Supreme Court Restricts Warrantless Vehicle Searches
The Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant today was a pleasant surprise. The Court struck a blow against the deeply flawed search-incident-to-arrest doctrine that has permitted police to perform a vehicle search anytime someone in the car is arrested. For the last 28 years, concerns over officer safety have been held to permit ridiculous numbers of automatic vehicle searches that had more to do with the drug war than officer safety.
My thoughts on the case are over at Flex Your Rights.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Warrantless searches (US Supreme Court)
The decision is a proper step forward and I applaud the Justices. I do understand that officer safety is a big concern but the safety and rights on the defendant need be protected also.
Yes it is a proper step
One of the problems we have is that too many of our citizens place our police and elected officials on a pedestal, whereas they are (Constitutionally) supposed to be treated exactly the same as any other citizen. Our police think they are better than everyone else and far too many of them act like thugs, they are really no more important than anyone who isn't a cop and we need to stop treating them as if they were. Our elected officials should get none of the benefits of office (especially lifetime protection from the Secret Service), or any pension (especially not their in-office salary for the rest of their lives) for their service in office after they leave office. If those bennies were revoked, we would get a better turnover in all elected offices instead of career politicians running the country (or state or local government) to their liking rather than the liking of the people or the rule of the Constitution.
I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!
Not such a big deal
After all, the person is already arrested.
Re:
Did you read the post at Flex Your Rights?
Post new comment