POLICE RIGHT TO SEARCH, SEIZE EVIDENCE AFFIRMED

It's OK Even If Arrest Violated State Law, Supreme Court Rules

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.

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where
city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting
him for a traffic ticket.

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving with a suspended license.
The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to
issue a court summons and let the driver go.

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that
drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him
as evidence.

"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 arrest and search the suspect to safeguard evidence
and ensure their own safety.

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

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released
Moore and could not lawfully search him.

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to
issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court.
Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only
following a lawful state arrest.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds
more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the
rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and
search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up
in support of Virginia prosecutors.

The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly
increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence
seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.

Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would
introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.