[mysterio]

link

Criminal Law

Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

So basically whatever the officer wants to do when it comes to searching your car is ok and permissable, even if it's not Constitutional. This is an emotional, reactionary decision. He is saying, "I don't like drugs, so let's forget about the Constitution in the case of drugs."

[inquest]

Thanks for the information. I'd have to know a little more about the case before I can make a really solid judgment. If the search actually had turned up contraband, then the person to whom it pertained is just as guilty as he would be if the officer had jumped through all the necessary legal hoops for conducting the search. It doesn't sit well with me at all that proven criminals can reap some kind of windfall just because the officers screwed up.

But if, on the other hand, the search had turned up nothing, and the officer was being sued for an illegal search, then Roberts' ruling was totally inappropriate, and should be grounds for an immediate rejection by the Senate.

[lepton]

Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

You appear to be mentally mispunctuating. The standard for searching the trunk was looking for evidence of a crime (probable cause). The standard for constitutionality is not saying that he is looking for evidence of a crime. The ruling is that he did indeed have probable cause whether he said so aloud or not.

[Sandy]

So basically whatever the officer wants to do when it comes to searching your car is ok and permissable, even if it's not Constitutional. This is an emotional, reactionary decision. He is saying, "I don't like drugs, so let's forget about the Constitution in the case of drugs."

The case had nothing to do with drugs. The vehicle was searched after the driver was arrested for driving without a license. Some fake IDs and stolen credit cards were found inside the passenger compartment, leading the officer to think that there might have been fraudulently purchased items in the trunk. The trunk was then searched, and various purchases were inside plus a handgun. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He won a motion to suppress and the government appealed. LINK