Supreme Court rules on car drug searches

[craig420]

Consider the case of three men driving in a car that fits the description of one seen leaving the scene of murder. Inside, the officer finds a murder weapon, but no one admits to it. You would argue that all 3 be let go? Or that the officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, arrests all 3, allowing for further questioning?

This line of "what if" reasoning was brought up in the original post when this was heading to the US Supreme Court. My response remains the same. Here was my response in that thread:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1384384#post1384384

I see.....so now you are defending different legal standards for different crimes? How exactly does that work? Probable cause must apply differently to those involved in drug crimes than all others?

You damn well better believe so. If the police come across a minivan carrying 200lb fertilizer bomb, you better believe the "totality of circumstances" allows for the cops to deal with the suspects in this vehicle differently than they would passengers in a car with a joint. I don't think that's a no-brainer.

 

[Dr. J]

Posted by Craig420
From the linked thread...
The job of the courts is to weigh the arm of the law with the impact it makes on peoples' civil liberties.
If a court reasoned that cops can arrest all passengers of a car in which a gun was found following a shooting as you described, this would NOT necessarily mean that a cop has the right to arrest all passengers of a car any time any illegal contraband was found. In the case with the gun and the shooting, the court could give law enforcement greater leeway due to the violent nature of the crime and the greater good of the community in detaining the shooter.

What you are proposing is for the police to become the interpreters of the law. You want the police to be able to differentiate between one felony and and other. That just doesn't make sense. It is the job of the judge.

Posted by Craig420
You damn well better believe so. If the police come across a minivan carrying 200lb fertilizer bomb, you better believe the "totality of circumstances" allows for the cops to deal with the suspects in this vehicle differently than they would passengers in a car with a joint. I don't think that's a no-brainer.

Again, you are trying to force officers to distinguish between two different felonies. Cocaine possession is a felony. So is murder. Granted, they are at two different extremes and I agree with you that the totality of the circumstances should be the guiding factor. Assuming you support the totality of the circumstances argument, you must therefore also assume that if the totality of the circumstances in a given drug case (which you seem to classify as a low-risk crime) suggest that the officer should arrest everyone, he is within his legal authority to do, correct?

I also assume then that you would be against police citing someone for possession merely because he is nearest the drugs, correct? So the cops get consent to search a vehicle and under the backseat they find 5 kilos of coke. The one person sitting in the backseat was asleep, had no knowledge of the drug, but the police arrest him. The only other option in your scenario is to let them all go. C'mon people!

Posted by Craig420
The 2 were released ONLY because of the admission of the third. Had the third not admitted guilt, it is likely they would have been held for a significantly longer duration.

How do you know this? How can you say with any certainty, in this specific case, that, following the course of the investigation and questioning by the officers, the two innocent men would not have been released anyway?

Posted by Craig420
You cannot apply the law on the assumption that innocents will always be released due to a confession by a guilty party. You must protect the innocent from being snared by the guilty parties in the first place. Had the guilty party in this case not confessed, the innocent two could/would have faced long stays in jail. I think you and your logic are suffering from the same problem that the Supreme Court did in this ruling...you're blinded by the guilt of the defendent in this case.

I am in no way basing the application of law on the confession of the guilty party. Again, if we were to follow the two alternatives in this case, one of two things would have happened.

1. The officer arrests the person closest to the drugs who turned out to be innocent anyway, still sending an innocent man to jail

2. The officer lets all the parties go, even though a felony has taken place in his presence

How can you honestly reconcile either of these options?

 

[Mahan Atma]

A common sense distinction. I still don't understand your position.

Why does it make more sense that there is probable cause to arrest an individual based on his proximity to the drugs alone in a car whereas in the case at hand, you find no probable cause?

I'm giving you two possible solutions. It's called "arguing in the alternative". If you want to be a lawyer, get used to it, because your chances of getting a court to agree with you go up dramatically if you can present a fall-back position.

Why does simply being nearest the drugs suddenly meet you standard of probable cause?

In most states, proximity is a big factor in the "totality of the circumstances". And it does make common sense -- really, if you had to pick someone, wouldn't you pick the person sitting right next to the drugs?

