Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Car Searches
Changing a long-standing rule, the justices ruled that police cannot routinely search a suspect's car after an arrest. (The Washington Post)
Changing a long-standing rule, the justices ruled that police cannot routinely search a suspect's car after an arrest. (The Washington Post)
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Supreme Court yesterday sharply limited the power of police to search a suspect's car after making an arrest, acknowledging that the decision changes a rule that law enforcement has relied on for nearly 30 years.
In a decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, an unusual five-member majority said police may search a vehicle without a warrant only when the suspect could reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence, or when it is "reasonable to believe" there is evidence in the car supporting the crime at hand.
The justices noted that law enforcement for years has interpreted the court's rulings on warrantless car searches to mean that officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as part of a lawful arrest of a suspect. But Stevens said that was a misreading of the court's decision in New York v. Belton in 1981.
"Blind adherence to Belton's faulty assumption would authorize myriad uncons utional searches," Stevens said, adding that the court's tradition of honoring past decisions did not bind it to continue such a view of the law. "The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine cons utional violations."
Stevens was joined by two of his most liberal colleagues -- Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- and two of his most conservative -- Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The decision overturned a three-year prison sentence for Arizonan Rodney Gant, who had been convicted of cocaine possession. Police found the drug in a search of his car after his arrest for driving with a suspended license. Gant had walked away from his car when he was arrested, and he sat handcuffed a distance away while police searched his vehicle.
"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.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the court's insistence that its precedents had been misinterpreted was simply a cover for getting rid of a decision with which it disagreed.
He said the replacement of what had been an easy-to-understand "bright line" rule for police "is virtually certain to confuse law enforcement officers and judges for some time to come."
The court's new rules will endanger arresting officers, he said, and "cause the suppression of evidence gathered in many searches carried out in good-faith reliance on well-settled case law."
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer.
The case is Arizona v. Gant.
Well, good.
No Bush appointees. Well, of Bush fils. This majority is good to see, as one should see justices from both ends of the judicial spectrum joining together for such an opinion.Stevens was joined by two of his most liberal colleagues -- Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- and two of his most conservative -- Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Is this a good thing?
Is personal liberty? Cons utional rights? The state is not the Cons ution.
I'm thinking it's not a good thing.
Woohoo! Way to go Supreme Court.
I expect conservatives to decry this, even though this should be something they are in favor of. (Decreases the chance of government poking in where it shouldn't, increases personal liberty.)
Edit: Mainly because conservatives hate big government, unless it leads to a perceived or actual increase in the powers of "law and order", in which they're big fans of it.
I can live with it.
True. Same for military action and expenditure. Though that train of thought did originate as a defense of those ins utions. It's reflexive these days and unfortunately many on the right seem to have lost the natural skepticism one would expect them to demonstrate at the expansion of police power or the military.
I agree that government shouldn't be poking in where it shouldn't, but government pays for the roads that the public drives on.
I don't see the problem with a search of a vehicle on a public road.
Rodney Gant is a free man, though.
So we lose our cons utional rights when there's a subsidy? (There's a bit of old truth there about why a small, limited government is preferable).
I think it's a great decision. The liberty infringement of searches incident to arrest have always struck me as a bizarre exception to the warrant requirement. While they might provide a means to find additional evidence to support the basis for the arrest and the ultimate charge to be levied upon the defendant, they also allow an intrusive search that might reveal other crimes without the predicate of probable cause to support those searches.
An arrest -- and certainly an arrest without a conviction -- shouldn't completely eviscerate the liberties against warrantless searches that the Cons ution ensures.
Say a cop pulls someone over and there's a strong smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle, the driver has a powdery residue on his nose, and the back seat is stacked with car stereo equipment. The cop has to wait for a judge to issue a warrant before searching the vehicle? Am I misinterpreting this?
So any time you're driving down a public road, it would be acceptable for a police officer to stop you and search your vehicle?
Yes, you are.
In your hypothetical, there would be probable cause to search for drugs at least. That would have nothing to do with the arrest, though.
In Gant's situation, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license and there was, apparently, no probable cause to think he had committed any other crime. The Court's holding says that arrest alone doesn't furnish probable cause and that arrest alone is insufficient to permit a warrantless search.
Then I agree with the decision.
Government pays for the streets that people walk on too. That doesn't mean that the government should have the right to search anyone on public property.
Thanks for finally reading.
what cons utional right are you losing if a cop searches your vehicle?
I agree but I don't think cops searching people walking on sidewalks is an issue.
I was pulled over a few years back for not wearing a seat belt. They searched my car, took my picture with a polaroid and gave me a warning for the seat belt. I thought it was strange but the officer was polite and fast. Later I found out they were looking for a person driving the type of car I had for robbing a store and assaulting a women. I have no problem with them doing what they did.
Did you get a certificate for your free meal at Chili's then or did you have to wait for it to arrive in the mail?
I got the satisfaction that my tax dollars were being spent well. Its not always the case with the police.
And, in that instance, they had at the very least, some cause to ins ute a search. I'd be curious if you consented to the search, too, or whether they just told you they were going to search your car. But in either event, your scenario is a far cry from saying that arresting someone provides a reasonable basis to search to see if they've done anything else wrong.
At least they were efficient when they violated your cons utional right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
