High Court to decide police car search case
Legal News Center
The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether police officers can search a vehicle without a warrant once the suspect has been arrested and the scene secured.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Arizona officials of a ruling declaring such searches unconstitutional when the scene has been secured and the suspect has been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car under police supervision.
The high court's conservative majority in recent years has generally sided with the police while cutting back on the rights of criminal suspects in car cases.
The U.S. Constitution protects suspects against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.
The Arizona case will require the Supreme Court to reexamine its 1981 ruling that risks to officer safety and the preservation of evidence justify a warrantless car search as part of the arrest.
Arizona officials said the state Supreme Court effectively overruled the 1981 ruling in requiring that the police show that inherent dangers actually existed at the time of the search.
The case began in 1999 when the police in Tucson received a tip of drug activity at a house. Two officers went to the house, and when Rodney Gant answered the door he told them the owner was not home, but would return later in the day.
The officers left, but then discovered Gant had a suspended driver's license and an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license.
Related listings
-
High Court Shields Medical-Device Makers
Legal News Center 02/21/2008The Supreme Court yesterday protected the makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm. The court ruled 8 to 1 against the estate of a Ne...
-
Court Allows Montana Suit Vs. Wyoming
Legal News Center 02/19/2008The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Montana to file a lawsuit against Wyoming over water rights in two rivers that flow through both states.Montana wants the court to rule that Wyoming is using too much water from the Tongue and Powder Rivers, while...
-
Employer retaliation cases reach U.S. Supreme Court
Legal News Center 02/18/2008Employers, managers, and supervisors wield enormous power in the workplace over the lives and wellbeing of their employees. Congress has recognized that sometimes this power can be abused by managers who retaliate if they don't like something that em...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.