No Warrant-No search

Finally one for the people. :thumbsup:

Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches

3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) â?? The Supreme Court has ruled that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The court's 5-4 decision Tuesday effectively limits the authority of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that if a car's passenger compartment is not within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle, then police have little reason to rush to a warrantless search.

The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

Good. The 4th Amendment should atleast stand for something.

Fourth Amendment –
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Hmmm so I guess I will put my stuff under the passenger seat and thats that?

Wish it would help but there is away around everything. They just won't cuff you and put you in the police car untill The ( I smell something search is over ) Probable cause will win out everytime. If they do follow this new law they will just impound and have the dogs take care of it.

How about not issueing search warrants from an arrested person with drugs or other crimes and just going on their word that you are doing wrong. I have the right to face my accuser before they search. How about no searches on the word of a dumb animal (dogs).

If you think you are free in the USA, Think again.

And as we've seen these drug sniffing dogs are really a big lie. They don't hit on anything and the car still gets searched. If it there going to use reasonable cause than they need to find reasonable cause. A dog won't do it. How you going to bring a dog into the courtroom to cross examine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOC NAR on probation

If you think you are free in the USA, Think again.

---

hahahah you don't know how wrong you are.

They overturned the States Supreme Court Ruling! I agree with the Fed decision to, the point however is, they had not right to overturn what the state supreme court decided!

Actually it is one of the few things constitutionally that fed court can do. If its a civil rights issue, which is what this is, they should have the right to take it all the way to the federal supreme court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Actually it is one of the few things constitutionally that fed court can do. If its a civil rights issue, which is what this is, they should have the right to take it all the way to the federal supreme court.

---

Read Article III Section II of the Constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the man in question was a citizen of Arizona. It lists instances in which the Supreme Court has power, I don't however see this as being one of them.

To sum up what the article says the Supreme Court can interfere:
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls
2. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
3. controversies to which the U.S. shall be a party
4. controversies between separate states
5. controversies between a state and the citizens of another state
6. controversies between citizens of different states
7. citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.
8. controversies between a state and foreign nation.

I fail to see where the constitution justifies the supreme court overruling the states supreme court on this issue.

Yes, they have taken it upon themselves to rule on civil rights issues, however, I have failed to see where in the Constitution it grants them that right.

If I'm wrong, by all means post the article or amendment that supports your claim.

This is good, however i'm sticking with the trunk of my car for all my shit. They definitely will not search that without a warrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Read Article III Section II of the Constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the man in question was a citizen of Arizona. It lists instances in which the Supreme Court has power, I don't however see this as being one of them.

To sum up what the article says the Supreme Court can interfere:
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls
2. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
3. controversies to which the U.S. shall be a party
4. controversies between separate states
5. controversies between a state and the citizens of another state
6. controversies between citizens of different states
7. citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.
8. controversies between a state and foreign nation.

I fail to see where the constitution justifies the supreme court overruling the states supreme court on this issue.

Yes, they have taken it upon themselves to rule on civil rights issues, however, I have failed to see where in the Constitution it grants them that right.

If I'm wrong, by all means post the article or amendment that supports your claim.

---

Yeah technically you are right. But what should someone do when there civil rights guaranteed by the US Bill Of Rights have been violated by your own state supreme court? Which seems to be happening quite frequently now a days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Yeah technically you are right. But what should someone do when there civil rights guaranteed by the US Bill Of Rights have been violated by your own state supreme court? Which seems to be happening quite frequently now a days.

---

You protest to your state.

Well, since its a Fourth Amendment issue concerning search and seizure, and all the states ratified the constitution, it puts it in the in the purview of the SCOTUS. And that gives the SCOTUS the right to overrule the SCOA. The Fourth Amendment applies equally in all 50 states or at least its supposed to. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

You protest to your state.

---

If your state supreme court is corrupt you should be able to go to the federal supreme court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

If your state supreme court is corrupt you should be able to go to the federal supreme court.

---

The Federal supreme court has no right to overturn the state court on that issue. It is far easier to fight your own state than D.C. I'm an hour drive from protesting in my state capitol against an injustice at their hands. It is far easier to fight against a state government than the Feds.

You are also under the assumption the Fed Supreme court has all honorable members which they certainly don't.

Personally, I think our founders fucked up on this one. Supreme court justices should be elected and have term limits.