New Search Rules
The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a ruling that modifies the search incident to arrest doctrine, rejecting a broad reading of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). In Arizona v. Gant, — U.S. —, 2009 WL 1045962, the Court overturned the search incident to arrest of Rodney Gant’s car after Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed and secured in the back of a patrol car. With several officers at the scene, officers found cocaine in Gant’s car during the search incident to the driver license arrest.
The Court held that a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle following an arrest is allowed “only if [1] the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or [2] it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”
Be aware that something may have changed. We aren't sure this is an earth-shattering change, but it's another procedural hurdle to clear.
Labels: info for the police
posted by SCC at 12:06 AM
108 Comments:
Let's just stop doing police work.... oh wait! Sorry, I forgot, we already pretty much have. Can't wait for these warm days ahead! Pack your bags Jody!
SCC, it seems the supreme court lives in a bubble, however there is a way around the courts decision.
Many departments nationwide have a policy regarding inventory searches when vehicles are towed incident to arrest. That "inventory search" gets an officer into the vehicle and trunk and anything found as a result is admissible in court.
For those departments that don't have the inventory policy yet, I see it coming very soon to a policy and procedure manual near you.
A suburban cop.
Hmm.. so if I am towing a car for susp license no insurance, can i still search it, or just tow it to the pound with the dead body in the trunk?
dude, this shit is getting ridiculous
Can't have that liberal voter pool drying up now, can we?
once you remove a subject from anything that he could possibly reach in the vehicle, the vehicle becomes off limits
-----
Soooooo... we have to search for the loaded gun WHILE the subject is still in the car?
SCC, did you mean "anywhere" instead of "anything"?
Don't worry read the opinion. A way around this decision is to do an inventory search of the vehicle as arrestee's property. You will have to tow the arrestee's car as prisoner's property, however.
read the whole decision from the supreme court, not a lawyer or an aspiring one, long but interesting.
key element of case is the offender drove up to house under suspicion. ro's were on scene talking to family members when subject drove up to scene, stopped car, got out, locked car, and then approached officers, at this time his identity was confirmed and he was placed in custody.
the officers then reentered the auto and found the gun and drugs.
i think the key is he was out of car and car was no longer part of the police investigation.
we should still be ok searching cars that need to be towed or on t stops while going through cars with good citizen on the hood.
advise all to go to supreme court website and read the rulings. lots of common sense talk from the judges but they go over and through the cases like a ten minute official review of a football play.
we all know decisions are made very fast on the street and in the heat of battle. you can tell that all justices could use a little street time.
overall good reading but think the same conclusions could be made at a bar with 9 bar stools.
just spend one hour discussing case and then write down your decision on a bar napkin.
another thing is they do decide many cases. more than i would have guessed. the news only reports the big cases.
we are going to need to meet at the bar at least 5 nights a week and going to need more napkins and pretzels.
Here are a couple of off topic questions I have.....
1. Since Fuck Face Daley is asking all the unions to take pay cuts how much of a pay cut has he asked the WORTHLESS ALDERSCUM to take?
2. How much did Fuck Face Daley offer to cut HIS OWN pay by?
3. Has anyone seen the weather forecast for this weekend? I'm gonna set the over under for persons shot at 26. Beginning at 1200hrs Fri afternoon until 0400hrs Mon morning. Which will you take SCC over or under?
off topic but it looked like the weekend started early. homicides in 004, 006, 007, and 011.
So driver is arrested, and vehicle is to be towed. We still have to inventory the contents on a tow case so that after the driver returns to claim his vehicle, he doesn't say that the 12 Rolex watches he had in the trunk are missing. Right ?
So, drugs or contraband found during the 'inventory' of the vehicle can be seized but no charges filed ? Hmmmmm ? O K.
ot but im on furlo and was working cta and heard that city wide blowing up with shots fired, person with a gun, person shot etc. just glad to hear all is still the same in the here in shitsville
Tow the vehicle,inventory search,viola.
It's actually a big change but I'll leave it to the legal eagles to explain it. If you haven't heard, the police department is using more stimulus money to buy even more cameras. I'm telling u guys, know this law because what u do is on tape. Basically searching cars is out on routine stops.
What about the murder victim in the truck? Is that now the way to get away with murder? The evidence of the murdered victim in the trunk will be disallowed because the police didn't have a search warrant?
What a country.
So every time you stop joe shithead with suspicion, call the dogs. Let's start a new 5 year legal beef with that one.
TYPICAL OF THE DIRECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT IS HEADING.CPD WILL PROBABLY COME OUT WITH AN ORDER TO MAKE IT EVEN TOUGHER.
ANOTHER REASON NOT TO BOTHER.
Ain't this a crying shame, the man can't get paid for his work, it just ain't right.
---
from the Sun-Times
'Gator' sues over 'urban translating'
April 23, 2009
Former Gangster Disciples enforcer Wallace "Gator" Bradley sued a former Death Row inmate Wednesday, claiming he was not paid for his services as an "urban translator."
In a lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court, Bradley says Aaron Patterson owes him $100,000 for consulting and investigative work.
Patterson received a $5 million settlement from the city in a false-imprisonment lawsuit.
He is back in prison on a federal weapon conviction.
Frank Main
Chicago Sun-Times
time to start searching every vehicle for inventory purposes pursuant to policy
Considering the new Fascist regime now in charge, this is welcome news.
The more Govt is hindered and the public insulated the better!
Thanks God for Roberts, Thomas et al
Just more power for the bad guys.
