« Ind. Courts - "Jury still out on Lake County judge's request to move into old courthouse" | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: Marion County reportedly suspends bench warrants for delinquent parents [Updated] »
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Courts - "U.S. Supreme Court limits police searches; Southern Indiana prosecutors believe effects of decision will be minimal"
The U.S. Supreme Court's April 21st decision in the case of Arizona v. Gant, limiting police vehicle searches (see ILB entry here), is the subject of a lengthy story today in the New Albany News & Tribune by Matt Thacker. Some quotes:
Less than two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that will limit when police officers may search a vehicle without first securing a warrant.While the decision has received a great deal of media attention nationally, local prosecutors believe the decision may not have as much of an impact as it appears.
“The way it stands right now, I don’t think [the ruling] will have a substantial effect,” Clark County Prosecutor Steve Stewart said.
In Arizona v. Gant, Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license. He was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car while officers searched the entire passenger compartment of the car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket, which was in the back seat of his vehicle.
The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and on April 21, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the evidence should not have been allowed.
“Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. Prosecutors say the Supreme Court left enough room that police will still be able to find ways to search vehicles.
“It will not have as big of an impact as one might believe,” Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson said.
He said that, prior to the ruling, officers were allowed to search vehicles under the justification of protecting the safety of the officer. However, when a driver is cuffed and locked in a police vehicle, it is difficult to argue that the officer is in danger.
“If the person is secured, that justification no longer exists,” Henderson said. “I think the court is saying, ‘Let’s stop the charade.’”
Officers can still search anywhere that is within one arm’s length of where the arrested person was sitting in the vehicle. Police also will still be allowed to do an inventory search of the vehicle whenever it is impounded, and police may search if probable cause exists that drugs are in the vehicle.
A new wrinkle added under the Supreme Court’s ruling is that a vehicle may be searched if police officers have reason to believe it contains evidence related to the offense the person is being arrested for.
In Arizona v. Gant, the court ruled that police officers had no reason to believe they could find evidence related to driving with a suspended license. Stewart said that if someone is arrested for a drug offense, officers could still have good reason to search the vehicle for drugs.
Henderson said he does not oppose the decision. He said the most important thing will be for police officers to be able to explain the reason they searched a vehicle. “With law enforcement articulating their reasons, this case will not have a remarkable effect,” Henderson said.
There are still many areas left open to interpretation. One example Henderson gave is that if an officer arrests one person, but there are others in the vehicle not being arrested, the officer might have good reason to search the vehicle because his safety could be at risk by those not being arrested.
He said police officers also might be able to detain the person prior to handcuffing them, but then the officer might be in real danger.
“I’m always in favor of black-and-white rules,” Stewart said. “It’s basically been a black-and-white rule that the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle can be searched. “Any time you throw in the word reasonable, it’s a matter of discretion.”
The Evening News and The Tribune contacted several local law enforcement agencies, but most were hesitant to speak on the record about the ruling. There is still a lot of confusion about what the ruling means for them.
Sgt. Jerry Goodin, with the Indiana State Police, said his agency had not been briefed on the new ruling. Sellersburg Police Chief Russ Whelan said he had received a notice about the ruling, but had not studied it yet. He did not expect it would change much for his officers.
“We ask for consent. It’s not one of them that we push a lot if they don’t give consent,” Whelan said. “Like it or not, we try to comply with [court decisions].”
Floyd County Sheriff Darrell Mills is more uneasy about how it may affect his officers. “We feel like it hampers us,” Mills said. “It makes it difficult for law enforcement.”
Henderson said he will provide some information about the ruling in the next bulletin he sends out to police. He plans to have a training session within the next couple of months in which he will go over all the changes in laws.
A local defense lawyer is praising the decision. “I think it’s an important case that reaffirms the government does not have free reign to search anyone at any time and that there are constitutional limits,” defense attorney William Gray said.
It is an issue that all expect will be tested many times in the court system.
“The state or trial courts can interpret [the ruling] any way they want,” Stewart said. “In addition, they may consider the same set of facts under the Indiana Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court sets the lowest parameters of the state’s rights.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 3, 2009 12:32 PM
Posted to Courts in general