have guided its decision.

Bentine was arrested and during booking his property was arrested. A written list of that property was created. Opperman involved a car that was towed after being illegally parked. A written list of the property was created as the inventory was conducted - in the impound lot. Belton involves 4 persons who were arrested regarding driving/riding in a stolen car. The car was searched incident to arrest at the scene of the arrest.

Amazingly, both of you seem to have overlooked, as did the court, that neither Battle nor his relative were arrested at the scene. After it was determined that Laron (sp?) had no license or registration, and that Battle had no registration - not that it would have made any difference as the vehicle was not registered - the cops impounded the vehicle and told both men they were free to leave. Free to leave suggests to me that they were not "in custody", "under custodial hold" or in any way arrested. So -- where does the cop get the authority to conduct a search incident to arrest, which is the search both of you by your citations above are claiming was performed.

Heck! I do not expect this discussion to reverse the court's decision, nor do I expect it to reverse the trend of the court to conflate one theory of law with another. All I can hope for is that when we have these discussions amonst ourselves we can agree to be more accurate and precise than the folks whose actions we are complaining about/supporting.

I'm going to clean up, get a soft drink, and get ready to head to the VCDL meeting tonight. I'll look for your response tomorrow.

stay safe.

skidmark

 
G

GWRedDragon

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

The fact that Bertine was arrested is not relevant to the Supreme Court's action in that case. It merely concerned the possible scope of an inventory search of impounded property, a search which the Court does not believe falls within the purview of the fourth amendment.

Search incident to arrest is not mentioned in Bertine. In fact, it relies explicitly on Opperman, wherein no arrest was made and the vehicle was merely impounded for unpaid parking tickets.

From Bertine:
For these reasons, the Colorado Supreme Court's reliance on Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, and United States v. Chadwick, supra, was incorrect. Both of these cases concerned searches solely for the purpose of investigating criminal conduct, with the validity of the searches therefore dependent on the application of the probable-cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
By contrast, an inventory search may be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment even though it is not conducted pursuant to a warrant based upon probable cause. In [479 U.S. 367, 372] Opperman, this Court assessed the reasonableness of an inventory search of the glove compartment in an abandoned automobile impounded by the police. We found that inventory procedures serve to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. In light of these strong governmental interests and the diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile, we upheld the search. In reaching this decision, we observed that our cases accorded deference to police caretaking procedures designed to secure and protect vehicles and their contents within police custody. See Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 61 -62 (1967); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236 (1968); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 447 -448 (1973). 4

...

In the present case, as in Opperman and Lafayette, there was no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. In addition, the governmental interests justifying the inventory searches in Opperman and Lafayette are [479 U.S. 367, 373] nearly the same as those which obtain here. In each case, the police were potentially responsible for the property taken into their custody. By securing the property, the police protected the property from unauthorized interference. Knowledge of the precise nature of the property helped guard against claims of theft, vandalism, or negligence. Such knowledge also helped to avert any danger to police or others that may have been posed by the property. 5
Click to expand...

Note: I am just discussing the state of case law, not saying I agree. Personally, I find the whole 'decreased expectation of privacy in a vehicle' thing a little upsetting.
 
N

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
imported post

Skidmark,

The Opperman case and Bertine case both directly involve inventory searches where the driver was not arrested. Heck, in Opperman, the driver wasn't even on scene and was only the owner of a vehicle that was guilty of a civil parking infraction. Yet, the court allows the inventory search. These two cases directly give the power that was used in the situation that occurred in this thread.

Arizona v Gant limits the search incident to arrest involving vehicles, and that's why I listed it. Since the limitations of Arizona v Gant recently came up (and now ask for a warrant to search the car after an arrest of the driver), most officers get to still search the vehicle as an inventory search without a warrant (if conditions allow). That's why you see the term "inventory search" being used more now since the Gant case was decided.

Of course our discussion won't change anything. It's good to talk it over though and interesting to see another person's opinion on the matter. I know my opinion will greatly differ from most individuals on this site and I understand that.
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:
The fact that Bertine was arrested is not relevant to the Supreme Court's action in that case. It merely concerned the possible scope of an inventory search of impounded property, a search which the Court does not believe falls within the purview of the fourth amendment.

Search incident to arrest is not mentioned in Bertine. In fact, it relies explicitly on Opperman, wherein no arrest was made and the vehicle was merely impounded for unpaid parking tickets.

Note: I am just discussing the state of case law, not saying I agree. Personally, I find the whole 'decreased expectation of privacy in a vehicle' thing a little upsetting.
Click to expand...
What's worse than you might think, the police can come onto your private property and tow any vehicle they believe is inoperable:

See § 15.2-904 and § 15.2-905.

Check your local ordinances and see what your locality can do to you.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:
I gave you that website because it makes it clear and summarizes the ruling. Are you knocking me because I didn't Google the case and place a link to a direct copy of New York v Belton? Well here it is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=453&invol=454

Now once again, please form an opinion on inventory searches and support it by citing your source. Oh, and please don't cite a YouTube video like you did in a previous thread.
Click to expand...
More evasion. You gave nothing for a cite, thus my request for a cite. It was Skidmark who gave a cite for you after my request.

The YouTube videos cited are published sources.Not allvideos on YouTube are worthless and put up by teenage ranters.

Once again you seem to think I am arguing withyou over what the law says.I made itclear in a previous postwhy I demand thecites, which you habitually ignore and evade.Whether I agree, disagree, or do not know enough to have an opinion, is irrelevant. The plain, simple fact is you are required to cite your source when making a statement of law.

