It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Court allows search and seizure in Virginia case

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:23 AM

Court allows search and seizure in Virginia case

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.
"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.
Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:23 AM
The days of unregulated government are upon us. Rather than protecting citizens from unlawful searches and seizures by authorities, they once again bowed to the state at the cost of our rights.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:46 AM
Theres something fishy about this case.

On February 20, 2003, two City of Portsmouth detectives,
responding to a radio message that a motorist was
operating a motor vehicle on a suspended license, stopped
a vehicle being driven by the defendant, David Lee Moore.
The officers ascertained that Moore was in fact operating
on a suspended license. Although the offense is a Class 1

misdemeanor, Code § 46.2-301(C), the officers did not issue
Moore a summons but arrested him, handcuffed him, and
placed him in a police vehicle. They gave him the Miranda
warnings and secured his signature on a consent to
search his room at the hotel where he was staying. They
then took him to the hotel room

Because of a “miscommunication” between the officers,
they did not search Moore at the time he was arrested.
Upon reaching his hotel room, they searched his
person and found approximately 16 grams of crack coc aine
in his jacket pocket and $516.00 in cash in his pants
pocket. He admitted the coc aine was his.

Whats this 'miscommunication' are they refering to?
I just find it odd that the position David was in, would consent to being searched in his hotel room. Something just doesnt sound right.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by Master_Wii]


posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:40 AM
I don't see what's so surprising. In drug "crimes" it's virtually impossible to get the evidence thrown out even if the arrest was completely bogus. If anything this is more centralization of power. The police violated state law but the dickweed prosecutor took it to the Supreme Court to bypass the state.

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

BS like this should infuriate any person of reason.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:49 PM
Why is no one outraged at this ruling? As we proceed deeper into a total police state, cops can illegally arrest you and THEN search for something to charge you with? Outraged? No Im sickened by the fact the men and women in uniform are not protecting the rights of the people.

Sieg Hei!!l Nazi Supreme Court!! Sieg Heil!

new topics

top topics

log in