SoylentNews

"gewg_" writes:

from the the-law-is-an-ass dept.

The Associated Press reports [nebraska.tv] via Nebraska TV

A federal appeals court says drugs found in a car during a Nebraska traffic stop can be used as evidence, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April that said the search was unconstitutional.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' action Thursday is the second time it has ruled against Dennys Rodriguez, who was stopped on a Nebraska highway in 2012 and given a warning for driving on the shoulder. He was then made to wait about 10 minutes while officers walked a drug-sniffing dog around the car, which turned up methamphetamine.

The U.S. Supreme Court said the search was unconstitutional. But an 8th Circuit panel cited a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that said searches relying on binding precedent are permissible, even if such searches are later deemed unconstitutional.

TechDirt adds more details [techdirt.com]

Dennys Rodriguez took his Fourth Amendment case all the way [techdirt.com] to the Supreme Court and won. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court concluded that a traffic stop cannot be extended to indulge in fishing expeditions [techdirt.com]. Instead, it ends when the objective is complete. If an officer pulled someone over for speeding, the stop ends when the citation or warning is delivered, no matter how many favors the officer asks after that point ("Mind if we look in the trunk?" "Would you mind waiting for our K9 unit?").

The court declared that anything past this point is an "unreasonable search". It sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of its ruling. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals took another look at its decision... and found a different way to screw Rodriguez out of his Fourth Amendment rights.

It found [uscourts.gov] (PDF) that the Rodriguez decision (named after the man in front of them for the second time) was all well and good, but existing precedent said the cops could get away with an "unreasonable search" because their actions were "reasonable". Adios, Rodriguez. Hello, Davis [cornell.edu] (Redirects to a PDF).

[...]The Supreme Court may have found in his favor, but he's going to jail anyway.

Not only has the "good faith" exception [techdirt.com] swallowed the rule, it has consumed a citizen's Supreme Court victory.

Original Submission