The SCOTUS Web site is:
www.SupremeCourtUS.govThe 4th Amendment decision was entered in Arizona v. Grant.
so custodial search of a vehicle pursuant to an arrest is out unless the arrest is made for narcotics or a firearm. The old stop, placed in custody, custodial search revealed from the vehicles... (unless its immediately accessible--which means directly under his or her own seat) Cant wait to see the number of recovered guns plummet again once this hits the rank and file... You really do have to be a MORON to be out there busting your ass. The way laws are changing and the fact that the criminal justice scales are tipping to the left, if you are aggressive, you are a fool... Unless you dont mind being named in lawsuits, and being the recipient of multiple CRs... Work=trouble... I will continue the "informational" work stoppage 1st and 16th
we all know decisions are made very fast on the street and in the heat of battle. you can tell that all justices could use a little street time.
---------------------------------
with extremely rare exceptions there is no need to be in a big hurry to search a car.
police departments need to find a way to get search warrants issued in an expeditious way for these kind of situations.
that way there is no issue and the cop is not the bad guy for making an illegal search.
Why does anyone give a shit anymore? The citizens don't want you doing shit anymore. They don't want you to do your job so give them what they fucking want. It's real simple. When crime really skyrockets and the criminals are kicking in the liberal's doors, they'll change their tune. Unfortunately by then our police departments will be ruined beyond repair. Or just keep doing what you've been doing and end up on the 5 o'clock news, lose your job, and maybe go to jail.
Another way around this decision is you can always ask for consent from the driver. Most will allow even if they have shit in their car because they are too stupid to say no. It might get thrown out but at least you are playing by the fantasyland rules the U.S. Supreme Court has set up for law enforcement.
Limiting the powers of police to search personal property isn't necessarily a bad thing, however in cases when the arrestee is clearly up to something, it's necessary to collect evidence.
Can't you guys just claim, "probable cause," then search? I mean, if the guy is obviously high, or is fiddling with stuff under the seat, throwing stuff in the back, etc..the writing is on the wall. I would assume most motorists don't do this when they politely hand you their license and insurance card - those are the ones that need to be left alone. Just my $.02.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why does anyone give a shit anymore? The citizens don't want you doing shit anymore. They don't want you to do your job so give them what they fucking want. It's real simple. When crime really skyrockets and the criminals are kicking in the liberal's doors, they'll change their tune. Unfortunately by then our police departments will be ruined beyond repair. Or just keep doing what you've been doing and end up on the 5 o'clock news, lose your job, and maybe go to jail.
4/23/2009 08:23:00 AM
Let us non-Liberals have guns in our homes or even (gasp) concealed carry and you won't have to worry about us anymore. If the criminals kill liberals, we don't care any more than you do.
Illinois IVC code 5/6-303(e) or 5/6-101(e) allows for the vehicle's impoundment at the time of arrest in as much as the vehicle as no proof of liability insurance and its driver is committing driving with suspended/revoked or no valid drivers liense. This type of search pursuant to vehicle impoundment is valid.
WHO CARES?????????????????
Ah, the demise of the custodial search. Well experience tells me that sooner or later a car that has not been searched will begin to stink of a foul odor at a impound lot near you! When said corpse is removed from the trunk then the supreme court will say to themselves, uh I didn't think of that.
Anonymous said...
Don't worry read the opinion. A way around this decision is to do an inventory search of the vehicle as arrestee's property. You will have to tow the arrestee's car as prisoner's property, however.
4/23/2009 01:19:00 AM
AND inventory every last piece of crap in it!
P.D.: Officer, why did you on;y inventory this .40 cal glocak and 3 kilos as prisoner property and not his 50 lbs kicker box and his dirty sox?
Office: uhhhhhh
Anonymous said...
TYPICAL OF THE DIRECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT IS HEADING.CPD WILL PROBABLY COME OUT WITH AN ORDER TO MAKE IT EVEN TOUGHER.
ANOTHER REASON NOT TO BOTHER.
4/23/2009 06:38:00 AM
and then all the white shirts will get pissy bec arrests are down.
police departments need to find a way to get search warrants issued in an expeditious way for these kind of situations.
you must not have done alot of warrants. It is not about the dept. it is about the SA office and judges.
They want numbers and activity yet the courts won't allow you to do your job. Got that criminals.......hide your guns in the glovebox. We really need to pay mroe attention to our judges at election time. Lawmakers...please get your heads out of your arrsses.
I agree that an inventory of the vehicle will be the way to go, but some infamous Cook County ASA's absolutely hate them. Oh well, the big wheel keeps on turnin...
If the judges here in Northern Illinois weren't just so liberal and beholden to to politicians, we could get some good rulings here.
Our criminals here have fine tuned their craft to a razor's edge. And our coppers are very dedicated.
Before everyone gets paranoid, please read the case. The guy was arrested for traffic and they searched the whole car without impounding or towing it. If you do that, an inventory search as a result of an impound/seizure/tow, the car can still be searched under the exception rule. What the S.C. said was that if someone is arrested for traffic and you park and lock his car legally, then to search the interior and trunk, without a reasonable belief the guy is armed (Terry Stop)then you need a warrant. Please remember that every S.C. ruling can be overcome by the proper use of the pen during report writing. If we wrote better reports, these problems would never come before us. Please always be safe in your endeavors on the street.
This is not an earth-shattering change. The result the SC came to has been fairly clear for a long time, the only difference is they said it loud and clear.
To Anonymous who says: once you've got the passengers spread eagle on the hood you can search the car - NOPE. Not unless they've got arms long enough to reach the interior while they're on the hood, OR, you stopped them BECAUSE you had some specific reason to believe there's contraband inside the car.
