The Supreme Court today sharply limited the power of police to search a suspect’s car after making an arrest, acknowledging that the decision changes a rule that law enforcement has relied on for nearly 30 years.
In a decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, an unusual five-member majority said police may search a vehicle without a warrant only when the suspect could reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence or when it is “reasonable to believe” there is evidence in the car supporting the crime at hand.
The court noted that law enforcement for years has interpreted the court’s rulings on warrantless car searches to mean that officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as part of a lawful arrest of a suspect. But Stevens said that was a misreading of the court’s decision in New York v. Belton in 1981. “Blind adherence to Belton’s faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches,” Stevens said, adding that the court’s tradition of honoring past decisions did not bind it to continue such a view of the law.
“The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations.” Stevens was joined by two of his most liberal colleagues — Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and two of his most conservative — Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The decision overturned a three-year prison sentence for Arizonan Rodney Gant, who had been convicted of cocaine possession. Police found the drug in a search of his car, following his arrest for driving with a suspended license. Gant had already walked away from his car when he was arrested, and he sat handcuffed a distance away while police searched his car. “Police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein,” Stevens wrote.
The key here is you have to be under arrest before they can search your car under these guidelines. So what has changed? The wording “only when a suspect could reach for a weapon” leaves it wide open in my opinion. And how can this be applied to Border patrol searches (well outside of any border) when you are ordered to exit your vehicle with no probable cause so they can search it? Confusing.
I was under the impression that searches at the border are a whole different animal because we have more interest in security and not allowing items to come into the country. As a condition of crossing the border you consent to the search basically. If you don’t want to be searched at the border then don’t cross it. Kind of like flying. It’s not a right to be allowed to fly without a search. Unreasonable searches are a right, therefore if you don’t want the search you don’t fly. Same applies to the border. You can leave anytime you want but are subject to search before entering another country or re-entering this one. Don’t like it? Don’t cross the border. That simple.
So I’m screw since I have a Concealed Carry Permit and would most likely have a gun on me and could have ones elsewhere in the vehicle.
The point is if the person is already under arrest you have no reason to search a vehicle unless the person has committed a crime for which they were just arrested and you have reason to think evidence of that crime is still in the vehicle or you can see evidence of a crime in plane view.
Ordinary driving violations don’t cut it except maybe DUI in some flavor when one might expect to find booze or drugs.
I can still think of questions I don’t have the answer for relating to this.
@Jetfire – my thoughts exactly. How or WHY would this give them right to search the car? Shouldn’t it give them the right to have you remove yourself from the car rather than searched?
I hope they do not apply this crazy logic to a residence as well. I do not believe the constitution says anywhere that warrant less searches are OK if someone could have a weapon. What do they define as a weapon? If an officer thinks I perceive the tire iron in my car as a weapon..does he/she get to search now? Does that then make me guilty of transporting an illegal club?
#1. And can they arbitrarily move a border check point 100 miles from the border? You OK with that?
That was the question.
>“The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations.”
So why do they keep using this as a rationale?
5 Justices are on record as opposing Miranda, but when it came up they used the same logic of stare decisis to maintain it.
Wake up poster numba 1 (Jer) The BORDER PATROL are not “Customs Agents” They are not the uniformed people who ask you questions when you cross the border — you know, after a visit to Canada or Mexico, when you fly home from anywhere else. The Border Patrol are a different lot. They are part of Homeland Security. They have jurisdiction from the border to 100 miles inland from any border (water or land). They’ve been setting up checkpoints on highways, and conducting their surveys, asking questions, and searching cars. They also STOP cars (with lights/sirens) to ask inane questions. They are an interesting lot, in that they seem to not need to follow anything 4th amendment related (unreasonable search and seizure) — or so they claim.
Please do not get the two confused.
I do not know if this ruling has any relation to our Border Patrol/Homeland Security militia.