In the Maryland case, the guy in the backseat was closest to the drugs but the cocaine actually belonged to the guy in the front seat. Under your scenario, an innocent guy still goes to jail, right?

Well that's why my primary position is "no probable cause for anyone".

But even under the second rule, fewer innocent people go to jail, both in this situation, and (more importantly) in future cases.

By saying this, you are agreering with Court's "judgement call." Officers have to be able to make decisions based on all the facts that they have in front of them. You support the totality of the circumstances approach, which is exactly what the officer did in this case. He knew a felony had happened but could not necessarily articulate who had committed it.

No, I'm not supporting the judgment call of arresting all three, I'm supporting a different judgment call. The fact that you give the police some discretion does not mean you let them do anything they way. Courts exist to place boundaries on the discretion police are allowed to use. Blanket arrests, in my opinion, should be outside those boundaries. Arresting one person based largely on their proximity to the drugs is far more defensible, although I would prefer a rule that requires something stronger.

Again, under your theory, he should have just simply arrested the man closest to the drugs. You say he would have had probable cause to do that, right?

Again, my preferred solution is "no probable cause for anyone". But if your honor finds that solution unacceptable, then arrest the person closest to the drugs in this situation.

But then an innocent man goes to jail.

And under your rule, two innocent people go to jail, and in future cases, thousands more.

I'm willing to guess that on average, the person sitting next to the drugs is more likely to be the guilty one.

You need to understand that there is no perfect solution to this that makes both sides happy. Either someone guilty is going to go free, or some innocent people are going to go to jail.

How you solve the problem depends on how much value you place on the freedom of an innocent person, versus the interest society has in locking up drug users/sellers.

You're severely playing down the massive incursion on liberty that happens when you put someone in jail. Even one night is bad -- but 77 days, plus the possibility of a conviction via plea bargain, is really bad. You can say, "Oh they went home the next day" but you are ignoring the fact that in most cases, that's not going to happen.

Personally, I put a lot of value on liberty and freedom, and I don't really see a huge value in locking up drug users/sellers. I'm sorry to see that so many people (who themselves see fit to use drugs, assumably) see it differently. If you ever end up in jail, I'm willing to bet you'd change your mind.

I simply fail to see this as the pandora's box or sudden green light on tyrannical police practices that some liberal's talk it up to be.

And just how much time do you spend hanging around jails, or the criminal justice system in general?

 

[Mahan Atma]

Again, you are trying to force officers to distinguish between two different felonies.

In the real world, both cops and judges do it all the time. If you think they treat murders exactly the same as drug possession (or that they should), you're living in a fantasy land.

Assuming you support the totality of the circumstances argument, you must therefore also assume that if the totality of the circumstances in a given drug case (which you seem to classify as a low-risk crime) suggest that the officer should arrest everyone, he is within his legal authority to do, correct?

No. "Totality of the circumstances" does not mean "anything goes". Courts put limits and boundaries on the discretion cops can use.

2. The officer lets all the parties go, even though a felony has taken place in his presence

How can you honestly reconcile either of these options?

Because we value our freedom a lot more than you do, apparently.

 

[craig420]

What you are proposing is for the police to become the interpreters of the law. You want the police to be able to differentiate between one felony and and other. That just doesn't make sense. It is the job of the judge.

Cops make judgement calls every day. I expect them to continue to do so. I expect the courts to determine which were the correct judgements and which were not.

Assuming you support the totality of the circumstances argument, you must therefore also assume that if the totality of the circumstances in a given drug case (which you seem to classify as a low-risk crime) suggest that the officer should arrest everyone, he is within his legal authority to do, correct?

You bet. However, this case is not one of those cases. And save for where each passenger actually possesses drugs on him/her or where they are all obviously high, I don't foresee many instances that would warrant his arresting all passengers.

1. The officer arrests the person closest to the drugs who turned out to be innocent anyway, still sending an innocent man to jail

2. The officer lets all the parties go, even though a felony has taken place in his presence

How can you honestly reconcile either of these options?

