He Didn't Have A Warrant!

Police officers are required to have a warrant before they search you or your home. There are a few exceptions to this rule.

It Couldn't Happen Here...Right?

Man held in jail without hearing. No probable cause. Right to be presented before a magistrate.

New South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Voluntary Statements

Last week we talked about the protection the 4th Amendment gives you from warrantless searches by police officers.  Now nothing has changed in that department, but what you might not know is that there are a certain set of events which trigger this 4th Amendment protection.  In other words, there are certain circumstances where you aren’t protected from search and seizure.

On June 24, 2009, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled in State v. Iversen that the stop and arrest of James Iversen was constitutional.  Iversen was convicted of driving or controlling a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol level. What makes this case unique is that at the time of the stop, at 1:30 am, Iversen was in his parked pickup with his headlights off and his engine running.  Because there had been some theft in the area recently, a police officer pulled his patrol car behind Iversen, and focused his spotlight on Iversen’s pickup.  When the officer approached the truck, Iversen voluntarily rolled his window down.  At this point the officer smelled alcohol, and initiated his arrest.

So why was the officer authorized to perform this arrest?  Here was a man simply sitting in a parked car with his engine on.  The SD Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, Iversen was free to leave at any moment.  Because he voluntarily rolled his window down, he allowed himself to be questioned, giving the officer reasonable suspicion for an arrest.  Remember, if you are not under arrest, you may leave without talking to police. 

New US Supreme Court ruling on warrantless vehicle searches

On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided a very important case that directly affects your individual rights.  Arizona v Gant establishes an important controlling precedent regarding police performing warrantless searches.  This decision holds that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of the arrest in order to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle after the driver and occupants have been arrested and secured.