5 ms·

Don't blame the Supreme Court for this. The root problem is that the law allows for impounding of a vehicle. We like to put the Supreme Court into the position

by Guvante 13y ago

Don't blame the Supreme Court for this. The root problem is that the law allows for impounding of a vehicle. We like to put the Supreme Court into the position of "fixing things to make them correct", but realistically that isn't their role. All the Supreme Court said is that your right to unreasonable search and seizure does not stop a cop from using a legal method of search and seizure that would not normally be used. Put another way, if the law gives cops the ability to do inappropriate things and the cops use this to do inappropriate things, that does not make the action illegal.

argv_empty 13y ago
The Supreme Court could have declared that the search can only be for evidence of a particular nature for which the police already have probable cause and that failure to yield to a pedestrian is not probable cause for drug possession (of course, if we're just evaluating things on epistemological grounds, failure to yield to a pedestrian is not a probable indication of anything interesting).
- Guvante 13y ago
  Nothing in the judicial system supports that at the moment. Reason for action is considered immaterial for fourth amendment purposes across the board. I was going to point out an example of the complexity of this, but someone else pointed out that the right of cops to search an impounded vehicles is an interesting one.
aidenn0 13y ago
FYI I wasn't trying to blame the Supreme Court. I agree that bad legislation rather than bad jurisprudence is the problem here. OTOH Selective enforcement is a real problem. A lot of the bad laws on the books would go away if they had to be enforced with even a modicum of impartiality (If 1 in 10 people that fail to yield to a pedestrian were arrested with their cars impounded, that law would go away real fast).
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Do you think it possible that a police department could be forced via Writ of Mandamus to uniformly enforce any law used as pretext to search or seizure? For instance, if someone is arrested for jaywalking because the cop objects to being filmed in public, the photography rights lobby would retaliate by petitioning the courts to force that entire department to apply an equal enforcement standard to any and all jaywalking infractions it observes thereafter. If an ordinance generates one citation in a year when sampling (or even common sense) indicates it happens hundreds of times per day, the judge on that case might want to grow a pair and punish the use of the bullshit pretext to end-run around due process.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Sounds like a really interesting solution. Is that actually possible?
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      It is theoretically possible, but as we all know, the law is processed by machines with free will, which makes the outcome non-deterministic. Schools were forced to desegregate largely through court orders, so requiring that law enforcement enforce the laws that they have recently chosen not to ignore uniformly rather than selectively is certainly possible via court order--but not very likely, in my opinion.
malandrew 13y ago
I would say that impounding of a vehicle is fine, since if someone is under arrest, you need to do something with the vehicle. What should not be fine is searching the car once it has been impounded, since the 4th amendment should apply here. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The car should constitute an "effect" and just because it happens to be in the possession of the police, does not mean that it should be searchable by the police without a warrant describing the car as the place to be searched, the probably cause upon which they are basing the warrant (failure to yield to a pedestrian shouldn't even be admissible as a cause for search) and the things to be seized. It would look mighty ridiculous if the police arrested someone for a moving violation based on parallel construction or this new tactic and then tried to get a warrant for searching the car based on that fact. Simply enforcing fourth amendment rights even for articles and effects in police custody should be enough to protect people for these absurd tactics.
- Guvante 13y ago
  I like your idea, but I don't know if it is feasible. There are lots of good reasons why cops should be allowed to search an impounded vehicle. Most notably safety, since who knows what you carry in your car. Again I support the concept, I am just unsure if there are wrinkles in the implementation or not.
  - erichocean 13y ago
    There are lots of good reasons why cops should be allowed to search an impounded vehicle. Most notably safety, since who knows what you carry in your car. There's no reason why cops need to search a car "for safety". Someone who is not a LEO could easily do it, if as a society we think its worth the cost, and at the same time, those people can be banned from speaking to LEO's about whatever it is they find in the car (including drugs).

by Guvante 13y ago

argv_empty 13y ago

The Supreme Court could have declared that the search can only be for evidence of a particular nature for which the police already have probable cause and that failure to yield to a pedestrian is not probable cause for drug possession (of course, if we're just evaluating things on epistemological grounds, failure to yield to a pedestrian is not a probable indication of anything interesting).

Guvante 13y ago
Nothing in the judicial system supports that at the moment. Reason for action is considered immaterial for fourth amendment purposes across the board. I was going to point out an example of the complexity of this, but someone else pointed out that the right of cops to search an impounded vehicles is an interesting one.

aidenn0 13y ago

FYI I wasn't trying to blame the Supreme Court. I agree that bad legislation rather than bad jurisprudence is the problem here. OTOH Selective enforcement is a real problem. A lot of the bad laws on the books would go away if they had to be enforced with even a modicum of impartiality (If 1 in 10 people that fail to yield to a pedestrian were arrested with their cars impounded, that law would go away real fast).

logfromblammo 13y ago
Do you think it possible that a police department could be forced via Writ of Mandamus to uniformly enforce any law used as pretext to search or seizure? For instance, if someone is arrested for jaywalking because the cop objects to being filmed in public, the photography rights lobby would retaliate by petitioning the courts to force that entire department to apply an equal enforcement standard to any and all jaywalking infractions it observes thereafter. If an ordinance generates one citation in a year when sampling (or even common sense) indicates it happens hundreds of times per day, the judge on that case might want to grow a pair and punish the use of the bullshit pretext to end-run around due process.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Sounds like a really interesting solution. Is that actually possible?
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    It is theoretically possible, but as we all know, the law is processed by machines with free will, which makes the outcome non-deterministic. Schools were forced to desegregate largely through court orders, so requiring that law enforcement enforce the laws that they have recently chosen not to ignore uniformly rather than selectively is certainly possible via court order--but not very likely, in my opinion.

malandrew 13y ago

I would say that impounding of a vehicle is fine, since if someone is under arrest, you need to do something with the vehicle. What should not be fine is searching the car once it has been impounded, since the 4th amendment should apply here. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The car should constitute an "effect" and just because it happens to be in the possession of the police, does not mean that it should be searchable by the police without a warrant describing the car as the place to be searched, the probably cause upon which they are basing the warrant (failure to yield to a pedestrian shouldn't even be admissible as a cause for search) and the things to be seized. It would look mighty ridiculous if the police arrested someone for a moving violation based on parallel construction or this new tactic and then tried to get a warrant for searching the car based on that fact. Simply enforcing fourth amendment rights even for articles and effects in police custody should be enough to protect people for these absurd tactics.

Guvante 13y ago
I like your idea, but I don't know if it is feasible. There are lots of good reasons why cops should be allowed to search an impounded vehicle. Most notably safety, since who knows what you carry in your car. Again I support the concept, I am just unsure if there are wrinkles in the implementation or not.
- erichocean 13y ago
  There are lots of good reasons why cops should be allowed to search an impounded vehicle. Most notably safety, since who knows what you carry in your car. There's no reason why cops need to search a car "for safety". Someone who is not a LEO could easily do it, if as a society we think its worth the cost, and at the same time, those people can be banned from speaking to LEO's about whatever it is they find in the car (including drugs).