04/24/08
 |
 |
|
Justice Scalia stated that as long as the police had probable cause to make the arrest, it makes no difference under federal law that a state law barred them from making the arrest. |
A driver had been arrested for a suspended license, which wasn't exactly legal — he was supposed to be given a ticket. Instead, upon arrest, the cops took him to a hotel, where they searched him and found about 16 grams of cocaine and a bunch of cash in his pocket.
This was used to convict Moore, the driver, of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, netting him a sentence of five years in prison.
But since the arrest was illegal under Virginia law, Moore had contended that his search was illegal, and thus his conviction. But the Supreme Court disagreed.
Justice Scalia stated that as long as the police had probable cause to make the arrest, it makes no difference under federal law that a state law barred them from making the arrest. Basically, federal probable cause laws for search and seizure don't depend on state laws.
"Moore would allow Virginia to accord enhanced protection only on pain of accompanying that protection with federal remedies for Fourth Amendment violations, which often include the exclusionary rule. States unwilling to lose control over the remedy would have to abandon restrictions on arrest altogether. This is an odd consequence of a provision designed to protect against searches and seizures," Scalia wrote.
So, criminal lawyers, yet another rule to use or lose by!
|
