Stare Decisis changes again

[damien]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/

The only consistent thing about the Supreme Court is that it is inconsistent and is constantly changing precedent. Not that I disagree at all on this particular case, I agree with this decision except that it didn't go far enough.

"Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court, 28 years ago, first authorized warrantless searches of cars immediately following an arrest."

So the old Supreme Court precedent on this issue died at age 28. Everyone hail the new precedent.

What does this have to do with guns? Remember, Heller is 5-4 stare decisis too.

 

[EHL]

This has nothing to do with guns, although your point is well made about the Supremes flip flopping on earlier decisions. IBTL.

 

[ArmedBear]

It has a lot to do with guns.

Prior to this decision, NRA sticker + "broken" taillight = pull you over and search for guns in your car. Now it's not.

"Police practice" isn't stare decisis.

Refining the limits of allowed searches does not violate stare decisis.

Terry v. Ohio is also stare decisis.

This case finds the intersection of two past decisions.

Who cares about police procedure? If SOP is to beat the crap out of innocent citizens because of the reading of a court decision in a way that appears to give the police that power, should the court uphold that because, well, that's what the cops have been doing for 28 years?

Alito knows better.

If you read what this decision says, it seems quite reasonable: the cops can't pull you over for a broken taillight or other contrived violation, then search your car unless the cop is in danger, there is probable cause, or there's a warrant for the search.

That's hardly some extreme decision.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Begs the question -- is it worse for the Court to flip flop within a few years, or to overturn longstanding precedent after a century? Both have occurred.

Worse still never to change a rule?

 

[ArmedBear]

Segregated public schools were stare decisis too...

Damned inconvenient for communities, when the court flip-flopped on that one, too. I mean, it was standard procedure for so long, they shouldn't have had to change now, right? (Not to mention how expensive it was to upgrade the bathrooms in the "Colored" schools so that they'd meet basic standards that would be required for white kids...)

Stare decisis does not mean "hang onto a past decision, right or wrong". It just implies a respect for precedent, all else being equal, and the understanding that a court that is entirely unpredictable is bad for justice and the country as a whole.

 

[Husker_Fan]

Let's ask Dred Scott.

 

[cordex]

If you read what this decision says, it seems quite reasonable: the cops can't pull you over for a broken taillight or other contrived violation, then search your car unless the cop is in danger, there is probable cause, or there's a warrant for the search.

I don't know that that is what the decision says. I think it says something along the lines of: If you've already got the suspect locked up and they do not have access to their vehicle, you cannot logically say exigent circumstances forced you to search that vehicle for officer safety.

 

[ArmedBear]

If you've already got the suspect locked up and they do not have access to their vehicle, you cannot logically say exigent circumstances forced you to search that vehicle for officer safety.

That's true.

The upshot for the average citizen is the same, as far as I can tell, provided you step away from your vehicle.

The old decision has been used as a pretext for searching vehicles to collect evidence so that citizens could be charged with violations of unrelated laws, for which there was no reasonable suspicion whatsoever, whenever they were pulled over.

There has now been a line drawn around the "officer safety" excuse for searches of vehicles. Until now, in essence you had absolutely no right to privacy in your vehicle, and there were no real limits on searches.

 

[Phatty]

Keep in mind that stare decisis should never be used as a reason to perpetuate a constitutional violation. So, if the Supreme Court analyzes a case and determines that there is a constitutional violation, it should not allow that violation to proceed just because there is prior inconsistent case law.

On the other hand, stare decisis should be rigorously adhered to where constitutional rights are sought to be limited or infringed. In other words, once the Supreme Court recognizes a right, it shouldn't try to take it away in the future. So, with respect to Heller, the Supreme Court will not say in 2008 that people have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and then in 2015 come back and state, "whoops, we were wrong, the people don't have that right."

 

[KyJim]

The problem with the decision (Arizona v. Gant) is that police may now arrest someone but not take control of them so they can search the passenger compartment of the car. This arguably increases the risk of danger to the officer and the motorist. That was the reason the Thornton case had allowed searches when a "recent occupant" had been arrested.

The rationale could also be extended to non-automobile cases. Suppose someone is arrested and handcuffed in their home. Under longstanding case law (Chimel), police could search the immediate area incident to the arrest for weapons. This decision opens the door to argue that once under control, police cannot search the immediate area for weapons because the handcuffed person no longer has easy access to the immediate area.

Justice Rehnquist was once asked what he thought his most important cases were. He responded by referring to the search and seizure cases where police were given bright line rules to follow in search and seizure cases. Up until then, police were second guessed by liberal judges with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I'm afraid this most recent decision could start a slide down that slippery slope again.

 

[Phatty]

The problem with the decision (Arizona v. Gant) is that police may now arrest someone but not take control of them so they can search the passenger compartment of the car.

This decision is an extreme improvement from the current state of the law. My only problem with it is that Justice Scalia's solution should have been adopted instead.

If police officers want to risk their own safety in order to conduct illegal searches, that's their problem and I don't feel sorry for them. I can't understand how any person (other than the police) could be upset about a decision that strengthens one of their constitutional rights.