High Court Limits Searches of Suspect's Car After Arrest

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

I don't know whats wrong with Scalia and Thomas. I'm thinking that they might have brokered a deal to finally acknowledge states rights.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,567
126
scalia has actually been a bit of search and seizure right champion.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So, Alito's basic argument is that the constitutional rights issue is secondary to having a 'simple rule' for police? What a bizarre exception to the usual voting blocks on this case.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.

Though you could also argue it began way back with the criminalization of marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. a century ago.

I've seen various claims of Marijuana's prohibition being driven be commercial competitors to hemp, but haven't checked whether those are mis-information.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
IMO, the conservative position is to limit the government's power over citizens.

I see no reason that police should be able to automatically search your car because you've been arrested for no drivers license etc. You don't lose the 4th because you license expired or you're on public property (roadway).

Fern
 

racolvin

Golden Member
Jul 26, 2004
1,254
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, the conservative position is to limit the government's power over citizens.

I see no reason that police should be able to automatically search your car because you've been arrested for no drivers license etc. You don't lose the 4th because you license expired or you're on public property (roadway).

Fern

This +1
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by "getting tough on drugs" after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime. The most important Democratic political leader, House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill, was from Boston, MA. The Boston Celtics had signed Bias. During the July 4 congressional recess, O'Neill's constituents were so consumed with anger and dismay about Bias' death, O'Neill realized how powerful an anti-drug campaign would be.
O'Neill knew that for Democrats to take credit for an anti-drug program in November elections, the bill had to get out of both Houses of Congress by early October. That required action on the House floor by early September, which meant that committees had to finish their work before the August recess. Since the idea was born in early July, the law-writing committees had less than a month to develop the ideas, to write the bills to carry out those ideas, and to get comments from the relevant government agencies and the public at large.

One idea was considered for the first time by the House Judiciary Committee four days before the recess began. It had tremendous political appeal as "tough on drugs." This was the creation of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases. It was a type of penalty that had been removed from federal law in 1970 after extensive and careful consideration. But in 1986, no hearings were held on this idea. No experts on the relevant issues, no judges, no one from the Bureau of Prisons, or from any other office in the government, provided advice on the idea before it was rushed through the committee and into law. Only a few comments were received on an informal basis. After bouncing back and forth between the Democratic controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate as each party jockeyed for poitical advantage, The Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 finally passed both houses a few weeks before the November elections.


Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.
And a right wing court just made one of the biggest privacy rulings in about 30 years. What's your explanation for that?

Blinders keep the sun out of your eyes, I understand.

Much like every major fuckup in US history, both sides contributed tremendously. Only partisans such as yourself can't see that.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,567
126
the old rule, allowing cops to cuff and stuff someone and then search the car, was based on a fear that cops would actually leave people uncuffed in order to search the car. i wonder if any cops will actually start doing that, so they can claim (if challenged) that the car was searched while someone could get at a weapon?


Originally posted by: marincounty

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.

yeah, because blackmun, brennan, and stevens weren't appointed by republicans

:confused:
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.
And a right wing court just made one of the biggest privacy rulings in about 30 years. What's your explanation for that?

Blinders keep the sun out of your eyes, I understand.

Much like every major fuckup in US history, both sides contributed tremendously. Only partisans such as yourself can't see that.

Did you notice that three of the five votes were from the so-called liberal judges?
And the latest right-wingers on the court, Alito and Roberts voted against this.

Only a blind partisan would claim both sides contributed to this tremendously. This is largely a Republican deal. There are some Democrats that support this crap, but very few compared to Republicans.

Text

Reagan signs The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
Reagan signs an enormous omnibus drug bill, which appropriates $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis. $97 million is allocated to build new prisons, $200 million for drug education and $241 million for treatment. The bill's most consequential action is the creation of mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. Possession of at least one kilogram of heroin or five kilograms of cocaine is punishable by at least ten years in prison. In response to the crack epidemic, the sale of five grams of the drug leads to a mandatory five-year sentence. Mandatory minimums become increasingly criticized over the years for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.

Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" Movement begins.
Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign becomes a centerpiece of the Reagan administration's anti-drug campaign. The movement focuses on white, middle class children and is funded by corporate and private donations.


 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.
And a right wing court just made one of the biggest privacy rulings in about 30 years. What's your explanation for that?

Blinders keep the sun out of your eyes, I understand.

Much like every major fuckup in US history, both sides contributed tremendously. Only partisans such as yourself can't see that.

Let's be honest right now. The reason you are both 1up'ing each other is because both parties run huge on the anti-drug campaign. Democrats to appease white mother's "oh think of the children" feelings and republican's to appease the crime and punishment "damn minorities and teeneyboppers ruining this country" feelings.

It also allows both sides to look "tough on crime". And it also allows each other to show each other up.

Even some libertarians are against drug legalization. Only recent years have seen people from all sides admitting it has been stupid policies.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.
And a right wing court just made one of the biggest privacy rulings in about 30 years. What's your explanation for that?

Blinders keep the sun out of your eyes, I understand.

Much like every major fuckup in US history, both sides contributed tremendously. Only partisans such as yourself can't see that.

Let's be honest right now. The reason you are both 1up'ing each other is because both parties run huge on the anti-drug campaign. Democrats to appease white mother's "oh think of the children" feelings and republican's to appease the crime and punishment "damn minorities and teeneyboppers ruining this country" feelings.

It also allows both sides to look "tough on crime". And it also allows each other to show each other up.

