The Supreme Court Allows Arrests of All in Drug Stops (PoliceState)

AP ^ | Dec 15,2003 | GINA HOLLAND

[AZPubbie]

Yep. The Maryland case that the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY OVERRULED was a complete outlier with the overwhelming majority of American cases on the subject for the entire history of the Republic. People forget that arrest does not equal conviction. Finding "probable cause" to arrest requires less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict and less than even a preponderance of evidence in civil cases. Moreover, IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN THIS WAY.

Everyone should just chill and think about it for a minute. Two people in a car. Both claim that the pot isn't theirs. Should the police be allowed to arrest both and sort it out or be prevented from arresting either of them? This is common sense defined.

[AZPubbie]

Hank,
I find it difficult to believe that a 9-0 decision like this one is that controversial on this board. Read my post immediately above and let me know what your complaint is.

[ClintonBeGone]

Ever been pulled over for having a light bulb burned out? Or not having your seat belt fastened? Or not stopping for a yellow light?

Yep - all illegal in my state. I have this theory: if you're going to do bad stuff, don't bring unnecessary attention to yurself :P

[AZPubbie]

I suggest that you read my response above as well.

As for why there was a search, it was probably because something triggered the officers suspicion and he asked permission. The reason/basis for the search wasn't an issue in this case and that usually means that the driver consented to the search.

You'd be amazed at how many defendants consent to searches when their case is loaded down with drugs. They admit that they gave consent but claim that they didn't know they could refuse. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has held that police cannot coerce consent, but they don't have to tell the suspect that they're free to refuse.

[AZPubbie]

Actually, yes! See above.

[tracer]

"Maryland, My Maryland".....

[AZPubbie]

You're half-right. If you're "detained" then the police can conduct a Terry-search of the drivers compartment. That does not apply for every stop of a vehicle, however. Only if there's an arrest or reasonable suspicion to fear for officer safety.

[breakem]

Who should have been arrested in this case?

The driver.

[tracer]

More accurately, a reasonable suspicion "that can be successfully articulated" by the officer to a judge at a later date (e.g., arraignment, trial, appeal)....

[AdamSelene235]

You're half-right. If you're "detained" then the police can conduct a Terry-search of the drivers compartment. That does not apply for every stop of a vehicle, however.

Thats what I said in my first post on the subject, # 23 .

Most stops are not contacts but rather detentions stemming from RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion). RAS can get you a terry frisk and up to 40 minutes of detention to develop probable cause for arrest.

[tacticalogic]

You'd be amazed at how many defendants consent to searches when their case is loaded down with drugs. They admit that they gave consent but claim that they didn't know they could refuse. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has held that police cannot coerce consent, but they don't have to tell the suspect that they're free to refuse.

Unless the officer can give some reason for the search, and tell you specifically what he's looking for I don't see any reason to consent. If he's asking to search, he must think there's something to find. If you don't have it, that means he's going to tear your car apart looking for what isn't there until there's nowhere else to look. Then he may just bid you "Good day." and leave you standing there with your personal effects scattered out on the ground alongside the road.

[mrfixit514]

I don't have to worry about it. I don't ride with or associate with anyone that uses drugs. I guess those complaining about the ruling will have to be more careful about who they run with.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

"You certainly wouldn't let three people with Uzis in their car leave because no one would admit the uzis were theirs," he said.

And why not?

[tenthirteen]

From what I understand, if your fare is in the back seat, and the meter is on, then you are OK as far as contraband is concerned. The running meter creates a business agreement between you and that fare, so no personal relationship is established. If there is no meter, then there is no business contract. If drugs are found with no business contact established, then the driver is in it for the long haul.

[Revel]

No more car pooling. Everyone must drive seperately. The problems with this verses our constituion and justice itself is just mind boggling. The USSC is the most anti-american court to ever exist.

[madison10]

Beginning to wonder if Sandra Day O'Connor is getting alzheimers/or some other malady, like a brain tumor. Seriously. She's voting wacky.

[tracer]

If the officer removes the passengers out of and away from the vehicle (as is often prudent) an assertion of the "reasonableness" of a search of the passenger compartment may prove problemmatic.

A warrantless search of the trunk and its contents represents an even bigger question mark, unless a K-9 is involved or, possible, a cartridge or shell is in plain view or is found during a "righteous" search of the passenger compartment.

Search and seizure is a major headacdhe. I've seen a few training films in which simulated traffic (and pedestrian) stops and searches were independently critiqued on-camera by public defenders, senior LEOs, prosecutors, private-practice criminal defense attorneys, and local judges -- and the discourse contained therein was akin to what you hear upon telephoning the IRS for the answer to a tax question.

Talk about a specialty topic.......

[Cultural Jihad]

America is gone. Welcome to the New World Order.

Naw. America is still here. "ask" is gone, though, as should be the ACLU.

[Cultural Jihad]

Forget the issue of recreational drugs. What if the item found on the floor were counterfeit money? Or a bomb? The same principle would apply.

[William Terrell]

I hope you're right. The SCc doesn't break their stare decisis doctrine very often, but it has happened. I would think, though, that if the rich or politically powerful gets caught in this lurch, it'll be handled before it ever gets to court.