Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Age
    68
    Posts
    2,979
    Rep Power
    10091162

    Default 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.
    "Having a gun and thinking you are armed is like having a piano and thinking you are a musician" Col. Jeff Cooper (U.S.M.C. Ret.)
    Speed is fine, Accuracy is final


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Western PA, Pennsylvania
    (Indiana County)
    Posts
    485
    Rep Power
    4014

    Default Re: More 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveM55 View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,115
    Rep Power
    226

    Default 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.

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court Prediction
    By Joe Cool in forum General
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: June 26th, 2008, 11:18 AM
  2. SUPREME COURT VISITS 2A
    By Michele in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 25th, 2008, 06:14 PM
  3. Supreme court to powerful
    By Montell C. Williams in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 11th, 2007, 08:37 AM
  4. DC (Gun Ban) Appealed to Supreme Court
    By bluetick in forum General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 12th, 2007, 10:08 PM
  5. Candidates for PA Supreme Court
    By awkx in forum General
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 12:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •