|
 |
Court ruling limits vehicle searches
|
| By: Mark J. Crawford, Editor |
April 30, 2009 |
|
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week was aimed at protecting individual rights by curtailing law enforcement officers' ability to perform vehicle searches.
It's no secret that drivers pulled over for traffic offenses can wind up being arrested. Perhaps the arresting officer smelled smoke or saw a passenger try to hide something. Perhaps a police canine alerted the officer to the presence of an illegal substance or the officer just had a hunch.
Whatever the reason, routine traffic stops have often resulted in drug arrests. Traffic safety checkpoints have even been used as a net with which to catch drug offenders.
But for every case where drugs are found, there are cases where searches turn up nothing. Whether the person is being arrested or just guilty of a traffic infraction, such searches violate individual rights, according to a majority of court justices.
Justice John Paul Stevens said that even arresting a driver wasn't enough to entitle police to search a vehicle. If they want to search a vehicle, they need to get a warrant.
Starke Police Chief Jeff Johnson said there are questions about the ruling that still have to be answered. State Attorney Bill Cervone will be advising local agencies how to proceed, he said.
"It's a huge change for us," Johnson said.
There are complexities posed by the decision, according to the police chief.
"Even if we make an arrest of the suspect out of a car, we still have to do an inventory of the car before we tow it," Johnson said. Presumably a warrant would not be necessary to perform the inventory if the suspect is already in custody. But what if that inventory turns up an illegal substance? Johnson asked if officers would need to stop at that point and seek a warrant to proceed. What if the suspect is a known drug dealer or has a record?
"It's going to stumble us, no doubt about it. It's going to make things harder," Johnson said.
He said while the change may affect pending cases, the recent ruling wouldn't have an effect on past cases.
Sheriff Gordon Smith wasn't as sure the ruling would greatly affect the way departments have been doing business, but then he said he had yet to find two legal opinions of the ruling that agreed with one another.
"It will settle out in a couple of months," Smith said. "Too many attorneys, and not enough common sense it seems. This will all change again in the near future as with most laws and district court interpretations."
Johnson agreed further court action would be necessary to clarify what agencies are and are not allowed to do.
Searches were limited by the ruling to cases where a weapon may be in the suspect's reach or there may be evidence directly related to the arrest. If a person is arrested for a drug crime, then their vehicle could be searched for drugs.
The 5-4 decision set aside a 1981 ruling that gave law enforcement broader authority to search.
Last week's case involved a man who was arrested in his own driveway for driving with a suspended license. After placing him in a patrol car, police then searched his vehicle and found drugs and a weapon.
He was convicted on drug charges, but the search of his vehicle caused the evidence to later be thrown out by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.
Interestingly, the decision was not made along conserative-liberal lines. In fact, two of the court's most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, voted with the majority.
|
|
©Bradford County Telegraph 2010
|
|
|
