lawrocket 3 #1 April 22, 2009 5-4 decision today in which Scalia wrote a separate concurrence. Thomas was also in the majority. The case, Arizona v. Gant, the SCOTUS effectively overruled precedent which authorizes cops to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles in all arrests. Under this decision, police may not search a vehicle without a warrant unless there is an immediate threat that the arrestee can access a weapon or there is reasonable probability that the search will find evidence of the crime for which the arrest has been made. In the case, a guy got pinched for driving without a license. He was seated well away from the car. The cops searched the car and found cocaine. The SCOTUS founf this unconstitutional. And the majority found it worthy of basically overturning (they hinted that they are clarifying) precedent. Lawrocket's hint. Don't consent to searches. Make them get a warrant. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #2 April 22, 2009 Excellent and I am in agreement, no more fishing expeditions.I got tired of hearing of abuses of Terry Searches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #3 April 22, 2009 QuoteLawrocket's hint. Don't consent to searches. Make them get a warrant. In your opinion, what is/are the best way(s) to withhold consent to a search without unnecessarily escalating the situation into one in which a person's safety is at risk?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #4 April 22, 2009 Quote5-4 decision today in which Scalia wrote a separate concurrence. Thomas was also in the majority. The case, Arizona v. Gant, the SCOTUS effectively overruled precedent which authorizes cops to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles in all arrests. Under this decision, police may not search a vehicle without a warrant unless there is an immediate threat that the arrestee can access a weapon or there is reasonable probability that the search will find evidence of the crime for which the arrest has been made. In the case, a guy got pinched for driving without a license. He was seated well away from the car. The cops searched the car and found cocaine. The SCOTUS founf this unconstitutional. And the majority found it worthy of basically overturning (they hinted that they are clarifying) precedent. Lawrocket's hint. Don't consent to searches. Make them get a warrant. So people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? How long would it take to get a warrant and what evidence would be needed? Will this diminish the meaning of a warrant if they're being handed out many more times a day? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #5 April 22, 2009 QuoteSo people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? Why is that not reasonable?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #6 April 22, 2009 QuoteSo people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? No, but the search incident to lawful arrest has just become slightly more difficult. Its not the end of unconsented vehicle searches with the legal recovery of evidence. This ruling will be further defined as case law is built up around it in varying fasion over the next few years.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 April 22, 2009 They ask if you'll consent to a search. Say, "no." They hold you there for while, of course. Be pleasant. Thanks to the dash video these things don't escalate very often. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 April 22, 2009 QuoteSo people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? Um - yes. That's kinda what the 4th amendment is about. If a person gives no suspicion of wrongdoing, that person is free from search and seizure. Lawrocket's second bit of advice when operating a motor vehicle: "Only break one law at a time." i.e., if you are carrying 50 kilos of coke, don't do 90 mph. If you're smuggling guns in your trunk, don't do so while driving drunk. if you are gonna let your registration expire, don't drive drunk. Etc.. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #9 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? Why is that not reasonable? Because we're making more laws (or decisions) to suppress the police and enable the criminal. I'm not saying cops should be able to search whatever, whenever. It's just interesting to me that border security and movement of guns and drugs is such a huge topic, but the decision was made (in a border state no less) to restrict searches. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #10 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? Um - yes. That's kinda what the 4th amendment is about. If a person gives no suspicion of wrongdoing, that person is free from search and seizure. What constitues wrong doing, besides speeding or other traffic violations? If searches are not allowed for people outwardly obeying the law, why can border patrol check points stop us on any given road here? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #11 April 22, 2009 Quote Because we're making more laws (or decisions) to suppress the police and enable the criminal. I'm not saying cops should be able to search whatever, whenever. Great idea. Lets give them tons of unchecked powers. They are after our best interest all the time, obviously."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 April 22, 2009 Different standards. Once you're in there are rights that ytou don't have to gain entry. Think about going into a jail. You are subject to search, etc. Don't want that search? Then don't go to a jail to visit someone. There are differences between securing borders and security inside. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #13 April 22, 2009 >So people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive >the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a >wreck or something like that? Yep. We tend to err on the side of protecting people's rights, even when it means that (potential) criminals might be able to commit crimes more easily. Or at least we should, which is why I am glad to hear about this decision. >because we're making more laws (or decisions) to suppress the police >and enable the criminal. And enable the law abiding citizen, which is more important. > I'm not saying cops should be able to search whatever, whenever. Agreed - and that's what that decision was all about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #14 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? Why is that not reasonable? Because we're making more laws (or decisions) to suppress the police and enable the criminal. I don't see it like that at all. I see it as the SCOTUS clarifying and reiterating law already in existence. Let's imagine that I am the prime suspect in the theft of a Gus Szamboti pool cue (that I didn't actually steal and don't possess), and the police obtain a search warrant to search my home for that pool cue. Let's also imagine that I have a 3"x3"x2" box filled with cocaine on my desk, closed. The search warrant would not authorize police to look inside that box, because a pool cue, the item for which the warrant authorizes them to search my home, would not fit in such a small container. They would need a separate warrant to look inside that box. Should they look inside that box while executing the search warrant for the Szamboti, the contents would be inadmissible in court as evidence to prosecute me on drug charges. The protections offered by the 4th Amendment are among the better things America has to offer her citizens. The goal is not and should not be to make the police's job easier. (For the record, I've never possessed a Szamboti cue or a 3x3x2 box filled with coke.)