Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
By Eric Boehm / May 14, 2014
If the police stop you in Pennsylvania, they don’t need a warrant to search your car.
And soon, you could be in trouble even if they find nothing.
CARE IF I HAVE A LOOK AROUND? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last month that warrantless searches of vehicles are now legal in the state.
The state Supreme Court ruled last week that police are allowed to search vehicles without a warrant. The state General Assembly, meanwhile, is moving forward with a bill that would give cops the authority to arrest people caught with “secret compartments” in their vehicles, even if there is nothing illegal in those suspicious containers.
It adds up to greater authority for police and prosecutors but less privacy for Pennsylvania drivers.
The split-decision from the Supreme Court allows police to conduct searches of cars based only on probable cause — that is, as long as the officers conducting the search have a reason to believe there are illegal goods or evidence of a crime hidden inside the vehicle.
Writing for the majority in the 4-2 ruling, Justice Seamus McCaffery said requiring police to have probable cause for a search is “a strong and sufficient safeguard against illegal searches,” and brings state law in line with federal law allowing warrantless searches of vehicles.
Defense attorneys and civil liberties groups disagree.
JUSTICE MCCAFFERTY: Writing for the majority, Justice McCafferty said probable cause is a sufficient protection for drivers’ rights.
Reggie Shuford, executive director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, said he worries that killing the requirement for a search warrant eliminates an important check on police power.
“I think getting a warrant is significant because it is one more deterrent against bad police behavior,” he told PA Independent. “There was really no reason for the court to overturn the law. We have a long history of strong protections for individual rights in Pennsylvania.”
Some states have constitutional language requiring a warrant before a vehicle can be searched, but Pennsylvania’s does not. In the ruling, McCaffery said that has caused a wide range of confusing and contradictory rulings from state courts that have examined the issue.
“To provide greater uniformity in the assessment of individual cases and more consistency with regard to the admissibility of the fruits of vehicular searches based on probable cause, a more easily applied rule — such as that of the federal automobile exception — is called for,” he wrote.
JUSTICE TODD: In a dissenting opinion, said the court was “eviscerating” longstanding privacy protections
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.
But law enforcement in Pennsylvania might soon get a gift from the Legislature, as well.
On the same day the Supreme Court ruling was announced, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved legislation making it a crime to possess a car with “secret compartments.” If the bill becomes law, anyone caught with such compartments could be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor and have their vehicle seized by police — even if the compartments hold nothing but air.
A conviction would carry up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
continued...
- See more at: http://watchdog.org/144359/police-search-secret-compartment/#sthash.UkGRoX9M.dpuf
If the police stop you in Pennsylvania, they don’t need a warrant to search your car.
And soon, you could be in trouble even if they find nothing.
CARE IF I HAVE A LOOK AROUND? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last month that warrantless searches of vehicles are now legal in the state.
The state Supreme Court ruled last week that police are allowed to search vehicles without a warrant. The state General Assembly, meanwhile, is moving forward with a bill that would give cops the authority to arrest people caught with “secret compartments” in their vehicles, even if there is nothing illegal in those suspicious containers.
It adds up to greater authority for police and prosecutors but less privacy for Pennsylvania drivers.
The split-decision from the Supreme Court allows police to conduct searches of cars based only on probable cause — that is, as long as the officers conducting the search have a reason to believe there are illegal goods or evidence of a crime hidden inside the vehicle.
Writing for the majority in the 4-2 ruling, Justice Seamus McCaffery said requiring police to have probable cause for a search is “a strong and sufficient safeguard against illegal searches,” and brings state law in line with federal law allowing warrantless searches of vehicles.
Defense attorneys and civil liberties groups disagree.
JUSTICE MCCAFFERTY: Writing for the majority, Justice McCafferty said probable cause is a sufficient protection for drivers’ rights.
Reggie Shuford, executive director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, said he worries that killing the requirement for a search warrant eliminates an important check on police power.
“I think getting a warrant is significant because it is one more deterrent against bad police behavior,” he told PA Independent. “There was really no reason for the court to overturn the law. We have a long history of strong protections for individual rights in Pennsylvania.”
Some states have constitutional language requiring a warrant before a vehicle can be searched, but Pennsylvania’s does not. In the ruling, McCaffery said that has caused a wide range of confusing and contradictory rulings from state courts that have examined the issue.
“To provide greater uniformity in the assessment of individual cases and more consistency with regard to the admissibility of the fruits of vehicular searches based on probable cause, a more easily applied rule — such as that of the federal automobile exception — is called for,” he wrote.
JUSTICE TODD: In a dissenting opinion, said the court was “eviscerating” longstanding privacy protections
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.
But law enforcement in Pennsylvania might soon get a gift from the Legislature, as well.
On the same day the Supreme Court ruling was announced, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved legislation making it a crime to possess a car with “secret compartments.” If the bill becomes law, anyone caught with such compartments could be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor and have their vehicle seized by police — even if the compartments hold nothing but air.
A conviction would carry up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
continued...
- See more at: http://watchdog.org/144359/police-search-secret-compartment/#sthash.UkGRoX9M.dpuf
