[magprob]

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 Does it mean that state search and seizure laws are superseded by federal law, denying the appeals process? So if one appeals the conviction on the grounds of illegal search and seizure, the feds uphold an illegal arrest by city, county, or state law enforcement?

[George_1950]

It was a unanimous decision: ""We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. "Justice Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to think 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." Evidently, the defendant argued that he was not "arrested". "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."
Court broadens police power in searches - - Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times
magprob asks: "Does it mean that state search and siezure laws are superseded by federal law, denying the appeals process?" Searches and seizures are, by definition, constitutional questions. Evidently, local authorities in the State of Virginia appealed a decision of its Supreme Court, addressing the constitutionality of the search, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was apparently based on an erroneous interpretation of constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Virginia, and its decision was reversed.

[speechlesstx]

Ginsburg basically said states can offer protection beyond the 4th amendment, but can't offer remedies beyond the 4th amendment if police denied someone those extra protections. So I guess it's like yeah, we have this law that only allows you to be issued a summons for this offense, but if you do get arrested based on probable cause you're out of luck anyway as long as it complied with the 4th amendment.

8 justices issued the ruling with Ginsburg offering a concurring opinion so it was a slam dunk. 18 states argued that looking to individual state laws as the basis for searches would muck everything up. It doesn't deny the appeals process, it restricts the basis of overturning a conviction of this type to 4th amendment rights as I understand it. So yeah, the police can pretty well use any excuse as probable cause, and if you get caught with something, extra state laws ain't going to protect you.

[tomder55]

Federal law trumps state law . Federal Law can be challenged to determine if it applies to the US Constitution ,not if it conflicts with State laws.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI Clause 2 [ aka the Supremacy Clause]

[excon]

Hello:

There isn't enough information for me to form a legal opinion. I still don't know what the probable cause was to detain him and search. If it was the traffic offense all by itself, then we're all in trouble. Previous to this ruling, cops couldn't search you if you had, for example, a broken tail light. Evidently, now they can.

This looks like a states right issue too, more than anything else. Certainly, the Constitutional protections provide a floor that the cops can't penetrate. But what if the states wanted to offer their citizens a little more protection than just that floor. Does this now mean that they can't?

There's another conflict built in here, too. Clearly, the state supreme court dismissed the charges properly according to state law. Evidently, the prosecutor appealed to the feds and the state law got trampled. In the future, a convict who is clearly being held illegally according to state law, will be hesitant to appeal because the prosecutor might appeal to the feds. If state law no longer applies, then why even have a state court system? That can't continue without real serious problems developing.

But, back to the original case. I need to know what the probable cause was for the cops to search him. It would be really nice. If they just searched him based upon his suspended license, then that's a violation of federal law too - not just the state. Having a suspended license does NOT provide probable cause to believe there are drugs in the car, or any other contraband for that matter.

Not enough info, but Scalia sucks anyway.

excon

[tomder55]

Virginia policy is that violations of statutory requirements by law enforcement officers should NOT result in the exclusion of evidence discovered .SCOTUS did not rule on if the arrest was proper ;only the search.

Without debating the" Rightness "of the drug laws :
If I get pulled over for a broken tail light and when the cops approach the car it reeks of pot smoke you can bet the cops are going to search the car. If I get stopped by a cop because I look like someone they are looking for and they find coke on me . It is not really relevant that I was not the person they were originally looking for.

Scalia wrote the opinion, and Ginsburg wrote the concurring... hell is freezing over !

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I'm NOT debating the "rightness" of drug laws. This is about the Fourth Amendment - nothing else.

Additionally, I would have thought you understood the concept of "probable cause", (and I really think you do), but because YOU want to argue the "rightness" of the drug laws, you misquote or misread the very concept of "probable cause".

Your examples are simple. If the cop smells pot, THAT IS probable cause to think he has pot in the car. If ALL there is, however, is a broken tail light, THAT IS NOT probable cause to think there is anything else illegal going on.

If they stop you for LOOKING like somebody and they find drugs, you're right, it's not relevant that you're not the person. But it IS relevant if you DON'T LOOK like the person.

excon

[magprob]

The "In Plain View Doctrine" allows for the probable cause since the cops can clearly see the illegal substance. I doubt that was the case here. I'm thinking the only probable cause in this case was the fact that the cops thought this guy "looked" like he probably had drugs. Or maybe he "looks" like a terrorist type. Or, a quick background check gave them all the probable cause they really need these days.

[speechlesstx]

I don't have a problem with the ruling, I think it was absolutely correct and he was challenging based on 4th amendment rights. I do have a problem with why the guy was arrested, according to CNN. At trial, when a detective was asked why he was arrested he said, "just our prerogative." I think we deserve a lot more than "just our prerogative."

[magprob]

I have a serious problem with the ruling. It tells the cops they can break state law and find safe harbor at the federal level. Which is what the feds want... less state powers.

[speechlesstx]

I have a serious problem with the ruling. It tells the cops they can break state law and find safe harbor at the federal level. Which is what the feds want... less state powers.

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:

Virginia could have made driving on a suspended license an arrestable offense. The Commonwealth chose not to do so. Moore asks us to credit Virginia law on a police officer’s arrest authority, but only in part. He emphasizes Virginia’s classification of driving on a suspended license as a nonarrestable misdemeanor. Moore would have us ignore, however, the limited consequences Virginia attaches to a police officer’s failure to follow the Commonwealth’s summons-only instruction. For such an infraction, the officer may be disciplined and the person arrested may bring a tort suit against the officer. But Virginia law does not demand the suppression of evidence seized by an officer who arrests when he should have issued a summons.

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]

But Virginia law does not demand the suppression of evidence seized by an officer who arrests when he should have issued a summons.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

If Virginia could do as you claim, why can't Virginia ban all abortion?

Hello again, George:

I think Virginia COULD. Look, it's going to come down to a fight somewhere down the road where the states are going to 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]

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

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

[excon]

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

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]

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

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