Posted on 11/24/2008 6:32:06 PM PST by CE2949BB
(11-24) 16:23 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Police who stop a car without a legal reason may be allowed to use evidence they find in the vehicle against the driver or a passenger, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court unanimously reinstated the drug conviction and four-year prison sentence of a Northern California man whose previous appeal in the case led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision on passengers' rights.
The case dates from Nov. 27, 2001, when a Sutter County sheriff's deputy stopped a car in Yuba City just after midnight.
The car's registration had expired, but the owner had applied for renewal and had a temporary permit number taped to the rear window. The state high court said the deputy's explanation for flagging down the car - that he thought the number might belong to someone else - was not justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
So you can stop anyone and search for no reason? is that what this means?
There was once something called the 4th Amendment but it was lost in antiquity.
It appears they still have to fabricate an excuse.
Not that that’s a big deterrent.
I read the entire article and that is not what I took away from it.
We all knew the fourth amendment was no longer the standard; it has long been a matter of “probable cause.” It seems that now the standard is “good faith,” a term, it seems to me, much harder to define. How long before cops are pulling over and frisking random citizens with no cause and smile on their faces, since everyone with a smile on their face must have “good faith.”
Sure sounds that way — and the exclusionary rule won’t apply!
So if Carl the cop doesn’t like the color of your skin he’ll pull you over on a pretense and hope if he finds contraband?
This will never get past SCOTUS.
A cop saw a guy who he recognized as a wanted fugitive so he arrested him. What's the problem?
“I read the entire article and that is not what I took away from it.”
Really? I did. Never mind if you have a valid reason for conducting a search, you can still do it with impunity.
If we ever get our country back, one of the most challenging tasks we will face is redrafting the Constitution in even more unambiguous and idiot-proof terms than our founders did with version 1.0.
The Warren Court during its heyday might have agreed with you, but otherwise I think this decision is pretty consistent with the approach the courts have taken since then.
“I read the entire article and that is not what I took away from it.”
From the article:
“The state court said Monday that police can’t take advantage of an illegal traffic stop to search for incriminating evidence, but also are not required to ignore information that an occupant of an unlawfully seized car is a fugitive.”
So what happened is the cop searched the car once he realized there was a fugitive, and the court upheld his actions on the grounds that it’s okay to hold onto a fugitive even if the stop is illegal. Seems to me SCOTUS already ruled on that issue, but there it is.
The really interesting part is this:
“The search would still have been illegal if the deputy’s initial decision to stop the car had been ‘flagrantly or knowingly unconstitutional’ or a ‘fishing expedition,’ Baxter said. But he said the deputy had merely made a good-faith mistake about the grounds for a traffic violation.”
This means, if I’m reading correctly, that good faith is the standard, not probable cause, or a warrant as naively maintained in the Constitution.
This I don’t understand at all:
“’The police goofed, but then they discovered the warrant and conducted an arrest and search, which is what they’re supposed to do,’ Zall said. ‘Mr. Brendlin should not have been out on the lam.’”
Who says that’s what they’re supposed to do? They’re supposed to follow up on illegal stops? B.S. Might as well randomly kick down doors; there’s no logical difference. Just because the cops want to make their jobs as easy as possible doesn’t mean we should let them.
“A cop saw a guy who he recognized as a wanted fugitive so he arrested him. What’s the problem?”
He didn’t recognize the guy until AFTER he pulled the car over illegally. That’s the problem.
When I was in high school in the 1960’s, it was not un common for the cops to pull over a car full of teenagers, take his nightstick and break the tail light lens, then procede to search everyone in the car, and tell the driver “I pulled you over because of a broken tail light”.
Yes, a policeman can pull you over for anything.....they want to pull you over for.
Period.
molon labe
The cop arrested the guy because he recognized him as a known fugitive. He searched the guy because he arrested him. Is it not valid to search people once you arrest them? Is it not valid to arrest someone once you recognize them as a wanted fugitive? Yes, the initial stop of the car was ruled to be for invalid reasons, but do you really believe that the Fourth Amendment required the cop to allow a recognized fugitive to go free because the initial stop was invalid? Remember, the cop performed no search due to the subsequently-rejected registration issue. He simply observed the passengers' faces and recognized a wanted fugitive. What should he have done then?
He didn’t recognize the guy until AFTER he pulled the car over illegally. That’s the problem.
Why?
“It appears they still have to fabricate an excuse. Not that that’s a big deterrent.”
That’s exactly right. So now all police officers will have to take a creative story telling class before getting their badges.
Yeah, twist it anyway you want and its still an illegal search. And the evidence from an illegal search was still allowed.
Think about the implications.
“Why?”
I’m not sure I understand your question. It’s not always easy to identify every passenger in a moving car, especially when there’s usually more than one on the road at a time.
Of course there is a logical difference. To kick down a door is to conduct a search for what is behind the door. In this case the officer did not conduct a search to see who was in the car. He merely looked through the window and the fugitive was there in plain sight. Only then, once he had located a fugitive and placed him under arrest did he conduct the search of the fugitive's person and the car. Thus there was nothing random about the officer's searches.
“To kick down a door is to conduct a search for what is behind the door. In this case the officer did not conduct a search to see who was in the car. He merely looked through the window and the fugitive was there in plain sight.”
Its exactly the same. All they have to say is they thought your home might belong to someone else.
the question here is the stop, not the search. they are very different things.
Think about the implications.
You are merely stating that the search was illegal. You have not explained why you think it was illegal. By contrast, I have explained why I think the search was not illegal. Think about the implications.
“but do you really believe that the Fourth Amendment required the cop to allow a recognized fugitive to go free because the initial stop was invalid?”
Yes, absolutely. It would be no different than if the fugitive had been in a private residence. The cop would never have seen him but for the illegal stop. Fruit of the poisonous tree.
“Is it not valid to search people once you arrest them?”
It is, but not if the arrest was illegal.
“Remember, the cop performed no search due to the subsequently-rejected registration issue. He simply observed the passengers’ faces and recognized a wanted fugitive”
That’s a little misleading. He did search the car upon pulling it over: he searched it for faces. If not for the stop, he would not have seen the face.
“the question here is the stop, not the search. they are very different things.”
IMO if the stop is illegal then the search is too.
But hey we can trust our police and other govt officials not to abuse their power. Right?
“You have not explained why you think it was illegal. By contrast, I have explained why I think the search was not illegal. Think about the implications.”
Yep, I support restrictions on our govt and you apparently dont.
You appear to be unable or unwilling to discuss the facts of this particular case.
“In this case the officer did not conduct a search to see who was in the car. He merely looked through the window and the fugitive was there in plain sight”
Looking in the car to see the faces was a search, since he could not have recognize the face had he not used police powers, illegally, to pull the car over.
“Thus there was nothing random about the officer’s searches.”
Of course it was random. The cop got a lucky grab. (Illegally) Pulling over the car had nothing to do with the fugitive. Let’s say the cops knock down a door executing a warrant and it turned out to be the wrong house, but inside they found someone who just happened to have a warrant out for him. The search of that house would be compeltely random as regards the fugitive’s warrant. As random as was the search of the car.
Correct me if I am wrong but if your tags have expired, even if you sent in the money that still doesn’t give you the right to operate the vehicle until you get a new registration.
Expired tags,I think that Ted Bundy was pulled over because of them.
i have stopped a lot of people for crimes that they ultimately did not commit. but the searches were completely lawful.
of course, my tagline says it all.
” You appear to be unable or unwilling to discuss the facts of this particular case. “
Fact - the court decided the stop was illegal. Thats all I need to hear. The war on drugs has shredded our constitution and done nothing to lower drug use. Slightly over 50% of the people in Federal prison are there for dug convictions.
How many of the murders and other crimes are drug related?
We have 2 million people in jail. Thats 1 in 142 US residents.
“if the stop was done in good faith, then it doesn’t matter if it ultimately turns out to be a bad stop, imho.”
It wasn’t done in good faith. IMO
“i have stopped a lot of people for crimes that they ultimately did not commit. but the searches were completely lawful.”
So you’ve conducted illegal stops & illegal searches. Interesting.
“He merely looked through the window and the fugitive was there in plain sight”
The plain sight exception does not apply. That only works if you’re able to see something because you’re there legally. You cannot stick your head in wherever you want without a warrant, permission, or probable cause.
I disagree that the personal search then legitimized the evidence recovered by searching the vehicle. For public safety, by all means, inventory the vehicle before towing it, but the evidence inside the vehicle is fruit of the poison vine with regard to the charges lodged against the driver.
Marv's decision is troubling and wrong.
ever heard of a terry stop?
“Correct me if I am wrong but if your tags have expired, even if you sent in the money that still doesn’t give you the right to operate the vehicle until you get a new registration.”
This is from the article:
“The car’s registration had expired, but the owner had applied for renewal and had a temporary permit number taped to the rear window.”
Apparently, this was enough. The court ruled the stop was unjustified, anyway.
I'm thinking the only way this should have gotten in is if the cops/DA could have proved inevitable discovery, which they can't because of the illegal stop.
“you have zero understanding of the law if you think EVERY lawful stop results in an arrest.”
You said you had performed stops without cause. You then said you had performed searches without cause. I guess that’s ok though, since we lowly civilians should just be satisfied we aren’t carted off to jail.
How many of these stops involved revenue enhancement err traffic enforcement?
Stuff like that is why people don’t trust law enforcement anymore.
“if the stop was done in good faith, then it doesn’t matter if it ultimately turns out to be a bad stop, imho.”
If this is the case, all you’re considering is the policeman’s ability to convince you that he had one law or another in his head at the time, even if that law had nothing to do with the situtation at hand. I hate to use a liberal term, but this seems to me to be a systemic problem. Police look for any and all reasons to pull people over, and why not, they’re out there anyway. They’re bound to do so illegally from time to time.
lawful stops simply involve reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by the person you have stopped. not probable cause which is what you need for an arrest.
car stops, on the other hand, require the observation of a moving violation. my stops don't involve car stops. they involve actual crime. i don't work in some po-dunk town where the only police function is a speed trap.
That is exactly what it means. Next they will rule that refusing to allow an officer to search your vehicle is in itself grounds for getting a search warrant.
Don’t worry, if you redraft the Constitution they will just change the meaning of each word of the redraft. If you spell out definitions of each word, they will just change the meaning of the definitions. It is a never ending game. I wish I was being sarcastic.
Sadly I fear you’re right.
Thing that I could do as a child, like buying a hunting rifle at Sears, have been taken away from me. Where is the out rage on this constant stripping of our personal rights? The more the left yells civil rights, the more rights the rest of us loose.
“Who says that’s what they’re supposed to do?”
I think he's talking about a “search incident to arrest.” Normally they can search a vehicle if they are arresting the driver. He's not saying their supposed to goof up. This good faith exception has been the law for a long time. If the police stop someone in good faith, evidence they find is not necessarily going to be kept out. I think it's a stretch to say this stop was in good faith if the officer really said that the reason for the stop was that he thought the temporary tags might belong to someone else. That is just a fishing expedition. They could say they thought your car might belong to someone else and pull you over. That's crazy.
“Normally they can search a vehicle if they are arresting the driver.”
I don’t know if this makes it different, but I don’t think the fugitive was the driver. He was the passenger.
I’m not a cop, but I understand that letting a fugitive go and not searching a car after an illegal stop is probably like coitus interuptus. I don’t blame the cop on the scene; he probably didn’t realize that the stop was illegal upon arresting the fugitive.
What bothers me is the authority figure I quoted who said the cop did the right thing. I suppose he meant that they’re better safe than sorry. But to me, if the stop is illegal, so should the arrest and search be. The spokesperson for the police should not be saying the ends justify the means. It doesn’t matter that ‘Mr. Brendlin should not have been out on the lam.’ He shouldn’t have been out there the day before the illegal stop, either. He shouldn’t be out there at all, but that doesn’t mean the cops have the right to take any means necessary to arrest him.
Just from what little was in the article, I think “reasonable suspicion” is what is lacking here. Is it reasonable to say that just because someone has a temporary permit in their window you think it might belong to someone else? That's pretty tenuous. The fact that someone has a temporary permit does not seem like it should be enough to give an officer reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If there isn't reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, then officers should leave people alone. I don't see how a good faith exception should apply here either. Either there was enough to give reasonable suspicion for the stop or there wasn't enough. The officer should have made the arrest like he did, but the court should have thrown out any evidence seized because it all came out of a bad stop in this first place.
however, if you have a seasoned officer with a large amount of forged plate arrests, the court might allow this type of action.
same thing with someone who might be carrying a gun. years of officer experience do come into play. i'm just saying: there are a lot of these forged paper plates out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.