I want to arrest my first judge to help me free the slaves and mass murder
This was filed
This is the first 1st jurisdiction case in a appeal court in 146 years or it way to the U.S. Supreme Court as an 1st appeal and must be excepted because it is my right and this also never happen in 146 years
The 6th Circuit Court
From; Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee
Part #3
This Great man entity can police the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and our system as we know it. Becoming a member of an elite group like the U.S. Marine, and Force, Battalion Recon required that The Enlistment oath U.S.C.A. 10- 502 to pledge to and require this Marine to have obedience to superior orders U.S.C.A. 10-976 et and ,This Great man was ordered to protect the U.S. Constitution in the home land and oversea .
This Great man was never relief of this responsible, once a marine always a marine. .All these public officials are operating a indictable and impeachable offences of kidnapping, extortion, racketeering ring, jury temping and fixing, Embezzlement, Entrapment, Massive Judicial Misconduct, as described in- U.S.C.A. 18-1961-+ 18 -241 + 18- 1203 + 18-1202 and all the T.C.A. to maintain the Tennessee counties and cities budget for the last 3 - 8 years.
This Great man states that after intensive search in Tennessee and any U.S. Courts cases, there is no precedent history for this magnitude of crime.
This Great man A man with guts, doing the right thing is no different in a big matter such as, say, hanging around the Alamo after you have been asked to leave ,or in a small matter, such as risking your job by defending a racial matter . If we listen to Thomas Jefferson statement The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, and requires the blood of patriot and tyrants.
President Reagan stated if a citizen rights are broken the federal government must reinstate that citizen rights even at gun point. Let it be known that in the state Tennessee there are citizens with gut to protect our U.S. Constitution when needed, but you go to the street and ask 200 people in 15 counties in Tennessee and discuss routine traffic stop as it lay out below, the 189 would say that wrong it is against our Constitutional rights ,but what can one do about it? These public officials are the law.
The system will have to find a new way. If you take the 5,696 D.U.I.s last year, only 399, executed by road blocks, maybe were legal, At 5277DUI x $500.00+ costs of $125.00, an estimated 45000 open containers x 50.x 106 court cost, 85,726 x $10+ court costs of $80.00 for seat belts. 134,578 pot smokers x $ 500. + $275. cost and only around 55 major drug dealers were arrested. Let me tell you I've talked with and citizen’s arrested the sheriff, a judge and a police officer all of them didn't know or want to know about Knowels. On top of all that the judge and the sheriff claim sovereign immunity and the police officer refused to turn themselves over as stated in the Tenn. code. A couple weeks ago county judge was on the bench he didn't know what Knowels was and when a defendant in his court, shown him a copy he read two sentences and then said he wouldn't honor it. He should have at least read the whole thing but the county needed the money so without any regard to the U.S. Supreme court, the Constitution, or the citizens. he decided to extend the blue line law where the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t.
This Great man claims that defendants co -defendants cease to be a defensive instrument and became a coercive weapon, this happen when the defendants engages in violence against the peaceful citizen, restricts the liberty of a citizen, and confiscate a citizen property for their own or some other entity to profit. All the defendants criminal acts are by far the absolute worst than armed raping, pillaging drug dealers or gangs. Now we are adding a new search item car insurance . Car insurance a new extortion tactic against the low-income citizen. Since Tennessee didn’t require insurance for a lots year only the citizens who chose had insurance and during these years if a citizen who didn’t have insurance wanted to get insurance had to pay a premium of up to 300% more than a citizens who had insurance for years. This policy is still in effect so the low-income uninsured has no chance in this trouble world. All this would be a nightmare for this type of citizens no insurance get a $100 fine plus court cost lose his or her driver license now county fee of $ 80.00 and court cost, then reinstatement fees for the state. Each one of these citizens would get a least 20 suspending $100 each and has to drive to work to support their families. Now let add all this up either pay 300% more insurance or at least $2180.00 in fines x 100000 citizens =
$218,000,000.
