Dangerous Case, Thornton v. United States (No. 03-5165).
An important property rights case, framed as a Fourth Amendment case, is Thornton v. United States (No. 03-5165). The government's brief can be found here.
The issue in Thornton is whether the police may search and seize your car, even when you are not in your car at the time they stop to talk to you.
In Thornton, Mr. Thornton pulled into a shopping center parking lot. Unknown to him, a cop was on his tail. Thornton did not give any indication that he knew a cop was behind him. The cop had not turned on his sirens or otherwise indicated that he was behind Mr. Thornton.
Mr. Thornton stepped out of his car; closed his car door; and started to walk towards the store. The police officer jumped from his car and ran towards Thornton to ask him some questions. Naturally, Mr. Thornton was nervous. Most people are nervous when questioned by the police, especially when the police officer is trying to get your attention. Nervousness amounts to reasonable suspicion in all cases; and probable cause for most.
The cop conducted a pat-down search. He found a bulge in Thornton's pocket. The bag contained weed.
The police officer then went to Mr. Thornton's property, that was parked in a private parking lot, opened the car door, and searched the car.
If the Supeme Court decides this case the way I think it will, then the police will be able to search your car anytime they stop you. The police will be able to seize your car, even if you are stopped while outside your car. I think it is safe to say that none of your property is "private" once you step outside of your house. The police are encroaching closer and closer to your house too.
Pretty soon, you will have no privacy. Maybe that is what you want.
A blog devoted to law, politics, philosophy, & life. Nothing in this blog is to be construed as legal advice.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(138)
- ► 05/02 - 05/09 (1)
- ► 04/18 - 04/25 (2)
- ► 04/11 - 04/18 (2)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (4)
- ► 03/28 - 04/04 (8)
- ► 03/21 - 03/28 (6)
- ► 03/14 - 03/21 (5)
- ► 02/29 - 03/07 (7)
- ► 02/22 - 02/29 (7)
- ► 02/15 - 02/22 (22)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (21)
- ► 02/01 - 02/08 (17)
-
▼
01/25 - 02/01
(23)
- Never, and I do mean NEVER, talk to the police. P...
- "Unable to Duck the Issue" An article on demands ...
- I'd hire him, too. This is the most impressive re...
- Howard Dean, the un-democratic Democrat. On Page ...
- Dangerous Case, Thornton v. United States (No. 03-...
- Am I the only conservative who is torn? President...
- I'd hire him. Howard Bashman announces the start ...
- Speaking Schedule for Randy Barnett Randy Barnett...
- Chicken Little? Was Scalia right in Lawrence v. T...
- The U.S. Attorney's Manual on outrageous governmen...
- The U.S. Attorney's Manual on outrageous governmen...
- What is outrageous government conduct? Although t...
- New Feature. From time to time I will post memos ...
- "20 Questions for Randy Barnett" Randy Barnett, b...
- Sabri Respondent's Brief. The Respondent's brief ...
- Dr. Gene Scott. By far, the most interesting, ent...
- Writ of Habeas Corpus. I was once instructed to f...
- The Feeney Amendment and Separation of Powers. I ...
- Curfews & the First Amendment: Hodgkins v. Peterso...
- Illinois v. Lidster. Last week I woke up an optim...
- Final Meal Requests. The Texas Department of Corr...
- "Republicans Don't Care to Enforce the Law." Plea...
- Return. I am back after 5 days on the road.
- ► 01/18 - 01/25 (5)
- ► 01/11 - 01/18 (1)
- ► 01/04 - 01/11 (7)
-
►
2003
(14)
- ► 12/28 - 01/04 (6)
- ► 12/21 - 12/28 (8)