quatrotritikali

Court: Cop Search OK Even If Arrest Isn't
High Court Affirms Search And Seizure In Va. Case Even Though Arrest Turned Out To Be Invalid

WASHINGTON, April 23, 2008


AP) 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.

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.

"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.

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.

Court: Cop Search OK Even If Arrest Isn't, High Court Affirms Search And Seizure In Va. Case Even Though Arrest Turned Out To Be Invalid - CBS News
================================================== ====

Okay. Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision? I think this is wrong, wrong, wrong. The police officers violated state law in arresting Mr. Moore in the first place. What evidence did officers have to suspect that the man was breaking the law in some fashion (other than a traffic violation)?

The Supremes just tore another chunk out of the Fourth Amendment. The police are now free to search anyone's vehicle...basically for no reason, other than a suspicion. WTF?

Yet another situation where states laws have been usurped by an invasive, meddlesome government.

__________________

Doc Howl

This is what America has been begging for since October of 2001.

Caine

Personally I find it odd that Driving on a Revoked Driver's License isn't an arrestable offense.

I mean sure, citations can be issued, but I don't understand how an arrest isn't also allowed, sounds kinda stupid to me to revoke someone's driver's license but yet not give law enforcement the proper authority to enforce the law. Apparently a driver's license doesn't really mean anything in Virginia.

__________________
This same attitude is going to be the excuse used when Obama loses. Mark my words.

quatrotritikali

Actually, I believe the article stated that the man was arrested for driving with a suspended license, not a revoked one. There is a difference between the two words...

Why is it hard to believe that this sort of traffic violation is (or should be) a manditory arrestable offense? The police here in Arkansas don't automatically arrest people for this sort of offense. It is usually at the cop's discretion, unless there are other problems like outstanding warrants, etc. on the driver. The fact that it is Virginia state law police not to arrest people for driving on a suspended license...should have been all that was needed to stop the police from doing anything else. I don't understand how mere "suspicion" of a crime in progress gives police the right to trump state laws.

Unscrupulous police officers can take advantage of people they pull over for traffice violations. Racial or social profiling can come into play as well...it would be easy to do.

Caine

In the state of North Carolina there is no difference between the two. So please tell me the difference between the two.


I didn't state mandatory. I said they COULD be arrested. Fact is if someone COULD BE arrested, and they DO GET arrested, there is no problem there in the slightest.
My Problem is looking at Virginia's little "state law" on suspended driver's licenses from a law enforcement standpoint, they really don't value the driver's license system it would seem. If someone is driving after they lost that privilege due to their own actions, apparently its okay for them to continue doing so in the state of Virginia. So suspending someone's driver license after a DWI for example is no big deal because its not like they are going to be arrested. Then if they do get caught, all they have to do is not show up for their "criminal summons" and keep on keepin' on. They can be stopped and written a ticket 40 times and it apparently wouldn't matter. When you completely leave out the option to allow an officer to arrest for the charge, this is the type of situation you create.

John1234

Suspended is more common and can be from 30 days to 5 years.
A person with a suspended license can apply for a hardship license to drive to and from work or the doctor.

Revoked is a lifetime status and only applies to habitual DUI or vehicular manslaughter type situations.

In Florida, Driving on a suspended License is punishable for up to 1 year in prison and is most definitely an offense you can be arrested for.

In Alabama, you can not be arrested for driving on a suspended license, you get a ticket. Sort of like Marijuana in NC

There is no difference between driving on a Revoked or a Suspended license in regard to penalties.
But I would imagine that multiple cases of driving on a suspended license could lead to a Revocation.

Ethereal

I just read the majority of both the petitioner's and respondent's oral arguments and I have to say the Supreme Court got it right (that's usually the case with unanimous decisions).

You can read it hear if you like (it's very, very long)...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/06-1082.pdf

Virginia state law holds that there exists certain circumstances under which the officers may arrest a motorist for driving with a suspended liscence. One such circumstance is when the officer(s) has a reasonable belief that after leaving the scene the motorist will continue to drive. In this case the man was driving by himself, so the officers felt it was reasonable to assume he would continue to do so if they had left.

Furthermore, Virginia state law also stipulates that a violation of the "arrestable offense rule" does not evoke the "exclusionary rule" in regards to evidence found during a search incident to arrest.

The Supreme Court also held that arrests which breach state law are not inherent violations of the Fourth Amendment expectation of probable cause. Probable cause holds that there must only be probable cause to believe a crime has been committed in order to make an arrest, and does not take into account whether or not there exists probable cause to arrest.

Moreover, a search's validity incident to arrest does not concern itself with the nature of the crime for which the arrest has occured, only that it has met the standards set forth by probable cause.

The fourth amendment is still in tact. This ruling does not grant police the power to arrest or search individuals or their property without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

I can empathize with your anger, I felt the same way when I first read the article but after reading the oral arguments I've concluded their ruling to be Constitutional.

It is arrestable under certain circumstances set forth by Virginia law. It also allows for people to call friends or relatives to pick them up or to let a passenger drive for the violator. There is a good deal of discretion available to officers in this case.