Re: LEO seizure of a handgun
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:26 am
If the state of Virginia has their way then you can expect to be subjected to pretty much anything during a traffic stop.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ourt_N.htm
WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court case heard Monday that could broadly affect the rights of motorists began when two Virginia police detectives stopped David Lee Moore in 2003 for driving with a suspended license.
Instead of simply writing up a summons and letting him go, they arrested and searched him, finding crack cocaine in a jacket pocket. Moore was convicted of possession with intent to distribute. The Virginia Supreme Court voided the conviction, saying the search was unconstitutional because Virginia law does not give police the authority to arrest drivers for minor violations.
Hearing Virginia's appeal, Chief Justice John Roberts and several other justices appeared sympathetic to state arguments that the evidence could be used anyway.
Stephen McCullough, deputy Virginia solicitor general, emphasized that although Virginia and many other states set a higher standard for arresting drivers for small offenses, the U.S. Constitution allows police to arrest people they believe are engaged in wrongdoing, no matter how trivial. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requires only that officers have "probable cause" to believe a crime is being committed before an arrest and search.
McCullough urged the justices to impose a uniform rule that the Fourth Amendment would have allowed Moore's arrest for a suspended license, so it does not require the cocaine evidence to be suppressed. McCullough said the nation should not have differing constitutional rules based on varying state laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a decisive vote, seemed to agree. "I think it is much easier to administer, to have a uniform federal standard, rather than whether or not an officer can arrest in one county for something and not in another county," he said.
Urging the court to rule for Moore, his lawyer Thomas Goldstein said when people engage in activities that do not normally subject them to arrest "they do not have a reduced expectation of privacy," as would people doing something more serious that could lead to an arrest and then search. Goldstein argued that the law restricting arrests for traffic offenses should factor into the Fourth Amendment analysis and said, "We don't want to encourage officers to conduct illegal arrests and search people."
Goldstein invoked the history of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, telling the court, "The notion that the proud men who framed the Constitution would believe it reasonable to go out and arrest someone for a non-arrestable offense and … to further search (him) is an extreme proposition and one that they would not accept."
"But you think they would accept arresting somebody for not wearing a seat belt?" Justice Antonin Scalia interjected. The court in 2001 ruled that people stopped for minor traffic offenses, such as not wearing a seat belt, could be subject to a full-scale arrest. There was no search in that case.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among the justices most skeptical of the state's position, backed by the U.S. Justice Department. When McCullough said an arrest is constitutional if the officers have reason to believe any crime has occurred, Ginsburg countered, "Any crime at all? Jaywalking, for example?"
McCullough responded, "That's correct."
People are all caught up with the Heller case. There are other cases that are eroding our freedoms too.
Anygun
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ourt_N.htm
WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court case heard Monday that could broadly affect the rights of motorists began when two Virginia police detectives stopped David Lee Moore in 2003 for driving with a suspended license.
Instead of simply writing up a summons and letting him go, they arrested and searched him, finding crack cocaine in a jacket pocket. Moore was convicted of possession with intent to distribute. The Virginia Supreme Court voided the conviction, saying the search was unconstitutional because Virginia law does not give police the authority to arrest drivers for minor violations.
Hearing Virginia's appeal, Chief Justice John Roberts and several other justices appeared sympathetic to state arguments that the evidence could be used anyway.
Stephen McCullough, deputy Virginia solicitor general, emphasized that although Virginia and many other states set a higher standard for arresting drivers for small offenses, the U.S. Constitution allows police to arrest people they believe are engaged in wrongdoing, no matter how trivial. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requires only that officers have "probable cause" to believe a crime is being committed before an arrest and search.
McCullough urged the justices to impose a uniform rule that the Fourth Amendment would have allowed Moore's arrest for a suspended license, so it does not require the cocaine evidence to be suppressed. McCullough said the nation should not have differing constitutional rules based on varying state laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a decisive vote, seemed to agree. "I think it is much easier to administer, to have a uniform federal standard, rather than whether or not an officer can arrest in one county for something and not in another county," he said.
Urging the court to rule for Moore, his lawyer Thomas Goldstein said when people engage in activities that do not normally subject them to arrest "they do not have a reduced expectation of privacy," as would people doing something more serious that could lead to an arrest and then search. Goldstein argued that the law restricting arrests for traffic offenses should factor into the Fourth Amendment analysis and said, "We don't want to encourage officers to conduct illegal arrests and search people."
Goldstein invoked the history of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, telling the court, "The notion that the proud men who framed the Constitution would believe it reasonable to go out and arrest someone for a non-arrestable offense and … to further search (him) is an extreme proposition and one that they would not accept."
"But you think they would accept arresting somebody for not wearing a seat belt?" Justice Antonin Scalia interjected. The court in 2001 ruled that people stopped for minor traffic offenses, such as not wearing a seat belt, could be subject to a full-scale arrest. There was no search in that case.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among the justices most skeptical of the state's position, backed by the U.S. Justice Department. When McCullough said an arrest is constitutional if the officers have reason to believe any crime has occurred, Ginsburg countered, "Any crime at all? Jaywalking, for example?"
McCullough responded, "That's correct."
People are all caught up with the Heller case. There are other cases that are eroding our freedoms too.
Anygun
