Comments on: U.S. SUPREME COURT LIMITS VEHICLE SEARCHES http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/06/20/us-supreme-court-limits-vehicle-searches/ CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:52:28 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: dheisenberg http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/06/20/us-supreme-court-limits-vehicle-searches/comment-page-1/#comment-503 dheisenberg Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:42:46 +0000 http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=210#comment-503 Isn't it all a game at this point? They can impound and get a warrant with ease. The car is deemed an instrument of the crime and it evidence. They can impound and do an inventory search anyway (in part, to protect the defendant's property rights, no less). The 4th amendment is merely the first level of a live action video game which most officers, if properly trained, can easily get past. Privacy is no longer much of an American priority, excepting medical records and indoor private sex, and people seem to like it that way. I'm waiting for the next case where terrorism will be used as an excuse to stop and frisk without even "reasonable suspicion." It's coming. People want it that way. Isn’t it all a game at this point? They can impound and get a warrant with ease. The car is deemed an instrument of the crime and it evidence. They can impound and do an inventory search anyway (in part, to protect the defendant’s property rights, no less). The 4th amendment is merely the first level of a live action video game which most officers, if properly trained, can easily get past. Privacy is no longer much of an American priority, excepting medical records and indoor private sex, and people seem to like it that way. I’m waiting for the next case where terrorism will be used as an excuse to stop and frisk without even “reasonable suspicion.” It’s coming. People want it that way.

]]> By: Paladin51 http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/06/20/us-supreme-court-limits-vehicle-searches/comment-page-1/#comment-501 Paladin51 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:50:22 +0000 http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=210#comment-501 In Florida, at least, I am not sure your analysis is correct. The mere smell of marijuana gives probable cause to search the vehicle, whether or not the individual is within "reaching distance." It is not, or does not have to be, a "search incident to arrest." In addition, even in your Texas example, the officers had probable cause for an arrest and a search because of the open container and the "strong odor of marijuana." Unless the accused took the container out of the car with him when he got out, the cops, according to GANT, could still search if there is a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime for which the accused is being arrested may be found in the car. In your example, the bottle (open container) was on the seat-unless you are suggesting that once they found the bottle, they could search no further. What about if the arrested him for suspicion of DUI? Couldn't they search the whole car for more bottles? GANT, as I understand it, would prevent the cops from searching the car without a warrant only when the arrest occurred outside the car, the accused was not within reaching distance, the accused was prevented by the cops from returning to the car, and the arrest was for something occurring outside the car such as resisting, a warrant discovered after the exit, contraband found upon the accused after his exit from the car (unless it was reasonable to believe more contraband related to the arrest was in the car), a seat belt violation, speeding, racing, no tag, etc. GANT does not stop all searches that occur incident to an arrest, only those that occur merely because an arrest was made. GANT does put a crimp in the cops authority to search incident to arrest, most assuredly, but smart cops will figure a way around it. In Florida, at least, I am not sure your analysis is correct. The mere smell of marijuana gives probable cause to search the vehicle, whether or not the individual is within “reaching distance.” It is not, or does not have to be, a “search incident to arrest.” In addition, even in your Texas example, the officers had probable cause for an arrest and a search because of the open container and the “strong odor of marijuana.” Unless the accused took the container out of the car with him when he got out, the cops, according to GANT, could still search if there is a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime for which the accused is being arrested may be found in the car. In your example, the bottle (open container) was on the seat-unless you are suggesting that once they found the bottle, they could search no further. What about if the arrested him for suspicion of DUI? Couldn’t they search the whole car for more bottles?

GANT, as I understand it, would prevent the cops from searching the car without a warrant only when the arrest occurred outside the car, the accused was not within reaching distance, the accused was prevented by the cops from returning to the car, and the arrest was for something occurring outside the car such as resisting, a warrant discovered after the exit, contraband found upon the accused after his exit from the car (unless it was reasonable to believe more contraband related to the arrest was in the car), a seat belt violation, speeding, racing, no tag, etc. GANT does not stop all searches that occur incident to an arrest, only those that occur merely because an arrest was made. GANT does put a crimp in the cops authority to search incident to arrest, most assuredly, but smart cops will figure a way around it.

]]>