“And how can this be applied to Border patrol searches (well outside of any border) when you are ordered to exit your vehicle with no probable cause so they can search it? Confusing. ”
It’s not confusing actually. Border searches are totally separate from car searches. At a border you have NO expectation of privacy, and so they can search you without probable cause. (Technically, the justification is that you automatically consent to a search when you approach the international border. Same justification for why they can wand you at an airport, except there they got around the free travel clause by saying “well you didn’t have to fly in the first place to get across the United States”. But I digress).
Once you’re beyond the border, that changes.
The game changer here is that the police have to have probable cause (or perhaps it’s reasonable suspicion, I haven’t read the opinion yet) that you are *armed* or have some kind of weapon, or have contraband *for the crime you are committing*. This is mind blowingly huge. The old rule was that if you were arrested, they could just search you whole without reason.
#1, jer105;
This has nothing to do with the Border Patrol.
RTFA.
#1, Kind of like flying. It’s not a right to be allowed to fly without a search. [Protection from] Unreasonable searches are a right, therefore if you don’t want the search you don’t fly.
That kind of logic holds for driving, as well. If you don’t want your car searched, don’t drive.
I am not a fan of the TSA. It’s expensive and it doesn’t work. Make it illegal to transport an unknown explosive or weapon in an airplane. They’ll fall into line.
And those who don’t, the press should hound them into compliance. If they still don’t do it, people can start picking other airlines to fly — “You don’t want to fly ColAir! Their security sucks. They had two hijackings last year!”
#10
“Make it illegal to transport an unknown explosive or weapon in an airplane.” It already is. Firearm can be transported on airline but must be in a locked case unloaded, check-in and declared.
A slight win for the sheeple.
The PD can still make up any reason for the search.
McCullough is right. Nothing has really changed. The wording only makes some of us believe they’ve protected us from unlawful searches. And infuriates others, into believing that criminals are being set free on this legal technicality, retroactively.
Law enforcement will simply misread this decision, as they misread the prior one. And use it as an excuse NOT to violate the cars of the well connected. Do you really think they’d ever search Donald Trump’s limo? If this desicion were applicable to everyone. Then one could take their laptop into they car and do whatever illegal thing they wanted to there. And the law couldn’t touch them. But it’s obvious, that it isn’t going to happen that way. Rules and rulings always have exceptions made for them. Soon, if not sooner.
#11, I meant for the carrier, not the passenger.
This make no difference. The police lie as a matter of course.
Hey, guys, this is actually a big improvement over the old standard, by which they could search your vehicle for any damn reason. The ‘reaching for a weapon’ clause is not nearly as bad as the ‘reaching for an excuse’ that the old method represented.
numba 8…the border patrol doesn’t sit at the border. FYI. They sit several miles (up to 100) in from the border, and harass American’s. They board buses, they set up road blocks, and they do what they do, whenever-where ever. No actual “border” needs to be crossed.
FYI. Try and stay with the class.
“numba 8…the border patrol doesn’t sit at the border. FYI. They sit several miles (up to 100) in from the border, and harass American’s. They board buses, they set up road blocks, and they do what they do, whenever-where ever. No actual “border” needs to be crossed.
FYI. Try and stay with the class.”
You are an idiot.
By your logic there’s no reason debating anything because at the end of the day, any loaw enforcement will harrass, break into, and break the law to catch “bad guys”. I’m not talking about what happens in *practice*, I’m talking about what the law allows. If the border patrol is stopping you 100 miles from the border and you have no plans to cross said border then they lawfully have no right to do anything to you. But that and a bag of chips will get you a bag of chips.
This Supreme Court decision does not protect our 4th Amendment rights (SURPRISE!). The police can still tow the vehicle and do an “Inventory Search.” Did you really think the US Supreme Court was going to uphold the Bill of Rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are just an historical artifact. Bemember that next time you are expected to salute the flag. America as we knew it no longer exists. It is sliding into Fascism. The American people are to blame. They don’t value the rights they had. Too bad. By the way. It’s hopeless. It will just get worse and worse.