Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PA supreme court says screw the 4th, vehicles now searchable without a warrant

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PtownVAMike
    replied
    So actually the 4th Amendment didn't really get "screwed"

    Just as I thought.....

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanE
    replied
    Originally posted by allen_gamble View Post
    Yeah, Carroll Doctrine is one of the most important areas of case law taught at police academies. It's Cop 101. This is the way it has ALWAYS (for any cop who is alive today) been for my state. I don't know anything about the PA constitution, and I'm guessing Carbon must be right as to why this made news.

    Anywho, I would not call this a significant erosion of the 4th Amendment because it's such a long standing precedent at the federal constitutional level.

    By the way, PC isn't the highest standard, but it's not the lowest either. Usually you're gonna get PC from something pretty rock solid, i.e. contraband in plain view, odor of marijuana, hit from a drug dog, etc. It's not just that you can stop a car and search it just because the driver is acting funny or something. And the PC has to be specific. You're going to have to articulate exactly WHAT type of evidence or contraband you think is in the car and only search places where that evidence/contraband could be concealed.
    Not being from PA, take this with a grain of salt. Having read the decision, PA has Article I, Section 8 in their state constitution which pretty much says the same thing as the 4th Amendment. The question that the PA Supreme Court looked at was where did Article I and the 4th Amendment begin going in different directions. From my reading it looks as though the PA Supreme Court had been on board with Carroll through the 1990's but the difference came down with what were Exigent circumstances. The US Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle being movable was in itself an Exigent circumstance and no other exigency was needed.

    So basically the PA Supreme Court didn't have a problem with Carroll and had said that currently they PA did follow Carroll so IF there was an exigent circumstance and it was a motor vehicle, the police with probable cause could search the vehicle. What they expanded was that a motor vehicle by being mobile created the exigent circumstance (similar to the federal standard) and with probable cause, the police can search a motor vehicle without a warrant.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    And the PC has to be specific. You're going to have to articulate exactly WHAT type of evidence or contraband you think is in the car and only search places where that evidence/contraband could be concealed.
    This.

    It's not the right to search any car any time for no reason, you have to be able to articulate WHY you think there is contraband in the car... usually because you've already found some in plain view, or a drug dog alerted, or the occupants are high as a kite.

    there should be no law against having a secret compartment in your vehicle. Or 2 or 10.
    True. However, discovery of a secret compartment WOULD be PC to think some crime may be taking place. PC isn't certainty.

    Having the compartment itself may not be a crime, but if I suspect you have one I'm going to investigate to make sure there isn't a crime occurring.
    Last edited by tanksoldier; 05-23-2014, 10:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SgtScott31
    replied
    There are still states out there that did not adopt the Carroll Doctrine. I think it makes perfect sense. The vehicle is mobile and getting a warrant in some cases will risk the destruction/loss of evidence. TN's Constitution is more strict in some areas than the Federal Constitution, but luckily we adopted the Carroll doctrine eons ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • usetobe
    replied
    Originally posted by Carbonfiberfoot View Post
    I was previously under the assumption that the PA state constitution had set a higher standard. Thank you for bringing me up to speed.

    The secret compartment laws do bother me. If someone has something illegal in one, then they should be charged for the contraband. However, when I lived in downtown Atlanta, I created a hidden compartment in my primary vehicle at the time for the sole purpose of securing a firearm. I couldn't sleep at night if I ever enabled a filthy thief to get their hands on a firearm, and some areas were off-limits (stadiums, government buildings). It worked too, as my car was broken into, and the thief never found it. According to these stupid hidden compartment laws, that makes my reasonable forethought a crime.

    If you immediately inform the stopping officer of the compartment's presence, is it still considered hidden? I'd still have a problem with these laws if not, but it would make them a little more palatable.
    Yeah and what about the next guy who owns that car and doesn't even know about the hidden compartment.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    Regarding the "secret" compartments - I'm on the fence about it. Kind of runs along the lines of confiscating hidden money at the border. Having money isn't illegal. But, what it's being used for and how it's transported is the problem. If you have a small compartment to hide money, valuables, your weapon, etc. - then discretion should be allowed to be used. However, if you're running around in a car with a bunch of secret compartments that can hide large amounts of drugs, money, or even bodies - and it's pretty freaking obvious that there's no other intended use - than I'm all for taking that vehicle and arresting the driver. IMHO.
    Sorry, but absent proof of an actual crime having been committed, there should be no law against having a secret compartment in your vehicle. Or 2 or 10.

    This is a perfect example of how gun laws are enacted. Because one person did something, now we make a law that effects everybody based on the fact that some MIGHT do that same something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    Originally posted by allen_gamble View Post
    Yeah, Carroll Doctrine is one of the most important areas of case law taught at police academies. It's Cop 101. This is the way it has ALWAYS (for any cop who is alive today) been for my state. I don't know anything about the PA constitution, and I'm guessing Carbon must be right as to why this made news.

    Anywho, I would not call this a significant erosion of the 4th Amendment because it's such a long standing precedent at the federal constitutional level.