To further investigate a burned out tail-light, something you need to search inside the car. But where you see a guy pulling away from a hand-to-hand transaction, there's something that might need to be investigated in the car.
Wait and see what the supreme court looks like after Obama seats a few judges. You will have to get a warrant to make a traffic stop.
Anonymous said...
Let's just stop doing police work.... oh wait! Sorry, I forgot, we already pretty much have. Can't wait for these warm days ahead! Pack your bags Jody!
4/23/2009 12:36:00 AM
Sorry to see the total demise of this once proud dept. If you do police work you will end up screwed over ala COZZI! The exempts are the worst ever,clout-merit still very high, no contract a mayor who steals everything in sight,morale (what morale), now they want to start a grading system yea boss that will work!!
Anonymous said...
ot but im on furlo and was working cta and heard that city wide blowing up with shots fired, person with a gun, person shot etc. just glad to hear all is still the same in the here in shitsville
4/23/2009 02:22:00 AM
Hey boss since your last pax 501 you talked about 9 million your getting for overtime,how about making cta time +1/2?? How about it be a real guy just do it!
Anonymous said...
we all know decisions are made very fast on the street and in the heat of battle. you can tell that all justices could use a little street time.
---------------------------------
with extremely rare exceptions there is no need to be in a big hurry to search a car.
police departments need to find a way to get search warrants issued in an expeditious way for these kind of situations.
that way there is no issue and the cop is not the bad guy for making an illegal search.
4/23/2009 08:20:00 AM
Your sir/madam are obviously not the police and never have been.
1. Police departments don't have a magic wand they wave to have warrants issued in an expeditious manner. There is no electronic system in place for obtaining warrants 24/7.
2. There is nothing expeditious about our justice system. If you were the police, you would know that getting a search warrant requires jumping through some hoops and finding a judge. Last I checked, I don't know of a judge that is awake after 10pm and before 7am that is waiting for me to call him/her and ask for a warrant to search a vehicle I have stopped and placed the driver in custody.
I hope that someone you care about isn't kidnapped, knocked unconcious and tied up in the trunk of a car that I stop, because as the courts ruling stands, that person in the trunk is going to stay in the trunk because I can't search the car incident to arrest.
Pleasant dreams.......
This is no big deal.
Scalia was in the majority on this case --- he is no police hater ... if he says so it is probably a pretty fair ruling.
You guys are all forgetting we are all AMERICANS first ... COPS second.... and the 4th AMendment protects US from the government.
We gotta remember the importance of all this and the big picture. The Constitution is far more important to me than arresting pookie for a little extra dope and getting a court date. It is not all POLICE POLICE POLICE.
God Bless AMerica
THe old case was Beltran? v. New York. If you arrested the guy you could search the interior passenger compartment (and all containers in there) but not the trunk.
THe theories were 2:
1. officer safety
2. prevent destruction of evidence
Scalia said "no" - there is no officer safety issue when you got offender cuffed in the back of the squad.
Scalia, technically is right. BUT the purpose of Bertran (or whatever it was called) was to give cops a bright line rule ... now that bright line rule did get a bit more 'unbright' - but the ruling really does make sense.
I don't see it as an "us against them" thing at all
in 006 the CO book already has the ruling posted were being told don't search cars.
How am I ever going to make MSF?
Then use the "vehicle inventory search" case as your reasoning for searching the vehicle prior to securing/impounding it. If you leave the car parked and later the arrestee says there was a $10,000 engagement ring in the glovebox you are at fault.
If you fnd any illegal contraband on an "inventory search" make sure you ALSO inventory something else of value (ie stereo faceplate, checkbook...) this shows that you werent only looking for illegal stuff. I believe the case is SD v. Opperman 428 US 364.
Don't worry read the opinion. A way around this decision is to do an inventory search of the vehicle as arrestee's property. You will have to tow the arrestee's car as prisoner's property, however.
4/23/2009 01:19:00 AM
Cant tow cars as prisoners property anymore. A bulletin came out from legal affairs regarding this. But you can (and should) still do an inventory search prior to either impounding it or lacking/parking it to make sure there isnt anything of GREAT value that can be stolen
Hmm.. so if I am towing a car for susp license no insurance, can i still search it, or just tow it to the pound with the dead body in the trunk?
___________________________________
You can still tow, but that body is gonna be prisoner property along with his dope and guns.
Good the future THOUGHT POLICE, given power from the Mesiah might not be able to search my truck. I love when the goverment is given less power. Do you think unit 121 and the feds should be given more power to fuck you. I know it hurts but start THINKING.
Anonymous said...
Don't worry read the opinion. A way around this decision is to do an inventory search of the vehicle as arrestee's property. You will have to tow the arrestee's car as prisoner's property
-------------
If you still cared then yeah you could finnagle around. If you are like 90 percent of cops in America and now the Cia you say Fuck It all.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
SCC, it seems the supreme court lives in a bubble, however there is a way around the courts decision.
Many departments nationwide have a policy regarding inventory searches when vehicles are towed incident to arrest. That "inventory search" gets an officer into the vehicle and trunk and anything found as a result is admissible in court.
For those departments that don't have the inventory policy yet, I see it coming very soon to a policy and procedure manual near you.
A suburban cop.
4/23/2009 12:41:00 AM
We have it to. the PROBLEM is that this WAS AN INVENTORY SEARCH. He was arrested for traffic, and subsequent INVENTORY search was tossed cause we now need a warrant. Brace yourself folks, this is bad. Real bad. This is Terry vs. Ohio for cars....
