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...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.