News (Media Awareness Project) - US: Wire: Police Can Search Cars For Drugs |
| Title: | US: Wire: Police Can Search Cars For Drugs |
| Published On: | 1999-06-21 |
| Source: | Associated Press |
| Fetched On: | 2008-01-28 23:15:11 |
POLICE CAN SEARCH CARS FOR DRUGS
WASHINGTON (AP) - Police generally do not need a warrant to search a car
they have reason to believe is carrying illegal drugs, the Supreme Court
said today.
The court ruled in a Maryland case that a search warrant is not required
even if police had plenty of time to get one after receiving a tip that a
car would be carrying drugs.
The court reinstated Kevin Darnell Dyson's conviction of conspiracy to
possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
Dyson was arrested early in the morning of July 3, 1996, in St. Mary's
County. At 11 a.m. on the previous day, police received an informant's tip
that Dyson would return to the county that night in a rental car after going
to New York City to buy cocaine.
The informant gave a description and license number of the rental car, and
police confirmed with the rental company that the car had been rented to Dyson.
Police stopped Dyson and searched his car at about 1 a.m., finding 23 grams
of crack cocaine in a bag in the trunk. Dyson was convicted after a trial
judge ruled the police could search his car without a warrant once they had
reason to believe it contained evidence of a crime.
A mid-level Maryland appeals court reversed, saying the search was unlawful
because police would have had time to get a warrant.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned opinion that the police did
not need a warrant.
The Constitution's Fourth Amendment generally requires police to get a
warrant before conducting a search, but the court established an exception
in 1925 for automobile searches.
The justices noted they ruled in 1982 and 1996 that once police have reason
to believe a car contains contraband, they can search it without having to
show some emergency existed.
All nine justices agreed the police did not need a warrant in Dyson's case.
But Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the result, saying the court
should not reverse the lower court without hearing arguments
in a case where the defendant's lawyer did not file a response to
prosecutors' appeal.
The case is Maryland vs. Dyson, 98-1062.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Police generally do not need a warrant to search a car
they have reason to believe is carrying illegal drugs, the Supreme Court
said today.
The court ruled in a Maryland case that a search warrant is not required
even if police had plenty of time to get one after receiving a tip that a
car would be carrying drugs.
The court reinstated Kevin Darnell Dyson's conviction of conspiracy to
possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
Dyson was arrested early in the morning of July 3, 1996, in St. Mary's
County. At 11 a.m. on the previous day, police received an informant's tip
that Dyson would return to the county that night in a rental car after going
to New York City to buy cocaine.
The informant gave a description and license number of the rental car, and
police confirmed with the rental company that the car had been rented to Dyson.
Police stopped Dyson and searched his car at about 1 a.m., finding 23 grams
of crack cocaine in a bag in the trunk. Dyson was convicted after a trial
judge ruled the police could search his car without a warrant once they had
reason to believe it contained evidence of a crime.
A mid-level Maryland appeals court reversed, saying the search was unlawful
because police would have had time to get a warrant.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned opinion that the police did
not need a warrant.
The Constitution's Fourth Amendment generally requires police to get a
warrant before conducting a search, but the court established an exception
in 1925 for automobile searches.
The justices noted they ruled in 1982 and 1996 that once police have reason
to believe a car contains contraband, they can search it without having to
show some emergency existed.
All nine justices agreed the police did not need a warrant in Dyson's case.
But Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the result, saying the court
should not reverse the lower court without hearing arguments
in a case where the defendant's lawyer did not file a response to
prosecutors' appeal.
The case is Maryland vs. Dyson, 98-1062.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
