[djf]

Even though Washington state is generally thought to be a liberal hellhole, there was a similar decision a few years back called Byrd V Seattle, where the privacy right (as specifically mentioned in the Washington Constitution) was held in strong regard.

A person going and coming and doing his business without any obvious signs of a crime in progress is still considered innocent.

[Little_shoe]

As much as I hate to see druggies get off, I have to agree with the courts decision. I know if a cop ever asks to search my car I’m Not giving him permission.

[coloradan]

Heh.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

The same logic prevailed in the case of Raymond Harris, a passenger in a car stopped for an illegal left turn. When the sheriff's deputy involved discovered the vehicle's driver had no valid driver's license, he asked Harris to produce his. Harris did so, and the deputy then checked his identity for outstanding warrants. Harris had one, was arrested on the old warrant, and upon being searched subsequent to arrest was found to be in possession of crack cocaine. He was convicted, but appealed, arguing that police had no probable cause to run a warrant check on him.

Again, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed. "The warrant check was not supported by a reasonable, articulate suspicion that Harris had committed or was about to commit a crime," Justice Charles Freeman wrote, overturning Harris' conviction.

Sorry, but this is sheer idiocy. He has a warrant out for his arrest, but unless you suspect him of committing another crime right then, you can't book him? Stupidity.

[printhead]

Correct me if I’m wrong, I believe one of Mario Cuomo’s last acts in NY was to make any moving violation probable cause.