quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert S. DuBoise:
If the ruling is going to be that a temporary occupant of a vehicle has standing to challenge the original PC, logic dictates that its going to be expanded to temporary visitors of homes, apartments, hotels.

---

A distinction should be drawn

If a passenger in a car is stopped and detained whenever the driver is stopped and detained, because he is unlikely to be able to simply drive off without the driver.

In a hotel or other building, the question is not one of detention, but entry, which involves and invasion of privacy, not prevention of movement. The guests clearly don't have the same privacy interests as the owner.

Why shouldn't a passenger in a vehicle have the same right as a driver to challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop?

As for the framers of our constitution, many of them were criminals. Attendees of the Boston Tea Party would have been guilty of Criminal Mischief and tax evasion. Others who spoke out or took up arms were guilty of seditious libel and treason.

Shannon - the stop in the case we've been discussing wasn't a "good faith error."
Also, who is this Aglaw character some of you have been referring to?

Do I favor the guilty escaping without consequences? That's a ridiculous question. Do you favor some mild trampling of rights in order to get a guilty person off the streets?

Wes - what I said was our Constitution is to protect everyone. You stated your disagreement with that. That's kind of scary.
I guess the framers were muttering to themselves, "it's too bad these rights have to extend to those accused of a crime."

Is this a windfall - police arrive at your door, you answer, and they push on in and say they want to look around. Inside, they find that I grow marijuana. Since they came into my home without a warrant or consent, the marijuana is excluded from evidence. Is that a windfall?
If it is, then what should my remedy be?

Lastly, I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, so if you think I'm writing with that type of tone, just let me know. I'm honestly just trying to have an interesting discussion.

So a passenger should have less Constitutional protection against unreasonable search than a driver... because the passenger is not in control of the vehicle?

Or perhaps it is more reasonable to search/detain a vehicle's passenger since he has already surrendered some degree of control over his own health and safty anyway?

I don't have any problem with a passenger having standing to challenge a search that results in his arrest. I do have a problem saying that the search was unreasonable when the officer, upon discovery of a parole warrant, has perfectly reasonable justification for making an arrest and conducting a search incident to arrest. I'm done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LawAg:
Wes - what I said was our Constitution is to protect everyone. You stated your disagreement with that. That's kind of scary.
I guess the framers were muttering to themselves, "it's too bad these rights have to extend to those accused of a crime."

---

What you said was, "The 'rules' were made for criminals." That is what I disagreed with. I make a distinction between "those accused of crime," who should be protected from abuses by the government, and "criminals" who are by definition guilty of crime, whether accused or not.

My position is based on my belief that our legal rights are designed to protect the innocent citizen from abuses by the government. While we know these rights will have the collateral consequence of sometimes allowing criminals to avoid the consequences of their crimes, I don't believe that anyone in their right mind would claim that allowing the guilty to go free was the intent.

The passenger dude has a warrant for his arrest! The police have an absolute obligation to take him into custody and search him. Then they find the para and meth evidence. Passenger does get to go back to prison no matter what, we can all agree on that for his parole violation. The passenger does not get the benefit of getting evidence suppressed (at least he shouldn't despite the ruling) because he's a FELON who is out on PAROLE and has a WARRANT for his arrest. What part of that LawAg or AgLaw is so difficult to grasp?

You're not saying we should just forget about his outstanding warrant, are you? And AgLaw you still haven't told us what your background is?

I don't see much of a problem with this, and it's certainly not worth fighting over.

Members of the Court discussed the arrest warrant question at oral argument. The thinking seems to be that attenuation requires a multi-part test that was never applied by the California courts. Thus, it would be improper for the SCt to apply that test itself. This is not, in my estimation, unreasonable.

Really, it's just a standing issue. A defendant should have to prove that his personal Fourth Amd rights were at issue before a court can determine whether they were violated. Because the Calif Supreme Ct found that Brendlin wasn't seized they chose (rightly, I think) not to resolve the issue on the merits.

The Court's opinion makes this clear: "It will be for the state courts to consider in the first instance whether suppression turns on any other issue." The attenuation argument is a good one, and the Calif Sup Ct now has an opportunity to consider it.

But just because the scotus opinion in Brendlin didn't find attenuation doesn't mean the argument is dead.

Well, heck, it sounds like someone actually read the USSC opinion. Thanks.