PA Supreme Court alters police rules for warrantless vehicle searches
- Thread starter Inigoes
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The Morning Call has a more informative article:
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylv...0201222-d3w26nk7fzamtiyyleftcf7h5e-story.html
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylv...0201222-d3w26nk7fzamtiyyleftcf7h5e-story.html
Written with the arrogance of someone who won't have to make that call on the side of a road, knowing their career and possibly freedom is on the line if they choose wrong. Officers will choose the safe path, skip searches and arrests won't get made. This is exactly what the Dems want, criminals not being harassed by those pesky cops.
This is insane. You know. Because there's always exigent circumstances when there's probable cause.
Cant seize the heroin that's in plain view unless the car is on fire.
Cant seize the heroin that's in plain view unless the car is on fire.
...and that’s bad, why?
Having made my share of boardings and maybe having been stopped a time or two in my car, I get it.
The beat goes on. Tax paying, law abiding citizens increasingly put at risk and in jeopardy.
To be clear, there are three sets of rules going forward. There’s rules for the uber wealthy and politically connected. There’s rules for the family oriented, working, tax paying stiff. Then there’s a whole new and emerging SPECIAL set of rules for the denizens of downtown and bottom feeders/dregs of society.
The left WILL NOT be happy until good folks are fearful and compliant and the bad folks are successful in every sense of the word. That will make those uber wealthy/politically connected feel ever so much better about their rung of the financial and social scale.
Surely, things will come to a mutually satisfactory equilibrium sooner than later....
If the "heroin" is in plain sight, it's fair game to be seized.
Now, if that same "heroin" is out of sight, then no search.
Using the terminology above, replace the word "heroin" with "firearm".
- Sep 21, 2020
- 114
No, its simple: Cops just do their job within the law. Should be easy right?
And its not always criminals that are harassed, its innocent people as well. You support harassment?
No, actually. The judge actually said as much. That's the annoying part. If she made the wrong call here, she gets overturned by a higher court. If a cop on the side of the road makes the wrong call they could be fired and will almost certainly be sued. By the judge's own admission, this will create confusion but that doesn't seem to be her concern.
Out of sight is not PC. If I pull someone over for speeding and see a kit and heroin, that's PC.
Now, in order for me to "see that heroin", and emergency needs to be happening, like the car on fire with occupants in it.
I guess you don't know the terminology.
- Sep 21, 2020
- 114
Okay. Guess we will just have to wait and see how this plays out
Correct, I am a layman at best.
However, the case originated from a known drug dealer being pulled over. He kept his stash of heroin in a locked box.
Since he was a suspected drug dealer, the vehicle search ensued.
You cannot search a locked box in a vehicle without a warrant. A known felon doesn't make any box, PC.
That doesn't give cops a freebie.
I'd like to know what the Judge thinks exigent circumstances are.
It's like good and substantial.....
We agree, but that's the events surrounding this case.
1time
Ultimate Member
The search was conducted because the driver reeked of weed and both the driver and passenger admitted to smoking weed.
alucard0822
For great Justice
Seems on the surface this ruling requires the same level of PC and exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle or home. Sitting with the driver roadside, or towing it to impound while waiting for a search warrant seems to still be an option, and don't see where it removes "in plain view" from search criteria either. It raises the bar from the current Ludwig vs US(and a host of other descisions) on what is required for a search without a warrant, and seems to reclaim 4th amendment rights and return to the Carrol vs US standard in PA. In this case probable cause alone was not sufficient to search a locked box in a vehicle without a warrant, or exigent circumstances, which I can agree with. Might be short sighted, can definitely see where it could cause issues with current police practices for vehicle searches, but it's hard not to side with a ruling that finds in favor of our rights.
“Have you been smoking weed?” -yes sir.
“I smell weed”. Is this PC?
Or in regards to this forum :
“Have you been hunting this week?” - yes sir.
“I smell gun oil” - is this technically PC?
I believe there is a case on the books where the officer saw a closed overnight bag and thought there was a firearm inside, so he searched and found one. Courts rules this PC, firearm owner in jail.
Just some thoughts.
“I smell weed”. Is this PC?
Or in regards to this forum :
“Have you been hunting this week?” - yes sir.
“I smell gun oil” - is this technically PC?
I believe there is a case on the books where the officer saw a closed overnight bag and thought there was a firearm inside, so he searched and found one. Courts rules this PC, firearm owner in jail.
Just some thoughts.
- Sep 21, 2020
- 114
Hmmm, I would love to read this case. Let me know if you find a link
How is this any different than the longstanding automobile exception established by Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)? Under that case law one needed PC and exigency for a warrantless search. Granted the exigency was almost always satisfied by the fact the car could be driven away, it still had that requirement. Any replies will not be taken as legal advice.
Last edited:
FrankOceanXray
Ultimate Member
- Oct 29, 2008
- 12,034
I thought years ago SCOTUS answered the exigency of motor verhicles being searched.
Carroll vs US . The Carroll Doctrine.
Carroll vs US . The Carroll Doctrine.
