-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
Zero tolerance enforcement comes with a twist this year
TweetZero tolerance enforcement comes with a twist this year
Youngstown police and the Ohio State Highway Patrol are once again joined in an effort aimed at making the city a better place to live by pursuing a zero tolerance policy for traffic violations.
And along the way, Police Chief Jimmy Hughes hopes to nab more than bad drivers, he’s looking for bad guys of all stripes.
“We hope to stop the cars for the violations and search for evidence of any other wrongdoing,” Hughes said.
Police and the patrol pursued a similar strategy last year and it met with some success.
But it may be a little tougher this year.
There’s been a notable change in what the Supreme Court of the United States views as a legitimate search of a motor vehicle following a routine traffic stop.
“Any violation is fair game, and we openly admit that we are looking for whatever evidence we can get,” Hughes said.
And, indeed, writing traffic tickets will be just as easy in 2009 as it was in 2008. Searching the vehicle without a warrant — not so much.
What has changed
Two months ago, an odd coalition of Supreme Court justices declared that “countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation” have had their vehicles searched in violation of their rights. They issued a ruling that set aside a 1981 opinion that had given police broad authority to search cars whenever they made an arrest.
Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said that merely arresting a driver does not “provide a police entitlement” to search the vehicle without a warrant. He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The case involved an Arizona man who was arrested for driving with a suspended license. A search of his car, which was parked in his driveway, uncovered a gun and cocaine in a jacket in the back seat.
The conviction was thrown out by an appeals court and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
That is not to say that Youngstown police and the state patrol will be wasting their time.
Just getting more officers into cruisers and on the streets will have a beneficial effect. Arresting traffic violators makes the roads safer for everyone. And, to the extent that they can do so without violating the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches, police are likely to find some evidence of other crimes.
Good law enforcement and the Constitution are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, you can’t have one without the other. But achieving the balance can be a challenge.
Comments
The shame of it all is that the cops have to resort to nonsense like this. Everyone knows that they aren't targeting law-abiding grandmothers, yet the cops have to dance around the chance that they might be accused of profiling, so they have to leave open the chance that they might pull over and check out anybody and everybody.
And while I understand and agree with the Probable Cause concept, it should also be understood that there are certain behaviors and activities which, while technically legal, are usually only performed by people who are up to something. Those behaviors should give probable cause to investigate further, yet the cops' hands are tied lest someone file a lawsuit.
It's too bad the cops have to resort to games like pulling someone over for some minor nonsense so they can detain the suspicious person and hope some incriminating evidence literally falls into someone's lap.
If they were really serious about crime they would be raiding the known crack houses. This operation is just feather dusting and not deep cleaning.
The Vindy wrote: "Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said that merely arresting a driver does not “provide a police entitlement” to search the vehicle without a warrant."
Could you please be more specific? What about the "automobile exception" and the "vehicle inventory search?"
I believe the "vehicle inventory search" is only applicable in cases where the vehicle is impounded. In the case referred to in the article, the man was arrested for driving on a suspended license, but his vehicle was in his driveway. As long as the vehicle was legal there was no reason for it to be impounded, hence no reason for a vehicle inventory search.
Regarding the autmobile expection, I believe that is what this article is discussing. Previously, police had a lot of leeway in determing probable case to search a vehicle. Now, much more probable cause is needed (e.g., I figure simply saying the driver appeared nervous is not sufficient).
Maybe a police officer or defense attorney could provide more feedback on this area.
Stan I file very few comments on this board but your ignorance needs to be addressed. It is known that the Police Officer on the streets conducting traffic and criminal patrol are the first line of defense for society against the criminal element. It was a Police Officer conducting a traffic stop who stopped the Oklahoma City bomber, the Abortion Clinic sniper, the Snipers in Northern Virginia and numerous others. Communities need to place more of an emphasis on the Patrol Divsion and not on the "special units." Put more Officers on the road in marked cars allowing them to be proactive instead of reactive.
joesmoe:
New nic? You have only have one post as of now.
You seem to avoid the issue of busting crack houses. Any reason? I favor both traffic stops and eradication of the sales point for crack and other drugs.
Eric,
The editorial is vague and sets the cops up for potential verbal confrontations with drivers who think they now know the law because they read about it in the Vindicator.
Tugboat,
In this age of abundant information through the internet, do you really think that a 430 word editorial in the Vindy is going to turn passive, law abiding drivers into argumentative law breakers? Besides, the police are prepared to deal with such "verbal confrontations"-they have to do it every day. Any police officer who can't handle verbal confrontations needs to look for a new line of work. Ultimately, the drivers don't have any say if there car is searched or not, regardless of how much they may protest. The police should be trained when they can search a car and when they can't. If the search is illegal, it will be ruled as such in court.
This editorial wasn't met to serve as a course in search and seizure, it was merely discussing revised Supreme Court decisions (which anybody who watches the news would have surely heard about by now). I don't see the problem with citizens being knowledgeable of their rights. It is a real stretch to try to make the argument that a simple editorial will somehow cause problems for the police.
nightmare,
I am sorry to hear of your troubles. You make a great case for what I have been advocating-"innocent until proven guilty." Cops can be wrong, and some will take advantage of power. I am very supportive of the many quality police officers who protect citizens and help to reduce crime. But there are always a few bad apples, and citizens need a knowledge of their rights and a fair court system to (hopefully) make things right.
Stan:
The raiding of crack houses is a good idea but it did very little to affect the crime rate during the 90's. The cities in this area need to start targeting the customers coming from the suburbs more. Take away the customer base then the financial incentive is not there. Traffic enforcement is one way to do that. I am tired of the suburbanites complaining that YTOWN is a burden to them. Ask any Officer on the street how many suburbanites that they arrest coming from a drug house in YTOWN and you will see that the suburbanites are just as much of a drain on the city of Youngstown as they believe that Youngstown is drain on them. Quit buying crack, heroin, services from a prostitute and selling your prescriptions that you stole from your parents to support your habits and Youngstown would be a better place.