Here it is in adobe... save and savor... http://www.policeone.com/policeone/data/pdfs/SC_ArizonaVSGrant.pdf
I never have those problems. thats because all I do is answer my calls AND THATS IT!
To much bullshit and red tape for me. Nothing the city of chicago or the police dopartment does sets a Police Officer up to be successfull! So I just dont bother anymore!
I had a case similar to this years ago. I surveilled a guy who was dealing weed from his car. He made deals on the sidewalk across from his car, walked to his car and unlocked it with his key. He retrieved the item from inside. He closed his car and locked it. After a few transactions, my partner and I approached. We found one of his customers in possession of 3 small zip bags of weed. The buyer was arrested. The customer stated he just bought it form the same guy we watched. The seller was detained as I went and looked inside of his car. I saw a corner of a clear plastic bag sticking out of the center armrest compartment. I obtained the key and opened the car. I recovered a one gallon size zip bag with several more of the identical smaller bags inside from the armrest console. The seller was arrested, the car impounded and all processed. At court the case was tossed because the judge ruled I needed a search warrant to unlock the car. Was the weed in clear view? No. Did I know what exactly it was that was being sold? No, not until the buyer was arrested. But this is what police work was all about. We had to make do with what we had. Build up a good enough case and maybe put a drug dealer behind bars. Had we waited any longer and not acted, the seller would have made his profits and bought a large order of cheese fries. The seller got away with this one. Even though all the circumstantial evidence was provided.
Needless to say the days of pro-active police work is over. Now it's all about the 1st and the 16th.
"4/23/2009 01:35:00 AM"
1. 0
2. 0
3. What's the kick in and how much is in the pot?
Remember the difference between policy and the law. You will not be tried on policy, but the letter of the law. I am sure that Weis will back you up 100% though!
To 4/23/2009 01:20:00 AM
"read the whole decision from the supreme court, not a lawyer or an aspiring one, long but interesting."
"i think the key is he was out of car and car was no longer part of the police investigation."
No, this not correct. Even if the offender was out of the vehicle at the time of arrest, the arresting officers could still have searched the vehicle. The critical issue is whether evidence of the crime for which the offender was arrested might reasonably be found in the car-perhaps a weapon, perhaps narcotics, perhaps restraints/tape for rape etc. This is true whether the offender is handcuffed and secured in a police car or not. In Gant, the offender was arrested not because he ws present at the house but because he had an outstanding warrant for license related issues. To say that evidence of that sort of crime might be found within the compartment of the vehicle would be ridiculous.
As a distinct issue, the physical ability of the offender to reach into the compartment and potentially retrieve a weapon or destroy evidence still justifies an search of the compartment incident to arrest. As a practical issue, however, in most cases this will not hold unless the officers intentionally create a hazard by not securing the offender.
In the future, if you have a medical issue why don't you go the Johns Hopkins or AMA website, diagnose yourself, then read up on the surgical procedure, discuss it with buds over cocktails and turn to on repairing yourself-let's see how tat works for you.
The arrogance of lay people is truly overwhelming sometimes!!!
But if you have to tow/impound the vehicle, you allowed to do an inventory search which allows you the entire inside.
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)-A vehicle impounded can be unlocked, entered, and inventoried by the police as part of their "caretaking" function without violating the Fourth Amendment. Any drugs or other evidence or contraband can be lawfully seized.
SCC, it seems the supreme court lives in a bubble, however there is a way around the courts decision.
Many departments nationwide have a policy regarding inventory searches when vehicles are towed incident to arrest. That "inventory search" gets an officer into the vehicle and trunk and anything found as a result is admissible in court.
For those departments that don't have the inventory policy yet, I see it coming very soon to a policy and procedure manual near you.
Instead of saying custodial search, now we have to say an inventory search produced....
we all know decisions are made very fast on the street and in the heat of battle. you can tell that all justices could use a little street time.
---------------------------------
with extremely rare exceptions there is no need to be in a big hurry to search a car.
police departments need to find a way to get search warrants issued in an expeditious way for these kind of situations.
that way there is no issue and the cop is not the bad guy for making an illegal search.
4/23/2009 08:20:00 AM
No way you are a Chicago cop because Chicago cops have to live in the city. You obviously live in La-La Land.
Anonymous said...
Considering the new Fascist regime now in charge, this is welcome news.
The more Govt is hindered and the public insulated the better!
Thanks God for Roberts, Thomas et al
4/23/2009 07:24:00 AM
I dont just what the hell you are trying to say here,but you do know that Thomas concurred in this decision, don't you?
If you read the opinion, it is really not so surprising. If you have a traffic arrestee safely in custody and away from the vehicle a search would not be reasonable. Obviously he cannot get at a weapon to harm you or assist in an aescape, that may be in the vehicle, that eliminates one justification to search, and there are no fruits of the crime for traffic, therefore no search. With no other information, I am pretty sure that you would not get a search warrant either. They are usually not issued except when items are specefically named. I also suspect that a rash of searches incident to inventorying the vehicle may be met with skepticism by the courts.
However, Don't forget...Tow/impound the vehicle on arrests and conduct an inventory search. No warrant needed!!
overall good reading but think the same conclusions could be made at a bar with 9 bar stools.
just spend one hour discussing case and then write down your decision on a bar napkin.
another thing is they do decide many cases. more than i would have guessed. the news only reports the big cases.
we are going to need to meet at the bar at least 5 nights a week and going to need more napkins and pretzels.
