SCOTUS takes yet another chunk out of the 4th Amendment

devil21

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
26,109
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-scotus-pat-down,0,597117.story

US Supreme Court rules officer's pat-down of vehicle passenger allowed
By Associated Press
9:32 AM CST, January 26, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
___

The case is Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122.

So I guess now just being stopped for a broken taillight means you and your passenger are considered armed and dangerous , giving reasonable suspicion for search.
 
Since harbouring suspicion is a purely mental event, this opens the door to 100% searching of occupants of any vehicle on any road in any city.
 
Ya know, I don't know which part of our government is more corrupt. Whenever Congress or The President do something boneheaded, its like SCOTUS has to top them. Nine fucking douchebag nobles in black robes. :mad:
 
Wouldn't they have to explain what their "reasonable suspicion" is to a court? If I were a defense attorney, I sure as hell would expect some kind of evidentiary explanation!
 
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

What about jay-walking?
Public-indecency?
Lewdness, drunkeness, etc?
 
"For the duration of a traffic stop, the Court recently confirmed, a police officer effectively seizes “everyone in the vehicle,” the driver and all passengers. Brendlin v. California, 551 U. S. 249, 255. "

And there you have it. For the privilege of driving, not only can the driver, but also all passengers be seized. Once it was determined that they could get away with denying 4th amendment on the grounds of DUI/Driver licence Checkpoints it was game over.

The "do-gooders" of Mothers Against Drunk Driving i.e. Candy Lightner were driven from the organization along time ago. They have been replaced with an organization which wishes nothing more than pushing the limits of Constitutional rights.
 
Back
Top