Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
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. ADVERTISEMENT
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.
"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.
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.
Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.
State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.
Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.
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.
The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.
The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.
Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.
So I'm pretty sure that this means cops can pull you over on whatever b.s. reason they want, arrest you for whatever reason they want, and then whatever they find can be used against you in court. Outrageous. This is pretty much a free pass for cops to profile.
Oyez isn't a huge help on this for me in answering that question, but it's giving me a better understanding of the circumstances - and heightened realization that this is total bullshit: www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1082/
Oyez isn't a huge help on this for me in answering that question, but it's giving me a better understanding of the circumstances - and heightened realization that this is total bullshit: www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1082/
I can't find anything about what happened during the traffic stop that prompted the arrest, as opposed to just a citation. If they had a valid reason (contraband in plain sight, threat to officer safety) for arresting him during the traffic stop, I could feel comfortable with this decision. But I'm not seeing it.
I don't think the state law gets overturned like I posited before. The state law is okay as far as I can tell. It just has a higher standard than what's protected federally. That the Bill of Rights consists of individual protection against encroachments by the federal government is what this case turns on. It's what the 4th applies to, so it's the basis they decided on. While the Virginia law had protections beyond those provided by the 4th amendment, they aren't covered under the 4th amendment.
I could be wrong. I wasn't exactly an honors student when I took Constitutional Law...
No knock searches allow police to break down your door without notice, without announcing who they are and without being in uniform. Many innocent people are killed each year thinking it is a home invasion when it is police.
Druq paraphenalia is seizable and punishanle by law even if there is no proof it is used or has been used for illegal purposes.
Police are allowed to search your house through your walls with sound and infrared devices without warrants.
Police are allowed to search cars for any probable cause which in practice allows them to search for any or no reason just by saying you acted "strange."
The Patriot Act and similar "security" laws allows searches of mail, email, medical records, library records, credit records, listen to phone calls, etc without cause or warrants.
Police are allowed in practice to stop you on the street, require ID and search you for any or no reason.
Police are now allowed to search home without ever informing residents.
Forfeiture laws, passed in the 1980's allow police to confiscate property under suspicion of wrongdoing and they are under no obligation to return it when found not guilty.
If you are carrying more than $10,000 in cash, that money can be confiscated for no reason.
And those are just what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure I could think of more but I think you get the point.
Justices Scalia and Thomas have said that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. This means that any rights you have to be left alone are granted solely by the government and can be taken away at will.
But what scares me most is the willingness of people to give up their right to be left alone. How many times have you heard the argument "I'm not doing anything wrong. They can search anything you want. Why should I care?"
Scary!
Last Edit: Apr 29, 2008 7:18:11 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
They've been fuckin us for years, this is just a formality. Did you really think a cop couldn't do whatever they wanted regarding searches and seizures? Probable cause is "I smelled marijuana." And it's your word against his.
I can't find anything about what happened during the traffic stop that prompted the arrest, as opposed to just a citation. If they had a valid reason (contraband in plain sight, threat to officer safety) for arresting him during the traffic stop, I could feel comfortable with this decision. But I'm not seeing it.
I don't think the state law gets overturned like I posited before. The state law is okay as far as I can tell. It just has a higher standard than what's protected federally. That the Bill of Rights consists of individual protection against encroachments by the federal government is what this case turns on. It's what the 4th applies to, so it's the basis they decided on. While the Virginia law had protections beyond those provided by the 4th amendment, they aren't covered under the 4th amendment.
I could be wrong. I wasn't exactly an honors student when I took Constitutional Law...
This is pretty much it. The guy was driving on a suspended license, which is a misdeamenor under Virginia law. The key thing here is that, under the same Virginia law, unless there are special circumstances (which were not present here), the police cannot arrest you for the offense. They can only give you a citation and tell you to show up in court. So, the arrest violated Virginia law. (It sounds like the officers knew who the guy was and had a pretty good idea that he had something on him. But that isn't a basis for searching someone under the 4th Amendment.) The case essentially said, if you are breaking the law, the Constitution permits arrest for it even when state law doesn't. And you can always be searched when you are arrested.
Post by Jello Biafra on Apr 29, 2008 8:26:57 GMT -5
Cops can pull you over for whatever reason they want. They just have to make up a good excuse when they do. I thought everybody knew that. It just depends on what you LET them do after that. Let things in locked compartments of your car and tell them they have to have a search warrant to get in there.