4/23/2009 01:20:00 AM
we may need to meet on saturday also, so we're going to need yellow slips as well. just make sure jody and the breathalyzers aren't the featured band that night !
i'm voting for you in the next election for something. let us know which office you're running for. chief justice of the court perhaps?
so custodial search of a vehicle pursuant to an arrest is out unless the arrest is made for narcotics or a firearm. The old stop, placed in custody, custodial search revealed from the vehicles... (unless its immediately accessible--which means directly under his or her own seat) Cant wait to see the number of recovered guns plummet again once this hits the rank and file... You really do have to be a MORON to be out there busting your ass. The way laws are changing and the fact that the criminal justice scales are tipping to the left, if you are aggressive, you are a fool... Unless you dont mind being named in lawsuits, and being the recipient of multiple CRs... Work=trouble... I will continue the "informational" work stoppage 1st and 16th
****************************
ive never been hurt by one lawsuit or cr number and have recived numerous of both. what i have gotten from both is a hell of alot of overtime pay for me and my family. deposition days are the best...looking at a good 5-8 hours of overtime there. people, dont listen to the bitter dogs on here. if your not shakin down dope dealers, stealin, robbing, beatin folks and abusing your powers then your ok...dont forget, if you act like the police, be aggressive but professional at the same time and not acting like a criminal with a badge you will be ok..lawsuits and cr#s are just part of the game these days.. dont take it so personal.
This is a monstrous change for all police work conducted on the south and west sides of this city.
The new rule is that evidence recovered in a vehicle search incident to an arrest is only admissible if:
1) the arrestee can reach the evidence WHILE the search is being conducted, OR
2) the officer has Probable Cause that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense the person is arrested for.
Why is this so big?
The first situation should never happen. Who searches a car with an arrestee inside it?
The second situation will rarely happen. If you are a cop on the hunt for guns and drugs, how can you have probable cause to arrest someone UNTIL YOU FIND THE EVIDENCE IN THE DAMN CAR?
The only situation I can think of where the second rule applies, is when you find a small amount of drugs in a custodial search and then search the car and find more.
Suppose you arrest someone in a stolen car and he flees and there is a gun in the car.
First, the bad guy is arrested no where near the car, so you can't justify the search with #1. Second, unless the bad guy used a gun to steal the car, the gun is inadmissible because it is evidence that has nothing to do with the arrest. You might be able to say you were looking for the owner's information and then found the gun, but didn't you already get the owner's info when you ran the plate and found out the car was stolen? So the question is, why are you searching the car?
The dissent by Alito is a clear warning to police officers. He writes that this decision will create a "perverse incentive" for police officers to conduct searches before the occupants are secured. He suggests that cops might try to play around with this rule, like leaving arrestees unhandcuffed, or handcuffed but near the car.
Try playing the old game by these new rules and you are gambling with your life.
This decision is the end of knocking down cars for guns, or targeting buyers in narcotics survelliances. It will mean many more unrecovered guns and many more dead Joes in the street.
When that happens, so be it. We don't make the rules.
That "inventory search" gets an officer into the vehicle and trunk and anything found as a result is admissible in court.
------------
This tactic only works for the ISP because Chicago cops don't typically inventory stuff unless there is an arrest. We seize cars for traffic and loud music all the time and simply don't have the time to inventory all the crap in these cars.
In Chicago, the "inventory" exeception is a sure loser in court.
boys and girls, if you can't see it now, please open your eyes and see which way this department is going. BE CAREFUL! Don't get yourself jammed up, just adapt.
Ain't this a crying shame, the man can't get paid for his work, it just ain't right.
---
from the Sun-Times
'Gator' sues over 'urban translating'
April 23, 2009
Former Gangster Disciples enforcer Wallace "Gator" Bradley sued a former Death Row inmate Wednesday, claiming he was not paid for his services as an "urban translator."
In a lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court, Bradley says Aaron Patterson owes him $100,000 for consulting and investigative work.
Patterson received a $5 million settlement from the city in a false-imprisonment lawsuit.
He is back in prison on a federal weapon conviction.
Frank Main
Chicago Sun-Times
4/23/2009 06:55:00 AM
I've seen Aaron Patterson in the criminal courts bldg. He didn't look like he needed any kind of translator. He never shut his mouth once.
Say I tvb some one for suspened but not tow bec he has ins. Dude knows he keeps a gun in the car and see this. We can't search for the gun, but Dude jimmy's the door, grabs the gun, offs some and puts it back. All beknowst to the TVB'ed.
Sounds wacky, but we are talking about Dude. Wackey is his middle name.
If I was the TVB'ed I'd rather take the UUW than the Murder case!
Not that i care but we know this city doesn't apply to what the supreme court says.I mean just look at our inability to use comp time!!Didn't the supreme court rule in our favor.Keep searching those jilopee's boys
We have it to. the PROBLEM is that this WAS AN INVENTORY SEARCH. He was arrested for traffic, and subsequent INVENTORY search was tossed cause we now need a warrant. Brace yourself folks, this is bad. Real bad. This is Terry vs. Ohio for cars....
are you kidding me?? are you able to read and comprehend anything? that was not the case at all and the crap your trying to scare people with is completly untrue.. i read the findings and i am very familiar with this case.. take it from me, 27 years of legal experience this has nothing to do with terry v ohio and is not that big of a bump in the road... read things and think before you speak.. that way you will not sound so stupid.
