posted by Mike Madison at 10:54 AM /
In a recent post I noted how the Mt. Lebanon Police Department is welcoming a technology that expands surveillance of drivers in Mt. Lebanon. According to the officer quoted by the Post-Gazette, "This would give him cause to pull over, impound and search far more vehicles, which could contain contraband. He called it 'another avenue to get into the car.'"
Only a few people commented at the post. Here's a follow-up: Last week the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, which cuts back police authority to search vehicles of people who are under arrest. The very short takeaway point is that just because the police have a legitimate reason to stop you, the police do not automatically have a legitimate reason to search your car.
If you are interested in more on the Supreme Court ruling, you can go to SCOTUSBlog, which has a link to the opinions, or to the New York Times. The Post-Gazette, normally quite good when reporting on crime and punishment, didn't cover the story.
Only a few people commented at the post. Here's a follow-up: Last week the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, which cuts back police authority to search vehicles of people who are under arrest. The very short takeaway point is that just because the police have a legitimate reason to stop you, the police do not automatically have a legitimate reason to search your car.
If you are interested in more on the Supreme Court ruling, you can go to SCOTUSBlog, which has a link to the opinions, or to the New York Times. The Post-Gazette, normally quite good when reporting on crime and punishment, didn't cover the story.
Labels: mt. lebanon police department
1 Comments:
Help me out. The Arizona v. Gant decision as reported on SCOTUSBlog apparently allows that police "..may search the passenger compartment.", but seemingly not the remainder of a vehicle, like the trunk, undercarriage,inside fenders,engine compartment,etc.?
Post a Comment
<< Home