Illegal Arrest?

[DenverChief]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court offered unanimous support for police Wednesday by allowing drug evidence gathered after an arrest that violated state law to be used at trial, an important search-and-seizure case turning on the constitutional limits of "probable cause."

"When officers have probable cause to believe that 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," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

David Lee Moore was stopped by Portsmouth, Virginia, officers five years ago for driving his vehicle on a suspended license. Under state law in such incidents, only a summons is to be issued and the motorist is to be allowed to go. Instead, detectives detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him and found cocaine.

At trial, Moore's lawyers tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it, even though the court noted the arrest violated state law. A police detective, asked why the man was arrested, replied, "Just our prerogative."

While some of the justices expressed concern about that level of discretion at oral arguments in January, their 9-0 ruling raised few such doubts.

"The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone," Scalia said. "It is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law."

The state had argued an arrest is constitutionally reasonable if officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime. "This standard represents the best compromise between the needs of the citizens and the duty of the government to combat crime," Stephen McCullough, Virginia's deputy solicitor general, had told the high court.

But Moore's attorney, Thomas Goldstein, called an "extreme proposition" the idea that it would be reasonable "to go out and arrest someone for a non-arrestable offense and not only do that, but having committed that trespass at common law, to further search them."

Don't Miss
FindLaw: Read the opinion
In Depth: Supreme Court
There has been widespread judicial confusion over how such police searches should be handled. Some lower courts had ruled that when state arrest law is violated, the Constitution provides a remedy in the suppression of any evidence resulting from the arrest and a related search.

But the justices agreed with the majority of courts that said constitutional requirements are satisfied when an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, even if some provision of state law was violated in the process.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion suggesting Virginia change its law to make driving on a suspended license an arrestable offense.

During arguments, Ginsburg spoke for several colleagues when she pointed out that if a summons had been issued in Moore's case, any incriminating evidence would have been excluded. "Would you explain the logic to saying that when the police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when they comply with state law, it can't," she asked.

The ruling means Moore's original jury conviction and 3-½ year prison term will stand

No more fruit of the poisonous tree?

Don't want this to boil into a political debate just thought this was rather interesting that they ruled this way...can't think of another example off hand...but interesting

[Mr. Kotter]

Thugs and bangers gettin' off on some lame-ass technicality has always been such bullshit. Good for the Supremes.

I understand the slippery slope argument that this kinda of thing could lead to intentional abuses by cops...but I say, handle those case-by-case. No way some criminal should walk unless you can prove intentional and deliberate abuse by cops, IMHO.

[banyon]

The way i read it, it's still up to each individual state whether they want to apply the exclusionary rule to violations of state law under state Constitutions (Kan. Bill of rights Sect. 15). Kansas cases seemed to lean the opposite direction. Don't know what Missouri does.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Wow, that seems to be a very dangerous interpretation of the law. Maybe I am just dumb, but that seems to give a loop hole to avoid all illegal searches and seizures.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

No way some criminal should walk unless you can prove intentional and deliberate abuse by cops, IMHO.

Sorry, but the rules are there to protect people who ARE NOT criminals, and therefore NEED to be extended to ALL people regardless of guilt or innocence.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by banyon

The way i read it, it's still up to each individual state whether they want to apply the exclusionary rule to violations of state law under state Constitutions (Kan. Bill of rights Sect. 15). Kansas cases seemed to lean the opposite direction. Don't know what Missouri does.

I haven't read the actual opinion yet but it should be interesting ....

[stlchiefs]

Funny this was brought up, we talked about this case in Criminal Procedure today (I have exactly 1 day left of law school). From my understanding/opinion this isn't really too much of a stretch of the law.

Even though the arrest was illegal, the search incident to arrest is not unreasonable because the cop had probable cause. Probable cause is all that is required for such a search and as stated this was present. So, though the cop incorrectly arrested the defendant when a summons was in order, because probable cause was present for the search, there is no reason to toss the evidence obtained from the search.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by stlchiefs

Funny this was brought up, we talked about this case in Criminal Procedure today (I have exactly 1 day left of law school). From my understanding/opinion this isn't really too much of a stretch of the law.

Even though the arrest was illegal, the search incident to arrest is not unreasonable because the cop had probable cause. Probable cause is all that is required for such a search and as stated this was present. So, though the cop incorrectly arrested the defendant when a summons was in order, because probable cause was present for the search, there is no reason to toss the evidence obtained from the search.

awesome congrats....we talked about this (briefly) in Administrative law today....I just am trying to think of another situation where this might happen...like getting arrested in your home for a noise ordinance violation aand subject to your arrest the police discover stolen property that they wouldn't have found if they had (as the ordinance calls for) just summoned you...I dunno interesting discussion tho

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

awesome congrats....we talked about this (briefly) in Administrative law today....I just am trying to think of another situation where this might happen...like getting arrested in your home for a noise ordinance violation aand subject to your arrest the police discover stolen property that they wouldn't have found if they had (as the ordinance calls for) just summoned you...I dunno interesting discussion tho

interested in your take stlchief

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by stlchiefs

Funny this was brought up, we talked about this case in Criminal Procedure today (I have exactly 1 day left of law school). From my understanding/opinion this isn't really too much of a stretch of the law.