Cant tow cars as prisoners property anymore. A bulletin came out from legal affairs regarding this. But you can (and should) still do an inventory search prior to either impounding it or lacking/parking it to make sure there isnt anything of GREAT value that can be stolen
4/23/2009 11:10:00 AM
Wrong. Were did you come with this bullshit. The box is still on the report and the AD desk still sends out a tow for prisoner property. You must have been the only who was informed. You haven't fooled anyone, your still a useless asshole.
The supreme court, the lower and lowest courts, the public, jagoff shortshanks, all have one thing in common.......and that one thing is the protection of the asshole criminal. So for Gods sakes why in the fuck would anyone in his right mind want to do anything that resembles police work? When all of these assholes decide to take the reigns off, when they decide to take the bit out of your mouth...when they decide to give you your teeth back....then and only then can you and will you start to do police work again. Then....and only until then will you do this. Till this happens STOP DOING ANY FUCKING POLICE WORK!!!!! THE WRITING IS ON THE FUCKING WALL!!! WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE??? A GOD DAMN PROCLAMATION??? WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT, WE'VE BEEN SADDLED WITH J-PUD C'MON....GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!
Thank God! The Supreme Court finally caught up with me! I knew I was a trendsetter some years ago when I stopped searching cars and finally the Supreme Court agrees with me.
If nothing is what they want, then goddamn it, nothing is what they sure will fucking get!
I'll be dipped in shit if I am going to violate someone's rights just to get a bag of dope that will be a finding of No PC anyway. Fuck that. If I don't put myself in that position, I can't violate their rights. OK with me.
More anti-crime cameras!
police departments need to find a way to get search warrants issued in an expeditious way for these kind of situations.
--------------------------------
you must not have done alot of warrants. It is not about the dept. it is about the SA office and judges.
------------------------------
Not a cop so no warrants. That does not mean that the PD cannot find some way to get an expedited warrant. I don't know what the process is, obviously it involves judges in some way, but if it has to involve the SA office, so be it. Get the guys responsible in one room and tell them they can't leave until they come up with a workable answer.
This is 2009. Its a simple problem.
i always see the gun and drug in plain view.
OBSERVED "" STICKING HALF WAY OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THE PASSENGERS NEAR OFF 2 LEFT FOOT! OFF 2 THEN BEGAN TO ATTEMPT TO KICK "" WITH HIS LEFT FOOT "" BACK UNDERNEATH THE SEAT.
Remember this is the same Supreme Court that would not hear the case against President Obama as to his U.S. citizenship.
Your sir/madam are obviously not the police and never have been.
1. Police departments don't have a magic wand they wave to have warrants issued in an expeditious manner. There is no electronic system in place for obtaining warrants 24/7.
2. There is nothing expeditious about our justice system. If you were the police, you would know that getting a search warrant requires jumping through some hoops and finding a judge. Last I checked, I don't know of a judge that is awake after 10pm and before 7am that is waiting for me to call him/her and ask for a warrant to search a vehicle I have stopped and placed the driver in custody.
I hope that someone you care about isn't kidnapped, knocked unconcious and tied up in the trunk of a car that I stop, because as the courts ruling stands, that person in the trunk is going to stay in the trunk because I can't search the car incident to arrest.
Pleasant dreams.......
4/23/2009 10:07:00 AM
As much as I agree with your comments, you are wrong about the electronic warrants. Believe it or not, there is a system for obtaining electronic warrants on the street. A judge is called, and a 3 way call is made between you, the judge, and the zone, with the entire conversation on tape. Takes about 30-40 minutes. Do we have this technology, no way. Of course, the FEDS do. And we probably never will, but it is out there.
So that still leaves the inventory of the vehicle right? What a waste of time.
So what? I'm not gonna be stopping this m-fers unless they're in my neighborhood. Who cares? Certainly not the citizens...they got the police department they wanted and deserve.
I have no fear because Jody Weis has my back. He said so.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
SCC, it seems the supreme court lives in a bubble, however there is a way around the courts decision.
Many departments nationwide have a policy regarding inventory searches when vehicles are towed incident to arrest. That "inventory search" gets an officer into the vehicle and trunk and anything found as a result is admissible in court.
For those departments that don't have the inventory policy yet, I see it coming very soon to a policy and procedure manual near you.
A suburban cop.
4/23/2009 12:41:00 AM
We have it to. the PROBLEM is that this WAS AN INVENTORY SEARCH. He was arrested for traffic, and subsequent INVENTORY search was tossed cause we now need a warrant. Brace yourself folks, this is bad. Real bad. This is Terry vs. Ohio for cars....
4/23/2009 12:06:00 PM
---------------------------------------
Your right suburban cop
There was NEVER any mention of an inventory in the ruling. The other goofball never even read the ruling. In order to inventory a vehicle it has to be established in your policy and you better tow it.
If we have to now do an inventory search are we going to have to inventory ALL property of shitheads in the car? Funtimes!
We didn't lose searches. We just lost most of the "search incident to arrest."
We can still tow and inventory, and we can still toss the car on consent or PC.
To the guy in 006 who said the CO book said stop searching cars.... YOU'RE HIGH! Nobody ever said stop searching cars.
Just an observation from an old retired guy - for a bunch of people who keep screaming that they are not going to do anything, there is alot of suggestions here how to put people in jail.
You are the real POLICE and no matter how hard you try, you can't stop it.
So true,
Considering the new Fascist regime now in charge, this is welcome news.
The more Govt is hindered and the public insulated the better!
Thanks God for Roberts, Thomas et al
4/23/2009 07:24:00 AM
Anonymous said...