This Great man personally states that there are over 100 people that are being arrested every day here in Hamilton County. Under Knowels v Iowa police are limited to only given tickets and any search is illegal. All citizens’ rights needs to be protected. All the cities and county officials and long with our federal Congressmen and Senators of our state of Tennessee are refusing to act. The defendants are resemble a bureaucrat prostitutes and bullies which passes new laws and regulations which need to be enforced because these new rules create paying jobs for themselves and never concern themselves with the concepts of personal rights or right or wrong of real justice, the defendants say I’m just doing my job and that I don’t make the rules. A bullies taking advantage has two motto for there victims: never give a victim and even break, and we dare you to fight.
Now this is three years since Knowels was rule on. over 250,000 (estimated) wrong ruling in three years, and now everybody involved is turning into a racketeers, exorcist, kidnapper the crimes are to big to stop, bigger than Watergate. The illusion of freedom in nazi Germany you will be free as soon as i see is your papers are in order, in communist Soviet union you will be free as soon as i see your travel papers, in Tennessee you will be free as soon I see your driver license, registration, and proof of your insurance. Welcome to Tennessee check your guns! put your helmets on !fasten your seat beats . The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police officers couldn’t automatically search a vehicle after a routine stop.
In This Great man opinion this is kidnapping, extortion, and racketeering. If you can’t find evidence for the speeding in the car they can't look for anything else. THIS HAS TO STOP!! All that is necessary for evil people to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
These public officials at all levels seem to feel they have the right and duty to lie and steal, oppression is there style, tyranny their method, and despotism is their standard, with plunder being ultimate goal.
This Great man claims can any one suppose it to be reasonable that a set of men should have the uncontrollable right to lay the most heavy and grievous burdens upon us, if they please, purely to gratify their unbound avarice and luxury? Must we be obliged to perish with cold and hunger to maintain them in idleness, in all kinds of debauchery and dissipation? If they have the right to take our property from us with out our consent, we must be wholly at their mercy for food and raiment, and we know ,by sad experience, that their tender mercy are cruel . Because are not willing to submit to such an unrighteous and cruel decree, though we modestly complaint and humbly petition for a redress of our grievances, instead of a hearing on our complaint, and granting our requests,, they have gone on to add iniquity to transgression, by cruel and unrighteous act, whereby thousands of innocent citizens had their lives ruined.
This Great man states these public officials are bunch of damnable kidnappers, extortionists, racketeers pretending to be our sovereign leaders, do indeed talk about out rights, but the defendants retain to themselves the power to violate them to all intents and purposes by surulously searching the English language to find words feeble in the nature or doubtful in their meaning, and then the defendants interpret them for their own evil proposes. The end doesn’t always equal the means.
2.Knowels v Iowa U.S. Supreme court (1998)
In pursuant of all the following cases:
. In Robinson, we held that the authority to conduct a full field search as incident to an arrest was a "bright-line rule,"
New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460(1981).
Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049
(1983);
2.Terry v.Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); conduct a "Terry patdown"
3. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973)
4. Officer safety_is " `both legitimate and weighty,' " Maryland v.Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 412 (1997)
5. Quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 110 (1977) (per curiam)).
6. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30 (1925);
7. Weeks v.United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914).
8. United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 802-803 (1974);
9. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969);
10. Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); 2
11. United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 802-803 (1974);
12. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969);
13. Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); 2
14. W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 5.2(h), p. 99, and n. 151 (3d ed. 1996). arresting officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been a custodial arrest. We granted certiorari,
15. In # 14 above ,523 U. S. 1019 (1998), and we now reverse."
16. Search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973),
All the above cases were used for or not for searches in routine traffic stop in Knowels v Iowa and all “for “arguments were denied or reversed. The plaintiff agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court and relieve that there are over 7500 people that are being arrested every day here in Tennessee.
Knowels v Iowa, this is the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court. The copy enclosed came from the bounded version in the archives of the U.S. Supreme Court. This version is the only one that counts. After reading this you will see that on a regular basis, our U.S. senators, congressmen, state and county officials, along with the police are stealing money from our citizens in the estimated amount of $ 65,000,000 to 120,000,0000. each year, plus all the property forfeitures, by false arrest. The only way that citizens can prove they are right is by suing in court. Normally each case has to go to county court then state court, then federal court at a cost to the citizens of $30,000 or more each. If you look you will find at least 1,200 cases going at one time using our tax money to fight the citizen in court and then if the state loses they take more of our tax money to pay it off.
