License and Registration Please.....

[Gene DeMambro]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The Supreme Court refused Monday to review police search cases that posed an important question for drivers: can officers freely search your car without getting a warrant if you don't show them identification or registration papers?

The SCOTUS turned away appeals from two drivers who didn't produce ID or registration papers when stopped by the cops. One man said he lost his wallet, and the other, a teenager, acknowledged he didn't have a license or own the truck he was driving.

The cops took a look for themselves and found drugs in both cars.

Previously, cops were only allowed to search a car's sun visor and glove compartment for identification papers without a warrant.

Now, warrantless searches are allowed anywhere documents "reasonably may be expected to be found."

The court ruled in 1998 that lawmen cannot search people and their cars after ticketing them for routine traffic violations. Searches without suspicion of other wrongdoing are unreasonable and unconstitutional, the court held.

How many cops would like that one reversed, too?

I keep getting the feeling that police officers are always trying to "push the envelope" for searching people, their cars, their offices and their homes whenever they want, with minimal regard for privacy rights, undue suspicion or just the actions of normal, everyday living.

I get the feeling that cops would like to search my car or me whenever I step outside my house. Hell, I'm sure some would like to get inside my house, too.

Gene

[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited October 23, 2002).]

[Alan K]

The question of "police stops", the right to do so in the first place, the fruits of the search (good or fruits of the poisenous tree), vex us all. They differ from state to state.

Some general rules or tests.

Did the LEO have probable cause (more accurately "reasonable probable cause"

If the stop was ok, he can ask for ID, Reg etc.

If contraband is visible on the car seat or in present view of the officer, evidence may be ok.

I have reported a number of these cases on this forum but each case is different, and subtle changes in fact effect the motion to suppress evidence.

One case in point is that of a man standing near his car on the highway, and the officer asks for his license and registration, the man produces his keys and the officer opens the car door. He finds a dime bag of Mary Jane and arrests the defendant for possession of same.

Court held that the motion to suppress was proper.

Now the SCOTUS is inundated with cases involving constitutional issues, and where vehicle stops and searches try to get US rulings in order to avoid the state laws which are so perplexing.

So many state issues get swept under the rug in favor of matters essential to the current state of affairs involving national security and defense.

There is a list of priorities of the SCOTUS for this term (2002-2003) but I didn't have the time to type them.

Here is a little article published just after Court opening.
Quote:

Open It Up
Supreme Court will soon mull wartime secrecy rules; the public should be able to watch.

October 14, 2002

The Supreme Court opened its new term last week as a legal storm over wartime civil liberties is gathering on the horizon. More Americans should be allowed a chance to watch.

Cases challenging the power President George W. Bush has claimed to summarily jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and to arbitrarily hold deportation hearings in secret are moving inexorably toward high court showdowns. How they are decided will be the first indication of how much government encroachment on openness and individual rights the court will allow in pursuit of national security.

But the court has its own problem with openness. The marble and mahogany chamber where the court sits has a capacity of only 350, so few people will actually get to witness this history in the making. It shouldn't be that way in an era when technology allows Americans sitting in their living rooms to witness war, as it happens, a world away.

The Supreme Court should open its courthouse to cameras. There should be a video record of the justices at work on these wartime issues, for posterity as well as for immediate public education. Audio tapes and transcripts of oral arguments are available. But they can't capture the attention of the public, or the power and drama of the court , like video.

Cameras have been a staple in state courts for years, without compromising the administration of justice. In the Supreme Court, which hears only appeals, there are no witnesses to be intimidated by cameras. Cases are argued by the nation's top constitutional lawyers. They would be discouraged from playing to the cameras, as few court proceedings are as tightly controlled as those of the Supreme Court. The time afforded for arguments is strictly limited, and justices interrupt at will to keep lawyers focused on the issues they want to hear.

Public engagement should be encouraged as the court hears arguments on whether the government can jail U.S. citizens like accused "dirty- bomber" Jose Padilla without criminal charges, access to lawyers or any avenue of appeal. Or whether federal officials should be allowed to throw a blanket of total secrecy over deportation hearings.

