Judge rules cocaine from search of car can't be used
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
22 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Arizona v. Gant
Justices ruled a car can't be searched incident to arrest if there is no warrant or cause to think the search will preserve evidence related to the crime the person was arrested for.
A judge's interpretation of a Supreme Court decision could change local police car-searching procedures.
Less than a gram of cocaine found in Lesslie Trunelly Lamar's car during a Sept. 9 traffic stop can't be used as evidence, Judge Robert Cheshire ruled Friday.
"The police need to follow certain procedures and try not to violate our civil rights as Americans," Lamar's lawyer, Alex Hernandez said.
Cheshire based his ruling on the April Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Gant. The five-justice majority ruled officers can't search a car after arrest without a warrant or probable cause.
"We will carefully study the judge's ruling in this case and see how it affects the way we do business," Police Chief Bruce Ure said.
Police stopped Lamar because the music coming from his car was too loud, a misdemeanor that is punishable only with a fine, Cheshire said.
The 31-year-old Victoria man did not have his driver's license when officers stopped him, though his girlfriend brought it to the scene. Not displaying a license is also a fine-only misdemeanor and presenting a valid license later is a viable defense, Cheshire said.
"It was wrong," Lamar said of his arrest.
The cocaine was discovered during a routine inventory police took so they could impound it, Chief Bruce Ure said. But because of officer testimony and other evidence, Cheshire decided it was a search incident to arrest.
In Lamar's case, as in Gant, the driver was not a threat to officers when the car was searched because he was already under arrest. Nor would the search likely dredge up evidence of the crimes he had been arrested for: playing music too loud and not having a license.
Had Cheshire believed the search was an inventory, not a search, he would have made a similar ruling. If there are reasonable options besides impounding a car, officers should take them, Cheshire said.
"The defendant should always be allowed to arrange for someone else to take responsibility for the vehicle," Cheshire said, although they're not required to let defendants call a friend or family member to the scene.
Officers testified earlier they could not remember if Lamar's girlfriend arrived before or after .04 of an ounce of cocaine was found in the glove compartment.
She was there, Lamar said, recalling that officers told her she could leave only after they found the drugs.
When deciding if it's safe to leave a car parked, officers should consider how long the suspect will be away from the vehicle.
"The duration of the arrest would have been minimal," Cheshire said, because Lamar had enough cash in his pockets to pay the fines.
After Lamar and Hernandez were away from the courtroom, they slapped high fives and hugged.
Lamar could describe his reaction to the ruling only as speechless.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
22 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
Yeah the rest he ate....
May 19, 2009 at 8:59 a.m..04 of an ounce of cocaine ????
are you serious, a drug dealer ????
May 19, 2009 at 1:14 a.m.Then this guy was possibly evading the police? If that's the case, then they probably had cause to arrest & search, but that is not what has been stated. Loud music should not be an arrestable or searchable offense.
May 18, 2009 at 10:42 p.m.#1 When you see the Police don't speed up and attempt to get away
#2 When the beautiful lights come on, don't keep driving.
May 18, 2009 at 10:35 p.m.It is ridiculous to say that those of us that agree with the Judges decision don't want criminals off the streets, of course I do, I just want them off the streets legally & to go away for some time, not to get released on a technicality.
Let me put it this way, hopefully y'all will understand what I am saying. How many of you drive perfectly, use turn signals every single time you change lanes/turn, always abide by the speed limits, come to a complete stop at every stop sign, etc. If you say yes, then either you are lying or you don't live in Victoria. How many of you know when your back lights go out without someone informing you? Now, the police are searching vehicles for these reasons. They pull you over for your taillight & then want to search your car. I ask, where is the probable cause? Why would they need to search your car for a taillight infraction? Why would they arrest you for a busted taillight? I guess they can if they so choose. Not that I have anything to hide, but where is my right to privacy in my property? Now, if they pull me over for said taillight & I reeked of pot or alcohol, then there is cause to search, IMO. But if I am acting & smelling normal, I should recieve my ticket & be free to travel about the country.
I don't know about y'all, but I have a ton of crap in my car & it would take forever for someone to search it, not to mention possibly losing paperwork or at least making a complete mess of my mess. I don't have all day, I have things to see & people to do. If I am pulled over for a taillight or failure to signal & they request to search my car, I am going to ask why & then politely refuse. I have been told by a friend of mine who is in law enforcement in another area that that is the proper response to a search request. He stated he would not allow it either. He did state that I could be held until a canine unit could respond & that's fine with me (depending on how long that would take & I still don't understand WHY). It has nothing at all to do with having something to hide & everything to do with probable cause & time constraints.
I guess the police should just set up roadblocks & pull over & search each & every car that is traveling on that road. I guess you all would be fine with that.
May 18, 2009 at 9:42 p.m.As usual the Advocate fails to tell the whole story...
If you people knew exactly what happened you might feel a little different about the issue.