This Great man argues the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police officers couldn’t automatically search a vehicle during a routine stop. All justices agree that no further evidence of excessive speed were going to be found either on the persons in the car, or in the passenger compartment of the car. Chief Justice W. Rehnquist said the law, which was designed to protect officers during an arrest, did not apply in relative’s brief encounter such as a traffic stop .
Under Knowels v Iowa police are limited to only giving tickets and any search is illegal.
This Great man and all other citizens’ rights needs to be protected as our forefathers promised with the U.S. Constitution . All the cities and county officials, with our federal Congressmen and Senators of our state of Tennessee are refusing to act. Now this has been three years since Knowels were ruled on. Over 250,000 (estimated) wrong rulings in three years, and now everybody involved are turning routine traffic stops into a racketeering and extortion. kidnapping ring’s. These crimes against all spots of We The People were going on for almost a century and are to big to stop, bigger than Watergate
Abraham Lincoln said we the people ARE THE RIGHTFUL MASTERS OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE COURTS--NOT TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTION, BUT OVERTHROW THE MEN WHO PERVERT THE CONSTITUTION .
Now This Great man is not for DUI, drugs, or any other type of crimes ,but George Washington stated once “To do nothing for the cause of right is to do something for the cause of wrong”
Jo.
In 1777 John Adams stated You will never know how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you make good use of it. If you do not ,I shall repent in heaven that ever took the pains to preserve it.
This Great man a sovereign resident of Tennessee argues the state justice system
were willfully conspire, premeditate to disrespect too human rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States (u.s.c.a.) and Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court by operating a kidnapping, extortion and racketeering ring as stated above which bring to the question of jury fixing, massive judicial misconduct, to maintain the Tennessee counties and cities budget for the last 8 years with habit routine practice
This Great man argue:
1. KIDNAPPING: The constitution guarantee personal privacy. With the defendants and co defendants granting them with the power to extent the bright-line law where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do. All defendants allowed Second Thought arrests, these are arrests that were made after the law enforcement officers exit there police cars while on a public roads within the state of Tennessee. All partiesviolated, Man law, Constitution Law, and an U.S. Supreme Court ruling. All the defendants held the routine traffic stoppers against there will, from one minute to years.
2. EXTORTION: As a direct and proximate results of the herein described arrests was made to go to court, maybe jailed all illegally.
A. The defendants force all citizens involved to pay an outside agencies a ransoms (bail bond) to be released from the kidnapping.
B. The defendants force all citizens involved to answer for crimes that were found illegally, in most cases if you bond out, the rights to a free consular is denied. Being denied then you have to pay for legal consular in most cases the court judge said too the citizen if he or she want to sign a wavier to an attorney we can dissolve their case right now.
C. The defendants knowing of the Knowels v Iowa refused to instruct all law enforcement officers when testifying in court of law of the 3 - 8 years ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead the citizen without a lawyer don’t know the law or Knowels v Iowa and if the citizen don't quote the right law or have a good excuse he or she would be fine and court cost added. How what about the citizen that has a lawyer, a fixer or deal makers goes to court if the lawyer don’t quote a law in defense of the citizen, a deal is made. Knowels v Iowa is a lawyer and law enforcement worst nightmare because law enforcement don’t be able to continue in the ongoing practice. The lawyer has a better reason by not using this ruling as a defense because if citizens knew of Knowels v Iowa he or she would be able to state it and if the court is constitutional safe case would be dismiss and the attorney just loss $ 500.00 to $4000. for each one.
D. All the defendants continue to collect ransoms or (fines and court cost) so the citizen can continue to be free through several 100 outside concerns like a bonding company the defendants issue licenses to the bonding companies, the bonding companies get the random from the citizens plus a new fee which started last year of $12.00 that go directly to the state of Tennessee to help balance the balance the budget.
2. RACKETEERING: The plaintiff being part of WE THE PEOPLE can’t allow racketeering from another citizens or an entity of government that we own. Being that all the defendants knowingly continued impeachable practices more than 1 time at each location and maintain a one sided operation for three years as described in Federal ,Tennessee code and should be held accountable for all there negligence. Are they accountable?
