Supreme Court Rules To Support Drug Evidence Gathered During Improper Arrests - America Talks Back, News

Supreme Court Rules To Support Drug Evidence Gathered During Improper Arrests

OK. Now I am confused by this one. Could someone explain to me what this really means? Does it mean that state search and siezure laws are superseded by federal law, denying the appeals process? So if one appeals the conviction on the grounds of illegal search and siezure, the feds uphold an illegal arrest by city, county, or state law enforcement?

speechlesstx

I disagree, the police do not necessarily have "safe harbor," they can be suspended or otherwise disciplined for not following state law. Ginsburg noted this:


The circumstances are narrow, the officer can be disciplined and there are remedies however limited they may be, but your best bet is to know your rights and know how to assert them.

tomder55

The real question I guess is should this case have had any standing in the Federal Courts at all ? I think I agree with magprob that it should not have reached Federal Court at all .The Va. Court had already decided in favor of the defendant . But based on strictly 4th Amendment reasons Scalia is right. “When officers have probable cause to believe that 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.”

tomder55

and yes that was the States choice to not have an exclusionary rule.

George_1950

It appears that the US Supreme Court is saying in a common sense approach that it makes no sense to stop a driver with a suspended license (who is breaking the law), write a citation/summons to appear in court, and let him continue driving down the road, breaking the law. Perhaps there was not another driver available, so he was arrested; the case says: "(c) The Court adheres to this approach because an arrest based on probable cause serves interests that justify seizure. Arrest ensures that a suspect appears to answer charges and does not continue a crime, and it safeguards evidence and enables officers to conduct an
in-custody investigation. A State’s choice of a more restrictive search-and-seizure policy does not render less restrictive ones unreasonable,
and hence unconstitutional. While States are free to require their officers to engage in nuanced determinations of the need for arrest
as a matter of their own law, the Fourth Amendment should reflect administrable bright-line rules. Incorporating state arrest rules
into the Constitution would make Fourth Amendment protections as complex as the underlying state law, and variable from place to place
and time to time. Pp. 8–11."
After the arrest, the search of his person and vehicle are reasonable: "(d) The Court rejects Moore’s argument that even if the Constitution
allowed his arrest, it did not allow the arresting officers to search him. Officers may perform searches incident to constitutionally
permissible arrests in order to ensure their safety and safeguard evidence. United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218. While officers issuing
citations do not face the same danger, and thus do not have the same authority to search, Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113, the officers
arrested Moore, and therefore faced the risks that are “an adequate basis for treating all custodial arrests alike for purposes of search
justification,” Robinson, supra, at 235. Pp. 11–13.
2007 Term Opinions of the Court

excon

Hello George:

The only problem with your commentary is that the people of Virginia thought that law was just fine. If the feds want to eliminate the powers of the states to regulate themselves, they should just say so.

As a righty, I would think you'd support states rights. But no, as I suspected, you're just a liberal in conservatives clothing.

excon

George_1950

We tangled with the feds and lost, 147 years ago; Virginia sez, "Hell no, I ain't forgettin'."
You keep on cherry-picking, you know? If Virginia could do as you claim, why can't Virginia ban all abortion?

excon

Hello again, George:

I think Virginia COULD. Look, it's gonna come down to a fight somewhere down the road where the states are gonna say enough. I'm ready. I'll be the first one to join the Virginia militia in their war of secession and liberation.

You either believe in (and are willing to fight for) conservative values, or you cave, like most libs.

excon

George_1950

To this point, 'we' still respect the rule of law. Lesson learned.

excon

Hello again, George:

I guess it depends on which law you side with. Me? As you know, I believe the Constitution. It says that all rights not given to the feds are reserved to the states. To me, that means Virginia has the right to make whatever laws Virginians want, as long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. The law in question here violates NOBODY'S rights. Not one citizen complained about it. Virginians were VERY happy with their laws.

Then the feds stepped in and told them they couldn't do that. But, of course, they can.

And you accuse ME of cherry picking??

excon

George_1950

It was Virginians appealing to the US Supreme Court, so they weren't all happy.