Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fair ~ River stage: 33.81 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (18)
 Share link
High court ruling could change drug search proceduresSaturday, April 25, 2009A U.S. Supreme Court decision issued this week could have considerable consequences when it comes to drug searches and seizures following traffic stops, local authorities say. On Tuesday, the Court's ruling in Arizona v. Gant overturned a case where a man was stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license. Police searched Rodney Gant's car while he was handcuffed in the back of a patrol vehicle, and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat, according to the 18-page opinion. Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said the ruling rejects the broad application of another case that has served as precedent in these types of searches for the past 28 years: New York v. Belton, taught at nearly every law enforcement academy in the country. Under the old ruling, police were able to thoroughly search all parts of a car after making an arrest, regardless of what the arrest was for. Now they may only do so if the person is within proximity to the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or if there are reasonable grounds to think evidence of the offense they're suspected of committing may be in the vehicle. "It's going to tie our hands a little more," said Kevin Glaser, director of the Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force. As a general rule, Glaser says he teaches officers to look beyond the initial traffic offense, such as speeding or driving while revoked. Under the old ruling, those stops could lead to drug arrests. Now, without consent of the driver or towing the vehicle and doing an inventory search, police may be more hampered when it comes to those types of searches, Glaser said. "I can certainly see some contraband going down the road," Glaser said. Swingle called Tuesday's ruling "probably the worst search and seizure decision in the last decade," saying it will ultimately result in fewer drug seizures made on the interstate. Narcotics officers will typically use traffic offenses to conduct drug searches because it allows them to stop a vehicle on the interstate, where a lot of trafficking occurs, said Tom Beardslee, chief deputy of the Scott County Sheriff's Department. Any drugs or contraband taken during those searches would be inadmissible in court, meaning drug cases pending in prosectors' offices across the country may be tossed, Swingle said. "I haven't counted how many are pending in our office, but I'm sure there are a few," Swingle said. Cape Girardeau defense lawyer Al Lowes called the ruling a "step in the right direction," saying it will affect a significant number of drug searches resulting from vehicle stops. Allowing police to search a vehicle when someone has been arrested for something like having a taillight out raises serious civil rights issues, Lowes said. "People should be obeying the law, but on the other hand, we have a constitution," Lowes said. Previously, police were given "virtually unlimited ability" to conduct vehicle searches, said Missouri University School of Law professor Rodney Uphoff, who teaches criminal procedure. "Many law scholars thought it provided too much police discretion," Uphoff said. The ruling does not affect probable cause, meaning police will still have the ability to search a vehicle if evidence suggests there are drugs in the car. The use of drug dogs may increase for that reason, Uphoff said. Beardslee, who teaches constitutional law for the Missouri Sheriff's Association Training Academy, said the ruling changes the way Fourth Amemendment issues will be taught. "I suspect defense attorneys are doing a dance over this one," Beardslee said. 388-3635 Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
More stories
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
While I don't advocate drug use, if it was decriminalized and under the control of the government it could be highly taxed and licensed thereby eliminating the underground criminal activity all together freeing up law enforcement to protect citizens from violent crime.
Also a curency exchange requiring proof of income sources would in effect recover billions of dollars from illegal organizations and identify tax fraud and other crime.
The money recovered could be used for education and health issues saving the tax payer even more money becausr users of drugs, alcohol, tobacco would be identified by a license to purchase such items.
Let's face it the system we are using does not work, it just keeps on costing more and more. A least this way it would pay for itself.
I was just wondering if it is legal to pat down someone who is walking down the street or hanging out in a public place with friends?
Jackson police are notorious for searching teens in the park or by the bowling alley.
I am almost sure that they only target teens because I have not heard of this happening to adults.
DORK, I could not agree more. You have said it very well. I am very pleased with this decision by our Supreme Court and its about time!
The police have had too much power for too long.
Frankly, if and WHEN drugs are decriminalized
the police will have very little to do! Perhaps this will help them concentrate on solving serious crimes such as murder, Rape, stealing and child abuse. The drug war has been a costly mistake and needs to END! Prohibition has never worked. It only creates black markets and with that always comes crime! Morely Swingle is a self serving fool that would love to see all our civil liberties taken away. As for drug sniffing dogs,
here is another example of illegal search! If the officer CAN'T SEE anything in the vehicle or smell anything from the vehicle he has No REASON to bring in a dog to do anything. This is the right decision and I hope Morely is stewing in it!
DORK, you look like someone who supports the Constitution in one sentence then a tyrant in another. "Currency exchange proving source of income?" Wow.
How about some sort of consumption tax, like the Fair Tax, and we stop taxing production altogether. Not only would that finally tax illicit incomes, it would create tremendous growth in the economy and eliminate the awful tax code...
I see this decision as a very promising one and as less of a drug issue than one of civil liberties and supporting the intent of the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Any search of any area beyond the body of the person being arrested should only be done when the officer can articulate "probable cause" and even then should be narrow in scope. Anything beyond that should require application for a search warrant.
While I have mixed feelings about the use of a K9 if one is immediately present, ie a K9 Officer made the stop or responds immediately, no one should be detained while a K9 is responding. I have seen cases in which individuals were not allowed to leave for up to an hour, yet the Officers insisted they were not "under arrest".
I am a very strong supporter of Law Enforcement, but we have given them too much power.
Though I do agree that some officers 'abuse' their power, most do not. If they suspect/reasonable cause they can search anyway. I do think marijuana should be legalized but as far as other drugs, crack, herione, cocaine, meth...no way. Drugs are in many cases a stepping stone which lead to other criminal behavior, like stealing, robbery, assault, child abuse & murder. I don't feel making these drugs readily available would help but rather increase these problems.
Hooray!
Baby steps I keep telling myself, baby steps!
Perhaps the police can start doing their job which is protecting our lives, rights, and property!
Turnip,
Last year here in Chaffee, our ex police chief was notiourious about having his officers pull drivers over for "running stop signs".
Now, that is a charge that no defense against exists. It is basically the police officer's word against the driver's.
Anyhow, once they pulled you over, you were basically fair game.
One evening as my guitar player and I were in the van on our way to a gig, we were pulled over for "running a stop sign". The officer wasn't really very interested in pursuing that offense as he was curious about all the music equipment stuffed in the back of my van. He also asked my guitar player, who was sitting quietly in the passanger seat, for his identification.
That's Gestapo tactics no matter how you cut it.
Turnip you said, "If they suspect/reasonable cause they can search anyway. WRONG!!
What if I SUSPECTED you of stealing from me, would that alone be enough for me to search your car or home? NO it would not. There has to be something called "probable cause" not reasonable!
If their is NO contraband within sight and or odor from alcohol or pot than their is NO probable cause and the officer should either right the ticket or send you on your way. No one should ever have to wait for a damn drug mutt to be sent to sniff your vehicle without "PROBABLE CAUSE" ! Again I say, "POLICE HAVE TOO MUCH POWER"
and most police officers I have ever meant have let that go to their heads. Very few policeman associate with anyone other than their own kind because of that.JMO
Wolf, what about the 'eyes', the pupils...they receive training for that now, don't they? they can say u look like ur under the influence of narcotics, u swerved, I didn't think they actually had to smell anything...yes, u 'sucked' me back n for a moment...lol
Nanno,
The rules on search and seizure are fairly well defined as it relates to pedestrian in Terry v Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968). It does allow a person to be detained briefly and frisked given certain criteria are met. This ruling will have no impact on a "Terry Stop" as it does not appear to be overly broad and does not intrude to the extent that Belton did.
