Supreme Court oks searches on illegal arrests Options

[dauss]

High Court Rules on Illegal Searches

The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday 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 for 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 say that 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.

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe 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 3 1/2 years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, 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.

[Dogmeat]

I'm sure we'll catch lots of terrorists this way, so it's all perfectly ok.

[impala454]

Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.

Makes sense to me.

and I'm kinda curious exactly how this went down:

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

So... he was pulled over, then.... "city detectives" arrested him? Did he get let go from the traffic cop, then get arrested at home later? Did he skip the court summons and get arrested because of that? Those two statements don't really jive.

[Hartmann]

I'm curious as to how they knew he was on a suspended license before they pulled him over.

[impala454]

typed his plates into the computer?

[Hartmann]

typed his plates into the computer?

I thought they had to physically see a license to determine whether or not it was expired? Maybe it's different there?

My brother was pulled over with a recently expired license and the cop looked at it and let him go. I thought checking the plates had to do with stolen vehicles.

[THECHICKEN]

I thought they had to physically see a license to determine whether or not it was expired? Maybe it's different there?

My brother was pulled over with a recently expired license and the cop looked at it and let him go. I thought checking the plates had to do with stolen vehicles.

Plates give the cop a large amount of information about you (assuming you aren't in a stolen vehicle).

[Hartmann]

Plates give the cop a large amount of information about you (assuming you aren't in a stolen vehicle).

Ok, so lets say I'm driving my mom's car, her license is expired. I get pulled over, the cop sees the car's owner has an expired license but notices that I am not a woman. Does he now have probable cause to search the vehicle? What about after he checks my license and sees that everything is in order?

[impala454]

When they run your plates they can bring up your entire history w/the cops on their screen. If you're driving your mom's car then yeah it's her history, but I'm sure it cross references easily to at least her immediate family. No I doubt the cop would have cause or even think about searching the car on an expired license. But "expired" license and "suspended" license are two different things. One I believe gets you a ticket, the other gets you arrested.

[FORSAKENR320]

makes sense with the ruling to me.