Supreme Court Just Ruled 5-4 warrentless search ... bloomberg

intersting, still reading it... hummm, hummm....

well we won, so I guess, police will just push us and claim assaulting a police officer... still reading... so far so good....

this is interesting.... language is sort of like, "Look what we planted".
"By a 5-4 vote in a case from Arizona, the high court ruled the police may conduct a search without a warrant only if the officers have reason to believe the suspect might try to access the vehicle or if evidence of a crime will be found." ,,,, ????

www.reuters.com...


[edit on 21-4-2009 by BornPatriot]

I just scanned over the opinion, on the SCOTUS website. They haven't changed anything. They have merely reiterated the previously known limited scope of warrantless, "search incident to arrest" searches.

The problem is the officers, who arrested Gant, conducted an illegal search, which was illegal, at the time. For the past 20 years, of which I have knowledge, this search would not have been legal.

In response to your reading that they could search for "evidence of a crime", is actually incorrect. It is limited to a search for evidence of the crime, for which the person was arrested. In this case, there would be no evidence, in the car, to support his arrest for driving with a suspended license. Hence, "search incident to arrest" does not apply.

Justice was served.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by WTFover]