The public should be given easy access to its top court. In the 21st century that means allowing cameras to record the justices at work. (end of quote)

For serious afficianados of the SCOTUS, this would be a nice thing. Then again look what TV did to the Judiciary and the Prosecution in the OJ case.

I take my hat off to the Justices, knowing all too well what back breaking work it is to be able to hear the number of cases it has and to control the oral arguments, with stricter rules than "Hollywood Squares".

Perhaps in this electronic day and age video taping should be permitted unless issues of genuine national security are at risk or to protect witnesses who may be in danger.

[Alan K]

The question of "police stops", the right to do so in the first place, the fruits of the search (good or fruits of the poisenous tree), vex us all. They differ from state to state.

Some general rules or tests.

Did the LEO have probable cause (more accurately "reasonable probable cause"

If the stop was ok, he can ask for ID, Reg etc.

If contraband is visible on the car seat or in present view of the officer, evidence may be ok.

I have reported a number of these cases on this forum but each case is different, and subtle changes in fact effect the motion to suppress evidence.

One case in point is that of a man standing near his car on the highway, and the officer asks for his license and registration, the man produces his keys and the officer opens the car door. He finds a dime bag of Mary Jane and arrests the defendant for possession of same.

Court held that the motion to suppress was proper.

Now the SCOTUS is inundated with cases involving constitutional issues, and where vehicle stops and searches try to get US rulings in order to avoid the state laws which are so perplexing.

So many state issues get swept under the rug in favor of matters essential to the current state of affairs involving national security and defense.

There is a list of priorities of the SCOTUS for this term (2002-2003) but I didn't have the time to type them.

Here is a little article published just after Court opening.
Quote:

Open It Up
Supreme Court will soon mull wartime secrecy rules; the public should be able to watch.

October 14, 2002

The Supreme Court opened its new term last week as a legal storm over wartime civil liberties is gathering on the horizon. More Americans should be allowed a chance to watch.

Cases challenging the power President George W. Bush has claimed to summarily jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and to arbitrarily hold deportation hearings in secret are moving inexorably toward high court showdowns. How they are decided will be the first indication of how much government encroachment on openness and individual rights the court will allow in pursuit of national security.

But the court has its own problem with openness. The marble and mahogany chamber where the court sits has a capacity of only 350, so few people will actually get to witness this history in the making. It shouldn't be that way in an era when technology allows Americans sitting in their living rooms to witness war, as it happens, a world away.

The Supreme Court should open its courthouse to cameras. There should be a video record of the justices at work on these wartime issues, for posterity as well as for immediate public education. Audio tapes and transcripts of oral arguments are available. But they can't capture the attention of the public, or the power and drama of the court , like video.

Cameras have been a staple in state courts for years, without compromising the administration of justice. In the Supreme Court, which hears only appeals, there are no witnesses to be intimidated by cameras. Cases are argued by the nation's top constitutional lawyers. They would be discouraged from playing to the cameras, as few court proceedings are as tightly controlled as those of the Supreme Court. The time afforded for arguments is strictly limited, and justices interrupt at will to keep lawyers focused on the issues they want to hear.

Public engagement should be encouraged as the court hears arguments on whether the government can jail U.S. citizens like accused "dirty- bomber" Jose Padilla without criminal charges, access to lawyers or any avenue of appeal. Or whether federal officials should be allowed to throw a blanket of total secrecy over deportation hearings.

The public should be given easy access to its top court. In the 21st century that means allowing cameras to record the justices at work. (end of quote)

For serious afficianados of the SCOTUS, this would be a nice thing. Then again look what TV did to the Judiciary and the Prosecution in the OJ case.

I take my hat off to the Justices, knowing all too well what back breaking work it is to be able to hear the number of cases it has and to control the oral arguments, with stricter rules than "Hollywood Squares".

Perhaps in this electronic day and age video taping should be permitted unless issues of genuine national security are at risk or to protect witnesses who may be in danger.

[Panther]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan K:

Did the LEO have probable cause (more accurately "reasonable probable cause"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Counsellor, don't you mean "reasonable articulable suspicion"?

(yeah, I'm still reading things and keep wanting to respond, but just don't have the time! )

Take care and be good to yourselves...