Supreme Court says police may search even if arrest invalid »
Posted By MyWayOnNow 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsThe 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.
Read Full Story at apnews.myway.com »
254 Views Share Story 33 Comments Report
Submitted By:
MyWayOnNow
I am Editor In Chief of MyWayOnNow Social News connecting you with friends and the news.
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 175 (view all)
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So it seems that the case involved was one where police arrested a man for driving with a suspended license. They article said that the law requires that the police just give him a citation and let him go. I have a problem with that. I have never heard of police allowing someone without a license to drive away. If that is the case then the bigger problem here is that law and the fact that it needs to be changed immediatly.
Reply-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user35 Replies
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't like it. The police broke the law when they effected an illegal arrest. The Virginia Supreme Court agreed that the officers were law breakers when they illegally seized, handcuffed and basically kidnapped Mr. Moore.
This allows the police to pull anyone over on any pretext whatsoever, illegally seize you, prevent you from going about your business and search you. If they find something all the better because it can be used against you.
So much for listening to the state.
This Supreme Court has never missed the opportunity to sanctify a trampling of our rights or to enable of big business.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user44 Replies
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looks like the right & left on the court agreed on this one
"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."
"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."
Those 2 justices are usually polar opposites.
In fact according to another report:
"The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday broadly and unanimously reinforced police search power, brushing aside a state court and a state law."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/2...
How often do we see unanimous decisions from the court?
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are correct Walden: The prison stocks just shot back up. This is a very serious error in judgment by the courts. We are now all at their mercy of law enforcement, talk about a police state. It also makes it easier to plant evidence because there is no recourse to protect you from the officers entering your car by force. As an African American I have just become a lot more scared of the cops, I am selling my BMW. I don't know if I should even drive anymore. For me this is scary, I have been pulled over soo many times and refused entrance into my vehicle now I cannot because that officer has the right to search it with or without my permission! If he/she finds anything while doing so it's now the law. Not that there is anything to find but if a guy is having a bad day your life as you know it is over!
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
Neutral
BravoSierra1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are enough little things that people can do wrong that a total search can be done over the smallest of things. Have grass in your yard higher than the city ordnance allows? then, by this decision they can search your house and ransack it looking for drugs or evidence of anything else...maybe banned books, maybe reading material a la Farenheit 451...get it...see the direction things are heading?
Reply-
Neutral
BravoSierra1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once upon a time I made a drug bust...on the pretext of doing a health and welfare inspection of a trooper's wall locker. We found a bag of pot...we knew we would, he was a $h!tbird. But, to get to the bag of pot, I had to move some things...on top of everything was a medal...a military medal his grandfather had earned in WWI.
My heart sank. Because I realized we had lost this young trooper through a failure of leadership not because he was a criminal. He came to the military with the heart of a hero and his grandfather's legacy to live up to. He came with the the right attitude. We failed him as leaders. Violating the law to bust him was the wrong thing to do.
We are creating a punitive society that forces behavior by fear, coercion and force. We are losing the higher qualities of moral leadership of a people. We are failing to guide, inspire and cherish our people.
This was a step in the wrong direction.
Reply -
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned9 Replies
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From the Virginia Supreme Court findings, "...in pertinent part, this Code section provides that when a police officer detains a person for a Class 1 misdemeanor, the officer "shall . . . issue a summons . . . to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons," and "[u]pon the giving by such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody."
"The officers were authorized to issue only a summons to Moore for the offense of operating [***16] a vehicle on a suspended license since none of the exceptions in Code § 19.2-74 were present. Thus, under the holding in Knowles, the officers could not lawfully conduct a full field-type search. We find Knowles and Lovelace controlling and hold that the search of Moore was not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the indictment against Moore."
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The supreme court has it SORT OF right, I think. On the one hand, there was (apparently) no violation of any federal crime suspected during the original stop. State law should govern. We all know that state laws DO vary to some degree and what is unlawful in one state may NOT be in another. On the other hand, during a lawful search of the suspect (there apparently WAS cause to stop him) , evidence of ADDITIONAL crimes was found. This is a fairly innocuous case with which to judge the principal, but.... What if, instead of a little dope, the original arresting officers had discovered a body in the trunk? The same basic CONCEPTS would apply. Should they simply let him go on the traffic violation when they had discovered evidence of a murder? I don't think so. Of course, my opinion is that having a little dope shouldn't be illegal anyway, but that's a different topic.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The question is whether the search was lawful. There's no doubt that once the police have made a lawful arrest that they can search the suspect.