Sorry Morley. This isn't Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Cops can't pull people over on some bogus traffic charge and then shake them down on a fishing expedition for whatever they can find. As usual w/ prosecutors, Swingle only sees it from the perspective of "protecting the guilty." What this ruling does is keep cops from shaking down innocent people and rifling through all of their belongings. Even if a cop didn't find anything and you have nothing to hide, how would you like a cop tearing through your car and leaving it a shambles, all after having no reasonable suspicion that you have anything to hide? Law enforcement still has all the amunition it needs b/c if a cop reasonably believes a crime is being committed, then he still has probable cause and can go ahead and search anyway. Swingle is just another idiot fascist.
Just say "no" to vehicle searches.
Thank you Triple S.
Now I know that anyone can be searched at any time and all an officer has to do is say, "I thought they may have a weapon."
Just think about it, I could be taking a Sunday stroll after attending service and an officer who is in the right frame of mind could just suddenly decide to frisk me because I MIGHT have a weapon.
Sounds like the SS to me!
Greywolf, by the way you talk about law enforcement it's my guess that the only contact you have with them is when you are being arrested. Seems to me that your arguments about probable cause, plain site, etc. just means you took notes while your Public Defender was trying to get your possession charge dismissed. The hateful tone (ex. damn drug mutt) and obvious disgust for police officers tends to come from those who dabble in the criminal side of life and therefore don't respect the good that police officers do. I assume that if you are ever in need of assistance you will not bother to call the police.
Lumpy, protecting your life and property is what the police are doing by taking drugs off the street. Since the majority of crimes involve someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol, maybe the cop who arrested someone for possession prevented your house from being burglarized. Don't get me wrong, our court system is overwhelmed with cases involving recreational users (under 35 grams marijuana), and many of the people involved maintain a job and provide for their family, but their are also a significant number that use and then commit other crimes against other people or their property. Btw, you graduated with me and we probably drank a few together.
I've been pulled over many of times and had to do the sobriety test and the weird "watch my finger while I jiggle it and slowly move it towards your face" test. I took enough criminal justice classes to realize the muscles in your eyes are the first to weaken after taking in drugs or alcohol.
Here's the fun scenario. I have an anxiety problem, and I'm on medication for it. An easy step by step explanation of what happens when I get pulled over.
Step 1. A cop pulls me over and I'm already terrified (anxiety).
Step 2. The cop comes up to the window and I stutter and look afraid.
Step 3. Because of medication my pupils don't react to light as quickly as other's do.
Step 4. I get to go sit in the police car and wait for him to look around my car. (It's usually about this time I wonder about the possibility of someone killing someone and dumping the body in my car without my knowledge).
Step 5. I get the "jiggly finger" test, fail...and eventually have to explain myself and give the cop the number to walgreens and give them permission to disclose my information.
Step 6. Out of pity the cop lets me go. (at this point they're pretty nice and I feel like a jerk for wasting their time).
Step 7. I'm covered in sweat and terrified, therefore I drive erratically to get home as quickly as I can.
Step 8. Repeat.
Conservative-Sam,
Sorry Son, I have NEVER been arrested!!
I do however believe in civil liberties and
I Am against them being stomped on by over zealous
Police officers. Your a dog barking up the wrong tree Sam! By the way, the police will not protect me in ANY circumstance as they could not respond fast enough! One reason is that they are too busy looking for revenue instead of solving serious victim crimes!..If someone breaks into my home, he or myself will be dead or dying before an officer EVER shows up. You seem to me to be a person who assumes too much, I suggest you wake up and realize that police have too much power and abuse it too often!
Conservative_Sam,
I'm gonna have to dust off the old NDHS yearbook.
I believe that the "war on drugs" is a total failure. The more money and manpower that gets poured into this thing, the easier it is to get drugs.
Drug use is a victimless crime. I doubt that there are more crimes being committed by people that are using drugs.
Addicts will always be with us. Legalization of drugs will not change the number of addicts. But legalization would allow the police to concentrate on protecting the lives and property of the citizenry.