Know My Rights

KMR-liberty

Welcome to KnowMyRights.org!

donatenow_red

Know My Rights is a community-based non-profit organization.
Our mission is to promote social change through civil rights and other legal education.

I know my rights... Do you know yours?

Supreme Court Upholds 4th Amendment In Arizona v. Gant PDF Print E-mail
Written by Scott Morgan, FYR   
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 00:00

In handcuffs he is clearly not a threat to the officer.For many years, the Supreme Court has permitted police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle any time an occupant of the car is arrested. These so-called "searches incident to arrest" were authorized in New York v. Belton (1981) based in large part on concerns about officer safety, namely that the suspect might dive for a weapon hidden in the car. As a result, police have grown accustomed to searching vehicles for "safety reasons" even after the suspect has been taken into custody. This doesn't protect officers, but it certainly encourages police to make more arrests so they can do more searches.

Well, that's finally going to change. The Supreme Court ruled today in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches following an arrest are legal only if the suspect has access to the vehicle or if officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence related to that arrest. In other words, police are now required to have an actual reason to justify the vehicle search, instead of being allowed to do it automatically. This decision restores some much needed logic and common sense to the way many warrantless vehicle searches are analyzed under the 4th Amendment.

We've long been concerned about the ability of police to use arrests for minor crimes as a way of overriding a citizen's refusal of consent. Since many states (and Supreme court precedent) allow officers to perform a full arrest for certain traffic offenses, we've often worried that police could sometimes strong-arm their way into a vehicle by arresting the driver for a traffic violation instead of just writing a ticket. Today's ruling in Gant, however, creates an obstacle to these types of "pretext arrests", because traffic violations are observed infractions for which relevant evidence will not be contained in the vehicle. In that sense, the ruling will likely result in some extra protection for citizens who exercise 4th Amendment rights during a traffic stop.

Beyond the basic legal issues at hand, the case has additional symbolic significance because it truly affects every officer on the street. Every cop is trained to search vehicles automatically after making an arrest, and now every officer will have to learn a new, more nuanced, policy on car searches that is designed to protect individual rights. With today's ruling, the Supreme Court sends an important message to law enforcement that the 4th Amendment still means something in America.




Share this with the world:
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Yahoo! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Newsvine!

Comments

avatar Jonathan Hansen
0
 
 
SCOTUS comes to its senses and rejects the illogically broad interpretation of Belton. But it was another 5-4 decision and only tempers the decision in Herring earlier this year. Reading the dissent was a little scary...
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Shawn
0
 
 
This is great news. However, if they arrest you, how is the vehicle to be handled?

I have known people who have been arrested and their car towed which, I was told, is a reason to search the car to produce an "inventory" of the car's contents. How would this ruling affect this?

Also, if you are pulled over and on the side of the road where you stopped is a legal parking place and your being arrested for a non-traffic warrant (like a bench warrant) can the officers just lock your car and leave it in the parked condition?

Just wondering how this ruling affects those two situations...

Keep up the fight for everyone's rights!
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar doug2096
0
 
 
An inventory of an automobile may be done if the automobile is legally impounded. An inventory indicates that the items in the car are inventoried to protect the officer from claims of theft, to protect the automobile owner's property and to protect the integrity of the impound area. Departments should have a policy (written or not) regarding inventory searches and the policy must be uniformly and consistently applied by all members of the department. In other words, they can not conduct an inventory search in an attempt to find evidence of a crime. That would require a warrant or probable cause. They can not do an inventory search because of the way you or the vehicle look. They have to show that they do inventory searches uniformly and consistently. This is their weak spot.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar B. Plainview
0
 
 
Awesome, send more updates via email.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Phil M
0
 
 
Shawn, there would be no reason for an officer to lock your car if you, yourself, lock it when you get out of it. There's no reason to leave your car unlocked, and as suggested in Flex Your Rights Foundation's video "Busted" you *should* lock your door behind you when an officer tells you to step out of the car.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Zedraloth
0
 
 
The police will simply make up a reason. I get pulled over constantly for stupid, obviously fabricated reasons. If they can make up a reason to pull you over, they can make up a correlation to what's inside the car and the reason for the arrest. After all, the arrestee was in the car. It's an easily circumvented grey area.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Scott Morgan
0
 
 
Yes, in practice, officers will look for ways to get around it. But every search-incident-to-arrest is now subject to 4th Amendment review in court! That is a big deal. Defense lawyers suddenly have a whole new angle to challenge evidence.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar SpyBoy
0
 
 
Greetings,

Defense lawyers yes, and unrepresented litigants also.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Anonymous
0
 
 
does this new ruling is just for arizona only or all states like including new york?
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Mike Liszewski
0
 
 
It was a Supreme Court decision, so it applies nationwide.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Small Victory
0
 
 
I have heard numerous stories lately from people who describe situations in which police in my city have violated their 4th amendment rights over and over. I am noticing that there seems to be little or no recourse either. Even though rights were violated they are facing charges, jail time, probation and fines. Where are the checks and balances for the behavior of Cops? The Cops do it to keep their jobs and The DA's, Judges and defense attorney's have no problem with it because it assures them their jobs. The city gets money from the federal government for every prisoner and not to mention the bond and fine money that comes with an arrest; even when ones rights are violated with no probable cause. Cops are getting away with breaking the law everyday, so it seems. This is ludicrous. When will the Cops ever be held accountable for practicing actions that go against the protection of rights? Who will ever stop them? In a city as large as Houston, TX. you would think these types of things wouldn't happen as often. It is truly getting out of control down here. Seems the good 'ole boy system is running strong down south...That's a shame!!

You guys are doing a great job, keep it up. I wish everyone in this country got, and truly understood, your message.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Anonymous
0
 
 
What does it mean to be liberal? conservative?

Notice that the "liberal" judge Breyer writes a dissenting opinion, as does "conservative" Alito. Everybody else basically affirms the majority opinion -- no matter whether they are "conservative" or "liberal".
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
avatar Mike Liszewski
0
 
 
"ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined except as to Part II–E."

Furthermore, Breyer's dissent recognized Stevens' reasoning, which is why Breyer didn't join in dissent on II-E, which is huge portion of Alito's argument.
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
This is a fantastic webiste you have made!
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
Cancel
Name *
Email (For verification & Replies)
Code   
ChronoComments by Joomla Professional Solutions
Submit Comment
 

Got 'Free-Dumb'?

KMR's FREE Newsletter!

What are we doing?

The 4th Amendment Podcast

Are you in the know?....

Do you have photos of you partying posted on Facebook/MySpace?