In this case though the arrest wasn't lawful, so IMHO, anything that follows is also unlawful.
Now what is to keep the police from knowingly making unlawful arrests in the hope that they may find evidence of wrong doing that they now can use against the people unlawfully seized? Nothing.
Reply
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
Neutral
shawni0221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe that so many people on aol agreed that it was a good ruling!!! REGAURDLESS of if they are a crackhead or a pastor, we all have the same civil liberties in this country and this is a violation of them. Slowly but surely the government has taken away most of our rights and people dont even realize it! By the time these people do, it is going to be beyond too late to get them back. I'm sure that these people who agree don't even know what the 'patriot' act 1&2 is. Well EVERYONE needs to read them. Congress only had 18 minutes to decide to pass or fail a document that would take days to really understand. It takes away all of our liberties. And it is so sad. God, please bless America!!!!
Reply -
-
Neutral
PainGoddess1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He had an illegal drug in his possession and was caught doing an illegal act. So what is the problem. He knew he was doing something illegal and the secondary part was bonus to the arresting officer. Why was he driving if he knew his license was suspended? Problem 1. Problem 2> Drug possession of illegal drugs is a known offense. He KNEW he had it> People do not suddenly get memory loss in these cases. If you break the law or laws you pay the price. It would be the same if a person was caught with a dead body in the trunk and was pulled over speeding. He is innocent of the dead body? Or Speeding? Maybe the body died on the way. Was it kidnapping? Many worms in the can.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oops Dionys:
I generally agree with what you write here.
For personal reasons about the way I play the game here I have to retract my positive vote.
Sorry: I just think it is too easy to blame Bush, and I think doing so is unproductive.
Please forgive me. I broke my silly little code.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Street justice:
Maybe not fair: but it seems they had a bone to pick with this chubby dude.
Why not just dump the Crack on the street and tell the guy to find a ride home?
Why get all the courts (and costs) involved?
My guess is that chubby would have felt pain, but not been able to find a shoulder to cry on.
The policemen may have acted unethically by serving justice without due process.
But WTF there job is not easy, and I think only Chubby would have cried about some lost Crack.
There may be something wrong with what I am thinking, but my take is that they got him clean for driving with a suspended license and losing his crack would have been a penalty he would have been able to argue.
Reply -
Neutral
crghss1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hate to in form you guys but the myway.com article doesn't give the full facts of the case. It's a lot more complicated then the story lets on. Still not sure that the Crack should be admissible, but the defend gave the police permission to search his person.
Funny how people who hate Fox News and complain about biased coverage love biased sites like myway.com or moveon.org and the such.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well actually no he didn't he gave them permission to search his hotel room..
After reading Moore his Miranda rights, they asked for and received consent to search his hotel room. Once they arrived at the room, they decided to search his person and discovered sixteen grams of crack cocaine. Moore was then charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
---- big difference..
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06...
the actual opinion from the Supremes....
Reply -
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
as opposed as I am to increasing govt power and the drug war...
it seems pretty obvious to me that if a police officer has reason to believe a citizen in front of him is committing a crime he should be able to detain that citizen and search for evidence. (such as a driver appearing intoxicated)
Reply -
-
HanymanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
search_and_destroyed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ok...so i cot pulled over for speeding..(72-60).. I previously got in a car wreck 2 years prior to this... They told me that I had a suspended license in Washington State because of an unpaid ticket.......I had never seen a ticket for this crash...not in the mail...not handed to me at the scene.... nothing. The pigs arrested me and searched my vehicle... they found a small glass marijuana pipe in my backpack from camping... They booked me on a suspended license and 2 marijuana charges for 1 pipe...(I had no sweet herb). DID THESE PIGGY'S HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH MY LANDROVER?????
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.