 |
Supreme Court strikes a blow for the Fourth Amendment (a.k.a. Scalia’s got your back, this time)
Stephen C. Webster
Raw Story
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wait, what?
In an unusual reversal of roles today, traditionally right-wing Supreme Court Justices formed a majority in a decision which expands, in practice anyway, citizens’ Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights.
From the Criminal Lawyer blog:
In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today reversed its longstanding bright-line rule which had permitted warrantless car searches after an arrest, even when there was no concern for officer safety or the preservation of evidence. The case is Arizona v Gant.
Writing for the majority in this important decision, Justice Stevens held that the police may only search the passenger compartment of a vehicle, pursuant to the arrest of a recent occupant, if it is reasonable to believe that the arrested person might access the car while it’s being searched, or that the car contains evidence of the crime for which that person was arrested.
Interestingly, the votes were contrary to common stereotype. The majority, which limited police powers, included the two most right-wing justices in the popular mind, Scalia and Thomas. The minority, which would have expanded police powers, included two fairly liberal justices, Kennedy and Breyer.
“The high court’s conservative majority in recent years has generally sided with the police while cutting back on the rights of criminal suspects in car cases,” noted Reuters, reporting on the case in late March after the high court agreed to rule.
The events leading up to the court’s decision were summarized in the court’s decision, available here (PDF link).
“On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner,” reads the court document. “Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later. The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
“When the officers returned to the house that evening,they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and thewoman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Gantwas the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as itdrove by him. Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Gant’s car. Griffith immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him.
“Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.”
Scalia, concurring with the majority, wrote:
“I believe that this standard fails to provide the needed guidance to arresting officers and also leaves much room for manipulation, inviting officers to leave the scene unse-cured (at least where dangerous suspects are not involved) in order to conduct a vehicle search. In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred. Because respondent was arrested for driving without a license (a crime for which no evidence could be expected to be found in the vehicle), I would hold in the present case that the search was unlawful.”
Now that’s an interesting turn of events.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
11 Responses to “Supreme Court strikes a blow for the Fourth Amendment (a.k.a. Scalia’s got your back, this time)”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Why is it that when a judge makes a ruling on a case it becomes like a law and can change the entire application and meaning of the law, but when a jury makes a ruling on a case it only applies to that one specific case and nothing else?
darkhorse Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
It is called martial rule, it is a degree of martial law. we have been under martial law to one degree or another all ouf life so far. The degree of martial law, also known as “public policy is set somewhere between how much the tyrants are willing to dictate and how much the people are willing to tolerate.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 am
Judges make decisions on rules of law and the application of those rules on a case by case basis.s
Juries dont make rulings, they determine whether facts, not law, are proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trial
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
While a good ruling, will it actually change anything at the “street level”? NO! They will have a dog ‘alert’ on the vehicle, or say they saw you reaching for something while being pulled over for a traffic citation. They will ignore this and make you challenge this at trial.
mutha Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
if you survive the traffic stop that is .
we should all have streaming video footage as soon as a thug is in the vicinity.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Paul,
Jurors are the most powerful people in the justice system. That was the biggest safety net for freedom that are founding fathers put into place. We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers, not strangers. Peers are people who are in our lives, family members, friends, who know the most about you and can truly judge your character. Strangers know nothing about you and is not what the founding fathers intended. This has been a critical area for the traitors to manipulate. If we knew we as jury members had the power to not only judge the facts, but the law itself, and if the law is resonable to the crime, we would not be throwing so many people in jail for nonviolent offenses. Judges and prosecutors make sure that the jury is misinformed, believing they can only judge the facts and nothing else. As a juror, if you tell the judge you know your right to judge both the facts and the law itself, you would be instantly removed so they can ensure only noninformed jurors remain that simply do as the court tells them. Also, the prosecutors ensure that every member of the jury is a complete stranger who knows nothing about you. Is that really considered a peer? Look up the definition of a peer and the truth is obvious. They are screwing us out of our most valuable defense against tyranny, the all powerful juror.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
NOW, IF THEY’LL JUST SEE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, MAYBE WE CAN FINALLY GET OUR COUNTRY BACK. MAYBE IF THEY’LL SEE WHAT KIND OF CORRUPTION THAT’S ACTUALLY TAKEN THIS COUNTRY BY STORM AND FINALLY UNDERSTAND WHY AMERICANS ARE ANGRY, PERHAPS WE’LL GET OUR COUNTRY BACK. MAYBE IF THEY’LL SEE THE IDIOCY OF LAWS THAT GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, THE RIGHTS OF EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD, POSSIBLY, WE’LL GET OUR COUNTRY BACK. HOPEFULLY, THEY’LL SEE THAT THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN BE USE TO BUY OFF SOMEONES FREEDOMS…EVEN THEIR OWN. MAYBE THEY’LL SEE THE LIES THAT HAS TRANSPIRED, KNOWING THAT THE VERY SAME LIES, NOT ONLY ENDANGERS THE RIGHTS AND LIBERITIES OF ALL AMERICANS, BUT THEIRS AS WELL.
DO ANY OF THE JUDGES ON THE PANEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OWN ANY GUNS AND KNOWINGLY ANY LAWS THEY SET FORTH WILL, IN FACT, EFFECT THEIR OWNERSHIP OF HAVING A GUN? DO THEY OWN PROPERTY? DO THEY LOVE THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? DO ANY OF THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT APPRECIATE THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY? DO ANY OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES APPRECIATE LIFE ITSELF? DO THEY KOW THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT CAN BE REPLACED?
SURELY, THEY LOVE AMERICA TOO. SURELY THEY LOVE FREEDOM, RIGHTS, AND LIBERTIES THAT WAS GIVEN THEM, AS ALL AMERICANS HAD BEEN GIVEN. SURELY THEY APPRECIATE THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY, WHO HAVE SHED THEIR BLOOD FOR THEIR COUNTRY, JUST SO THEY CAN LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY, AS ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE. IF AMERICA FALLS TO NO RETURN, SO DOES THE SUPREME COURT.
xfreethinkx Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Well met…
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
YUP…I GOOFED AGAIN ON MY SPELLING…”AMENDMENTS”…LOL
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
This is some of the best news i’ve heard in a very long time. It’s about time we get a (1)right BACK!!!!! Didn’t see that coming. A mere glint of some freedom and I get all excited.
It’s a step in the right direction for once.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Has this been reported in Main Stream news yet or are they keeping it hush hush. Good ruling if true.