Warrantless Vehicle Searches Are Limited in 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Greg Stohr

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court limited police powers, ruling that officers violated the Constitution when they searched the car of an Arizona man who had already been handcuffed and put in a patrol car.

Voting 5-4, the justices today overturned Rodney Gant’s three-year prison sentence for possessing the cocaine officers found in his car. The majority said police needed a warrant because Gant had already parked the car and walked away from it when police arrested him for driving with a suspended license.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the search didn’t fall within an exception to the warrant requirement the court has carved out for searches that take place at the time of arrest. Stevens said that exception existed to ensure an arrested person didn’t grab a weapon or destroy evidence.

“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.

The case split the court into an unusual alignment, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining Stevens.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.kbCVkBoPXM&refer=home

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. That is an unusual alignment. nt

[MADem]

2. Clarence and Fat Tony hopping the fence? Who knew? nt

[rfranklin]

3. I was wondering how Thomas feels about naked 13 year-old girls...

Let's hope he rules against strip searching them.

[Renew Deal]

4. Says a lot about Roberts and Alito

And none of it is good.

[Hepburn]

8. Exactly.....n/t

[w4rma]

10. That they are even worse than Scalia and Thomas? Yes. (nt)

[paulsby]

5. it;'s a good ruling

i do searches incident to arrest all the time of motor vehicles.

but in the instant case, it shouldn't have qualified as incident to arrest.

iow, it's a good ruling

[SkyDaddy7]

6. I like the decision but...

I have no idea how it works elsewhere but I use to work in the Criminal Justice system in Georgia and police can get warrants by simply asking a judge...They don't really have to provide reason other than what they come up with in their head much of the time Judges don't question or care...Because everyone knows cops do not lie ever! Not on reports, for warrants, or on the stand, NEVER!

We had a 92yr old women shot by police not to long ago because they obtained a warrant by simply asking...Sure they gave some reason why but the Judges don't care. The sad thing is the Judges are never held responsible nor are the cops until someone is killed!

[Joanne98]

7. Thomas and Scalia are pro 4th amendment? Who knew.

STOP THE DRUG WARS!

[here_is_to_hope]

9. Consent to nothing.

When I am pulled over, I usually know why.
I roll up the windows, I get my papers, step out of the van and lock it.
There is no reason for an officer to want to search my van unless there is something in plain sight-not likely.
I don't fall for the 'I smell marijuana' bullshit that often leads to some one consenting to a search.
I give permission for nothing, I say nothing and only answer the questions that pertain to the stop.
Casual conversation is a trap.
Casual consent is a trap.

When an officer says "may I talk to you", always so no and ask if you are being detained. If he says yes, ask why. If he says no, leave the officers presence immediately.
I never, ever, ever trust a cop.
Never.

(cross post from the dupe)

[blindpig]

11. Well said, n/t

[bluestateguy]

12. Our liberal Supreme Court has shackled the police once again!

Activist judges, like Scalia and Thomas, legislating from the bench!

:rofl: