PDA

View Full Version : PA Supreme Court: Police Can Search Vehicles Without Warrant



Teh One Who Knocks
05-01-2014, 11:14 AM
By Sarah Fruchtnicht - Opposing Views


http://i.imgur.com/PgOihzG.jpg

A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling allows authorities to conduct a search of a citizen’s vehicle without a warrant.

Pennsylvania citizens were formerly able to refuse to let an officer search their car without a warrant signed by a judge. In a ruling released Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery says that’s no longer the case.

Critics say the decision violates Fourth Amendment rights.

In her dissent, Justice Debra Todd called the change "diametrically contrary to the deep historical and legal traditions” – a ruling which "contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure."

The case involved a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia in which officers found two pounds of marijuana during a warrantless search. Shiem Gary appealed stating that police had no probable cause to search under the hood of his vehicle.

Defense attorney Michael Winter said in Gary’s case the officers had probable cause because Gary’s vehicle had a window tint they believe was illegal.

“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winter said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”

Furthermore, Gary allegedly told officers their was “weed” in the car before they searched it.

RBP
05-01-2014, 11:27 AM
Window tint = no probable cause.
Saying there's weed in the car = probable cause.

But in general, warrants should be required, yes.

FBD
05-01-2014, 12:23 PM
:hand: if there's no recording of him saying it and he's suing over this, what do you think the chances are that the cops simply made it up.

dave chappelle's "sprinkle some crack on him" aint that far off from the truth unfortunately.

DemonGeminiX
05-01-2014, 03:13 PM
Window tint = no probable cause.
Saying there's weed in the car = probable cause.

But in general, warrants should be required, yes.

I agree. I expect this ruling to be appealed.

redred
05-01-2014, 04:28 PM
"contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure."



Around 1890 - Companies or group of people started to building cars for public. For example, Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler in Germany, and Albert de Dion and Armand Peugeot in France were busy building cars.

:lol: cars weren't even about when this ruling was pasted , do you think your ever get round to updating stuff

DemonGeminiX
05-01-2014, 04:34 PM
The idea of a legally unreasonable search and seizure has to do with a little bit more than just cars, Red. Forest/trees and such.

KevinD
05-01-2014, 04:45 PM
True dat. 4th Amendment, imho clearly defines this


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.
A vehicle falls under "effects" in this case.
So, they pulled him over for suspected illegal tint. Fair enough, I've had the same happen. This is one of those things they pull you over for just to see what else they can come up with.
At this point, the police have absolutely zero probable cause to search. A dash cam vid would confirm if the driver said he had weed or not. At this point, who knows. He said/she said. The most common "probable cause" around here is the ole reliable "I smelled marijuana"

Acid Trip
05-01-2014, 05:45 PM
The Supreme Court should easily overturn this when it eventually reaches them.

FBD
05-01-2014, 06:17 PM
*should being the operative. given how that sham court has acted in the last bunch of years, we unfortunately cant rely on them to protect our constitutional rights any longer.


watch an office make shit up as he goes and laments that a citizen actually knows his fking rights :roll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

perrhaps
05-01-2014, 06:56 PM
The Supreme Court should easily overturn this when it eventually reaches them.

I don't think so. All the PA Supreme Court did was adopt the federal standard for warrantless vehicle searches, which has been upheld before by SCOTUS.