COUNT II
1. Jury Tempering and Fixing: The defendants As creator of regulation provisions knowingly that the citizen’s constitutional rights would harm and close all the doors available to that citizen. Do you Agree?
2. Embezzlement: All the defendants allowed for the citizens constitutional rights to be annulled and when several citizens decided to go to court to fight for their rights the defendants take our tax money to pay to defend the wrong done and if the defendants cases are lost, all the defendants takes our tax money to pay settlements. Do You Agree?
3. Entrapments: All the defendants allowed bad legislation to be introduce and pass into law . DO You Agree?
A. All the defendants knowingly knew that if a citizen is an alcohol beverage drinker he would drive to an outlet to get such beverage and then back home again. Now through liqueur licensing and taxation all the defendants promote DUI. by maintaining the maximum sales program to balance the Tennessee state budget with said licensing and taxation. Do You Agree?
B. All the defendants has conflict of interest and refuse to take steps to decrease sale volume of alcohol at any outlets through out the state of Tennessee instead the citizen is retained at a routine traffic stop and his or her constitution rights are forgotten. While all the defendants received revenue from the sale and then trap the citizen to get a fine and court cost.
This Great man argues Sovereign immunity and judicial cover up: The defendants deliberately fine citizens guilty and when a citizen try to citizen arrest under Tennessee state statue for wrong doing, the defendants refuse to turn themselves over to proper judicial.
In pursuant DR 1-101 DR1-102 -1,2,3,5 EC 2-1, 2-2, This Great man Moves the honorable court to act quickly and aggressively to stop a conspiracy to defraud, misrepresent the Tennessee citizens involving dishonesty and engaging in prejudicial to the administration of justice
In pursuant EC2 -27 and 2-28 the plaintiff is accusing the defendants of manipulating the cost of defending or refusing to represent a client in cases involving unpopular causes involving judges other lawyers, public officials or influential members of the community. In most cases involving judges, other lawyers, public officials, or influential member of the community if the plaintiff is a low income client that his or her constitutional rights are in question and with the power of the defendants in influencing the creatation of new laws make it almost impossible for this type of plaintiff to goes to court. First if this citizens gets to court the defendants already passed more complex laws, like state a claim, cause of action preventing this pro se plaintiff in getting a favorable decision in any court unless he goes into a massive studying for month but by it to late the statue of limitation expirer.
This Great man claims that these state judges knew the comments of the U.S. Supreme Court in Knowels v Iowa allowed citizens to be arrested for crimes without a warrant The defendants support the practices of kidnapping, extortion, and racketeering of the current Tennessee sovereign immunity government officials.
This Great man claim can any one suppose it to be reasonable that a set of men should have the uncontrollable right to lay the most heavy and grievous burdens upon us, if they please, purely to gratify their unbound avarice and luxury? Must we be obliged to perish with cold and hunger to maintain them in idleness, in all kinds of debauchery and dissipation? If they have the right to take our property from us with out our consent, we must be wholly at their mercy for food and raiment, and we know ,by sad experience, that their tender mercy are cruel . Because are not willing to submit to such an unrighteous and cruel decree, though we modestly complaint and humbly petition for a redress of our grievances, instead of a hearing on our complaint, and granting our requests,, they have gone on to add iniquity to transgression, by cruel and unrighteous act, whereby thousands of innocent citizens had their lives ruined.
This Great man states these state officials are bunch of kidnappers, extortionist, racketeers pretending to be our sovereign leaders, do indeed talk about out rights, but the defendants retain to themselves the power to violate them to all intents and purposes by surulously searching the English language to find words feeble in the nature or doubtful in their meaning, and then the defendants interpret them for their own evil proposes. The end doesn’t always equal the means.
THIS HAS TO STOP!! Do you think so?
The needs to decease the number of lawsuits that eat away at our budgets is a must.
. In 1777 John Adams stated You will never know how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you make good use of it. If you do not ,I shall repent in heaven that ever took the pains to preserve it. If there is a spark of the founding fathers within all of you , now is the time to fan this into a flame.