I won't even try to reconcile the first as I also don't agree with that methodology. Unless there is other substantiating evidence to place that person as the "possessor" of the drugs (such as drugs/residue on his person or the bag sitting right next time him/her in plain view).

The second option I reconcile quite easily...there is no evidence that all passengers are guilty, thus he must let them go. When there is a decision to err on arresting or not arresting someone for lack of evidence, then the decision must be to not arrest that person UNLESS there is reason to believe that doing so would place others in imminent harm (which allows for felonies such as murders, bombs, and so forth). To do otherwise infringes on the basic liberties of every innocent person.

Within the last few decades, our civil liberties have continually eroded away. We have become accustomed to allowing the end to justify the means. It does not! The ends do NOT justify the means. You cannot start searching every innocent person and arresting every innocent person simply because it will result convictions of the guilty. Hell, if you allow this game of "odds", then you shouldn't have a problem of allowing random searches of houses. If 20% of the general population have drugs concealed in their house then why can't we simply allow all searches on the basis that we know that some of them are guilty. If there's 5 people in a car and one bag of cocaine, odds are 20% that each person arrested was guilty if you arrest all passengers. What has happened to people's presumption of innocence?

 

[Dr. J]

If this interpreation of the law is so wrong, why then a unanimous decision by the Court? Why a 4-3 decision in Maryland, reversing two lower courts, if the issue was so clear cut in the accused's favor?

 

[Mahan Atma]

If this interpreation of the law is so wrong, why then a unanimous decision by the Court? Why a 4-3 decision in Maryland, reversing two lower courts, if the issue was so clear cut in the accused's favor?

Because the justices have never been in jail either.

You need to drop your conception of the law, that a decision is either "right" or "wrong". This isn't math or physics. There is no "correct" answer. At best, there are "consistent" answers.

Whether you agree with a decision usually depends on the value you place on competing interests. I value freedom greatly, in large part because I work with people who've had it taken it away, and I see what that entails.

I also have a different on-the-street understanding of the "evils" of drugs and how the criminal justice system affects that problem.

When you sit on a federal appellate court, you live in a very different world. You tend to see things very differently.

 

[craig420]

If this interpreation of the law is so wrong, why then a unanimous decision by the Court? Why a 4-3 decision in Maryland, reversing two lower courts, if the issue was so clear cut in the accused's favor?

I believe it's primarily (as MA suggested) because judges (particularly the higher sitting judges) are conservative and politics still plays into judicial nominations. For the same reason that most politicians will favor cracking down harder on drugs rather than a common sense harm minimization policy, politicians would rather appoint conservative judges that will err on enforcement rather than civil liberties. Furthermore, any lawyers or judges that have any history of drug use get disbarred or eliminated from the running on appointments. Well, 40% of the general population has tried drugs and I'm willing to be that on the average they're the more liberal people...take them out of the running for judge appointments and you've got yourself an inherently conservative bunch.

 

[Dr. J]

Oh come on. This is the same court that has issued several pro-drug rulings, limiting the power of the police.

Maybe you guys all know something 1 trial court, an appeals court, and the United States Supreme Court doesn't.

And don't give me some liberal cry of "they don't know what jail is like."

If the issue was even remotely controversial don't you suspect the Court would have ordered a full-hearing, or that there would have even been one dissent?

 

[Mahan Atma]

Oh come on. This is the same court that has issued several pro-drug rulings, limiting the power of the police.

Well they aren't robots either.

Maybe you guys all know something 1 trial court, an appeals court, and the United States Supreme Court doesn't.

Look -- how do you account for the fact that the Maryland high court (as well as many other state supreme courts) came down on the side of the respondent?

If you think there is a "right" answer, please tell me how you arrive at it. Be sure to set out your logical reasoning carefully. Try to do it without waving your hands around and using nebulous phrases like "totality of the circumstances" that don't really give you an answer one way or the other.

Can you do it? Well don't waste too much of your time on it anyway...

 

[Mahan Atma]

And don't give me some liberal cry of "they don't know what jail is like."

Tell you what... Why don't you try answering my questions for a change? You've ignored most of them.