(Typical cop.Thinks he can show up as a newmember and ignore several years of forum etiquette and one of the main forum rules.)
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
NovaCop10 wrote:
SNIP I argue that a traffic detention would apply to Terry, especially since you can use a Terry frisk for someone who stop that you even reasonably suspect has committed a crime.
Click to expand...
SNIP So, you think you can just up and frisk anybody that you reasonably suspect has committed a crime? No separate reasonable suspicion of having a weapon? [Edited to add clarification for readers:] So, for example, if you reasonably suspect someone shoplifted an expensive laptop computer, and reasonably suspect they have it stowed in their trunk, that you can do a Terry pat-down for weapons?

I would like your cite, please.
Click to expand...

Cite, please.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Cite! We're going keep this up until you learn to cite.

SuperStock_4070-6512.jpg


Sorry - I couldn't resist it. :cool:

Some are harder to train than others.

Slap, slap, self hard. :? Goin' to my room now.

Yata hey
 
N

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
NovaCop10 wrote:
SNIP I argue that a traffic detention would apply to Terry, especially since you can use a Terry frisk for someone who stop that you even reasonably suspect has committed a crime.
Click to expand...
SNIP So, you think you can just up and frisk anybody that you reasonably suspect has committed a crime? No separate reasonable suspicion of having a weapon? [Edited to add clarification for readers:] So, for example, if you reasonably suspect someone shoplifted an expensive laptop computer, and reasonably suspect they have it stowed in their trunk, that you can do a Terry pat-down for weapons?

I would like your cite, please.
Click to expand...

Cite, please.
Click to expand...
Did I ever say anything to that effect? No. Obviously you need reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred and suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Searches for evidence or fruits of a crime fall under the Carroll Doctrine.

Citizen, I cited NY v Belton which is the whole basis for inventory searches. Mr. GW, helped me out and gave me the specific case for the addition of containers in the vehicle (which I mentioned).

You have yet to cite a case or take a stance. You continue to rant about citations but you have no substantial views to offer. Your words offer nothing educational, nothing of value, and I feel somewhat afraid that someone like you carries a loaded weapon.

Once again, avoid my request that you offer a stance on the topic. Typical internet wackjob.
 
N

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
Cite! We're going keep this up until you learn to cite.

SuperStock_4070-6512.jpg


Sorry - I couldn't resist it. :cool:

Some are harder to train than others.

Slap, slap, self hard. :? Goin' to my room now.

Yata hey
Click to expand...
What are you? Citizen's little brother or sidekick?
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:
In VA, police do not request insurance information unless you have been in an accident (obviously).
Click to expand...
Odd, when I ran over an Acura that pulled out in front of me five years ago on Shore Drive, I did not need to provide insurance information.

I even rolled my Jeep down Shore Drive during that fun trip home.
 
G

GWRedDragon

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
NovaCop10 wrote:
In VA, police do not request insurance information unless you have been in an accident (obviously).
Click to expand...
Odd, when I ran over an Acura that pulled out in front of me five years ago on Shore Drive, I did not need to provide insurance information.

I even rolled my Jeep down Shore Drive during that fun trip home.
Click to expand...

The code contains a provision allowing them to require you to provide insurance information on request, in the case of an accident...

Nowhere does it say they must ask, but I do find that strange.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Cite! We're going keep this up until you learn to cite.

SuperStock_4070-6512.jpg


Sorry - I couldn't resist it. :cool:

Some are harder to train than others.

Slap, slap, self hard. :? Goin' to my room now.

Yata hey
Click to expand...
What are you? Citizen's little brother or sidekick?
Click to expand...
Why would you ask an unnecessary question so sarcastically and derisively?

My fun-jab was not directed at anyone individually, but rather exemplary of the problem of getting posters (particularly newbies) to cite to reference.

The late night attempt at humor was made all the more obvious by my comments.

Since you asked: Met Citizen once or twice, not related to him, don't bowl with him, but have a lot of respect for his postings - particularly his attention to detail. You could do worse.

Yata hey
 
wylde007

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
Odd, when I ran over an Acura that pulled out in front of me five years ago on Shore Drive, I did not need to provide insurance information.

I even rolled my Jeep down Shore Drive during that fun trip home.
Click to expand...
That was you?

Small world.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
NovaCop10 wrote:
SNIP I argue that a traffic detention would apply to Terry, especially since you can use a Terry frisk for someone who stop that you even reasonably suspect has committed a crime.
Click to expand...
SNIP So, you think you can just up and frisk anybody that you reasonably suspect has committed a crime? No separate reasonable suspicion of having a weapon? [Edited to add clarification for readers:] So, for example, if you reasonably suspect someone shoplifted an expensive laptop computer, and reasonably suspect they have it stowed in their trunk, that you can do a Terry pat-down for weapons?

I would like your cite, please.
Click to expand...
Cite, please.
Click to expand...
SNIP Did I ever say anything to that effect? No.
Click to expand...
Uh, yes you did. That is why I quoted it and called it mind-numbingly dumb.

There is nothing obvious to new readers, whether they are participating in the discussion or not,abouta requirement fora separate suspicion of being armed.

This sort of thing is another reason to quote the text of the source. Basically any reader who doesn't know any better can come away from thatpost of yours with an incorrect idea on the law and his rights.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:
SNIP You have yet to cite a case or take a stance. You continue to rant about citations but you have no substantial views to offer.
Click to expand...
Oh, you're a brilliant one.

Let me put it in your own terms:

My stance on what the law says is what the law says. Not what NovaCop10 says it is. This is why I demandcites.

My non-participation in the thread discussion is irrelevant.Attacking me for it is merely self-discrediting, attempted misdirection on your part. I am not required to participate in a thread just because I read the thread and look up the cites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top