imported post
This story is a bit vague, and I admit that, in practice anyway,it concerns "pretext" searches for drugs more than guns, but I still though it at least obliquely relevant to the forum - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-search22-2009apr22,0,831398.story. Can probably find better details by Googling the Gant case.
The ruling tightens the standards for vehicle searches. There is still a potential "loophole" to conduct searches of vehicles for officer's safety if they have reason to suspect that someone stopped might yet have access to a weapon during a stop, but that's hard to argue if they already have someone removed from a vehicle.
Also, in Ohio, a court ruled that game wardens had broader latitude to conduct warrantless intrusions onto private property - http://www.thenews-messenger.com/article/20090417/OPINION02/904170309. Again, you can probably find better copy for the story, but it was the first article I came across.
-ljp
This story is a bit vague, and I admit that, in practice anyway,it concerns "pretext" searches for drugs more than guns, but I still though it at least obliquely relevant to the forum - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-search22-2009apr22,0,831398.story. Can probably find better details by Googling the Gant case.
The ruling tightens the standards for vehicle searches. There is still a potential "loophole" to conduct searches of vehicles for officer's safety if they have reason to suspect that someone stopped might yet have access to a weapon during a stop, but that's hard to argue if they already have someone removed from a vehicle.
Also, in Ohio, a court ruled that game wardens had broader latitude to conduct warrantless intrusions onto private property - http://www.thenews-messenger.com/article/20090417/OPINION02/904170309. Again, you can probably find better copy for the story, but it was the first article I came across.
-ljp