Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(61,467 posts)
Fri May 24, 2024, 08:20 PM May 24

Florida Supreme Court rules drivers can be ordered out of vehicles for drug sweeps

Police officers can order a driver they’ve pulled over out of the vehicle to ensure their safety and that of a K-9 unit conducting a drug sweep, the Florida Supreme Court ruled

Such an order doesn’t violate a driver’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, Justice Renatha Francis wrote in the 5-1 opinion for the court, as prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent already allows for it.

“We hold that binding Fourth Amendment precedent permits a K-9 officer arriving midway through a lawful traffic stop to command the driver to exit the vehicle for officer safety before conducting a lawful vehicle sweep,” Francis wrote.

The case stemmed from a 2018 incident in which Tampa Police officers pulled over Joshua Creller after he maneuvered through a gas station to avoid a red light; a traffic violation. Two officers approached the vehicle, including one in plain clothes who asked Creller to search the vehicle, to which he refused.




https://floridapolitics.com/archives/675974-florida-supreme-court-rules-drivers-can-be-ordered-out-of-vehicles-for-drug-sweeps/

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Florida Supreme Court rules drivers can be ordered out of vehicles for drug sweeps (Original Post) RandySF May 24 OP
dont see any evidence of probably cause from this description nt msongs May 24 #1
Without the reporter thinking the legal argumentation mattered in the least, Igel May 24 #8
Can't wait for the drug sweep refusal videos! Shermann May 24 #2
I'm confused angrychair May 24 #3
Yes, yes and yes. RandySF May 24 #4
So did a little quick reading angrychair May 24 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author happybird May 24 #7
Makes them much easier to plant. nt Qutzupalotl May 24 #5

Igel

(35,522 posts)
8. Without the reporter thinking the legal argumentation mattered in the least,
Fri May 24, 2024, 09:26 PM
May 24

I'd think that a majority found a "compelling state interest" in the "safety of the drivers and pedestrians." versus the inconvenience and legal risk that's involved.

There's a real tension between "safety" and "liberty" here, and it's fascinating--and frustrating, and both amusing and enraging--to see how people decide which is more important, instance by instance.

Then again, I'm fairly patient. Don't think of cops as evil; my cousin's one, and the only violence in her nuclear family was when a first-born son was gunned down as two "youths" argued in a Denny's and pulled guns and killed people and injured others ... but not each other.)

I don't drive drunk--I wait 60 minutes after the last bit of beer from the pint or liquid from shot I ordered more than an hour before is downed. I've left with "my crew" and got to my car and returned to wait it out. I've never done drugs--and when recovering from surgery, seldom took the drugs as often as prescribed and never as long as allowed. (I assume that dissolving them and spreading them on a hot driveway in the mid-late July sun when there no rain for week probably renders them fairly amenable to having what's left that's "bad" detoxified by bacteria. And the front yard's not a bad option--watered with the crap, nothing's grown there, bacteria and oxygen and sun ... Why burden the waste-water treatment facility?)

But before judging the judges, I want to see the text of the law and the argumentation. Otherwise, I'm judging on outcomes, and that means judging on what I think, not based on what our democracy decided by law and how the judge(s) interpreted the law--and I've set myself as the judge of our democracy, a very autocratic outlook.

Back to metabolising a toxic substance.

angrychair

(8,865 posts)
3. I'm confused
Fri May 24, 2024, 08:29 PM
May 24

Cops can search your car without probable cause? Which I assumed a normal traffic stop is not probable cause enough to trigger a physical search a vehicle. This is basically saying that a cop can just make something up to stop a vehicle and use that as justification to search it.
This seems like a serious erosion of our rights.

angrychair

(8,865 posts)
6. So did a little quick reading
Fri May 24, 2024, 09:08 PM
May 24

And the SCOTUS case still requires either consent or probable cause, which it appears, even under the SCOTUS ruling, that a simple traffic stop, is not enough cause under that standard. Yea, this ruling should absolutely be appealed to SCOTUS.

Response to angrychair (Reply #3)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Florida Supreme Court rul...