In an order released today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
It is based on the suspicion that somone might be armed, because traffic stops "are inherantly dangerous." But what triggers "suspicion?" If it is totally up to the discretion of the LEO, what are the chances we are going to see an explosion in the number of "because I can" patdowns?"
In a related matter, the Court also released another opinion saying, essentially, the police get a free pass if they make an honest mistake. Huh . . . that's funny. We The People get no such free pass when we make an honest mistake, such as accidentally carrying a firearm into a so-called "gun free zone." Read it here.
Interesting decisions impact everyone in the U.S., whether they know it or not. Do these opinions unnerve anyone else?
26 January 2009
This Is Just So Wrong
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"It is based on the suspicion that somone might be armed, because traffic stops "are inherantly dangerous." But what triggers 'suspicion?'"
You are making a small leap, the suspicion doesn't derive automatically from the fact that it was a traffic stop, but yes the inherent danger played into it. The cops must reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous. They were driving around with a police scanner in a gang area - I have no problem with the facts of this case.
As for the law, as it has been for decades, the courts will have to discern whether cops' suspicion was reasonable. In this case it sounds reasonable to me...
I didn't read the whole thing, but the far right and the far left all signed on for heaven's sake - it couldn't have been that close of a call...
A, Esq.
Wow, just read the police mistake story. Gotta disagree with you there, too...
The only justification for excluding evidence and freeing an obviously guilty person is to alter/improve the behavior of the government/cops. That's why guilty people not mirandized get to go free sometimes, illegal searches, fruit of the poisonous tree, etc.
How do you improve the behavior when the behavior was fine but-for an innocent clerical mistake? (we have to accept that's what it was, or else if it was pretextual I agree - throw it out)
You would really prefer a real criminal, not some innocent CCW person but a real armed meth-head bad guy, go free because of this?? Oops, Betty forgot to delete your warrant from the computer, so we have to let you go and ignore all the methamphetimine you are carrying...
Surprising... And you are wrong, truly innocent good guys guilty of a technical crime (malum prohibitum rather than malum in se) are often released - they don't get an automatic pass because they "forgot" but if credible, many of charges have been dropped altogether or to a minor offense...
A, Esq.
No question both sides signed on....but....
Somehow as a layman I want to think equal protection comes into play, but I know it likely doesn't. What ever happened to everyone playing by the same rules? We're not talking about two potential criminals, we're talking about the actions of LEOs and the actions of private citizens.
From a technical perspective it might be right, but from a practical perspective, it doesn't pass the smell test. And its not a small leap. The sytem is...or at least WAS....designed to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Because the system has its faults. Its hiccups.
Anyway, an interesting case and opinion, nonetheless. Thanks for writing!
I think where we diverge is that, to me, 98% of the time the cops are on my side. "Levelling the playing field" would mean giving the bad guys a boost, or dragging "our" side down.
You seem to feel in the "competitive nature of law enforcement" (a phrase the Supreme Court has often used) you are on the OPPOSITE side from the cops! I know you are not ON the side of the criminal, but do you see what I mean?
Certainly, we have to be mindful of an over-reaching government - you and I don't always agree where that line should be drawn, but we totally agree in principal. But, in my view, we have much more to fear from a meth-head with a pistol than we do from the government, even with Obama in office.
I would ask that you think through how much you want to hamstring cops in their efforts to protect you and me. I know we can't rely on them exclusively (I carry a gun every single day), but I do think they are for the most part on the good-guy team!
As always - a thought provoking post, even if it is all wrong... :) (just kidding)
Best,
A., Esq.
Let me ask you this....would you support pat-downs of anyone pulled over, even if there were no "reason" or suspicion of carrying a firearm or knife? Just because they can?
This is not unlike the current practice of asking to search the car after a stop has been completed (ticket written, or no ticket). Permission is either asked, or for no reason --and with no suspicion - people are asked if they have a "weapon" or drugs int he car. Drivers don't have to comply, but the vast majority don't know this.
Post a Comment