It was fun knowing you, 4th Amendment

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Like I said earlier, the case the OP posted isn't news as it's just applying the existing exigent circumstances clause to a case where there was clearly probable cause to suspect destruction of evidence.[/QUOTE]
There is no evidence if there is no warrant
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. From my understanding the general term used is that a search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the "immediate vicinity" around the arrest. [/QUOTE]

More or less; my crim pro professor always said it was whatever was in their "wingspan."

[quote name='dmaul1114']So within reach would apply to that, but maybe it's not quite that limited? Though it sounds like it has gotten narrowed down more again from the info provided by silentevil.[/QUOTE]

Gant refers specifically to searches of vehicles incident to arrest. The old rule (Belton) said cops could search the whole passenger compartment incident to arrest regardless of the circumstances. The new rule (Gant) basically says that you can only search the passenger compartment incident to arrest if the person you're going to arrest is still unrestrained and can reach inside the cabin of the car. So once they're handcuffed, the cops can't search the interior of the car anymore under that rationale.

Gant also has a second prong that says you can search a car if you have a reasonable suspicion evidence related to the crime of arrest will be there. But that second prong may just have been something the Court said; I have no idea if it's actually used.

Outside of the vehicle context, "immediate vicinity" is the rule, as you say.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, if they're impounding the car, then they have time to get a warrant if they can't get consent.

The automobile exception is in place because cars are mobile and can disappear. If they're impounding the car, that goes way, so the cops would be stupid to do a warrantless search if they don't get consent vs. just impounding it, getting a warrant and then searching it.[/QUOTE]

Right. It wouldn't provide an exception to the warrant requirement. But assuming an impound would occur the inevitable discovery of all the evidence in the car would mean the exclusionary rule would likely not be applied vis-a-vis that evidence and any derivative evidence. And since exclusion is the chief practical consequence of an illegal search, that makes a lot of difference.
 
Yep. I was just saying that if it's being impounded, they have time to get a warrant so there's no sense in taking a chance with either a warrantless search or the inevitable discovery rule.

No reason to create extra work for the prosecution and take any chances thart evidence could possibly be thrown out in that situation. The impounded car isn't going anywhere so they might as well just cover their asses and get a warrant first.

Inevitable discovery doesn't necessarily apply in an impound case as not all impounded cars get fully searched. I.e. A car impounded for being illegally parked shouldn't be getting searched unless they hav probable cause that thy'll find evidence of a crime.
 
CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.~http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html
 
Now that's a ridiculous state supreme court ruling! Thankfully I don't see anyway that survives the US Supreme court.

Random searches really can only get argued under the "special needs" exemption currently (airports, random traffic stops like a DUI checkpoint where they only stop every 3rd cra etc.)--very hard to make such an argument for random house searches.

I'll have to look up more details of that case afterwhile and see what the hell the context was and what the judge's arguments were.
 
[quote name='silentevil']My suggestion to anyone in college is to take a criminology or criminal law course. You won't know as much as someone who majors in it but you'll still know more than the lay person.[/QUOTE]

And you'll also get to look like one of those know-it-all assholes on Campus PD when you're too drunk to remember facts but like to have fun arguing. They're the best!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Now that's a ridiculous state supreme court ruling! Thankfully I don't see anyway that survives the US Supreme court.[/QUOTE]

It's the same opinion hostyl1 cited yesterday, and from a quick read it doesn't stand for anything remotely resembling random suspicionless home searches. Some crazy sheriff is just construing it that way, for some reason. Maybe because he's crazy.
 
[quote name='nasum']And you'll also get to look like one of those know-it-all assholes on Campus PD when you're too drunk to remember facts but like to have fun arguing. They're the best![/QUOTE]

I've had drunk people that knew everything and sober people that knew everything. I'd much rather deal with the drunks.

At least with drunk people you don't end up with a mid life jack ass who doesn't want to sign a ticket. Even after you explain that if they don't they'll lose their license and go to jail. The phrase it's not an admission of guilt means nothing to them. I think some people think leos like taking them to jail.
 
[quote name='silentevil']....coke had coke in it.[/QUOTE]

But Coca-cola wasn't invented until 1886... I thought we were talking about the Founders.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Now that's a ridiculous state supreme court ruling! Thankfully I don't see anyway that survives the US Supreme court.

Random searches really can only get argued under the "special needs" exemption currently (airports, random traffic stops like a DUI checkpoint where they only stop every 3rd cra etc.)--very hard to make such an argument for random house searches.

I'll have to look up more details of that case afterwhile and see what the hell the context was and what the judge's arguments were.[/QUOTE]

Funny that *now* you see why I was so worried about it. This is the type of abuse I was foreseeing happening. As you, I am fairly confident that this is a violation of the 4th amendment and will be overturned (clarified?) by SCotUS.

If not, God help us all.
 
What does resisting unreasonable search and seizure have to do with the government banning unreasonable search and seizure?
 
Since it's a matter of right against unreasonable search and seizure (US&S) resisting said US&S is merely an assertion of said right. If one is unable to assert their rights, then the right effectively does not exist. Thus I'd argue that being able to resist an US&S is a fundamental part of the granted right against US&S.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Since it's a matter of right against unreasonable search and seizure (US&S) resisting said US&S is merely an assertion of said right. If one is unable to assert their rights, then the right effectively does not exist. Thus I'd argue that being able to resist an US&S is a fundamental part of the granted right against US&S.[/QUOTE]

The right is protected by the exclusionary rule. Evidence obtained in an illegal search or seizure cannot be used in court.

That's the legal rights we have. We don't have the right to use force to resist a search. We can just assert our rights, and if the police think they have a legal reason to do the search without a warrant, then we can challenge it in court.

And of course there's also the civil suit option to try to get compensation for being illegally searched, in addition to just having any evidence found dismissed via the exclusionary rule.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Since it's a matter of right against unreasonable search and seizure (US&S) resisting said US&S is merely an assertion of said right. If one is unable to assert their rights, then the right effectively does not exist. Thus I'd argue that being able to resist an US&S is a fundamental part of the granted right against US&S.[/QUOTE]

I'd think a prompt arraignment, suppression motions and civil suits are more than enough in the way of means to assert your rights.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I'd think a prompt arraignment, suppression motions and civil suits are more than enough in the way of means to assert your rights.[/QUOTE]

Then you and I will respectfully agree to disagree. I think it is fully within the spirit and construct of the 4th amendment to, in the case of an officer's illegal entry into the home, to simply stand in a doorway, to bar access to , say, one's bedroom. The officer has no right to be there and you have the right to be secure in your own home.

But, if it is as you say, then this case will survive a constitutional challenge (which is sure to come). My guess is that SCotUS will overturn it, or at least force it to be clarified. As evidenced by the above noted sheriff, the Indiana SC ruling, at best, is subject to overly broad interpretation.

We'll see whose opinon is upheld in the coming weeks/months/years.
 
[quote name='solid snake']You know what the founders, and militia men back in the 1770's would do about this?[/QUOTE]

Tar and feathered someone without due process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top