WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.
The court’s 5-4 decision in a case from Arizona puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect, particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a traffic violation.
Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car’s passenger compartment was within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest.
“When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant,” Stevens said.
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.
“There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence,” Alito said. Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.
Fordham University law professor Dan Capra said the ruling “will have a major impact when the driver is arrested for a traffic offense.” When police have probable cause to arrest someone for drug crimes, Capra said, they ordinarily will be able to search a car in pursuit of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Ruling in VA claims case
The Supreme Court has made it harder for veterans to challenge the denial of medical claims by the Veterans Affairs Department.
The high court, in a 6-3 decision Tuesday, said veterans who contend the VA failed to tell them what information was needed to justify their claims must prove that the VA’s mistakes made a difference in the outcome of their cases.
A federal appeals court in Washington earlier ruled that the burden was on the VA to prove the errors were not harmful to the veterans.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