Even some libertarians are against drug legalization. Only recent years have seen people from all sides admitting it has been stupid policies.

No, the only reason Democrats went along with this is because they would be demonized as being soft on drugs, or soft on crime.

Here in California, medical marijuana pushed by Democrats, opposed by Republicans.

There is currently a push to legalize marijuana in California, pushed by a Democrat. No one has co-sponsored this bill, not a Democrat or a Republican, because they are afraid of being demonized.

Where are the Republicans who are for legalization of marijuana?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,639
2,909
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the old rule, allowing cops to cuff and stuff someone and then search the car, was based on a fear that cops would actually leave people uncuffed in order to search the car. i wonder if any cops will actually start doing that, so they can claim (if challenged) that the car was searched while someone could get at a weapon?


Originally posted by: marincounty

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.

yeah, because blackmun, brennan, and stevens weren't appointed by republicans

:confused:

If I read the article correctly, this case hinged on the defendant's proximity to the vehicle, not the presence of restraints. The defendant exited the vehicle, walked away, and sat down. At that point, there was no longer imminent danger of the defendant having access to a weapon in the passenger compartment.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,567
126
Originally posted by: marincounty

Did you notice that three of the five votes were from the so-called liberal judges?
And the latest right-wingers on the court, Alito and Roberts voted against this.
and three of the five votes were from republican appointees
Only a blind partisan would claim both sides contributed to this tremendously. This is largely a Republican deal. There are some Democrats that support this crap, but very few compared to Republicans.
oh the ironing

[/quote]

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,567
126
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the old rule, allowing cops to cuff and stuff someone and then search the car, was based on a fear that cops would actually leave people uncuffed in order to search the car. i wonder if any cops will actually start doing that, so they can claim (if challenged) that the car was searched while someone could get at a weapon?

If I read the article correctly, this case hinged on the defendant's proximity to the vehicle, not the presence of restraints. The defendant exited the vehicle, walked away, and sat down. At that point, there was no longer imminent danger of the defendant having access to a weapon in the passenger compartment.

right, so, now, are cops going to a) leave people in the vehicle for the search, or b) have one cop 'cover' the guy while standing right next to the door while the second searches the vehicle?
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from Fark.

It's about time we started reclaiming some of our constitutional rights taken away by the insane war on drugs, started by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, entrenched by Clinton.

Waiting to hear about the "schools can strip search students" one, I'm thinking this will go the same route.

Actually the war on drugs started with Nixon. Nice trying to blame Clinton for this, Republicans would have crucified him for ending the drug war.
It didn't get serious until Len Bias croaked, and it got nasty under the leadership of Tip O'Neil.

Nice to know that you judge your parties actions on what the opposition will do if they don't like it though :) Search and seizure and minimum mandatory sentences got much worse under Clinton's watch, but it's the republicans fault LOL!

Who was pushing these mandatory minimums and such? Republicans.
Who packed the court with right-wingers? Republicans
What court okayed sobriety checkpoints? A right-wing court appointed by Republicans.
And a right wing court just made one of the biggest privacy rulings in about 30 years. What's your explanation for that?

Blinders keep the sun out of your eyes, I understand.

Much like every major fuckup in US history, both sides contributed tremendously. Only partisans such as yourself can't see that.

Let's be honest right now. The reason you are both 1up'ing each other is because both parties run huge on the anti-drug campaign. Democrats to appease white mother's "oh think of the children" feelings and republican's to appease the crime and punishment "damn minorities and teeneyboppers ruining this country" feelings.

It also allows both sides to look "tough on crime". And it also allows each other to show each other up.

Even some libertarians are against drug legalization. Only recent years have seen people from all sides admitting it has been stupid policies.

No, the only reason Democrats went along with this is because they would be demonized as being soft on drugs, or soft on crime.

Here in California, medical marijuana pushed by Democrats, opposed by Republicans.

There is currently a push to legalize marijuana in California, pushed by a Democrat. No one has co-sponsored this bill, not a Democrat or a Republican, because they are afraid of being demonized.

Where are the Republicans who are for legalization of marijuana?

Ron who?
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: marincounty
Where are the Republicans who are for legalization of marijuana?

They're called libertarians.

I do believe that a majority of conservative individuals who agree with legalization are Lib'ers; however, I don't think a majority of Lib'ers agree with legalization.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,639
2,909
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
right, so, now, are cops going to a) leave people in the vehicle for the search, or b) have one cop 'cover' the guy while standing right next to the door while the second searches the vehicle?

Based on this quote
"Police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein," Stevens wrote.

I'd surmise that in the scenario at hand, neither option would produce a valid search. Under a) the suspect DOES have access to the car at the time of the search but there would be little to nothing to gain in the way of evidence for what he was arrested AND to allow the suspect to remain in the vehicle would be extremely negligent. Under b) the access is gone and the other concerns still exist.

My reading so far of the opinion is that the SC intends all searches after routine stops to be illegal unless the officer has compelling evidence otherwise.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Search incident to a lawful arrest
Chimel v. California (1969)

This rule permits an officer to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest. This search is limited to only the person arrested and the area immediately surrounding the person in which the person may gain possession of a weapon, in some way effect an escape, or destroy or hide evidence


Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas is about as bizarre a combination as we may evr see ....
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, the conservative position is to limit the government's power over citizens.

I see no reason that police should be able to automatically search your car because you've been arrested for no drivers license etc. You don't lose the 4th because you license expired or you're on public property (roadway).

Fern
:thumbsup: