Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Criminal Justice Roundup
The bad....
• The Supreme Court unanimously rules that evidence seized during arrests that are illegal under state law can still be used at trial.
• The city of Memphis is seizing the automobiles of suspected Johns. Not convicted, just suspected.
• The Ninth Circuit becomes the second federal appeals court to allow federal agents to snoop around in the laptops of people entering the country, even without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
The good...
• Argentina decriminalizes drug consumption. I'm trying to remember the last time the government of Argentina got anything right.
• Alaska appeals court says it will no longer tolerate "implicitly coercive" searches during traffic stops.
• Virginia's Supreme Court tosses out two drug cases in which police conducted searches without probable cause.
Naga Sadow|4.23.08 @ 5:19PM|#
If the state of Alaska would just change its freezing climate, I would move there.
|4.23.08 @ 5:20PM|#
• The Supreme Court unanimously rules that evidence seized
during arrests that are illegal under state law can still be used
at trial.
Awwwwww FUCK
NO!!!! NO no no no no no no no no
Son of a bitch that's depressing.
Damn it's been a while since the SCOTUS lurched that far into
fascism. God this is depressing. I need a drink. Srsly!
Bingo|4.23.08 @ 5:24PM|#
At trial, Moore's lawyers tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it, even though the court noted the arrest violated state law. A police detective, asked why the man was arrested, replied, "Just our prerogative."
Uggggghhhhhh
Episiarch|4.23.08 @ 5:25PM|#
If the state of Alaska would just change its freezing
climate, I would move there.
The frontier is always the freest, but usually the most
uncomfortable.
|4.23.08 @ 5:26PM|#
That's a whole lotta bad, and good? Not so much.
Warren--I'm with you. You got the first round?
Global Warming|4.23.08 @ 5:31PM|#
"If the state of Alaska would just change its freezing climate,
I would move there."
I'm working on that.
Bingo|4.23.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Okay does this mean that law enforcement can arrest someone and
then search them because they are already arrested, with or without
probable cause?
Tell me its not as bad as that
|4.23.08 @ 5:40PM|#
So if you're searching for a hooker, go on foot, take public transport, or take a really cheap second-hand car.
Kolohe|4.23.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Since the case in the first link overturned a similar virginia supreme court ruling, I think the states court's attempt to keep the 'semper' in the state motto described in the last link will be similarly overturned.
|4.23.08 @ 5:43PM|#
"The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state
law alone," Scalia said. "It is not the province of the Fourth
Amendment to enforce state law."
I wonder what other amendments do not apply to state laws. Can the
South resegregate? Can California outlaw that anti-global warming
hate speech?
Sweet Cthulhu
|4.23.08 @ 5:48PM|#
A total of 55 people are facing class A misdemeanor charges of patronizing prostitution, since police said their arrests took place within 1.5 miles of schools.
Was school in session? Otherwise, it's just a building, you overbearing fucks.
|4.23.08 @ 5:49PM|#
JParker,
Actually, I'm wondering how this Court cannot retroactively
invalidate the results of Bush v. Gore, given that
logic.
|4.23.08 @ 5:54PM|#
I got my driver's license and went through high school in
Alaksa. I never really got the whole "pig cop" thing; they always
seemed to go out of their way to do only their job. I had several
encounters with several different officers and no problems. Though
there should could have been.
Of course, once I moved to WA state I got the "pig cop" thing in a
hurry. It started when I got stopped for a cracked windshield. And
went downhill from there.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.23.08 @ 6:03PM|#
Why aren't the cops fired for arresting someone in violation of state law?
J sub D|4.23.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Why aren't the cops fired for arresting someone in violation
of state law?
He He. Good one.
|4.23.08 @ 6:26PM|#
I wonder if pressure from the US will affect Argentina's decision any. I wonder why Chavez never did anything regarding drugs just to piss off the US.
|4.23.08 @ 6:32PM|#
I would just like to point out that, as much as people want to
marginalize the issue of the Drug War in the Age of Terror, that
earlier "war" was the staging ground for the present one and
continues to be the frontier, along which government makes steady
progress in quashing our liberties. Today's news is just one more
example.
The pols think that the economy and the Iraq War (or the potential
War with Iran) will be the big issues in November. Instead, We the
People might be smarter to do a fake out and hang our officials out
to dry on the Drug War issue: Don't elect or re-elect anyone who
isn't pledged to ending or seriously thwarting the Drug War. (And
send them notices of your intentions well in advance of the
election, now, while it is still months away.) Vote for ballot
measures -- even non-binding advisory resolutions, if those are
your only options -- which oppose the Drug War.
Why make the Drug War a "big thing" in a year when so much else
demands our attention? Two reasons: 1) As I said above, the Drug
War has served as the rehearsal for past and future incursions on
our liberties, including those curtailed during the War on Terror;
2) We are told, over and over again, that it is impossible, or at
least very irresponsible, to end the exercises in Iraq and
Afghanistan immediately. No matter what We the People do or say, it
is likely that we'll still be making something like war in the
mideast for awhile yet. But the Drug War is something that we can
end immediately: Just say "No More!" The irresponsible thing in
this case is to continue the Drug War as Usual, destroying lives
and burning piles of cash every day until who knows when? It's been
over 40 years now, with victory "just around the corner" every
year. How Orwellian. Let's just call a stop to the whole farce and
put the poobahs in DC on the defensive. Once the dust has settled,
which shouldn't take all that long, we can worry about how to get a
real end to the quagmire in the middle east. But we won't have the
domestic Drug War to distract us, and our efforts can then be all
the more effective for the additional focus.
Hey, it's a shot, and I think it's worth trying. Thanks for
listening.
|4.23.08 @ 6:50PM|#
The Supreme Court unanimously rules that evidence seized
during arrests that are illegal under state law can still be used
at trial.
In this Virginia case, the US Supreme Court rules that in
spite of a bad arrest, the drugs found lead to a
conviction of the person involved.
Virginia's Supreme Court tosses out two drug cases in which
police conducted searches without probable cause.
In these Virginia cases, the VA Supreme Court rules that
because of bad searches, the drugs found cannot
be used to convict the persons involved.
I find myself asking the same (unanswered) question as Justice
Ginsberg: "Would you explain the logic to saying that when the
police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when
they comply with state law, it can't," she asked.
|4.23.08 @ 6:55PM|#
""Under state law in such incidents, only a summons is to be
issued and the motorist is to be allowed to go. Instead, detectives
detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him
and found cocaine."""
What's the odds that the cop was going to give him a ticket and let
him go until Moore said no to a consent based search. The cop
didn't like it, and decided to arrest him instead as a
work-around.
Scalia would want Moore to sue for the illegal arrest, if he
believed his own new professionalism BS.
Guy Montag|4.23.08 @ 6:59PM|#
The city of Memphis is seizing the automobiles of suspected
Johns. Not convicted, just suspected.
Wow, just like DC! Or just like DC used to be. Is DC still doing
this? I don't hear about it any more around here.
Guy Montag|4.23.08 @ 7:05PM|#
In other crime news: there has been a shooting/murder spree going on in the gun free zone of Chicago since the weekend. Waiting for just exactly which suburb is getting the blame this time.
|4.23.08 @ 7:07PM|#
The city of Memphis is seizing the automobiles of suspected Johns. Not convicted, just suspected.
Wow, just like DC! Or just like DC used to be. Is DC still doing this? I don't hear about it any more around here.
This is what happened, the Capital Hill motor pool wanted all of
their vehicles back, so ...
|4.23.08 @ 7:07PM|#
Why aren't the cops fired for arresting someone in violation
of state law?
Why aren't they arrested?
|4.23.08 @ 7:18PM|#
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
So, SCOTUS thinks a search that violates the law is "reasonable"?
And by a 9-0 decision no less? WTF?
|4.23.08 @ 7:32PM|#
SCOTUS believes you can be arrested for anything against the law
no matter how little, including running a stop sign or red light.
If the state says it's a no no, then SCOTUS believes the officers
have a right to arrest. And oddly that the state can not
discriminate as to which offenses are arrestable. It's as if they
are saying to the states, no nos are arrestable, if you don't want
people arrested for it, don't make it a no no.
Lately, SCOTUS has been hostile to the exclusion rule.
ktc2|4.23.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Once arrested you have no right to not be searched + you can be arrested for anything legal or not = you have no right to not be searched.
|4.23.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I hate to be the apologist for the Supremes here, but I think
they might have gotten this one right.
Correct me if my understanding of the decision is wrong...
The question is, did the search violate the 4th amendment or some
other provision of the constitution. Thats the only question the
Supremes can really go into in this situation.
Now, a search is constitutional if it is "incident to a lawful
arrest." At least thats the normal phrasing. So does lawful mean
'complies with all applicable laws' or 'constitutional?' For the
Supremes, it really only means constitutional, or possibly also
complying with federal law, since they aren't in the business of
judging state law (except for the constitutionality of state
law).
It seems that in this case we have a situation where the arrest was
'constitutional,' in that an arrest subsequent to the commission of
a misdemeanor offense does not violate the US constitution.
However, the arrest was unlawful under state law. This is a rare
situation, since most arrests that would be constitutionally
permissible are also in compliance with state law.
So if the question is "can an arrest that is constitutional be
sufficient to support a search incident to that arrest, even if the
arrest violates state law?" then the answer would be yes, at least
as far as the US Supreme Court is concerned.
It boils down to the Supremes can only judge the constitutionality
of the matter and nothing more. And based solely on that, the
arrest and search do not violate the 4th amendment.
