News (Media Awareness Project) - US UT: Editorial: Stop Incidental Searches |
Title: | US UT: Editorial: Stop Incidental Searches |
Published On: | 1998-11-08 |
Source: | Salt Lake Tribune (UT) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-06 20:48:48 |
STOP INCIDENTAL SEARCHES
The U.S. Supreme Court should put a stop to any notion that police
have a right to search the vehicles and persons of those they stop and
ticket for routine traffic violations.
There is a chance the court may do just that. Supreme Court justices
were skeptical about the practice as they heard oral arguments last
Tuesday in an Iowa case in which a police officer pulled over and
ticketed a motorist for speeding.
After citing motorist Patrick Knowles, the police officer decided to
search his vehicle even though he admitted that he had no suspicion
that Knowles was involved in any crime. He found some marijuana and a
pipe.
Knowles unsuccessfully sought to get the evidence thrown out at trial
on grounds its confiscation violated the Fourth Amendment's protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Iowa Supreme Court
rejected his appeal.
Historically, courts have allowed police to search a driver and
vehicle only in conjunction with a custodial arrest -- where the
driver is arrested and booked into jail -- as part of checking for
weapons and preserving evidence for trial. Otherwise, any search must
be based on probable cause that criminal wrongdoing has occurred.
The Knowles case departs from this practice in that no custodial
arrest was made prior to the officer's decision to search the vehicle.
The only justification for it is a peace officer's caprice.
If citizens cannot be secure in their persons or property without
authorities at least having probable cause to justify their
intrusions, it creates a climate of fear and distrust of government
among the people and animosity between the citizenry and the agents of
government who are carrying out these intrusive policies.
This is not the relationship between government and governed this
nation's founders sought to create. Indeed, it is inimical to the
spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the idea that the people actually
are sovereign.
In this case, a state is treating an important liberty cavalierly. The
U.S. Supreme Court should put a stop to it -- and soon.
Checked-by: Patrick Henry
The U.S. Supreme Court should put a stop to any notion that police
have a right to search the vehicles and persons of those they stop and
ticket for routine traffic violations.
There is a chance the court may do just that. Supreme Court justices
were skeptical about the practice as they heard oral arguments last
Tuesday in an Iowa case in which a police officer pulled over and
ticketed a motorist for speeding.
After citing motorist Patrick Knowles, the police officer decided to
search his vehicle even though he admitted that he had no suspicion
that Knowles was involved in any crime. He found some marijuana and a
pipe.
Knowles unsuccessfully sought to get the evidence thrown out at trial
on grounds its confiscation violated the Fourth Amendment's protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Iowa Supreme Court
rejected his appeal.
Historically, courts have allowed police to search a driver and
vehicle only in conjunction with a custodial arrest -- where the
driver is arrested and booked into jail -- as part of checking for
weapons and preserving evidence for trial. Otherwise, any search must
be based on probable cause that criminal wrongdoing has occurred.
The Knowles case departs from this practice in that no custodial
arrest was made prior to the officer's decision to search the vehicle.
The only justification for it is a peace officer's caprice.
If citizens cannot be secure in their persons or property without
authorities at least having probable cause to justify their
intrusions, it creates a climate of fear and distrust of government
among the people and animosity between the citizenry and the agents of
government who are carrying out these intrusive policies.
This is not the relationship between government and governed this
nation's founders sought to create. Indeed, it is inimical to the
spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the idea that the people actually
are sovereign.
In this case, a state is treating an important liberty cavalierly. The
U.S. Supreme Court should put a stop to it -- and soon.
Checked-by: Patrick Henry
Member Comments |
No member comments available...