This Great man strongly believe in our Constitutional rights, and hope this action also will have a side effect of lowering the number of lawsuits that eats away our budgets and make
The 6th Circuit Court
Basil Marceaux I
Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee 37379
Mandamus Order
Its appearing to the court that this Mandamus order from a “Great Man” A Guardian of an express trust for a request for First jurisdiction action over subject matter and appoint this moving party as the commissioner using the Means of vindication act ,Sec.4 and the law stated in Congressional globe 39th congress page 3841-42 to stop murders, constitutional rights violations, slavery, Kidnapper extortionists. racketeers, jury fixers, and all felony crimes is granted
It appear to this court if it violates the 4th then you can’t do it and if you do it then involuntary servitude is in place, slavery because the parties were not duly convicted.
It appear to this court that all costs connected with the arrest of anyone under the color of the law will be paid by the public trust where this commissioner Basil Marceaux I is standing
It appear to this court that all warrants for parties arrested must be honored by the U.S. Marshal Office or a $1000.00 fine for each refusal.
It appear to this court that all parties except a judge who is arrested would be arraigned in U.S. Court
It appear to this court that a “Great Man” is a federal judge for land and judges and when handing down a ruling no appeal can be taken.
It appear to this court that this commissioner Basil Marceaux shall get paid the going rate $ 27.00 hour which is equal to $500.00 a year in 1866.
Ordered, adjudged and Decreed that this Freedom Bureau Commissioner, a “Great Man” ,A Marine Force Recon Civilian with a Guardian of an express trust oath to the constitution, and a such person as stated in the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and win do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom shall be appointed as lay out in the Means of vindication act .
Enter--------------day of--------------2007
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Circuit Court Judges
KNOWLES V IOWA
An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a search of the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles guilty, based on state law giving officers authority conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming the State Supreme Court applied its bright-line "search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.
Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field type search.
Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officer have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence offense seems remote. Pp. 116-119e of an unrelated 569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Paul Rosenberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Maria Ruhtenberg. Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General of Iowa, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Elizabeth M. Osenbaugh, Solicitor General.* Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. An Iowa police officer stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding, but issued him a citation rather than arresting
him.
The question presented is whether such a procedure authorizes the officer, consistently with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct a full search of the car. We answer this question "no." Knowles was stopped in Newton, Iowa, after having been clocked driving 43 miles per hour on a road where the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The police officer issued a citation to Knowles, although under Iowa law he might have arrested him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, and under the driver's seat he found a bag of marijuana and a "pot pipe." Knowles was then arrested and charged with violation of state laws dealing with controlled substances
. Before trial, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence so obtained. He argued that the search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), because he had not been placed under arrest. At the hearing on themotion to suppress, the police officer conceded that he had James J. Tomkovicz, Steven R. Shapiro, Susan N. Herman, and Lisa B. Kemler filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. Stephen R. McSpadden filed a brief for the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance. neither Knowles' consent nor probable cause to conduct the search.
He relied on Iowa law dealing with such searches. Iowa Code Ann. 321.485(1)(a) (West 1997) provides that Iowa peace officers having cause to believe that a person has violated any traffic or motor vehicle equipment law may arrest the person and immediately take the person before a magistrate. Iowa law also authorizes the far more usual practice of issuing a citation in lieu of arrest or in lieu of continued custody after an initial arrest.1 See Iowa Code Ann. 805.1(1) (West Supp. 1997). Section 805.1(4) provides that the issuance of a citation in lieu of an arrest "does not affect the officer's authority to conduct an otherwise lawful search." The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as providing authority to officers to conduct a full blown search of an automobile and driver in those cases where police elect not to make a custodial arrest and instead issue a citation that is, a search incident to citation.
See State v. Meyer, 543 N. W. 2d 876, 879 (1996); State v. Becker, 458 N. W. 2d 604, 607 (1990). Based on this authority, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and found Knowles guilty. The Supreme Court< of Iowa, sitting en banc, affirmed by a divided vote. 569 N. W. 2d 601 (1997). Relying on its earlier opinion in State v. Doran, 563 N. W. 2d 620 (1997), the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the search under a bright-line search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the 1 Iowa law permits the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for most offenses for which an accused person would be "eligible for bail." See Iowa Code Ann. 805.1(1) (West Supp. 1997). In addition to traffic and motor vehicle equipment violations, this would permit the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for such serious felonies as second-degree burglary, 713.5 (West Supp. 1997), and first-degree theft, 714.2(1) (West 1993), both bailable offenses under Iowa law. See 811.1 (West Supp. 1997) (listing all non-bailable offenses). The practice in Iowa of permitting citation in lieu of arrest is consistent with law reform efforts.
