Police Power

In a Unanimous decision on Wednesday afternoon, the Supreme Court ruled that police do not act unconstitutionally if they conduct a search following an arrest, even if the arrest violated a state law.

The decision came from Virginia where David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. According to state law, the police were only supposed to give him a ticket. But, instead they arrested him and brought him to a hotel where they conducted a search, finding 16 grams of cocaine in his jacket.

The Virginia Supreme Court had ruled that the police should have released Moore and that they could not lawfully conduct a search. Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only after a lawful state arrest, but as Justice Scalia wrote in the opinion, “When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety…"

The Justices agreed that when conducting a search (and using found evidence in court), police are within their constitutional bounds as long as an officer has probable cause to make the arrest, even if some provision of state law was violated in the process.

The constitution’s wording is often vague and requires interpretation. In this decision, the Court examined the Fourth Amendment’s use of “probable cause” and ruled to keep its vague meaning for the police to determine.

The Supreme Court’s ruling enforced the constitution as above state law; Virginia’s law gave citizens added privacy rights. This decision took power away from the states, centralizing the government rather than promoting federalism.