Well first of all traffic violations are a civil matter. So should all people filing lawsuits be subject to fingerprinting?

Second, you are already showing identification, presumably. It’s supposed to make it easier for cops to sort out similar names during the records checks.

Look what’s happening in England, if you get arrested for anything they are taking your DNA.

I have a CDL with a HAZMAT so I did get fingerprinted and a background check-if that’s not enough for them I don’t know what to say. Do you mind getting a GPS in your car for the gas tax?

If they make everyone in the car submit, then I have a problem as there is no cause.

Horrible comment, I know, unless you’ve watched Fox (NILF TV) for a full day.

Asking cops to know and obey the law is way too much until you get an army of opportunistic lawsuits out there. A dozen crews targeting counties/cities with history of abuses and $$. Get pulled over a dozen times. Bring in the lawyers. Move onto the next target.

Sounds like a business plan.

“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occu­
pant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching dis­
tance of the passenger compartment at the time of the
search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains
evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications
are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unrea­
sonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that an­
other exception to the warrant requirement applies. The
Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case in­
volved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment
of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.”

I think you are right in that Gant has made 4th Amendment protections stronger during an arrest. Prior to Gant police mostly used the decision in NY vs Belton, and some courts allowed the vehicle search even after a person had left for jail.

The decision in Gant is not only about officer safety, but also evidence discovery.
I believe you do not necessarily need to be inside a cop car, just not within reaching distance of the vehicle. A search for evidence must be for evidence related to the arrest.

I’m no lawyer, but I did have sex at a Motel 6 once.

Is that you Sheriff Mack? My understanding is the Gant decision has made it harder to search a vehicle under the pretense of officer safety when the occupants of the vehicle have been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. A cop may still search a vehicle for possible weapons if the occupants are in a position to reasonably get to them.

A cop is now expected to go through a judge for a search warrant unless their is reasonable suspicion the evidence would disappear in the time it takes to get a warrant (”like what, a stolen ice sculpture?) or there is some reasonable threat to officer safety in not searching. I suppose a case could be made if a kidnapped infant or victim was suspected of being in the vehicle that to would allow a warrantless search provided concern for their immediate well being was in question.

Gant goes to cops using a permission of the court for their safety to search a vehicle for weapons to being used to conduct a warrantless search and the courts not tossing out the evidence and rebuking the cops for failing to get a warrant. Hopefully this provides some correction…but I would not count on it.

And thanks to Peter and the Motorhome diaries crew! This incident was a perfect example of various kinds of state overreach, and the public needs to be made aware of it.

Asking the crew about drugs, bringing in the K-9, and threatening the guys with ATF were perfect examples of the drug war mentality. This showed how this mentality degrades both our civil liberties and the quality of policing. The deputy’s aversion to being filmed, and deleting portions of the tape were egregious examples of government employees shunning transparency. And when the deputies began making reference to the crew’s politics, it suggested that the traffic stop had turned into an opportunity to intimidate dissenters. Basically, it was a whole mess of civil liberties violations rolled into one incident.

The judge was right, sue the bastards!!!!

Well here’s the hook.
There’s Brady vs Maryland which says exculpatory
evidence must be turned over as discovery. (good faith/bad faith not an issue)
If they don’t hand it over there’s penalty.
Another case , maybe Trombetta, ruled if the exculpatory
evidence is destroyed, defendants have to prove Bad Faith.
In Bryant vs D.C. Appeals, the judge said hold on, this
is going to motivate cops to destroy evidence because proving Bad Faith (ie Intentional destruction) is virtually impossible.
(This “inadvertent” destruction of evidence happens over and over and over in DUI cases (videos) and people don’t realize it’s often Bad Faith.) Cops simply destroy inconvenient evidence.

I did particularly enjoy judge Alito’s dissent in which he pretty much cries about how police have been violating individual rights for 29 years, and we should just continue on that path.

Yeah, that’ll happen. Right after the CIA poobahs who ordered disposal of the “enhanced interrogation” videos (which really, really, honest injun wasn’t torture) are prosecuted.

While I agree it’s unlikely the cops will be prosecuted (though anyone else would be), in a civil case destruction (”spoliation”) of evidence can lead to the jury being instructed that they can presume the evidence destroyed would be unfavorable. Jurors also sit up and take notice when they’re told evidence is destroyed.

As it stands, this case sounds as though it may be headed to a civil rights suit with or without any further misconduct by the police.

Looks like the cops deleted the video the guys took of the first few minutes of the stop. If that’s true, the cops themselves ought to be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice.

Yeah, that’ll happen. Right after the CIA poobahs who ordered disposal of the “enhanced interrogation” videos (which really, really, honest injun wasn’t torture) are prosecuted.
[/jaded cynic]