For them to decide otherwise would be an overreach of their
constitutional powers.
That being said, the arresting officer(s) should be tried for
kidnapping or some other appropriate criminal charge, and the
defendant should be able to bring a civil suit for the intentional
tort of unlawful arrest.
Rimfax|4.23.08 @ 9:10PM|#
Sorry if this was already covered above, but regardless of Scalia's grandstanding, the SCOTUS ruling was basically that the state court is the arbiter of state evidence law. I'm sure that the state court's ruling made many of them puke in their mouths a bit, but they rightly managed to find some federal limits for once. It's a shame that they only found them on this case.
TB|4.23.08 @ 9:25PM|#
I had to check twice to make sure the car seizure story wasn't
from The Onion. And I quote:
"Added Memphis Police director Larry Godwin: 'I'd say seize every
dadgum vehicle and send a message.'"
With that last name and that quote, this guy should be on every
blog going. I wonder if there's some sort of AP style note on the
use of "dadgum"
Bill Cooke|4.23.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Almost makes me want to forgive them for the Falklands War . . . almost.
-|4.23.08 @ 11:00PM|#
Rimfax-
The Va court of appeals upheld the conviction but the Va state
supreme court overturned based on the fact that the search was
invalidated due to the violation of state law.
The commonwealth's attorneys sought (obviously successfully) to get
their own supreme court's opinion of state evidence law
overturned.
|4.23.08 @ 11:46PM|#
In response to -'s question:
Lots of things are illegal but do not violate the constitution. If
I commit petty larceny by stealing $50 from your wallet, I have
committed an illegal act. But I haven't violated the US
Constitution.
In the case at bar, we have an arrest that normally would be legal.
In most states it would be legal. The general principle is that a
law enforcement officer can arrest a person who commits a
misdemeanor offense in his presence. That is constitutional.
The only reason it is unlawful is because that particular state has
a statute stating that it is a "ticketable" offense, thereby taking
away the law enforcement officer's authority to arrest. That does
not in itself make the arrest unconstitutional as far as the US
constitution goes. In the absence of that state statute, there
would have been no problem; or, if the arrest had been made in
another state that didn't have a similar statute, there would have
been no problem.
The Supremes can only judge such a case by whether or not it
violates the US Constitution. Since the arrest was pursuant to the
commission of a misdemeanor offense in the officer's presence, it
is. It might be illegal in that particular state, but it does not
violate the US Constitution.
I'm actually glad to see the Supreme Court restrain themselves
here. If they had ruled otherwise they would have been exceeding
their authority.
To turn things on its head, lets try the opposite. Assume that a
state makes a statute that says police can arrest any person who
drives a motor vehicle and can search the person and vehicle, even
without probable cause that a crime has been committed. An arrest
under that statute would be lawful under state law, but it--and any
subsequent search--would violate the US Constitution.
Naga Sadow|4.23.08 @ 11:55PM|#
Another reason to hate Memphis. I never have liked Memphis. Whose idea was it to put skyscrapers next to the federal housing?
-|4.24.08 @ 12:52AM|#
OGRE-
Thanks for the response.
What still bothers me about saying 'the (Supreme) court restrained
itself' is that it is endorsing a permissive environment for the
executive branch (i.e. the cops & prosecutors) to disobey a
state law which the state court attempted to enforce - and in the
direction of greater *individual* sovereignty.
I mean, the original theory of federalism was the states would be
better at protecting individual rights than a federal government.
Now history has shown that this in fact has not been the case. But
when the state is able actually do this, it's seem odd for the
federal level to swoop down and reverse it in the direction of
greater state, and specifically executive power.
I could see if the specifics of the case caused a multi-state or
federal jurisdiction; or, if the va state court opinion was upheld
but could not be cited a precedent in other states because it
depended on the specifics of state law. But I still am amazed that
the supreme court can tell a state that it's enforcing civil
liberties too strongly.
|4.24.08 @ 1:32AM|#
Well the problem here is that the VA supreme court based their
decision on the US Constitution, thereby permitting the US Supreme
Court to review it. I'm not familiar with VA state law, so I don't
know if they have an exclusionary rule or not; they might rely
completely on the 4th Ammendment in that regard. If so, then its a
failure of VA to protect the rights of its citizens. If they have
such state level protections, then its the fault of the VA supreme
court for not relying on state level protections and instead
relying on the 4th and allowing the US Supreme Court to step
in.
The US Supreme Court CANNOT get in the business of determining
federal constitutional law based on state law. That would be a huge
blow to federalism.
All the Supremes are saying here is that as far as the US
Constitution is concerned, a constitutionally permissible arrest
allows a search incident to such an arrest. Whether state law
prohibits (or allows!) an arrest in any particular circumstance has
no bearing on the arrest as far as the US Constitution is
concerned.