    By the way, PC isn't the highest standard, but it's not the lowest either. Usually you're gonna get PC from something pretty rock solid, i.e. contraband in plain view, odor of marijuana, hit from a drug dog, etc. It's not just that you can stop a car and search it just because the driver is acting funny or something. And the PC has to be specific. You're going to have to articulate exactly WHAT type of evidence or contraband you think is in the car and only search places where that evidence/contraband could be concealed.
    From my understanding, PA law was that a warrant was needed to search before this. All this ruling does is bring PA to the standard of most of the rest of the country.

    Leave a comment:


  • allen_gamble
    replied
    Originally posted by sapper324 View Post
    Are you talking about the secret compartment stuff only? Because searching vehicles with PC and no warrant is nothing new. Police have been searching vehicles with PC only (for good reason) for decades - legally with standing by the SCOTUS. I'll let wiki explain...

    "The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.[1] The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as he or she has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.[2] The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles due to the regulations they operate. Additionally, the ease of mobility creates an inherent exigency to prevent the removal of evidence and contraband. In Pennsylvania v. Labron the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without more.”
    Yeah, Carroll Doctrine is one of the most important areas of case law taught at police academies. It's Cop 101. This is the way it has ALWAYS (for any cop who is alive today) been for my state. I don't know anything about the PA constitution, and I'm guessing Carbon must be right as to why this made news.

    Anywho, I would not call this a significant erosion of the 4th Amendment because it's such a long standing precedent at the federal constitutional level.

    By the way, PC isn't the highest standard, but it's not the lowest either. Usually you're gonna get PC from something pretty rock solid, i.e. contraband in plain view, odor of marijuana, hit from a drug dog, etc. It's not just that you can stop a car and search it just because the driver is acting funny or something. And the PC has to be specific. You're going to have to articulate exactly WHAT type of evidence or contraband you think is in the car and only search places where that evidence/contraband could be concealed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    I also have a problem with this guy:

    Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, views the growth of those statues as the result of state Legislatures giving little thought to the consequences of adding more crimes to the state code.

    “It is part of the expanding criminalization of America where virtually any act can be charged as a crime by police,” Turley wrote in December about the Gurley case.
    This guy can't be serious. New ways of committing crimes = new laws to combat those new ways of committing crimes. Isn't that kind of the purpose of having law makers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    The Cop Block a**holes had a HUGE boner over this one.

    "The Supreme Court will overturn this!!!!!!!!!"

    Well, actually....

    Regarding the "secret" compartments - I'm on the fence about it. Kind of runs along the lines of confiscating hidden money at the border. Having money isn't illegal. But, what it's being used for and how it's transported is the problem. If you have a small compartment to hide money, valuables, your weapon, etc. - then discretion should be allowed to be used. However, if you're running around in a car with a bunch of secret compartments that can hide large amounts of drugs, money, or even bodies - and it's pretty freaking obvious that there's no other intended use - than I'm all for taking that vehicle and arresting the driver. IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanE
    replied
    "The split-decision from the Supreme Court allows police to conduct searches of cars based only on probable cause"

    ---> And what would have been the level of proof required for a search warrant?

    "In a dissenting opinion, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd said the court was “eviscerating” longstanding privacy protections by adopting the “diluted federal automobile exemption.”

    “By so doing, our Court heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright,” Todd wrote.

    ---> Oh how I love hyperbole! A very interesting read of the PA Supreme Court.

    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...81959.pdf?cb=1

    Leave a comment:


  • retired
    replied
    Originally posted by Mulgrave600 View Post
    How does the law define a 'secret' compartment?
    Can't tell you, it's a secret.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulgrave600
    replied
    How does the law define a 'secret' compartment?

    Leave a comment:


  • ateamer
    replied
    I am so glad to live in a state that, per state constitutional amendment passed by the voters, follows federal law on search and seizure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by sapper324 View Post
    Are you talking about the secret compartment stuff only? Because searching vehicles with PC and no warrant is nothing new. Police have been searching vehicles with PC only (for good reason) for decades - legally with standing by the SCOTUS. I'll let wiki explain...

    "The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.[1] The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as he or she has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.[2] The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles due to the regulations they operate. Additionally, the ease of mobility creates an inherent exigency to prevent the removal of evidence and contraband. In Pennsylvania v. Labron the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without more.”
    I was previously under the assumption that the PA state constitution had set a higher standard. Thank you for bringing me up to speed.

    The secret compartment laws do bother me. If someone has something illegal in one, then they should be charged for the contraband. However, when I lived in downtown Atlanta, I created a hidden compartment in my primary vehicle at the time for the sole purpose of securing a firearm. I couldn't sleep at night if I ever enabled a filthy thief to get their hands on a firearm, and some areas were off-limits (stadiums, government buildings). It worked too, as my car was broken into, and the thief never found it. According to these stupid hidden compartment laws, that makes my reasonable forethought a crime.

    If you immediately inform the stopping officer of the compartment's presence, is it still considered hidden? I'd still have a problem with these laws if not, but it would make them a little more palatable.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5187 users online. 330 members and 4857 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X