Re:Cops to grab unlocked stuff from cars in East Rock area, ...
by mikestew on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @03:36PM
(#10509497)
Boy, as a non-lawyer, it seems to me the two aren't even related. It's one thing for your job to require you to secure an item from a vehicle (don't want police sidearms running around loose in Chicago), and you trip across evidence of a crime. Quite another to just make up excuses (pardon me, laws) to enter any random vehicle ("we were concerned that someone would break into the vehicle and steal that enticing pack of Wrigley's gum.") and search it for other evidence.
Let's pretend what conversations might be like for the two situations. "Man, sucks about Jones. Hope he comes out of it. sigh, let's go get his sidearm. I hate doing this, breaking into a guy's car like this. Oh, shit dude, isn't this the shirt that the murder victim was last seen wearing? I don't like where this might lead. But we've gotta follow up, right?"
Versus: "BMW 3 series, unlocked, left his phone in the cup holder. Let's see what else we can find."
Re:Cops to grab unlocked stuff from cars in East Rock area, ...
by wlesieutre on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @04:03PM
(#10509738)
Entirely agreed. Not a lawyer though, and it's certainly possible that the other cases on the subject have narrowed its scope. No time to read up on them at the moment.
In that case, the police searched the car of a Chicago police officer who was in a coma at a local hospital. They were aiming to secure his revolver, which Chicago police were required to carry at all times.
Instead, they found evidence of a possible crime, discovered the body of a murder victim, were able to link the officer to the murder, and he was charged as a result of the warrantless search.
The Supreme Court allowed the search, saying that the officers were engaged in activities completely separate from their crime investigation/enforcement when they searched the car.