New Supreme Court Case On Vehicle Searches

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:39:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court recently re-wrote the law on search and seizure regarding vehicles. Now, if a police officer pulls you over for a traffic violation and then removes you from your vehicle and handcuffs you, he can not then go back into the car to search for drugs and guns (or any other evidence).

The old law gave the officers the right to always search the passenger compartment of your vehicle after the arrest in order to look for guns or drugs (or other evidence) that could be destroyed. The logic was that the officers need to protect themselves and preserve any evidence that the arrestee might destroy. In the Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Gant (April 2009), Mr. Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license and that his license was suspended. When he was pulled over, he exited his vehicle and was immediately placed in handcuffs and then secured in the back of the officer’s patrol car. The officer then went and searched Gant’s car and found a firearm and cocaine in the passenger compartment.

The Supreme Court held that the drugs and gun found in Gant’s car should be suppressed because the officer did not have a warrant to search Gant’s car. The prosecutors’ argued that they could search Gant’s car after they arrested him under the “search incident to arrest” rule of New York v. Belton. However, the Supreme Court said that, in Gant’s case, he was in handcuffs and secured in the back of the officer’s patrol car, there was no way that Gant could have grabbed a gun or destroyed evidence, so the officer was not allowed to go back into the car to search. Also, since the arrest was for driving on a suspended license, there was no reason to believe that evidence related to that crime would be located in the car. If the arrest would have been for a suspected drug or gun offense, then the search would have been valid as the officers could have searched the car for evidence relevant to the offense for which Gant was arrested. However, the court ruled that the “search incident to arrest” rule does not give officers the right to rummage through a suspects vehicle for every arrest they make.

Traffic Violations

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:39:00 GMT

In my experience, it pays to have an experienced traffic violation attorney in court to protect your interests. As an attorney familiar with the various courts in the metro Richmond area, I can let my clients know, for example, whether it worth fighting a particular speeding ticket or just pre-paying the fine. Many times, my potential clients feel that they might be better off to simply pay a traffic ticket rather than incur the costs of hiring a traffic attorney. However, they often are unaware that certain moving violations can lead to suspension of their driver’s license and an increase in their automobile liability insurance premiums. Depending on the type of charge and the court, it is sometimes possible to have a charged reduced to a non-moving violation. Non-moving violations often carry lesser fines and usually do not lead to an increase in insurance premiums.

I regularly consult with persons charged with traffic tickets ranging from simple speeding to more serious offenses such as DWI/DUI, reckless driving and driving on suspended driver’s license. Did you know that, in Virginia, driving your car in excess of 80 miles per hour is reckless driving, a class one misdemeanor carrying a possible jail sentence of up to one year and suspension of your driver’s license? Did you know that failure to pay a traffic ticket or carry liability insurance can lead to a suspension of your driver’s license? Driving on a suspended driver’s license is also a serious misdemeanor offense and a conviction can lead to possible jail time. However, depending on the specific facts of the case, there are technical defenses to these charges that may be used to your advantage.

As an experienced traffic violation attorney, I also help my clients through the rules of evidence and criminal procedure. While most traffic offenses are misdemeanors, the strict rules of evidence and criminal procedure still apply. Many of my clients and friends have complained that they went to court on a traffic ticket to defend themselves but were upset that the court would not consider certain letters, repair bills, or statements of witnesses due to objections from the prosecuting attorney. A traffic attorney can make sure that the evidence you need is properly brought before the court to insure the best possible result at your trial. Sometimes, these technical rules of evidence can actually be used to your advantage to exclude evidence against you! I can remember numerous cases where my client and I thought that there would be a conviction and we went to court to request a reduced sentence but had the entire case dismissed due to an evidentiary problem with the prosecutor’s case. Just about everyone I know has received a traffic ticket at some point in their lives and then asked me questions about their court experience after they went to court alone. I always tell them, next time, give me a call before going to court! If you have questions about your traffic ticket, do not hesitate to call KPM before your court date.

Criminal Traffic Blog

New Supreme Court Case On Vehicle Searches

Traffic Violations