If the issue was even remotely controversial don't you suspect the Court would have ordered a full-hearing, or that there would have even been one dissent?

There's no "en banc" hearing, that's a federal appellate court mechanism; this case came up from the Maryland high court, they already had a "full hearing".

Do you want me to show you a few other Supreme Court decisions that came down unanimously? If so, do you promise to agree with them?

 

[Dr. J]

You are right, there is no absolute correct answer. In the case at hand, I support the Supreme Court's decision. I have been opposed to the idea of "closest to the drugs is guilty" for some time. But, I will not support the idea of letting everyone go just to save one innocent man. The idea of presumption of innocence refers only to the rule of trial procedure that places the burden of demonstrating a defendant's guilt on the government. If the officer knows a crime has taken place, and all 3 profess no knowledge of the drugs, what is he to do?

Everyone in the car could have known about the drugs. Everyone in the car could have exercised control of the drugs. You could have arrested the man in immediate control of the vehicle-the driver. You could have arrested the man nearest the drugs-the one in the back seat, you could arrest no one-or arrest all three based on probable cause that, with drugs in the backseat, a bundle of money in the front glove box, more than one person likely knew about the drugs.

The implications of the ruling might have some undesired effects--however, in this specific case, the Court is most correct.

 

[Dr. J]

Full hearing I mean oral arguments. And again, why no dissents?

And no, I do not have to agree with every unaimous Supreme Court ruling; however, even though the Court's decision may be at odd with my own personal preferences, there has to be some validity given to their legal reasoning. I said some, not all...

And, its pretty moot at this point. I am in no way able to debate the law with you--I'm just graduating undergrad, you are well into your legal education. The Supreme Court has issued its opinion and, well, that's that.

 

[BA]

Supreme Court Rules Drug Cases Can Stand On Improbable Cause

In another stunning blow to the civil liberties Americans enjoy under the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that proximity is probable cause in drug cases, freeing police to arrest anyone found near drugs, even if those people are not found in possession of any drugs. Legal analysts who had foreseen the Court to be facing a dilemma – whether to expand the rights of police to arrest the innocent or to roll back police powers, perhaps letting some guilty suspects escape arrest – were taken aback when the Court came down unanimously in opposition to civil liberties and in favor of dubious police tactics.

The decision in Maryland v. Pringle stems from a 1999 incident in which Baltimore County police officer Jeffrey Snyder pulled over a speeding car, only to find cash in the dash and a quantity of crack in the back. Each of the car’s three occupants denied ownership of the drug. Officer Snyder threatened to arrest all three if none admitted owning the crack. When none did, Snyder did arrest all three. Joseph Jermaine Pringle, who eventually admitted that the drugs were his – for which he was sentenced to ten years in prison – claimed that the wide net Snyder had cast by arresting all parties present was unconstitutional. A Maryland state appeals court overturned Pringle’s conviction last year, calling Baltimore’s “policy of arresting everyone until somebody confesses… constitutionally unacceptable.”

The Supreme Court decision reeks of paternalism. The justices have, in effect, read a parental threat into the Constitution – Until someone tells me who tracked mud into the kitchen, no one is leaving this room! – where none exists. In his decision for the court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that it was reasonable for the officer to assume “that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over” the drugs. Such spurious and extra-constitutional logic would hold Justice Antonin Scalia criminally responsible for what Justice Sandra Day O’Connor might carry in her purse. Sadly, as Charles Lane writes in today’s Washington Post, the Court’s decision “means that, in such cases involving drugs, officers may now err on the side of arresting the innocent without violating the Constitution.”

link
12-16-03

 

[plazma]

Oh how we all envy you lucky Americans, living in the land of the free.

-plaz out-

 

[Psilo707]

Fuck You America.

 

[asmodeus256]

Goddamnit.

...

 

[kbee]

i dont stand for the pledge of allegiance, do you?

 

[Mahan Atma]

There's already a thread on this, right here in this very forum:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112278&r=41

Anybody who's interested in the legal intricacies should have a look, there's some good discussion there.

 

[rm-rf]

In another stunning blow to the civil liberties Americans enjoy under the Constitution

love this intro...