On Jan 26, 2009 the US Supreme Court ruled that the police can conduct a "frisk of a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation" regardless of signs of criminal activity. The rule was unanimous and overturned an Arizona appeals court ruling that such a search was a violation of the 4th Amendment. The "frisk" is also defined as a "pat-down". However, the police must have a "reasonable suspicion that a person...is armed and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public". The case is Arizona v. Johnson (2009). As you might expect, civil libertarians are strongly opposed to this ruling. A Hackensack defense attorney says "police don't have to be oblivious to an obvious fact. But the key is obvious fact, not mere suspicion. A lot of police work is a hunch, but it has to be articulable". The person in the Arizona case was found in possession of a gun and marijuana.
(Source: "Police applaud ruling allowing pat-downs" by Ashley Kindergan and Karen Rouse of The Record on February 2, 2009. "US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked" by AP on FindLaw.com dated January 26, 2009).
No comments:
Post a Comment