Gant Vs Arizona

[Weed420]

Finally we have a definitive answer to some of the illegal searches done by cops.
I'm hoping people will pay attention to this because its important. Cops can not search your car without a search warrant. It doesn't mean they won't trump up some lie to search but it should be able to be easier to catch these bigots in there lies.

I'm also quite excited because I received a summons for jury duty. I'm hoping I get to sit on one these bullshit personal possesion cases because no matter what the substance is I will be saying not guilty.

C/P
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court put a new limit on police searches of cars Tuesday, saying that "countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation" have had their vehicles searched in violation of their rights.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices set aside a 1981 opinion that had given police broad authority to search cars whenever they made an arrest.



Supreme Court hears arguments in...
Supreme Court to decide whether dogfight video is free speech

Instead, the justices said that an arresting officer could search a vehicle only if weapons were potentially in reach of the suspect or if there was reason to believe that the car contained evidence related to the arrest. For example, if the driver was arrested in a drug crime, the car could be searched for drugs.

Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said that merely arresting a driver does not "provide a police entitlement" to search the vehicle without a warrant.

He said the court's past rulings had given police too much leeway, allowing them to search cars even when there was no threat to officers' safety. For example, if a motorist was handcuffed and put in a patrol car, there was no danger that he could reach a weapon in his car.

The lineup behind Stevens was unusual. Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg formed the majority.

The case arose when Rodney Gant was arrested in Tucson for driving with a suspended license. His car was parked in his driveway, and officers handcuffed Gant and put him in a patrol car. Then they searched the car and found a gun and cocaine in a jacket in the back seat.

Gant was convicted on drug charges, but the Arizona Supreme Court threw out evidence on the grounds that the search of his car without a warrant was unreasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision Tuesday in Arizona vs. Gant.

The dissenters, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the court should have stuck with the old rule that permitted vehicle searches whenever a driver or an occupant was arrested.

 

[EdwardChase]

Gant vs Arizona was a major score!! Just say NO to a cop and make it difficult for them to arrest you!! Thanks for the post!!

 

[onPOT]

I was arrested a few months ago for not using my turn signal. After i was in handcuffs and in the backseat of the police car the arresting officer searched my car and found two bags of pot. When we got to the police station he said I was under arrest for Possession of marijuana and only that. ( I guess he was nice enough to drop the turning without TURN SIGNal charge.) Finally when the police officer turns me over to the jailer, the JAILER finds another bag of pot in my pocket. I spent 12 hours in jail and never saw a judge. Months later after going to court and getting a court appointed attourney I get to see the AFFIdavit or INFORMATION that the arresting officer swears to, and in it he LIES! He says that he pulled me over for not using my turn signal, then because i was nervous he asked me to get out of the car and he searched me where he found a bag of pot in my pocket.

the court says they do not have video. SHould i get the JAILER to testify that he found the pot in my pocket at the JAIL. and would that disqualify the arresting officer as a credible witness?
MY court appointed attourney is no help AT ALL AND he dismisses the Gant Vs Arizona case as irrelevent to my case.

ALso it wasnt until months after I was arrestd that a judge arraigned me!!!

 

[EdwardChase]

Your first mistake was getting out of the vehicle w/a bag of pot in your pocket. The officer does have the right to frisk you for weapons and more than likely will if being asked to step out of the car. In Grant vs Arizona the Justices state; “an arresting officer could search a vehicle only if weapons were potentially in reach of the suspect or if there was reason to believe that the car contained evidence related to the arrest.” Having a bag of weed in your pocket was why you were arrested. I am amazed the arresting officer did not find the other bag the jailer found. Also, if you are being hauled off to jail and your car needs to be removed from the street, the police can search it to maintain safety. Grant’s vehicle was parked in HIS drive way, NOT on the road and being in the back of a police car for a suspended license he (Grant) posed NO threat to the officers who went through his vehicle. Cops are such dicks!!

Next time leave you shit locked up in your glove box and when you are frisked you will not give any reason for the officer or dickhead arrest you. I have been pulled over knowing my insurance and registration was in my glove box and I just tell the officer I am without these items at the time and will later present them later in court.

Good Luck!!

 

[onPOT]

Thanks for the reply but i dont think you understand.

When i was asked to get out of my car i did and the officer DID perform a legal Terry frisk but he did NOT find the pot in my pocket. I was handcuffed and Arrested for Not using my turn signal but that charge was immediatly forggoten. The jailer was the one to find the pot in my pocket, the Arresting officer did not, BUt he lied in a sworn affidavit when he said he found it during the Terry frisk thereby giving him probable cause. (IF it were true).

 

[onPOT]

ALSO what do marijuana or weapons have to do with the fact that they were TAKING ME TO PRISON FOR NOT USING MY TURN SIGNAL?

 

[Mtlawnfan]

They can and will do whatever the hell they want. My vehicle was not "searched" it was "inventoried". Judges will allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, knowing that most people will not be able to pursue an appeal to higher courts. I had a dugout-type device inside a closed first-aid box, under the seat in my truck and the officer testified that it was "in plain view".

Cops lie? Paper-shuffling attorneys don't want to piss-off a judge that they will be in front of for many years? Please say it ain't so....