May 18, 2009 at 7:32 p.m.I think this whole thing is ridiculous. First of all let me ask some of u Police Haters, who do u call when something happens to ur home, vehicle, or family, oh yeah I forgot it is the Keystone COPS you ridicule everyday. I believe that the only reason this case was thrown out is because, just like every piece of crap they get a lawyer that searches for loop holes in the law. Plain and simple the law was broken and appropriate action was taken, if u don't like too bad, maybe its because u have something to hide yourself. But let me say I believe and stand by the Police in Victoria. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK GUYS.
May 18, 2009 at 7:17 p.m.Upon asking current or former law enforcement personnel, "Would you go back into law enforcement if you were starting out now?" Everyone has the same answer, "No, they've tied our hands to where we can't do our jobs."
May 18, 2009 at 10:25 a.m.When are we as a nation going to quit protecting the guilty. If he wasn't doing anything wrong he would not have gotten in trouble. We all need to be more responsible for our own actions. We need to quit blaming everyone else when we do wrong. Yes there are some bad cops out there but do what you are supposed to do and there should not be a problem.
May 18, 2009 at 9:51 a.m.Sorry ReyRey they did if you like it or not.
May 18, 2009 at 8:31 a.m."We will carefully study the judge's ruling in this case and see how it affects the way we do business," Police Chief Bruce Ure said.
Yep thats 150,000 a year that over reacting officer cost the great State of Texas huh? Mr.PC Ure
May 18, 2009 at 7:56 a.m.Otherside, although the law was just passed and the arrest was done last year, keep in mind that there were antecedents to base this case on. So please, dont come here to "try" to give us a class on constitutional law. The police had no right in searching this guy's vehicle. And this is not about this guy's rights but to keep the police honest, something that this police chief can not do or can not control his keystone cops.
May 17, 2009 at 10:07 p.m.good comment othersider. i posted a blog that I intended to be a comment. you should see the RIDICULOUS comments posted by the readers. I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinions though.
May 17, 2009 at 4:57 p.m.The case that Cheshire based his ruling on came out in April (Arizona vs. Gant), this arrest was done last year long before the ruling. Prior to the Arizona case a search of a car after an arrest was perfectly legal. So the Police did nothing wrong at the time, if it was today that would be different. So this article saying they violated civil rights is just crap.
I also laugh how people are so quick to judge the Police when really all they did was take a drug dealer off the street and to some technicality that happened months after the arrest he is set free to sell drugs to your friends, family and kids.
There are only to laws that police can't arrest for and that is open container and speeding. So him being arrested for loud music was perfectly legal to.
So I guess he got lucky that he didn't go to court before April.
May 17, 2009 at 7:21 a.m.I tried to post a comment, but it may have been too long. Hope you read my posted blog regarding this issue as well as the issues of others.
May 16, 2009 at 8:24 p.m.I hate rape hip/hop its sucks. It discriminates against women and talks about rape and murder amound other VILE things. However, even though his music was lous the cops who stopped him had no right what so ever under the law or Constitution to search his vehicle. Heres what the US Constitution says :
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
MEANING for you people who don't get it no matter how loud his music was or what he was doing the cops do not have the right to search his car without a warrant and he verbally stated to the cops he did not want them to search his car.
May 16, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.You are, unfortunately, probablly correct Pilot!
I don't know what is wrong with parents in my age group and younger -- they have taught their children to disregard laws and rules -- Show no respect to adults, teachers, authority figures...
When these youngsters break the law and get in trouble, then it's the police who are the bad people... it's their fault the driver was carrying illegal drugs in his car, poor baby!
Don't force these kids to turn down their car stereo's blasting out music that degrades women, encourages rebellion and violence... that's violating their freedom of expression -- Us old fogies who don't like it... well, we can turn down our hearing aids or be forced to listen to the (c)rap music!
May 16, 2009 at 10:51 a.m.I recomend this lawyer. I got represented by Mr. Hernandez and one of his assoc a couple years ago. They did a great job and got me out of a sticky situation. Almost ruined my life. Great job yall.
May 16, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.You know whats really scary did you know theres a law in TEXAS that states a police officer can arrest you for anything on a traffic stop?? Most peeps don't know this stuff. They can impound your car and arrest you for ANYTHING. The only thing they can't arrest you for is speeding but anything else and your game. This law was meant for drug dealers but like all laws cops abuse this law to the max use it to arrest any1 that they tthink is giving them a hard time on a traffic stop.
May 16, 2009 at 9:21 a.m.Why would someone get arrested for loud music & not having possession of his license? They could check to see if he had a valid license over the radio while they are checking for warrants. This just validates my paranoia when I drive into Victoria, you never know what miniscual thing the police will pull you over & arrest you for. Go Cheshire...keep on keeping the citizens & visitors of Victoria safe from pointless searches & arrests.
May 15, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.