|
---------------------------------------------------------------
AN E-BULLETIN
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE -- CORNELL LAW SCHOOL
lii.law.cornell.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following information has just arrived via the LII's
direct Project HERMES feed from the Supreme Court. A list of
links for today's material is followed by the syllabus for any
case which had one.
---------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA v. MOORE (06-1082 Syllabus)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZS.html
===============================================================
VIRGINIA v. MOORE (No. 06-1082)
Web-accessible at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZS.html
Argued: January 14, 2008 -- Decided: April 23, 2008
Opinion author: Scalia
===============================================================
Rather than issuing the summons required by Virginia law,
police arrested respondent Moore for the misdemeanor of
driving on a suspended license. A search incident to the
arrest yielded crack cocaine, and Moore was tried on drug
charges. The trial court declined to suppress the evidence
on Fourth Amendment grounds. Moore was convicted. Ultimately,
the Virginia Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that the
search violated the Fourth Amendment because the arresting
officers should have issued a citation under state law,
and the Fourth Amendment does not permit search incident
to citation.
Held: The police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when
they made an arrest that was based on probable cause but
prohibited by state law, or when they performed a search
incident to the arrest. Pp. 3-13.
(a) Because the founding era's statutes and common law
do not support Moore's view that the Fourth Amendment was
intended to incorporate statutes, this is "not a case in
which the claimant can point to a 'clear answer [that]
existed in 1791 and has been generally adhered to by the
traditions of our society ever since,' " Atwater v. Lago
Vista, 532 U. S. 318 . Pp. 3-5.
(b) Where history provides no conclusive answer, this Court
has analyzed a search or seizure in light of traditional
reasonableness standards "by assessing, on the one hand,
the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy
and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for
the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Wyoming
v. Houghton, 526 U. S. 295 . Applying that methodology,
this Court has held that when an officer has probable cause
to believe a person committed even a minor crime, the arrest
is constitutionally reasonable. Atwater, supra, at 354.
This Court's decisions counsel against changing the calculus
when a State chooses to protect privacy beyond the level
required by the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Whren v. United
States, 517 U. S. 35 . United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S.
581 , distinguished. Pp. 6-8.
(c) The Court adheres to this approach because an arrest
based on probable cause serves interests that justify seizure.
Arrest ensures that a suspect appears to answer charges
and does not continue a crime, and it safeguards evidence
and enables officers to conduct an in-custody investigation.
A State's choice of a more restrictive search-and-seizure
policy does not render less restrictive ones unreasonable,
and hence unconstitutional. While States are free to require
their officers to engage in nuanced determinations of the
need for arrest as a matter of their own law, the Fourth
Amendment should reflect administrable bright-line rules.
Incorporating state arrest rules into the Constitution
would make Fourth Amendment protections as complex as the
underlying state law, and variable from place to place
and time to time. Pp. 8-11.
(d) The Court rejects Moore's argument that even if the
Constitution allowed his arrest, it did not allow the arresting
officers to search him. Officers may perform searches incident
to constitutionally permissible arrests in order to ensure
their safety and safeguard evidence. United States v. Robinson,
414 U. S. 218 . While officers issuing citations do not
face the same danger, and thus do not have the same authority
to search, Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113 , theofficers
arrested Moore, and therefore faced the risks that are
"an adequate basis for treating all custodial arrests alike
for purposes of search justification," Robinson, supra,
at 235. Pp. 11-13.
272 Va. 717, 636 S. E. 2d 395, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Roberts, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer,
and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment.
_______________________________________________
Liibulletin mailing list
Liibulletin@ruckus.law.cornell.edu
http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/liibulletin
You are currently subscribed as bernie@fantasyfarm.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to liibulletin-leave@ruckus.law.cornell.edu
|
| |
| |
VIRGINIA v. MOORE (06-1082 Syllabus)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZS.html
..
Officers may perform searches incident to constitutionally
permissible arrests in order to ensure their safety and
safeguard evidence. ...
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Roberts, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas,
Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment.
What post-arrest safety issues could have existed once
the defendant was in custody?
What additional evidence could be possibly be required
to convict someone of driving on a suspended license?
I am waiting to read Justice Ginsburg's separate
opinion on this before commenting further.
Dick
|
| |
| |
rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
VIRGINIA v. MOORE (06-1082 Syllabus)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZS.html
..
Officers may perform searches incident to constitutionally
permissible arrests in order to ensure their safety and
safeguard evidence. ...
What post-arrest safety issues could have existed once
the defendant was in custody?
For many years cars have been treated differently from other, non-
mobile locations. The reason is that if a car is not allowed to be
searched or seized, it and its contents could disappear or be
contaminated.
I haven't read the decision, either, but my guess is that this is just
the latest in a long line of decisions allowing police to search a car
if there was a legal arrest of the driver (or owner if he's a
passenger) of the car.
Stu
|
| |
| |
Dick Adams wrote:
VIRGINIA v. MOORE (06-1082 Syllabus)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZS.html
..
Officers may perform searches incident to constitutionally
permissible arrests in order to ensure their safety and
safeguard evidence. ...
What post-arrest safety issues could have existed once
the defendant was in custody?
What additional evidence could be possibly be required
to convict someone of driving on a suspended license?
I am waiting to read Justice Ginsburg's separate
opinion on this before commenting further.
Dick
The Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) has been emasculated, bit by
bit, over the past two decades. This is but one more step.
|
| |
| |
|
