New Supreme Court case re 4th amend

[monstermonster]

For any LEOs who are also law nerds, you might find this one interesting. It just came down today. It's particularly relevant for states like CA.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf

[masameet]

Wow. A unanimous SCOTUS ruling.

[mud]

California already has case and statutory law on point. More on that in a minute.

Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The issue there was that the state statute required cops to only cite-and-release Moore. In spite of this, the detectives searched him and found a bunch of dope. Moore argued that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because VA laws required he be released after being cited.

SCOTUS disagreed. They've previously held that anyone can be arrested for committing a misdemeanor in the presence of an officer. This case essentially reaffirmed that holding (Lago Vista, I think). In Moore, SCOTUS held that, at a federal Constitutional level, because the cops had PC to arrest, the search incident to arrest was proper, even if the State law required the cops to cite-and-release without a search.

In California cops may arrest people for committing a public offense, misdemeanor, or felony committed in their presence. Additionally, California, unlike Virginia, allows for suppression of evidence obtained in violation of state laws. If the case happened here, Moore would have sought to suppress the evidence under Penal Code § 1538.5, not the Fourth Amendment.

For any LEOs who are also law nerds, you might find this one interesting. It just came down today. It's particularly relevant for states like CA.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf

[monstermonster]

The reason it is interesting for LEOs is that it means LEOs and their departments can't be sued for violating someone's federal constitutional rights in circumstances where they don't cite and release but have probable cause to believe any crime was committed. They can still be sued under state law (where they have immunities), but not federal law.

The simplest version: more protection for LEOs against a federal lawsuit.

[mud]

How do you figure? If an LEO arrested someone without probable cause, the issue of cite-and-release is moot.

Edit: nevermind; I think I see where you're going.


The reason it is interesting for LEOs is that it means LEOs and their departments can't be sued for violating someone's federal constitutional rights in circumstances where they don't cite and release. They can still be sued under state law (where they have immunities), but not federal law.

The simplest version: more protection for LEOs against a federal lawsuit.

[monstermonster]

I edited my post with italics.

[JPM]

It is really not a change for us in California. Driving on a suspended license here is a MAY take section. That means we have the discretion to either issue a citation OR arrest and book; we don't need a reason to do one or the other. If we decide to arrest and book we can search incident to arrest and the point is moot.

Damn, does this make me a law nerd?:p