That "inventory search" gets an officer into the vehicle and trunk and anything found as a result is admissible in court.
------------
This tactic only works for the ISP because Chicago cops don't typically inventory stuff unless there is an arrest. We seize cars for traffic and loud music all the time and simply don't have the time to inventory all the crap in these cars.
In Chicago, the "inventory" exeception is a sure loser in court.
************************
You may want to look up the definition of the word "INVENTORY." When you take an inventory of the vehicle, you are making sure there is nothing of prominant value for the offender to claim was stolen by CPD or at the pound. You may note the type of stereo, any type of damage, etcetera, on the tow report. You do NOT have to inventory everything in the vehicle, unless it is USC, foreign currency, or small items that would be easily taken and you probably would have inventoried prior to this ruling.
So, instead of saying search incident to arrest. You will say it is an inventory search prior to impoundment. (Which is legally the same thing as towing according to case law.)
This ruling also did not mention anything about "furtive movements."
The main issue about this ruling is the testimony of the officer. When asked why he searched the vehicle, the officer testified: "Because the law says I can." No other reasons were given. Be smart, testify smart.
If we have to now do an inventory search are we going to have to inventory ALL property of shitheads in the car? Funtimes!
4/23/2009 08:32:00 PM
The answer is no. ISP and other Depts list the contents of the vehicle on the tow report or some other report. The vehicle is towed with the property inside to the tow yard or pound. By listing the contents of the vehicle you are doing the inventory of the vehicle contents. If there are any true valuables in the car like jewlery,furs, etc than you should take those in for an inventory. Technically this not even a search but is actually an inventory of the contents to protect the offender and the Dept. Its a great tool but needs to be followed consistently to stand up in court. I am not sure what the CPD policy on this is.
what's it matter if you find something in the car legit or not. cook county will let them go with a slap on the hand or through the entire case out even if the scumsucker has a gun his left hand and a sack of dope in his right. fuck cook county and fuck chicago. i hate my job.
Suppose you arrest someone in a stolen car and he flees and there is a gun in the car.
First, the bad guy is arrested no where near the car, so you can't justify the search with #1.
--------------
Wrong- an offender for PSMV has no expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle. Only the vehicle owner can beef about the search and they won't.
I hope that someone you care about isn't kidnapped, knocked unconcious and tied up in the trunk of a car that I stop, because as the courts ruling stands, that person in the trunk is going to stay in the trunk because I can't search the car incident to arrest.
----------------------------
If you think someone is in the trunk, pop it open. The worst that is going to happen is the perp gets a pass.
If you had even the most remote PC to do so, no court is going to toss it.
The problem is that cops like to play fast and loose with the rules, and now and then the courts say it is a little too loose. Thats the way the system works. It is not perfect, but it bends over backwards to accomodate police.
"Just an observation from an old retired guy - for a bunch of people who keep screaming that they are not going to do anything, there is alot of suggestions here how to put people in jail.
You are the real POLICE and no matter how hard you try, you can't stop it.
4/23/2009 09:36:00 PM"
As always, old school observation skills trump new wave egomaniacs.
It's a clusterfuck these days, no doubt about it.
Where are all the steady hands and keen eyes when we need them?
perhaps the answer is to come from the state legislature. many states now consider vehicles to be an extension of your domicile with the same protections from warrantless search.
Suppose you arrest someone in a stolen car and he flees and there is a gun in the car.
First, the bad guy is arrested no where near the car, so you can't justify the search with #1.
--------------
Wrong- an offender for PSMV has no expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle. Only the vehicle owner can beef about the search and they won't.
4/24/2009 02:55:00 AM
You are right.
But suppose he just flees from a car after only committing traffic violations.
When you take an inventory of the vehicle, you are making sure there is nothing of prominant value for the offender to claim was stolen by CPD or at the pound. You may note the type of stereo, any type of damage, etcetera, on the tow report. You do NOT have to inventory everything in the vehicle, unless it is USC, foreign currency, or small items that would be easily taken and you probably would have inventoried prior to this ruling.
------------
The problem is that you and other officers have no records of inventory anything when doing "inventory searches" in 90% of the tows/seizures they performed. Your history will show that the only time you ever inventoried anything in an inventory search was when it was drugs or a gun.
ISP actually does inventory/record valuables every time they seize a vehicle. We don't. It's an end around the rule, the judges know that, and most reject it.
This ruling also did not mention anything about "furtive movements."
--------------
Of course we can fucking lie.
We can always do that. We can say anything we want.
It can always be in plain view, or under the seat of the furtive mover, or in his pocket for that matter. That's pretty much what is required anyway in Cook County.
That is until the squad camera catches you, or a cell camera in a car, or a simple setup by CPD or the FBI. Or a career shithead SIMPLY SAYING it never happened. Who is this department going to believe? Who is this city going to believe?
So, I'm not going to lie. Getting charges approved was important years ago, but I don't think its important anymore.
Because what the street thug is doing isn't important to the people in this city, or their politicians, or the CPD brass. What's important is what I'm doing. When I do a traffic stop, I'm really the one under investigation.
I have something to lose. Joe doesn't. Joe will either be in jail or dead in a few years.
I won't.
"ive never been hurt by one lawsuit or cr number and have recived numerous of both. what i have gotten from both is a hell of alot of overtime pay for me and my family. deposition days are the best...looking at a good 5-8 hours of overtime there. people, dont listen to the bitter dogs on here. if your not shakin down dope dealers, stealin, robbing, beatin folks and abusing your powers then your ok..."
