Pa. police powers increased, Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles
Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery
By BRETT HAMBRIGHT | Staff Writer
Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a
citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
RELATED: Local cops discuss warrantless searches, probable cause
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
RELATED: What exactly is probable cause? What qualifies as means for an officer to search a vehicle?
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” Stedman said.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police rejoice over what’s been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the 62-page opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”
Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”
Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing that police didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan. 15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the vehicle’s hood.
Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.
“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”
In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.
“This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,” Stedman said.
The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.
Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.
A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in the majority.
Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/supreme-court-pennsylvania-cops-no-longer-need-a-warrant-to/article_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
RELATED: Local cops discuss warrantless searches, probable cause
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
RELATED: What exactly is probable cause? What qualifies as means for an officer to search a vehicle?
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” Stedman said.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police rejoice over what’s been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the 62-page opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”
Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”
Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing that police didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan. 15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the vehicle’s hood.
Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.
“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”
In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.
“This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,” Stedman said.
The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.
Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.
A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in the majority.
Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/supreme-court-pennsylvania-cops-no-longer-need-a-warrant-to/article_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html
Bible Talk
This 15-minute,
fast-paced Bible study on many Bible hot-topics is presented by Pastors
Gary Gibbs and John Bradshaw. Each program relates to practical issues
impacting your life today. You’ll hear interesting debate and Bible
study as Gary and John tackle the most difficult subjects right out of
God’s Word.
22. Baptism, Pt. 1
23. Baptism, Pt. 2
24. Baptism, Pt. 3
25. Baptism, Pt. 4
26. Baptism, Pt. 5
51. Faith Healing
52. Abortion, Pt. 1
53. Abortion, Pt. 2
59. Daily Manna
109. The Millennium
110. Hell, Pt. 1
111. Hell, Pt. 2
112. Hell, Pt. 3
113. Hell, Pt. 4
114. Second Death, Pt. 1
115. Second Death, Pt. 2
116. Second Death, Pt. 3
117. Second Death, Pt. 4
118. Second Death, Pt. 5
Adolf Hitler's rise to power, blue print for America
Hitler is even quoted as saying “I can see Himmler as our Ignatius of Loyola”. Understand Ignatius of Loyola is the founder of the Jesuits which goal is to turn the reformation around. The Jesuits and the Catholic church were behind Hitler. He was also founded by Prescott Bush. And let us not forget the present pope is a Jesuit and he is scheduled to come to a America to speak to a joint session of congress. In short we have Ignatius of Loyola coming to speak to our government. Time to sound the trumpet!!!
Reichstag was burned and blamed on the Communists and then came the Enabling Act. With that there was NO freedom of press, NO freedom to assemble. YOU either love Hitler or you were arrested. We have heard this before "You are either with us or against us" The Germans had the Reichstag fire where they passed the enabling act and We in America had 911, where they passed the Patriot Act. The Enabling Act and the Patriot Act are exactly alike. We have NO bill of rights with the Patriot Act. There was 25 political parties battling for power. After the Enabling Act there was NONE. Why? They were rounded up and put in consecration camps. Fema has divided up the united states into ten regions. The Jesuits have this country divided up into ten Provinces. Click here for more information. To understand the Grand Design of Rome. Click here When we understand the third Reich, then we understand the fourth Reich, the United States of Rome the power base and who is behind the New World Order, it is just simply the Old World Order(Rome) coming back as the New World Order. These people are not globalists, they are Jesuits. Let me close with this. There are 89 Jesuit universities around the world and 28 Jesuit universities in America. One third of the power base is in America. If you control books and history, you control the minds of the world. The Jesuits are globalists!!!!
It is time to be a watchman on the wall!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)