Fortunately, the Supreme Court has just neutered your special brand of stupidity. In [Arizona v. Gant (MSNBC newsreport of decision)](Arizona v. Gant, 07-542), the Supreme Court invalidated any search of a vehicle after arrest of a suspect unless the search is incident to the offense for which the arrest has been made or the suspect is still close enough to the interior of the vehicle that a search is needed to ensure the safety of the officers.
Thank goodness the Supreme Court understands what kind of game you were playing.
while this is interesting news, and I’m sure you’re salivating at the mouth in hopes of all kinds of win, you misread my posts if you think this changes anything that will happen.
when a person is arrested for a traffic offense, his vehicle will most likely be towed. when we tow, we have to take note of the vehicle’s condition and the word we use is “inventory” to note all items inside the vehicle (this is to prevent wreckers from stealing and/or damaging the vehicle). during this inventory if contraband is found (especially if it’s in the Chimmel circle, look it up) it can be used as evidence.
but again, this is interesting news and I’m looking forward to seeing how it affects our jobs. we are very careful to state to district attorneys that we found such and such evidence upon inventory of the vehicle. the inventory is NOT a search. this case affects the “search incident to arrest”, which is what the news story is saying as the 28-year thing I think. and like I said, this is big news but will not affect the OP’s question.
Well dang, dsp, I looked up “Chimmel circle” in both google and wikipedia, and neither had a lot to say about it. Google mentioned something about privacy.
So please enlighten my unsophisticated self.
seriously? “my special brand of stupidity” ? I didn’t invent these methods. get off your" high horse of civil liberty [according to you and the way you think it should be]". I know you’re a genius and can solve all of our problems from an internet board, just try to cut me some slack and don’t blame the way things ARE on just me, mmmk?
I don’t know where you are in Texas so you might have the opportunity to pull me over and search my vehicle without my consent. You won’t find anything except maybe some network cable so I hope that will be worth the paperwork you’ll be filling out in response to my complaint.
Or do you just keep a copy of your response on the computer to print out every week or so when needed?
no, mr powell deserves everything he gets in punishment. there’s a difference between what I do, and what most of my co-workers do, and what you will probably generalize as typical cop behavior. as for the complaint you’ll inevitably file, I think our union helps with that, but I’m not too sure as I haven’t received one yet.
Wow, that is a HUGE change in the rules! Belton has been the controlling decision for a long time and this complete overturns that.
It will even effect us in Washington, where we were already quite limited in our searches. dustinsquarepants is correct, though, that this won’t impact inventory searches, but we never did those as frequently as we did searches incident to arrest.
While I hate to lose that opportunity to uncover criminal activity (do you have any idea how many serious crimes, including murders, have been discovered solely through searches incident to arrest?), I really have to agree with the Court’s rationale. If the suspect can’t get to his car, officer safety isn’t a big issue. And we just have accept that evidence will get away.
This is why we cops have to keep on top of rulings like this. The playing field changes constantly.
It might not play out like that. The Supremes and the Circuit Courts have been careful in the past to say that inventory searches are permissible so long as they are genuine attempts to ascertain and inventory property and not merely “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990). If a traffic violator suspected of more serious criminal activity is arrested on a pretext so that a inventory search of his impounded vehicle can be conducted to see if it holds contraband, the inventory search probably won’t hold up.
What would be the problem with letting the owner do the inventory then sign a liability release? That would take pressure off the cop.
I’d do that. See how nice I am!
Peace,
mangeorge, who is serious here.
I thought this was an inventory, not a search. If the cop has cause for a search, then she/he will do just that. If the cop’s using inventory as a pretext to search, even for the cop’s safety, well that’s been covered here.
It isn’t a pretext for us to be concerned for our safety. If I’m going to be arresting someone, there is no way they are getting back into their car for any reason.
While the inventory may uncover evidence, we really are doing the inventory for liability reasons. Several years ago one of my officers was impounding a car and forgot to list a wallet that was on the dashboard. The tow truck driver noticed the error and stole the wallet (containing about $400). The arrested person naturally assumed that the cop was the one who stole it, not the minimum wage truck driver. I did an investigation, and the truck driver finally confessed after he failed a polygraph. (The polygrapher told me that he had never seen anyone fall apart so badly on the test. He almost shorted out the polygraph!)
So, if I have to impound a car, I will be doing the inventory. In Washington, that still prevents us from looking in the trunk or in locked containers, so citizens still can keep important things private.
I’ll simply note that the reasoning of the court in the case that came down the other day will no doubt be pounced upon by defense lawyers who will try to make sure that other warantless searches are limited to situations where they are truly necessary, and extend only as far as that necessity reaches. Such as inventory searches.
Note also the odd lineup of the justices who signed onto the opinion in the recent case. :eek:
Now see there? Had the driver been able to inventory the car himself, he would have discovered the wallet and the whole incident would have been avoided.
And if you inventory a car because you’re worried about getting shot, that’s exactly what a pretext is.
Don’t blame you though, for not wanting to get shot. Nor do I, which actually has a higher likely than a cop being shot.
Pretext is not a random term thrown about. It has a specific legal meaning. Liability and officer safety are the stated and real reasons. A pretext would be a suspicion that you are going to find something but don’t have a legal leg to stand on for a search. The stated reason for a search or inventory can not by definition be a pretext.
And it is ridiculous to think that it would be a good idea to let the arrestee inventory the car. You think that is a good idea when it is a violent felon? A drunk?
As much as I hate to agree with this particular poster, he’s right. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says, or the law says, or a state court says.
After nearly thirty years of traveling around the country on a motorcycle, I’ve learned that if a cop wants to search your vehicle, and you, he’s going to. End of story. Sure, by all means, refuse consent because it might help you later, if something comes up. But you’re going to be searched.
“Probable cause”? I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know exactly what consitutes probabe cause. In my experience, it means, among other things, having a New York license plate when you’re riding through Texas. Or having long hair coming out the back of your helmet. Or being on the road late at night.
Forget “rights.” You’re going to get searched. That multitool you’ve got in your pocket? That will be characterized as a weapon. The bottle of Tylenol in your tank bag? Obviously you’re in possession of drugs. And if you’ve got any prescription drugs with you, clearly they will have to be confiscated. You need those drugs? Too bad. You shouldn’t have come to Georgia with your New York plates and your long hair. You don’t have the title to your bike with you? You should have, even though nobody ever carries the title around with them, and as far as I know, there’s no requirement in any state that you do so. But you don’t have it? How is the cop supposed to know the bike isn’t stolen? After all, license plates can be switched. It’s raining? The cop will still have to empty your saddlebags all over the ground. For his own safety, of course. You got a problem with this? Time for the handcuffs.
