State Arrest Law Clashes With Federal Search Precedent in High Court Case
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday considered a question that has divided the nation’s courts: If police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, may they search for evidence of a crime, even if the arrest is not permitted under state law?
The case is a new twist in the debate over the meaning of federalism, the New York Times reports. It arises from a case in Virginia, where police are barred from arresting drivers who are using suspended licenses, an offense that is considered a misdemeanor. Yet there was probable cause for the arrest of defendant David Lee “Chubs” Moore under the federal Fourth Amendment standard.
The Virginia Supreme Court had held that since the arrest was unlawful, so was the search, and the crack cocaine that police discovered may not be admitted as evidence.
SCOTUSblog reports that in deciding the case, the court may need to revisit the 1988 decision California v. Greenwood, which refused to follow a California law requiring police to get a warrant before searching garbage.
“The court, it seems plain, will not be able to rule one way or the other until it sorts out some basics about Fourth Amendment law, and before it scours pretty rigorously its past precedents in this field,” SCOTUSblog says.
The ABA has filed an amicus brief (PDF) supporting Moore in the case, Virginia v. Moore. The ABA told the court that its Standards for Pretrial Release advocate citation rather than arrest for most minor offenses.
