Little-Acorn
New member
This is a weird one... and the Associated Press leaves out a very important piece of information.
Some guy was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. State law said that for that charge, he must be given a ticket and let go. But apparently the cops found probable cause to suspect him of another crime (drugs maybe?), and arrested him instead. Later searches found drugs, and now the Supremes have ruled that the drugs CAN be used as evidence in court.
The missing info is: What was the "probable cause" the cops found after pulling him over? Was there any? Did they see drugs on the seat of the car or something?
The article says that the arrest broke state law - cops weren't supposed to arrest the guy. But that's if all they had was the suspended-license charge, isn't it? To cite an extreme example, what if the cops pulled him over for suspended license, walked up to the car, and saw a dead man in the passenger seat with a knife in his chest and blood all over? I believe the cops could arrest the driver then, couldn't they? And the arrest would NOT break state law? Hard to believe that driving on a suspended license, would SHIELD you from any other arrest, no matter how obvious the additional evidence was.
Justice Scalia seemed to say that the cops had further "probable cause" of a crime beyond the suspended license thing. If that's true, then I certainly agree with the Supremes' verdict. But the rest of the article never mentions any other "probable cause", and quotes Justice Ginsburg as saying that the arrest DID violate state law.
As I said, if the cops pulled him over for suspended license and simply arrested him on that charge alone, I guess state law says that arrest is illegal. But if the cops pulled him over and then found probable cause for believing more crime(s) had been committed, and then arrested him, that arrest would NOT violate state law, correct?
If the cops found probable cause for another crime, then I suggest the arrest did NOT break state law. But Ginsburg, and apparently the Virginia State Supreme Court, said it did. Why? The Associated Press didn't address this.
And if the cops found additional probable cause, then this ruling does NOT broaden any police powers in searches. But if they didn't, then if certainly does, and I don't like it.
But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the evidence, at least, did NOT have to be thrown out in court.
Something here does not compute. I'd like to get more info than the article gives.
------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...080424/METRO/520382602/1004&template=nextpage
Court broadens police power in searches
by Pete Yost
April 24, 2008
ASSOCIATED PRESS — The Supreme Court affirmed yesterday 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 on a traffic-ticket offense.
David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.
Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors said drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.
"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.
Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3½ years in prison.
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.
The state's high court said state law restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.
Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.
In a concurring opinion, 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.
The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.
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.
Some guy was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. State law said that for that charge, he must be given a ticket and let go. But apparently the cops found probable cause to suspect him of another crime (drugs maybe?), and arrested him instead. Later searches found drugs, and now the Supremes have ruled that the drugs CAN be used as evidence in court.
The missing info is: What was the "probable cause" the cops found after pulling him over? Was there any? Did they see drugs on the seat of the car or something?
The article says that the arrest broke state law - cops weren't supposed to arrest the guy. But that's if all they had was the suspended-license charge, isn't it? To cite an extreme example, what if the cops pulled him over for suspended license, walked up to the car, and saw a dead man in the passenger seat with a knife in his chest and blood all over? I believe the cops could arrest the driver then, couldn't they? And the arrest would NOT break state law? Hard to believe that driving on a suspended license, would SHIELD you from any other arrest, no matter how obvious the additional evidence was.
Justice Scalia seemed to say that the cops had further "probable cause" of a crime beyond the suspended license thing. If that's true, then I certainly agree with the Supremes' verdict. But the rest of the article never mentions any other "probable cause", and quotes Justice Ginsburg as saying that the arrest DID violate state law.
As I said, if the cops pulled him over for suspended license and simply arrested him on that charge alone, I guess state law says that arrest is illegal. But if the cops pulled him over and then found probable cause for believing more crime(s) had been committed, and then arrested him, that arrest would NOT violate state law, correct?
If the cops found probable cause for another crime, then I suggest the arrest did NOT break state law. But Ginsburg, and apparently the Virginia State Supreme Court, said it did. Why? The Associated Press didn't address this.
And if the cops found additional probable cause, then this ruling does NOT broaden any police powers in searches. But if they didn't, then if certainly does, and I don't like it.
But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the evidence, at least, did NOT have to be thrown out in court.
Something here does not compute. I'd like to get more info than the article gives.
------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...080424/METRO/520382602/1004&template=nextpage
Court broadens police power in searches
by Pete Yost
April 24, 2008
ASSOCIATED PRESS — The Supreme Court affirmed yesterday 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 on a traffic-ticket offense.
David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.
Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors said drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.
"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.
Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3½ years in prison.
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.
The state's high court said state law restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.
Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.
In a concurring opinion, 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.
The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.
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.
Last edited:
