California v. Acevedo

Transcription

Hey, this is going to be a series that tries to make sense of the array of cases and the array of issues that encompass what we call the search and seizure area of the Fourth Amendment. It is a battlefield out there. What we are going to begin with here today is an area of search and seizure case law that deals with what is commonly referred to as searches incident to arrest. Now, what I am going to do is briefly discuss where the cases may go or where they are beginning to go after People v. Gant. What do you mean you don't know what People v. Gant is? Everybody knows what People v. Gant is. Actually, I am just joking. Nobody knows what People v. Gant is. That is why I am doing this video. People v. Gant is the United States Supreme Court case that said that officers when they arrest a person in a traffic stop, for example, while driving without a license or a suspended license, officers cannot just because they have arrested that person on a traffic case cannot go into the car and search the contents of the car. So, after People v. Gant very fundamental basic questions remained open. One very important question left open after Gant is: What happens if an individual is arrested by the police in a situation where he is not in his car, but he is carrying varies degrees of personal items? For example purses, luggage, bags, wallets those types of things. If an officer arrests a person walking down the street and they have these items - these personal items, what does the law of search and seizure say about the police being able to search those items? So, the Illinois Supreme Court has recently taken a position and has begun to give us answers on these types of situations. People v. Creagan is a case out of the Illinois Supreme Court that begins to address this issue. Lets go over the facts in People v. Cregan, in that case an individual - In that case the police received a tip that there is a known gang member getting off the train. That known gang member also has a warrant for his arrest, it is a child support thing, but what ever, a warrant is a warrant. The officers go to the train station at the time the informant said the individual was going to be there. And sure enough, as the police officer is approaching the Defendant he is getting of the train and walking towards his girlfriend or some other significant other person. The Defendant at that time is carrying two bags. He has a gym like bag and he also has a piece of luggage. And again in these cases they always fight about what happens first and what happens second. And its actually very important because those very small details effect usually the outcome of the case. The way the court attacked the case is by looking at the personal item in question in this case and trying to compare it to those items that we already know can be searched. Wallets, purses, items inside front pockets And so the court was asking essentially what kind of association with the person does this item have to have in order to justify the police searching it? What does that mean? Basically, what the court did is say, "Look we are not going to play the definition game." "We are not going to make rules about luggage that is separate from --- that is distinct from a purse." The court said we are not going to play that vocabulary name - that vocabulary game - because it is going to get crazy. It is going to get confusing and officers aren't going to know exactly what is proper and what is not proper. The court said all of that is out the window. The basic simple rule is this: If a person is possession, is carrying, or is immediately associated with a personal item - if that person is in immediate control of that item when they are arrested the cops can search it as a search incident to arrest. That is kind of the gist of the rule. I would say that the Illinois Supreme Court has definitely gone in favor of the police on this issue in this case. And that is where we are at in this front on the Fourth Amendment battlefield.