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #15 April 22, 2009 QuoteDifferent standards. Once you're in there are rights that ytou don't have to gain entry. Think about going into a jail. You are subject to search, etc. Don't want that search? Then don't go to a jail to visit someone. There are differences between securing borders and security inside. My fault for not clarifying. The border patrol has randomly set up check points all over this area. Most of the time we just stop, they ask if we're citizens, we say 'si,' and they let us go. What gives them the right to pull us over and could they search us if they wanted to? If not, or I refused, they just keep me there until a warrant is obtained? What right do they have to keep me there if I wasn't breaking the law to justify being stopped in the first place? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #16 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuote Because we're making more laws (or decisions) to suppress the police and enable the criminal. I'm not saying cops should be able to search whatever, whenever. Great idea. Lets give them tons of unchecked powers. They are after our best interest all the time, obviously. Re-read my post real quick. I'm not in favor of any undue power for cops. I've had far, far more unpleasant and unnecessary encounters with police than helpful ones. My questioning (apart from devil's advocate) comes from people preaching about gun control, lowering crime rates, or securing border areas, but then limiting their authority. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 April 22, 2009 Whoa. Random checkpoints are a whole different story. Since it's been 10 years since I've done any study on it I'll set aside comment... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 April 22, 2009 Quote5-4 decision today in which Scalia wrote a separate concurrence. Thomas was also in the majority. Honestly, how much money would you have bet that Thomas would be the swing vote on this one? Hardly surprising he wrote his own opinion, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #19 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuote5-4 decision today in which Scalia wrote a separate concurrence. Thomas was also in the majority. Honestly, how much money would you have bet that Thomas would be the swing vote on this one? Hardly surprising he wrote his own opinion, though. Who's opinion would you expect him to write? I see Thomas as a man who understands the meaning of our constitutional rights. We may or may not agree but there is no doubt he has more insight on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 April 22, 2009 QuoteWhoa. Random checkpoints are a whole different story. Since it's been 10 years since I've done any study on it I'll set aside comment... It seems like the implication would be that sobriety checkpoints are still good, but if they pull you out to do a field test, they can't search the car? Or does the need to search for an open/empty beverage still give carte blanche? Are dogs used to sniff cars at border checkpoints? A hit there would be sufficient cause too, it would seem. What would be unspecified is if the cops could use evidence they found that was not related. This decision just indicated they had to have a good reason to do the search. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 April 22, 2009 Quote Who's opinion would you expect him to write? I see Thomas as a man who understands the meaning of our constitutional rights. I see him as the man who can expected to be the 1 in any 8-1 decisions. He's the Rainman of Justices. And the rock of the Establishment. Even Scalia can't agree with him all the time, though often they make up the 7-2 Duo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #22 April 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote So people carrying drugs or guns can just put them in the trunk, drive the speed limit, and have no chance of being caught unless they get in a wreck or something like that? Why is that not reasonable? Because we're making more laws (or decisions) to suppress the police and enable the criminal. I don't see it like that at all. I see it as the SCOTUS clarifying and reiterating law already in existence. Let's imagine that I am the prime suspect in the theft of a Gus Szamboti pool cue (that I didn't actually steal and don't possess), and the police obtain a search warrant to search my home for that pool cue. Let's also imagine that I have a 3"x3"x2" box filled with cocaine on my desk, closed. The search warrant would not authorize police to look inside that box, because a pool cue, the item for which the warrant authorizes them to search my home, would not fit in such a small container. They would need a separate warrant to look inside that box. Should they look inside that box while executing the search warrant for the Szamboti, the contents would be inadmissible in court as evidence to prosecute me on drug charges. The protections offered by the 4th Amendment are among the better things America has to offer her citizens. The goal is not and should not be to make the police's job easier. (For the record, I've never possessed a Szamboti cue or a 3x3x2 box filled with coke.) If the 3"x3"x2" box was open and in plain sight the evidence would be admissible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #23 April 22, 2009 Don't leave your coke boxes open, the cats'll get into it! .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #24 April 22, 2009 There are few things I can think of that would be as bad as a coked out cat.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #25 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuote Who's opinion would you expect him to write? I see Thomas as a man who understands the meaning of our constitutional rights. I see him as the man who can expected to be the 1 in any 8-1 decisions. He's the Rainman of Justices. And the rock of the Establishment. Even Scalia can't agree with him all the time, though often they make up the 7-2 Duo. I've read a lot of decisions from this court (and previous groups). About 1 case in 5, I find myself going "that's what I would have said!" about 90% of those cases, I'm reading something written by Clarence Thomas. While I admit I've disagreed with him, there is no other justice I've agreed with so vehemently on so many occasions.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