Even though the arrest was illegal, the search incident to arrest is not unreasonable because the cop had probable cause. Probable cause is all that is required for such a search and as stated this was present. So, though the cop incorrectly arrested the defendant when a summons was in order, because probable cause was present for the search, there is no reason to toss the evidence obtained from the search.

Ok, so say a person was stopped for speeding, something small like 5 mph over the limit. A ticket is in order, but instead the police arrest the driver, and then search the car and find drugs, or a body, or stolen mechandise.

Do we say, the police officer was wrong to make an arrest for a speeding ticket, but the search was legal because there was then cause to search the car.

Use the same scenario, only this time the driver was going 1mph over, and had been the subject of interest in a crime, and this arrest was used to seize evidence that the police had been unable to obtain a warrant to search for.

I know that those circumstances don't necessarily match those of the case, but they are close. My question is where does the line get drawn?

And congrats on school and good luck with the bar exam.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Ok, so say a person was stopped for speeding, something small like 5 mph over the limit. A ticket is in order, but instead the police arrest the driver, and then search the car and find drugs, or a body, or stolen mechandise.

Do we say, the police officer was wrong to make an arrest for a speeding ticket, but the search was legal because there was then cause to search the car.

Use the same scenario, only this time the driver was going 1mph over, and had been the subject of interest in a crime, and this arrest was used to seize evidence that the police had been unable to obtain a warrant to search for.

I know that those circumstances don't necessarily match those of the case, but they are close. My question is where does the line get drawn?

And congrats on school and good luck with the bar exam.

agreed...are you in Law Enforcement?

[Miles]

Originally Posted by stlchiefs

Funny this was brought up, we talked about this case in Criminal Procedure today (I have exactly 1 day left of law school). From my understanding/opinion this isn't really too much of a stretch of the law.

Even though the arrest was illegal, the search incident to arrest is not unreasonable because the cop had probable cause. Probable cause is all that is required for such a search and as stated this was present. So, though the cop incorrectly arrested the defendant when a summons was in order, because probable cause was present for the search, there is no reason to toss the evidence obtained from the search.

Its been a few years since I have taken a crim pro course but this it pretty much the same interpretation I recall.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

agreed...are you in Law Enforcement?

No, but the implications seem obvious to me. The person had a suspended license, and maybe there are other factors involved with him being stopped that were not mentioned, but according to the law that the officers were bound to, a summons was the appropriate action. Instead they detained him, arrested him and searched his car and found the drugs. Didn't they state the reason was "Our perogitive" or something like that?

I am not a criminal, but I am one of those people who get pissed about things like this on principal alone. Police should follow the law like everyone else. The law said give a summons.

In the thread about the smoking ban, someone said that they could not believe they served their country to protect freedom, just to have their freedom of choice taken away by the government. Well, the government did not take away their choice, people excersised their freedom by voting, so the freedom he served to protect was on glorious display. This is a democracy, and that democracy is what passed the smoking ban.

[stlchiefs]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

awesome congrats....we talked about this (briefly) in Administrative law today....I just am trying to think of another situation where this might happen...like getting arrested in your home for a noise ordinance violation aand subject to your arrest the police discover stolen property that they wouldn't have found if they had (as the ordinance calls for) just summoned you...I dunno interesting discussion tho

The Courts protect the privacy of ones home MUCH more than they do a person's car. I think the outcome would be very different in the above case. Save for certain exceptions (a growing number) a person cannot even be arrested in their own home without a warrant. On the other hand if the officer was lawfully inside the home (through exigent circumstances, which don't seem to exist here or consent of the "offender") the plain view doctrine would most likely allow them to seize the evidence and admit it at trial.

Takes this all with a grain of salt as next week is my study week for Crim Pro and Crim Law is not my area, I'm a transactional guy.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by stlchiefs

The Courts protect the privacy of ones home MUCH more than they do a person's car. I think the outcome would be very different in the above case. Save for certain exceptions (a growing number) a person cannot even be arrested in their own home without a warrant. On the other hand if the officer was lawfully inside the home (through exigent circumstances, which don't seem to exist here or consent of the "offender") the plain view doctrine would most likely allow them to seize the evidence and admit it at trial.

Takes this all with a grain of salt as next week is my study week for Crim Pro and Crim Law is not my area, I'm a transactional guy.

But in this case the plain view doctrine would not fit, or they would have had no need to search, and he probably would not have been detained for an hour before the search.