"dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sue - thanks for posting this advance notice; Ed probably knows a good
deal sbout this, but its always fascinated me, what is required for
probable' cause or reasonable suspicion' for police to search a car. I
guess they can always seize what's in 'plain sight or wing-span', or on
reasonable suspicion that someone or someplace suggests a crime in which
the person or place is involved, or open a car trunk with a leg sticking
out! (on the above reasoning), but apparently the states are split on
this blanket search deal. I always thought it was against the 4th
amendment, but what do uu think? Again thanks for the post, its a good
test case don't u think? C U soon, :) LDMF. (PS: the word 'reasonable'
used above is a toughie to define!)
---------------Sue Hartigan wrote (too soon to snip)-------------------:
>
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Supreme Court To Decide Search Laws
>
> > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court today agreed to use
> > an Iowa case to decide whether police can be given
> > blanket permission to search people's cars without
> > consent after stopping them for routine traffic
> > violations.
> >
> > The court said it will hear an Iowa man's argument that
> > a police search of his car that turned up marijuana
> > violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection
> > against unreasonable searches.
> >
> > Patrick Knowles was stopped for speeding on March 6,
> > 1996, in Newton, Iowa. A police officer gave him a
> > speeding ticket and then searched Knowles and the
> > passenger compartment of his car.
> >
> > The officer found marijuana and a pipe in the car, and
> > Knowles was arrested. He was charged with possession of
> > marijuana and keeping marijuana in his car.
> >
> > During Knowles' trial, the policeman testified that he
> > did not suspect Knowles was involved in criminal
> > activity and that Knowles did not consent to the search.
> >
> > But a state trial judge ruled against Knowles' argument
> > that the marijuana should not be used as evidence.
> >
> > Knowles was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail.
> > The Iowa Supreme Court upheld his convictions last
> > October, saying the search was justified by Iowa law and
> > allowed by the Constitution.
> >
> > Under Iowa law, police can either make an arrest or
> > issue a citation for a traffic violation. If they issue
> > a citation the law allows them to make an ``otherwise
> > lawful search.''
> >
> > The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this to allow
> > police to conduct a search whenever they could have
> > arrested someone, including for a traffic violation.
> >
> > The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that police can search
> > people upon arrest, citing a need to disarm suspects and
> > preserve evidence.
> >
> > Knowles' appeal to the nation's highest court said Iowa
> > was the only state to authorize a search whenever a
> > traffic citation is issued.
> >
> > Such blanket authority is arbitrary and ``almost
> > certainly invites police to utilize the power in a
> > discriminatory manner,'' the appeal said.
> >
> > Prosecutors said stopping motorists and detaining them
> > to issue a citation is similar enough to an arrest to
> > justify a search for purpose of protecting officers'
> > safety. States have broad discretion over such safety
> > concerns, they said.
> >
> > The case is Knowles vs. Iowa, 97-7597.
>
> --
> Two rules in life:
>
> 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> 2.
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
