New Jersey Supreme Court Destroys 4th Amendment

[Greenday]

Unfreakingbelievable

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled police do not need actual probable cause or a warrant to search your car or property. They just need to believe you might be hiding contraband and that's good enough as far as they are concerned. As long as their "probable cause" is spontaneous or just happens by chance and doesn't involve them looking for probable cause, it's totally cool.

The way they've worded their ruling, there is no clear definition now for what is a good reason to search your stuff. Just that it's random or spontaneous.

[HYHYBT]

I's been crumbling for a long while, but still...

[Shangri-laschild]

This isn't entirely new. In Illinois, if you can see/smell contraband then you have grounds to search.
If you arrest someone for something like a DUI or theft, you can search the vehicle under the argument that there might be further evidence of the crime they committed. You can only search areas of the car that you would be able to reasonably expect evidence of that crime to be (like stolen radios can't fit in the ashtray, you can't search that if they are being arrested for radio theft). You can't search if they get arrested for something like suspended license because there wouldn't be evidence attributed to that.

[TheHuckster]

This isn't entirely new. In Illinois, if you can see/smell contraband then you have grounds to search.

Yes, that's called probable cause. It's textbook valid grounds for search. This ruling appears to not require even this to be grounds for search.

If you arrest someone for something like a DUI or theft, you can search the vehicle under the argument that there might be further evidence of the crime they committed.

This is also valid grounds for search. Once a person gets arrested, the police have the legal authority to gather evidence to make their case against the judge. A search warrant is only necessary if they haven't arrested someone yet.

This ruling seems to give police carte blanche to just search anyone for any reason. Where the court should have ruled on guidelines as to what probable cause really constitutes, it instead throws it out the window entirely. I'd hope this goes to the federal court.

[Greenday]

This ruling seems to give police carte blanche to just search anyone for any reason. Where the court should have ruled on guidelines as to what probable cause really constitutes, it instead throws it out the window entirely. I'd hope this goes to the federal court.

The way it reads to me is the cops can search your property if they feel like and just call it random making it totally cool.

[Shangri-laschild]

This ruling seems to give police carte blanche to just search anyone for any reason. Where the court should have ruled on guidelines as to what probable cause really constitutes, it instead throws it out the window entirely. I'd hope this goes to the federal court.

The article stated that the man's car was searched after he was arrested for a DUI which was why the argument came up and lead to a supreme court ruling. The officer was looking for open alcohol containers and found a gun instead. He had already been arrested at that point.

After arresting Witt for an alleged DUI, police officers then illegally searched his car without a warrant and without Witt’s consent.

It doesn't sound like the ruling was much different than how Illinois is set up right now. It sounds like previously, even with some forms of probable cause, warrants were still needed and now it's been changed so probably cause doesn't need a warrant. That means this ruling isn't changing things to some big open ability to search cars for whatever reason.