+++++++++++++
What the hell are you down there for then Child Molesting?
The other "allegations" are more common for the agressive officer because goofy the shitheads make shit up!!
Go tell Jody your stories........
Not to get sidetracked here but when I was much younger and able to chase these fucking dope dealing savages on foot and actually catch them (white boys can run) I actually chased this one piece of shit down the alley, gangways and finally caught jagoff trying to hide underneath a parked van with his big plastic bag of rocks. It was very rewarding to actually catch that dirty piece of shit , take his rocks away and lock his ass up. This scenario played itself over and over many times in my career but what turned me around was in this particular case jagoff happened to be a juvenile and when I went to court this jack-off judge had the balls to ask me what right I had to chase this shithead down the street after he started to run away from me. For me that was a turning point and I never looked back. This liberal piece of shit judge made me realize this society of ours not only protects but also condones illegal activity. Think of how many judges, lawyers law enforcement personel would be out of work if this society didnt tolerate this shit? Take my advice...it's all about the 1st and the 16th of the month. My main function as a police officer these days is to document the fall of American civilization. Thats it in a nutshell. No civil rights beefs for me, I'll leave that to the sacrificial lambs who still believe this shit is legit. What a true fucking joke that is.
dont worry about a thing here, just write it the right way, if you cut corners and show up to testify all hung over and not giving a shit, and not on your paper.....get ready to get your ass handed to you in court
do an inventory search when you impound the car after a 6-101 bust
driving without a license is a class b
just write out the paper and follow standard procedure for inventory searches of vehilces (ie open all unsecured containers), write up a tow/impound report,
and mirandize and question mister shithead after you recover the shit and write down what the fuckhead says to ya,
the alderscum are going to allow tows off of 6-303 and 6-101 (not 6-303/6-101 and a 3-707) in an effort to get more money that can be pissed away for the olympics. The case with the gun out of reach and no statement is still a constructive possession case anyways, so the US Supremes decision doesnt change getting the apple, they just change how you get to pick it
be safe out there and ill bet the over on the body count.
btb(-1) hulkamania
Anonymous said...
When you take an inventory of the vehicle, you are making sure there is nothing of prominant value for the offender to claim was stolen by CPD or at the pound. You may note the type of stereo, any type of damage, etcetera, on the tow report. You do NOT have to inventory everything in the vehicle, unless it is USC, foreign currency, or small items that would be easily taken and you probably would have inventoried prior to this ruling.
------------
The problem is that you and other officers have no records of inventory anything when doing "inventory searches" in 90% of the tows/seizures they performed. Your history will show that the only time you ever inventoried anything in an inventory search was when it was drugs or a gun.
ISP actually does inventory/record valuables every time they seize a vehicle. We don't. It's an end around the rule, the judges know that, and most reject it.
4/24/2009 02:33:00 PM
That is why you note everything on the tow-report. Actually take a second and check the proper boxes off instead of way it has always been done. Anything of value, cite it in the narrative of the tow-report. Do this everytime you tow a car. What happens to the report after you drop it in the bin is not your fault. Keep a few copies of various tow reports in your file, and you are good to go.
We gotta remember the importance of all this and the big picture. The Constitution is far more important to me than arresting pookie for a little extra dope and getting a court date. It is not all POLICE POLICE POLICE.
God Bless AMerica
4/23/2009 10:24:00 AM
I agree with your sentiment, however, its Pookie who is out there moving dope, guns, and cash. Pookie who is out there keeping Chalkie employed. Fuck the victim. How many U.S. Supreme Court rulings dealt with a VICTIM? Terry vs Ohio / Miranda vs Az. / Grant … all have something in common. Hmmmm, now what can that be? How about if Terry, Miranda and the rest of them WERE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, they would not have found themselves in the position where their court case had to go to the SUPREME COURT? Most of this is to protect the rights of CRIMINALS!
this jack-off judge had the balls to ask me what right I had to chase this shithead down the street after he started to run away from me.
--------------------------------
what did you tell him> it seems like a question a judge should be asking in such a case.
its not illegal (in and of itself) to run in the opposite direction of a cop.
nor is it PC for anything (in and of itself).
Most of this is to protect the rights of CRIMINALS!
--------------------------------
All people including criminals have rights. Thats the way it is.
Short of forcing criminals to wear a scarlet letter, just how do you plan to differentiate between criminals and non-criminals short of some suspicious action?
Do you really want to live in a place where armed government agents can hassle anyone at any time without good cause?
If you look at the history of this kind of thing, the courts have bent over backwards the last 40 or 50 years toward allowing police a lot of leeway and not a whole lot of second guessing.
We gotta remember the importance of all this and the big picture. The Constitution is far more important to me than arresting pookie for a little extra dope and getting a court date. It is not all POLICE POLICE POLICE.
God Bless AMerica
4/23/2009 10:24:00 AM
I agree with your sentiment, however, its Pookie who is out there moving dope, guns, and cash. Pookie who is out there keeping Chalkie employed. Fuck the victim. How many U.S. Supreme Court rulings dealt with a VICTIM? Terry vs Ohio / Miranda vs Az. / Grant … all have something in common. Hmmmm, now what can that be? How about if Terry, Miranda and the rest of them WERE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, they would not have found themselves in the position where their court case had to go to the SUPREME COURT? Most of this is to protect the rights of CRIMINALS!
4/25/2009 01:43:00 AM
----------
But it is not just Pookie who is being protected from unreasonable searches numbnuts ... ya, he benefits too ... but you really have made no point here whatsoever.
Post a Comment
<< Home