?..heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure..?Adan Salazar
Pennsylvania?s Supreme Court has ruled police officers in the Commonwealth are no longer required to obtain a warrant prior to searching a vehicle, a decision that essentially overturns the protections enumerated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in Pennsylvania?s own state constitution.
Yesterday, Justice Seamus McCaffery issued the court?s opinion, stemming from a 2010 Philadelphia police department traffic stop of a man for having dark tinted windows, who was later found to be hiding two pounds of marijuana under the hood of his vehicle.
In a 4-2 vote, the court decided "the prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search."
Previously, as explained by Lancaster Online, police were not allowed to search a vehicle unless a driver consented, "or if the illegal substances were in plain view."
"Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with the search without a warrant," writes Brett Hambright.
Not surprisingly, police are ecstatic.
"It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs," said New Holland Police Lt. Jonathan Heisse, reports Hambright.
However, in her dissenting opinion, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd rightly noted the ruling ?heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright.? Todd also called the decision ?diametrically contrary to the deep historical and legal traditions? of Pennsylvania, according to Associated Press.
Several defense attorneys also view the court?s ruling as a monumental government overreach that could negatively impact the normal, day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens.
"It's an expanding encroachment of government power," Jeffrey Conrad, a defense attorney with the law firm Clymer Musser & Conrad told Hambright today regarding the court?s final opinion. "It's a protection we had two days ago, that we don't have today. It's disappointing from a citizens' rights perspective."
"I am concerned," another defense attorney, Christopher Patterson, expressed to Hambright, "that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement."
Another lawyer clarified that the ruling does not grant police the authority to search vehicles arbitrarily.
"This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop," Mike Winters with the law firm McMahon & Winters said. "They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant."
(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Deputy Who Shot Dog Indicted on Animal Cruelty Charge
- FBI Investigating Bunkerville Protesters!
- Student Punished for Refusing to Pledge Allegiance to the State
- Call the Cops at Your Peril
- NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police
- The American Criminal Justice System is Dead
- Long Island officers caught on video violently striking driver during traffic stop
- Albuquerque Residents Vow to Storm Another City Council Meeting
Probable cause (rather than "hunch" like reasonable suspicion) is always enough for the police to search a car. That's why the cops bring the dog to sniff, and if the dog alerts, they have their reason to search, no warrant is required. This is well known to anyone cursory familiar with the matter, so it's odd that the article presents it as some new and unheard of practice - see http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police-search-your-car/ any pretty much all literature on the subject. If Pennsylvania was an exception, it was amazing, but it ended; the cited court opinion does say "Accordingly, we adopt the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so" - which indeed seems to be the case everywhere else.
In this specific case, the driver told the cops that he had "some weed" in the car; then when they brought the dog to sniff (I wonder why, after that admission), the guy tried to flee and was caught. Seems like more than enough reasons to search the car.
This may end up in the supreme court. That couild be a good thing or a bad thing. Its again going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe night in our lifetime but god willing eventually Americans will realize cops are an occupying gang force that are the enemy and only exist to put people in jail for non-crimes.This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
