Practical Travel Safety Issues - Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Vehicle Searches

From today's NY Times.

Court Limits Searches (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22scotus.html?_r=1&hp)

But adds "get-out" riders which will allow the police to pretty much carry on business(sic) as usual. Secure in the knowledge that 99% of perps will simply get a PD and a plea bargain. If that.

And no mention of course of the CBP.

"Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Stevens’s opinion, as might be expected, but so did Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who often differ with their more liberal colleagues."

I'm truly astonished to see Scalia and Thomas on the same side of sanity, for a change. Maybe they have been reading tea leaves?

"Search Incident to arrest" has always been fuzzy. Lets hope they get it right. :rolleyes:

Both the thread name and the article title are misleading -- the ruling did not "limit" searches or "overturn" an earlier decision. As noted by Justice Stevens himself, the earlier decision (New York v Belton) said it was legal for a police officer to conduct a search incident to an arrest to the extent that it was necessary to either a) ensure the arrestee had no access to weapons (i.e., within "arms reach", which definitely meant that looking in the trunk was outside the scope) or b) to prevent them from destroying evidence.

As usual, the police completely twisted the words and intent of NY v Belton and began systematically mis-educating police officers to believe that if they find someone breaking the law then that gives them free reign to search all they want. As a result, for example, motorists for the past 30 years have routinely had their rights abused by mis-informed or willfully ignorant police officers who have asserted that finding someone driving without a seat belt on entitled them to have a look in the trunk.

Arizona v Gant didn't "reverse" anything or say anything "new". It simply said to the police, "sorry, you need to go back and re-read Belton for what it actually says, and not what you want it to say, and nothing this Court has ever said in Belton or elsewhere gave you the ability to disregard the U.S. Constitution and abuse citizens. That was the case before and after Belton, and that is the case now. Your search was illegal and the fruits of the search cannot be admitted into evidence."

This is the whole problem with any of these narrow carve-outs created by these various Supreme Court cases -- the police invariably try to find a way to make their own re-interpretation which always -- surprise! -- results in a reduction in citizen rights. And then it takes 30 years for them to be put in their place by a Court that simply affirms what was obvious to everyone but the police in the first place.

I applaud the clarification. It's about damn time!

And then it takes 30 years for them to be put in their place by a Court that simply affirms what was obvious to everyone but the police in the first place.You give them too little credit. The police knew what the rulings were intended to mean all along. Just ignored them; and will continue to do so.

You give them too little credit. The police knew what the rulings were intended to mean all along. Just ignored them; and will continue to do so.
Yup. You get pulled over, have an expired license, and just before your car is towed they "inventory" the items in the car. Oh no, it's not a diliberate search, but look what they found.

The Constitution is looked at as an obstacle, not a guideline.