High court gets it right on car, driver search limits

[donkey rhubarb]

from: http://www.journaltimes.com/articles...n/21910649.txt

It takes more than a hunch by a police officer to search someone.

And more than just seeing someone bend over in a car, too. Not much more, but more than just leaning over.

That's what the state Supreme Court ruled last week when it upheld a 2005 appeals court ruling that reversed the conviction of a Racine man on a drug charge.

Gary Johnson, of Racine, was convicted on charges of possession of cocaine and marijuana after police searched his car following a traffic stop in November, 2003. The appeals court “ reaffirmed now by the high court's 5-2 ruling “ tossed the results of the search and overturned his conviction.

Despite the hubbub of protest from area talk radio hosts and a few others, the Supreme Court got it right “ although this one is right on the edge.

There are those in the state “ and in our community “ who would give police much more authority to search people under the notion that "you don't have anything to fear if you have nothing to hide."

The Constitution, fortunately, takes a different view. It forbids the government from making unreasonable searches and seizures and affords citizens certain rights to be secure in their own person.

Which places the court in the position of determining what is reasonable and what is not “ as the court put it, to balance the safety of law enforcement officers and others against the right of persons to be free from unreasonable government intrusions.

Here is where they drew that line last week.

For starters “ and this was actually key to the ruling “ Johnson's car had been stopped the previous day for because its registration had been suspended for an emissions violation. He was not in the car at the time and officers didn't issue a citation. Patrolling officers spotted the car again the next day and, after following it for a brief period, pulled him over for the emissions violation and for failing to using the turn signal to indicate a turn.

As they stopped the car, the two officers said they saw Johnson bending over “ one described it as a furtive motion “ as if putting something beneath the front seat.

The two officers approached the car, but did not immediately order Johnson from the vehicle. They told him he had been stopped for an emissions violation. Johnson then produced paperwork that one officer testified was "adequate" to show "that the vehicle had passed emissions within the past couple of days so that those circumstances wee cleared up."

At this point the arresting officers were down to a turn signal violation and the "furtive" move.

Instead of issuing a citation for the turn signal violation “ or simply sending the driver on his way since the original reason for the traffic stop had been cleared up, the officers directed Johnson to get out of the car and told him they were going to give him a pat down search for their own safety.

When Johnson fell down or acted as if he was falling down, police had him sit on the curb and told him they were going to search his car as well. Johnson reportedly said, "I don't have a problem with that," but police testified later they were going to search his car no matter what his response.

The appeals court and the high court both agreed that Johnson had not "consented" to a search of his vehicle, but only acquiesced to it. There were right to deny the search on those grounds as well.

What would it have taken for a search to stand up in the Johnson case?

Not much more.

The court pointed to other cases it has ruled on in the past “ one where a tipster had called in to say a drug deal was going down in a black and purple van in the alley behind her house. A responding police car pulled into the alley, saw the van parked there and saw the driver reaching behind the seat.

In that case the court supported the search of both the driver and the van. The court reasoned that drug activity is often related to weapons possession. That, combined with the driver reaching behind the seat and the fact the police were at risk because they were approaching the vehicle from the front and had no way to exit except by backing up, justified a reasonable suspicion in the case that the driver may have been armed and dangerous.

Similar situations in some respects.

But an allegation of a drug deal and an emissions violation are miles apart. As the high court put it in its majority decision last week, "were we to conclude that the behavior observed by the officers here was sufficient to justify a protective search of Johnson's person and his car, law enforcement would be authorized to frisk any driver and search his or her car upon a valid traffic stop whenever the driver reaches to get his or her registration out of the glove compartment; leans over to get his wallet out of his back pocket to retrieve his driver's license; reaches for her purse to find her driver's license; picks up a fast-food wrapper from the floor; puts down a soda; turns off the radio; or makes any of a number of other innocuous movements persons make in their vehicle every day."

With last week's ruling it will still take a bit more than such everyday movements to rise to "reasonable suspicion" that warrants a police search of a driver or a vehicle - as it should.

[Unknown2Most]

first off ,the person typing this is new to this site,this person would like to know why everyone refers to self as swim(common sense tells me that its for self incriminating purposes) so from now on this person will refer to self as swim.was just curious so swim dosent break any site rules,not trying to waste time.newayz swim works on an island and on this island you cannot drive nething but a goldcart,unless it is police,fireman,etc. swim was driving and a cop car pulled behind him. swim looked back to make sure car was safe distance from cart,and stopped a little too abruptly at a stop sign ahead.after that swim made a left turn and bent down to put a lighter down then heard the infamous "whoop whoop" followed by pretty but annoying blue lights, rookie cop asked me to step out, asked why swim ran stop sign, even though swim didnt,just stopped quickly. then pig said that he saw me lean over and asked if swim was messing with drugs,swim said no,and piggy said that he could search the cart if he wanted to but that he didnt feel like it,about that time secound cop gets outta car,cop happens to be someone swims boss knows and is a lietinent.both of them left,and rookie just told me to pay attention.my question is do the same laws that apply to cars apply to all modes of transportion(except public of course)kewllzz...

Enjoi

[Police Officer]

It seems as if you're having a hard time with the english language, so I'm answering under the assumption that you're not from the US. That and the fact that you said that you're from an island where you drive a gold cart. Not sure if you might've meant golf cart. You have to check your countries laws.

If you were in the US the answer would be: A motor vehicle is generally considered a motor driven vehicle. A golf cart would qualify. One of those mini crotch rockets quality. A driven lawn mower qualifies. But like I said, check with your countries laws.

BTW is the island Bermuda? I saw on the boob tube about some island where the main mode of transportation was golf carts due to congestion. I'm thinking that it was Bermuda because of the outfits.