Surprised this hasn't been posted; its a pretty big deal.

Quote :

"By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer – Tue Apr 21, 2:56 pm ET WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers. The court's 5-4 decision in a case from Arizona puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect, particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a traffic violation. Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest. "When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said. Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court, 28 years ago, first authorized warrantless searches of cars immediately following an arrest. "There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said. Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. "What this rule permits in a variety of situations is entirely unclear," Alito said. Stevens conceded that police academies teach the more permissive practice and that law enforcement officers have relied on it. Yet, he said, "Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result." Fordham University law professor Dan Capra said the ruling "will have a major impact when the driver is arrested for a traffic offense." When police have probable cause to arrest someone for drug crimes, Capra said, they ordinarily will be able to search a car in pursuit of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. Prosecutors and police instructors were generally disappointed with the decision. Tom Hammarstrom, executive director of the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, said training for law officers would be adjusted to conform to the high court's ruling. Devallis Rutledge, special counsel to the Los Angeles County district attorney, said he was working on formulating advice for prosecutors on how to apply the court's decision. "It's not the kind of clear-cut guidance that police officers, lawyers and judges need. It substantially overrules a 28-year-old precedent that we've all relied on," Rutledge said. Police officers have been "doing the safe thing" by searching vehicles after securing suspects to make sure they aren't a safety threat. "That's been the way they've been taught and the way they've been trained," Rutledge said. "Now, we will lose the evidence they obtained" in some cases. He said the new rules might even make it harder to catch criminals, noting that evidence found during a vehicle search when someone is arrested for a relatively minor crime can lead to greater charges, such as drug offenses or even murder. The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had secured the scene and thus faced no threat to their safety or concern about evidence being preserved. Gant was placed under arrest for driving on a suspended license and he already was at least 8 feet away from his car when he was arrested. Arizona, backed by the Bush administration and 25 other states, complained that a decision in favor of Gant would impose a "dangerous and unworkable test" that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers. But civil liberties groups argued that police routinely invade suspects' privacy by conducting warrantless searches when there is no chance suspects could have access to their vehicles. The groups also suggested that police would not increase the danger to themselves by leaving suspects unrestrained and near their cars just to justify a search in the absence of a warrant. 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. Scalia said in a separate opinion that he would allow warrantless searches only to look for "evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred." He said he joined Stevens' opinion anyway because there otherwise would not have been a majority for that view and Alito's desire to maintain current police practice "is the greater evil." The case is Arizona v. Gant, 07-542."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_vehicle_searches_4

4/21/2009 6:03:42 PM

Good on them.

And before anybody bitches that, "Oh gnoes! Criminals will walk free!", here's a notion - if there is reason to believe there may be evidence of other crimes within the vehicle, go get a warrant. It's really not that hard.

4/21/2009 6:21:15 PM

While I like the decision overall, I do have to agree that I'm not a fan of the "reason to believe evidence will be found" bit. So yeah, the guy who isn't high and doesn't act funny with a bag of pot in his glove box won't get busted when he gets pulled for speeding anymore, but will this really have any effect on the searches of people who have been arrested when the police decide to search?

4/21/2009 6:59:21 PM

^ I got the impression from an article I read earlier today that "reason to believe evidence will be found" applied to situations where the evidence may disappear in the time it takes to get a warrant, e.g. if the vehicle or suspect isn't secured.

4/21/2009 7:09:09 PM

good; if my buddy is arrested for a DUI there is no reason the police should have open access to look for a bag of marijuana shake that has been sitting at the bottom of their glove compartment for 6 months just so they can get a pat on the back from their Sgt. for slapping a possession charge to the DUI.

4/21/2009 7:24:39 PM

^^ Right, but I just can't see where that's happening. Unless we're talking starting from the moment the police decide the suspect is under arrest (i.e. before they've been taken out of the car and cuffed or stuck in the back of the cruiser. I mean, once you've arrested the subject, for all intents and purposes he's secured, as is the car in question. I know that in law, you just can't say something without being specific as hell, and so I'm sure this is designed to cover the situation where the car is sinking into quick sand and the police have pulled the suspect out, and upon realizing he's stoned off his ass try to find pot in the glove box before the car is gone, but it seems to me that would be better served with a "evidence will be rejected unless the trial judge decides that circumstances required the action to preserve evidence before it was lost or contaminated", rather than a "unless you think you might find evidence"

4/21/2009 8:20:20 PM

if an officer pulls you for speeding and suspects something else before he arrests you and takes you away from the car he could still conduct a warrantless search couldnt he?

4/21/2009 11:42:42 PM

What it boils down to is that a LEO can't search your car after arresting you for not signing your registration. This is a technique that can be used if an officer suspects something is in the car but hasn't developed enough suspicion. But in everyday use, lets say you arrest someone out of a car for an FTA, you would have gotten a "free" search. However, if an officer pulls you for speeding and can smell marijuana your car can be searched. This ruling only affects search incident to arrest.



[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ...]

4/21/2009 11:49:46 PM

Quote :

"you would have gotten a "free" search"

So you think police should be allowed a "free" search, essentially looking for trouble, when otherwise they have no suspicion or evidence to do so?

Why not do we in name of the drug war allow the police to walk into our home at any time to look for EVIL drugs! If people are not doing anything illegal then they have nothing to worry about!

4/22/2009 8:48:22 AM

Nice to see a conservative court defend people's rights against the gestapo

4/22/2009 8:56:29 AM

ya i got to say that i was pretty impressed

4/22/2009 8:57:00 AM

Quote :

"Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest."

I get the impression here that it's still ok for an officer to search the area of the vehicle that's within reach of the suspect. So glove compartments and the back seat are still in play. However, trunks, truck beds, 3rd row seating, trailers, campers etc. would be off-limits without a warrant. This is perfectly reasonable imo

4/22/2009 9:37:47 AM

So just have the "suspect" stand next to his car - technically "within reach"...which allows you a free search.

4/22/2009 11:15:17 AM

I think the officer would (theoritically) need to prove that the suspect looked like he was stashing something. Or he could just lie like they already do. I don't really see how this practically changes anything.

4/22/2009 11:30:55 AM

they can still search incident to arrest in the area within the suspects reach, thats the way im reading this

4/22/2009 11:33:43 AM

I think the major outcome is it forbids the officer from immediately bringing in a drug dog and tearing the entire car apart in a fishing expedition (inside seats, trunk, etc.)

There will still be plenty of incidental searches based upon a flimsy pretext of "suspicion", but it's an improvement on the margin nonetheless.

4/22/2009 11:33:51 AM

Quote :

"However, if an officer pulls you for speeding and can smell marijuana your car can be searched"

See, I still have a problem with that. His word against yours.

I was pulled over once and the cop was trying to get me admit guilt to something I hadn't done. Then he got all pissy and was like I'm not going to give you a ticket, but just admit what you did. I still said I didn't do anything wrong. Then he said "well maybe I smell marijuana in your car".

WTF? Anyway after a little more bitching he just drove off. Very, very weird encounter.

4/22/2009 12:55:06 PM

unless you get a good honest guy pulling you over actually doing what he's supposed to be doing, chances are you just need to soothe their ego till they go away. remember these are the same people who wore weightlifting gloves to class and wondered why nobody was afraid of them

4/22/2009 5:51:57 PM