They can search locked areas of your car with "probable cause" (read this as "whenever they wish.") In reality, since most courts will take their words as to probable cause, you have to prove they had no cause. Good luck with that.
In reality, since most courts will take their words as to probable cause, you have to prove they had no cause.
That's a pretty bold generalization. I don't deny that there are those in the court system who will always take the word of a police officer, but I believe that there are many judges out there who do their best to be impartial and make good decisions.
That said, it often is easier for an officer to articulate some (at least seemingly) valid reason for doing a search ("I smelled pot.") than it is for a defendant to show that he didn't ("No, he didn't.")
Edit: I suppose I should come clean and admit that I work for the court.
^^ I do not disagree about judges doing their best but how many judges will throw out a posession case or even a more serious crime if a policeman says "I smelled pot" or "He was acting strangely" or "He was driving erratically" and you say you were not. Very few from my experience (at leats in TN.)
My point is that the burden of proof, as far as probable cause goes, has been shifted, for all intents and purposes, to you to prove lack of probable cause. It's a hard thing to do. The courts will almost always side with the policeman given a draw.
Last Edit: Apr 29, 2008 9:38:33 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by NothingButFlowers on Apr 29, 2008 9:42:54 GMT -5
^^^ I can't say many (if any), but if they are presented with that, unless the officer is not credible for some reason, then there isn't much else the court can do, but allow the evidence in.
I guess my feeling is that the fault lies more with the officer who is willing to lie and say "I smelled smoke" when he didn't, rather than the judge, who has to deal with the evidence in front of him. (And there are plenty of officers out there who would lie like that, and plenty who would not.)
^^ True but I remember a day not so long ago that most police respected "probable cause" and things like paraphenalia were legal unless proven to be illegal. Since the 80's it seems, in more and more instances, guilt is assumed first and we must prove our innocence.
Check the list above for examples (no knock searches, property seizures, warrantless searches, etc.) This is IMHO the core of the 4th Amendment.
I see it as a societal shift away from erring on the side of freedom and settling for safety. It comes from living in a culture of fear.
Karma for a good discussion, NBF.
Last Edit: Apr 29, 2008 9:51:52 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Police are allowed to search your house through your walls with sound and infrared devices without warrants.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think you are right about that. There is a 2001 Supreme Court case (Kyllo v. United States) that says that thermal imaging searches are searches and cannot be conducted without a warrant. So far as I can tell, that hasn't been overruled by anything.
If you are carrying more than $10,000 in cash, that money can be confiscated for no reason.
This one, I'm just extra curious about. Can you point me to something specific on that? I know that if you carry more than $10,000 across the border and don't declare it, they can confiscate it, but I've never heard that if I was just walking down the street with that much money that they could take it from me.
And karma back at ya'! I love a good discussion, too!
Police are allowed to search your house through your walls with sound and infrared devices without warrants.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think you are right about that. There is a 2001 Supreme Court case (Kyllo v. United States) that says that thermal imaging searches are searches and cannot be conducted without a warrant. So far as I can tell, that hasn't been overruled by anything.
I may be wrong about that but I knew their was a case that said it was legal a few years ago.
If you are carrying more than $10,000 in cash, that money can be confiscated for no reason.
This one, I'm just extra curious about. Can you point me to something specific on that? I know that if you carry more than $10,000 across the border and don't declare it, they can confiscate it, but I've never heard that if I was just walking down the street with that much money that they could take it from me.
And karma back at ya'! I love a good discussion, too!
There was a man here in Nashville that was flying to Louisiana to buy property and was going to use cash. He had proof of the transaction to be conducted and such and the police never disputed that this could have been the reason. The courts upheld the right to seize the cash anyway.
There was also a case , if I remember correctly, where a florist was going to buy a large amount of rare flowers and the same thing happened.
Now maybe it is possible, or even likely, that these were cover stories and the men were going to conduct druq activities. But the police were under no obligation to prove, or even suggest, such. The law said it is illegal to carry that much money so the money was forfeit.
Last Edit: Apr 29, 2008 10:26:54 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by Jello Biafra on Apr 29, 2008 10:32:11 GMT -5
But by keeping those places locked you force them to choose whether or not to cross that line. I've stopped doing/carrying the things that are illegal. And because of that it frees me up to be more confident when they stop me. Even though I don't have anything that would get me in trouble I still won't let them search. I tell them that the trunk and glove compartment are locked. And they are pretty unwilling to cross that line without some concrete 'probable cause'.
