Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches

[danarhea]

A couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court ruled that vehicle searches after an arrest are no longer allowed without a warrant. I have mixed feelings about this, but believe that, since the suspect is already under arrest, getting the warrant should be easy, and evidence related to that arrest, or evidence leading to other charges, should make the case stronger because of the warrant process. Therefore, I am voting that the SCOTUS decision is a correct one.

What do YOU think?

Article is here.

 

[winston53660]

A couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court ruled that vehicle searches after an arrest are no longer allowed without a warrant. I have mixed feelings about this, but believe that, since the suspect is already under arrest, getting the warrant should be easy, and evidence related to that arrest, or evidence leading to other charges, should make the case stronger because of the warrant process. Therefore, I am voting that the SCOTUS decision is a correct one.

What do YOU think?

Article is here.

I agree with your position.

 

[Harshaw]

Not nearly enough detail in that little blurb to form an opinion on the specific ruling.

In principle, I'm with it, but it's also nothing new -- so the set of circumstances specific to this case are important to distinguish it from earlier, similar rulings, and there's nothing in the blurb to indicate what's different here.

 

[danarhea]

Not nearly enough detail in that little blurb to form an opinion on the specific ruling.

In principle, I'm with it, but it's also nothing new -- so the set of circumstances specific to this case are important to distinguish it from earlier, similar rulings, and there's nothing in the blurb to indicate what's different here.

I thought that this part in the article was pretty specific:

The court's 5-4 decision Tuesday effectively limits the authority of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.


Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that if a car's passenger compartment is not within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle, then police have little reason to rush to a warrantless search.

 

[Harshaw]

I thought that this part in the article was pretty specific:

It's not, because there are earlier cases which say more or less the same thing. Thus, there must be something different here.

 

[danarhea]

It's not, because there are earlier cases which say more or less the same thing. Thus, there must be something different here.

SCOTUS cases? Care to post a link to one?

 

[Harshaw]

Chimel v. California. New York v. Belton (which, while ostensibly affirming some searches incident to arrest, also gives bright-line limitations).

The point is, this blurb gives no detail; I reserve whether or not I agree with this specific case until I have that detail.

Reasonable, no?

 

[Alex]

I agree that a warrant should be required if the search is unrelated to the reason for the stop. Searching a vehicle for a stop involving a burned out tail light is not necessary. Searching it for an alcohol related incident would be.

What is interesting to me in this ruling is the way the votes came down.

"The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito."

Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches