More 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Cases
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-a...urt_cases.html
Search incident to arrest: Arizona v. Grant
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in this case on October 7, and will likely release an opinion addressing the following question: "Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?"
Stop and Frisk: Arizona v. Johnson
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review this case and decide whether during a vehicle stop for a minor traffic infraction an officer may pat-down a passenger believed to be armed and dangerous even when the officer lacks reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 9.
Re: More 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaveM55
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-a...urt_cases.html
Search incident to arrest: Arizona v. Grant
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in this case on October 7, and will likely release an opinion addressing the following question: "Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?"
They had the vehicle secured. I don't see why they didn't just get a warrant. The car was parked and guarded, so much of the reasoning behind Carroll v US, that vehicles are mobile and evidence can go bye-bye before a warrant can be obtained, doesn't really apply here. Chimel v CA outlines the restrictions of search incident to arrest, and since there was no danger of the suspects grabbing a weapon or destroying evidence within their reach, I don't see how that argument can support the seizure.
Stop and Frisk: Arizona v. Johnson
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review this case and decide whether during a vehicle stop for a minor traffic infraction an officer may pat-down a passenger believed to be armed and dangerous even when the officer lacks reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 9.
Seems the officer can argue that she had RAS to believe the guy was a suspected Crip and therefore subject to Terry frisk for officer safety. Consensual contacts can become detentive quickly when interviewing a witness or an otherwise blameless citizen once RAS is established. Moreover, just because the officer used good verbal skills to get the guy out of the vehicle doesn't mean that the contact was consensual to begin with. Terry's supposed to be based on officer safety-- seems like that standard was met here, given the information available.
I'm sure the SCOTUS will be grateful for my astute legal analysis. ;)
Re: More 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Says Passengers Can Be Frisked
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON --
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.
The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.
The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
___
The case is Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122.