This decision does not allow police to make unconstitutional
arrests and then conduct searches and use evidence found from such
searches. If the arrest in this case was unconstitutional, the
evidence recovered subsequent to the search would have been
excluded.
So all the Court is left to decide--really all it can decide--is
whether the arrest is constitutionally permissible. Which it
was.
Just to note, I am completely against this ridiculous drug war at
all levels and would certainly have preferred the man to go free.
And I think the arresting officer here should be fired, criminally
charged, and found civilly liable to the defendant. But I can't
fault the US Supreme Court for deciding how they did. They reached
the only decision they are allowed to reach given their authority
and the parameters of the case.
(I would, however, have been quite pleased if they decided that the
9th amendment prohibited VA from enacting legislation that
criminalizes victimless conduct such as drug possession, in that
the people have retained the right to act as they wish as long as
they harm no others. But I doubt that will ever happen.)
Brock|4.24.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Naga,
I live in Memphis, and work downtown, so I'm pretty familiar with
every building that could reasonably termed a "skyscraper" in
Memphis.
Which skyscraper is located next to a housing project? I don't know
of one.
windycityatty|4.24.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Ogre- Virginia does not have the exclusionary rule. I believe
they passed a statute to that effect. The guy was quashing his
illegal (by Virginia statute for the crime arreted on - driving
with no license) arrest. No arrest, then no search incident to
arrest. However, because of a lack of state remedy for exclusion
for illegal arrests the guy argued a federal 4th amendment
violation in State court.
In many States that retain the exclusionary rule, however, the
State constitution's have a section that mirrors the language of
the 4th amendment almost (if not entirely) exactly the same. So in
IL for example, the IL Sup Ct will decide cases in "lockstep" with
the U.S. Sup Ct on 4th amendment issues.
Which leads to a very absurd result (because IL does have the
exclusionary rule unlike Virginia) - an arrest illegal under IL law
performed by a State officer that leads to a search and recovery of
drugs or whatever would be interpreted in locktstep with U.S. Sup
Ct precedent, which now is Virginia v. Moore. End result, IL's
(state) exclusionary rule would seem to disappear regardless of
whether the original challenge to the search came via IL
constitution's version of the search and seizure clause OR the
federal 4th Amend (or both as many people throw in the kitchen sink
on their motions to quash) as they are interperted the same.
I should add - I fucking hate this decision with a passion.
Combined with other Sup Ct abortions such as Whren and Atwater,
etc... the cops have no incentive to NOT profile (pretextual stops
completely legal per the Whren) for petty ass crimes (Atwater- seat
belt only infraction leading to custodial arrest) and cops
searching incident to the bogus arrest and the evidence coming in.
FUCK!!!!!! What incentive do the police have to NOT break the law ?
Worse case scenario, their heavy handed tactics do not turn up
drugs and the illegal arrest for the petty offense gets tossed. The
upside, whatever "serious" crimes they uncover (drugs and guns
mostly) they can go to trial on and win. God this sucks on so many
levels.
TrapperEastOfTheBigMuddy|4.24.08 @ 4:16PM|#
@twistedmerkin
Another
bang upheck'ava job from the SCROTUS.
Fixed the for 'ya.
windycityatty|4.24.08 @ 4:27PM|#
I should add, to the poster above who asked about civil remedies for illegal arrest: Good f-in luck. Unless the cops put the guy in the hospital and he has major medical bills, no attorney in the world can take those cases on a contingency basis - as there are little to no damages to recover and sufficient hurdles in the way that could prevent any recovery at all (various forms of qualified immunity, etc...). If the guy was illegally arrested and then found to have felony amounts of drugs and is in jail - - its even harder. I think those cases were targeted for "tort reform" and are now just as worthless to pursue as other illegal arrest cases. That is why I feel that suppression of evidence is the ONLY reliable way to change police misconduct (although they are good at getting around suppression with plain-view and consent and all the other warrant exceptions). Suppression is tangible and has immediate affect - i.e, the State cant use the evidence they found against the guy.
|4.24.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Orge, your understanding is correct. There is a reason it was
9-0. A cop has a right to arrest you for anything against the law
no matter how little. That's why I laugh when people think
decriminaliztion of pot would equal no arrests. If a cop can write
you a ticket, the cop can decide to arrest instead.
The next course of action would be for the cop to get fired for the
unlawful, albeit constitutional arrest. I'm not holding my
breath.
The lesson is that we shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of
what should happen when the states says it's just a fine or minor
offense.
|4.24.08 @ 5:50PM|#
"""That is why I feel that suppression of evidence is the ONLY
reliable way to change police misconduct """
I agree. If they want to offer a different approach it must pass
the laugh test first, which Scalia's new professionalism idea
didn't.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245