Massachusetts’ highest court says a police search under a car’s hood and air filter that produced a bag of guns was unconstitutional because officers were only given permission to search the interior of the vehicle.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Monday in the case of Anthony Ortiz, who was arrested after he was pulled over by Holyoke officers in 2015. Ortiz told the officers they could check when he was asked if there were any drugs or guns in the vehicle.
Officers raised the hood after nothing was found in the passenger areas of the car. They removed the air filter and found a bag with two guns.
The high court says the permission given to officers to search the car didn’t extend to the area under the hood.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
“he was asked if there were any drugs or guns in the vehicle.”
Sounds like a game of semnatics. Under the hood isn’t “in the vehicle”?
Unfortunate, but “in the car”, is clearly not “inside the air filter”.
What a court! Telling police they did wrong by stopping a potential murder
They must be democrats
What a stupid kangaroo court! Of course they’re dems! Who else would be so stupid!!
This is why Trump won. People are sick and tired of political correctness gone crazy.
Typical liberals! Why do the cops need permission in the first place? They obviously saw something with the driver or the car. It’s not like that every time they pull s/o over they want to search the vehicle!
The protection of obvious criminals in this country, is absurd! But protection of normal citizens should be observed.
Stupid comments. This has nothing to do with political correctness or trump or any of that stuff. This is about the law of getting a search warrant to search someone private property. If you don’t like it go to Congress and change the law. don’t blame judges. They don’t make the laws
@health – Amendment IV:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Yishivish version reads
“Ois daled:
It’s the oilam’s zchus to be patur from bedikas chometz mitzad the hanhala, unless the hanhala has a ksav mipi eidim.”
Hey Harry -“probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I was talking about this – “They obviously saw something with the driver or the car”
Wake up & smell the roses! Liberalism is a Mental Disorder!