See W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 5.2(h), p. 99, and n. 151 (3d ed. 1996). arresting officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been a custodial arrest. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1019 (1998), and we now reverse.
The State contends that Knowles has challenged Iowa Code's 805.1(4) only "on its face" and not "as applied," in which case, the argument continues, his challenge would run afoul of Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968). But in his motion to suppress, Knowles argued that because the officer had no probable cause and no search warrant, and the search cannot otherwise be justified under the Fourth Amendment, the search of the car was unconstitutional."App. 7. Knowles did not argue below, and does not argue here, that the statute could never be lawfully applied.
The question we therefore address is whether the search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment.2 In Robinson, supra, we noted the two historical rationale for the "search incident to arrest" exception: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial. 414 U. S., at 234. See also United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S.800, 802-803 (1974); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762- 763 (1969); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); 2 Iowa also contends that Knowles' challenge is precluded because he failed to seek review of a separate decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of a city ordinance.
That decision, Iowa argues, resulted from the same search at issue here, rejected the same Fourth Amendment challenge Knowles now makes, and, under principles of res judicata, bars his present challenge. Even if Knowles' failure to seek certiorari review of this decision could preclude his present challenge, Iowa waived this argument by failing to raise it in its brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. See this Court's Rule 15.2; Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 816 (1985) ("Non-jurisdictional defects of this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent's brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari; if not, we consider it within our discretion to deem the defect waived"). Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30 (1925); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). But neither of these underlying rationales for the search incident to arrest exception is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. We have recognized that the first rationale officer safety_ is " `both legitimate and weighty,' " Maryland v.Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 412 (1997) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 110 (1977) (per curiam)). The threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation, however, is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. In Robinson, we stated that a custodial arrest involves "danger to an officer" because of "the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station." 414 U. S., at 234-235. We recognized that "[t]he danger to the police officer flows from the fact of the arrest, and its attendant proximity, stress, and uncertainty, and not from the grounds for arrest." Id., at 234, n. 5.
A routine traffic stop, on the other hand, is a relatively brief encounter and "is more analogous to a so-called `Terry stop' . . . than to a formal arrest." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973) ("Where there is no formal arrest . . . a person might well be less hostile to the police and less likely to take conspicuous, immediate steps to destroy incriminating evidence").This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is absent in the case of a routine traffic stop. It plainly is not. See Mimms, supra, at 110; Wilson, supra, at 413-414.
But while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field type search.
Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. For example, they may order out of a vehicle both the driver, Mimms, supra, at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 414; perform a "pat down" of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); conduct a "Terry pat down" of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 (1983); and even conduct a full search of the passenger compartment, including any containers therein, pursuant to a custodial arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460(1981).Nor has Iowa shown the second justification for the authority to search incident to arrest the need to discover and
preserve evidence.
Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person oft he offender or in the passenger compartment of the car. Iowa nevertheless argues that a "search incident to citation"s justified because a suspect who is subject to a routine traffic stop may attempt to hide or destroy evidence related
to his identity (e. g., a driver's license or vehicle registration), or destroy evidence of another, as yet undetected crime. As for the destruction of evidence relating to identity, if a police officer is not satisfied with the identification furnished by the driver, this may be a basis for arresting him rather than merely issuing a citation.
As for destroying evidence of other crimes, the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence wholly unrelated to the speeding offense seems remote. In Robinson, we held that the authority to conduct a full field search as incident to an arrest was a "bright-line rule," which was based on the concern for officer safety and destruction or loss of evidence, but which did not depend in every case upon the existence of either concern.
Here we are asked to extend that "bright-line rule" to a situation where the concern for officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for destruction or loss of evidence is not present at all. We decline to do so. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment