Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be thankful for two things: These women fought for your right to vote, and you don't have to dress like this.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(106)
-
▼
April
(22)
- Prep for the AP GoPo exam with CSPAN
- Whoa!
- Senator Specter's life
- Holy cow!
- Recession lingo
- Remember the engagement ring site from before?
- Heard of the swine flu?
- Notes from Sacto
- Laws and amendments flash cards
- Firefighter promotion case from class
- Limits on warrantless car searches
- Flash cards are go!
- As we're starting the first amendment...
- Engagement rings
- Anniversary of an historic concert
- Still no Senator in Minnesota
- Aaaaand...
- Big news today
- Afghanistan
- Just how wealthy are you?
- DC in Congress
- Remember former Senator Ted Stevens?
-
▼
April
(22)
4 comments:
Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens made the statement, “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” While I think this is fair, I also think that this makes things more complicated. It is legal for the police to make a warrentless search if "is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." Well, what exactly must the circumstances be to make it reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains some form of evidence? This is not defined, and this is where I believe the problems will come in. If it is not clearly defined, then people will begin to argue over what kinds of circumstances allow a warrentless search of someone's car. This may lead to more cases like this and there may be an endless debate over this. I think if the circumstances can be defined, then I can be in more support of this ruling.
On April 21st the Supreme Court put new limits on what conditions police officers must follow to perform a warrantless search of a car once the owners have been arrested. In Arizona v. Gant Arizona police officers went to the home of Rodney Gant to look for drugs and to arrest him for failing to appear in court. When they arrived at his house, Gant was not there but two other people were. One of them was found with a crack pipe but while the police were still at the house Gant returned home. While Gant was still in his car, an officer shined a flashlight into the car, but the police made no other contact with him until he stepped out of the car. After he was out of the car, the police searched it and found drugs and a handgun. Gant was arrested and charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Before his trial, Gant asked the judge to rule the evidence found in his car unconstitutional because it had been found without a warrant. The trial judge denied it. Gant appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the original ruling, it ruled the search unconstitutional. The court found that in order for a police officers to conduct a warrantless search there must be concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation.
In 2003, without issuing a decision in the case, the court sent the case back to Arizona state court for consideration because of a new Arizona case, State v. Dean. In 2004, the court issued a decision in the case of Thornton v. U.S., it found that police could constitutionally search a car even after its owner had left it by choice.
The question that is being presented is "when police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle who got out voluntarily, can they search the vehicle without a warrant?" I agree with the ruling that the Arizona Court of Appeals made. I believe that unwarranted searches are justified when there are concerns for "officer safety or evidence preservation."
I find it quite interesting how in this case the police can't search your car. This is just another addition to all the technicalities that we learned were included within the amendment such as you have highest protection when you're actually in your home. I find it quite irritating how there are so many court cases that are involved with even further technicalities of our basic rights. For many of the cases it seems as though there are inconsistencies in the rulings of the Court. At times, it makes following and understanding the law even more complicated that necessary.
Wow! This case is very interesting. I knew it could happen, but the fact that the Supreme Court today put new limits on what conditions police must meet to conduct a warrantless search of vehicle once the person has been arrested TODAY (this month) is very cool. Arizona v. Gant is a case which really set a precedent for future searches of vehicles. Gant asked the judge at his trial to rule that the evidence (drugs, like paraphernalia, and a handgun) found in his car unconstitutional. The search had been conducted WITHOUT a warrant, violating the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
When I think about the point brought up by Gant, it seems very reasonable. However, the trial judge denied the motion because the “search was a direct result of Gant's lawful arrest and therefore an exception to the general Fourth Amendment warrant requirement under New York v. Belton (1981).” Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.
After three years in prison, Gant appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling the search unconstitutional. After many years of fighting, on April 21st of this year, the Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens.
The opinion is still very tight, but now police may search a vehicle only if the arrestee is within “reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” If this is NOT the case, a search of the vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant. This, I believe, is quiet fair, but four of the judges still disagree. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, are opponents of this decision.
For now, when police arrest a driver who gets out voluntarily, they may not search the vehicle without a warrant. I think it is great, very constitutional, and abides by our Fourth Amendment. I am happy this change was made this month; a bit surprised, but overall glad...although I hope I never benefit or suffer from this new decision.
- Aislinn Diaz
Post a Comment