^^ I agree. I never let police search, even if it's hassle and can cost me lots of time. I never let them in my house either. Most police are respectful and understanding. Some get annoyed and want to force the issue. So be it. I'm not cedeing my rights.
My point was just to be prepared if you say no to a search. Sometimes you can be let go if you cooperate. If you say no and they find something eventually, they will likely make things as hard as possible on you.
I personally say no and face the consequences. My rights are worth it. I am very respectful but non-cooperation can be annoying to them and one should remember that annoying police may have consequences.
Police are allowed to search your house through your walls with sound and infrared devices without warrants.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think you are right about that. There is a 2001 Supreme Court case (Kyllo v. United States) that says that thermal imaging searches are searches and cannot be conducted without a warrant. So far as I can tell, that hasn't been overruled by anything.
I may be wrong about that but I knew their was a case that said it was legal a few years ago.
This one, I'm just extra curious about. Can you point me to something specific on that? I know that if you carry more than $10,000 across the border and don't declare it, they can confiscate it, but I've never heard that if I was just walking down the street with that much money that they could take it from me.
And karma back at ya'! I love a good discussion, too!
There was a man here in Nashville that was flying to Louisiana to buy property and was going to use cash. He had proof of the transaction to be conducted and such and the police never disputed that this could have been the reason. The courts upheld the right to seize the cash anyway.
There was also a case , if I remember correctly, where a florist was going to buy a large amount of rare flowers and the same thing happened.
Now maybe it is possible, or even likely, that these were cover stories and the men were going to conduct druq activities. But the police were under no obligation to prove, or even suggest, such. The law said it is illegal to carry that much money so the money was forfeit.
Before the thermal imaging case went to the Supreme Court, the appellate court had held that it wasn't a search. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
I hadn't heard about the money cases. I'll have to look into that. I'm guessing the laws prohibit carrying that amount over state lines without declaring it. I know there is a federal law that says you can't carry that much out of the country without declaring it. I read a Supreme Court case where a guy was caught trying to leave the country with $357,000+. The government tried to get forfeiture of the entire amount, and the Supreme Court said that would be grossly disproportional to the offense.
I agree with most of the comments above. I also work for the court system. Let's not forget the death of Habeus Corpus as well. Anyone...I'll capitalize for emphasis...ANYONE can be detained without ever knowing their charge, indefinately, without access to council.
I agree with most of the comments above. I also work for the court system. Let's not forget the death of Habeus Corpus as well. Anyone...I'll capitalize for emphasis...ANYONE can be detained without ever knowing their charge, indefinately, without access to council.
Very scary too - but more of a 6th Amendment issue (which btw is dead too)
Why is it that Republicans only care about the 2nd Amendment? If we doubly enforce the 2nd, it's not the same as enforcing the 4th.
Post by bamadancer on Apr 29, 2008 14:01:43 GMT -5
I find it odd that the police can seize over $10,000 without reason. I used to work at the main branch of a major bank (the main vault was downstairs from us) and people came in to cash large checks all the time. People would leave with $10k, $20k, even as much as $64k in one sitting. If the police could seize that, wouldn't we be required to report it to them or something? I mean, we do fill out the required info to the feds, but other than that? I've never heard anything about someone having money seized.
On another note, I know this comes up a lot, but everyone should watch this video:
It's the "Busted" video put out by the ACLU, and it's a pretty good overview of your rights. It's just something we all need to know.
I find it odd that the police can seize over $10,000 without reason. I used to work at the main branch of a major bank (the main vault was downstairs from us) and people came in to cash large checks all the time. People would leave with $10k, $20k, even as much as $64k in one sitting. If the police could seize that, wouldn't we be required to report it to them or something? I mean, we do fill out the required info to the feds, but other than that? I've never heard anything about someone having money seized.
On another note, I know this comes up a lot, but everyone should watch this video:
It's the "Busted" video put out by the ACLU, and it's a pretty good overview of your rights. It's just something we all need to know.
My guess is that they can only seize it if you are trying to cross state lines with it without somehow declaring it. That's the deal with trying to take it out of the country anyway.
^^^ We were considering Scotland. I heard on the travel channel that their population had slid by almost 50% and they were looking/begging for people to move there. Of course, it would cost a hell of a lot more to go to Roo.
