Again, this case illustrates the problem. In any event, the concern is misplaced. When state lawmakers limit the power of the police to make arrests, do they automatically enlarge the scope of the Fourth Amendment for everyone in the state?
Respondent proposes to con stitutionalize only state laws that declare that an offense is "categorically not subject to arrest by any officer. This Court has repeatedly held that the choice of remedy for a state law violation is the prerogative of the State, not a question of federal constitutional law.
Di Re, U. Like Virginia, some States generally prohibit warrantless arrests for driving on a suspended license. Virginia law does not, as a general matter, require suppression of evidence obtained in violation of state law.
Nicknames can be common in nature and they should not be relied upon for identifying a suspect. The trial court declined to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds.
Respondent principally relies Br. Relying on the concept of federalismVirginia claims that a win for Moore would incorrectly make state law more powerful than the U.
The interests justifying search are present whenever an officer makes an arrest. Incorporating state-law arrest limitations into the Constitution would produce a constitutional regime no less vague and unpredictable than the one we rejected in Atwater.
Constitution does not require that the Fourth Amendment be interpreted to make that distinction as well. Moreover, an "arrestable" of fense requirement would present all of the problems with constitutionalizing state restrictions on searches and seizures discussed above.
A ruling for Moore would mean that searches that are constitutional in one state might not be in another, even though the circumstances are the same, thus reducing the uniformity of the constitutional standard. The constitutional standard would be only as easy to apply as the underlying state law, and state law can be complicated indeed.
Moore argues that a State has no interest in arrest when it has a policy against arresting for certain crimes. A decision for Moore could allow guilty defendants to escape punishment by forcing courts to exclude evidence that would have led to a conviction.
It could also cause a flood of motions by defendants that courts should exclude evidence because officers failed to observe the minutiae of state laws.
It would be strange to construe a constitutional provision that did not apply to the States at all when it was adopted to now restrict state officers more than federal officers, solely because the States have passed search-and-seizure laws that are the prerogative of independent sovereigns.The Alexandria Police Department (APD) formed a Community Advisory Team to assist the Department in implementing relevant recommendations from the final report of.
Virginia v. Moore () federalism. Fourth Amendment. search and seizure.
search incident to arrest. Virginia police stopped David Moore for driving on a suspended license. Since Virginia police had a duty to issue a summons-but instead singled out a suspect for automatic arrest-the arrest was a case of unreasonable discrimination. VIRGINIA v.
MOORE, () No.
Argued: January 14, Decided: April 23, Rather than issuing the summons required by Virginia law, police arrested respondent Moore for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. A search incident to the arrest yielded crack cocaine, and Moore was tried on drug charges.
VIRGINIA v. MOORE. certiorari to the supreme court virginia. No. 06– Argued January 14, —Decided April 23, Rather than issuing the summons required by Virginia law, police arrested respondent Moore for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license.
A search incident to the arrest yielded crack cocaine, and Moore was tried. VIRGINIA. v. MOORE. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. No. 06– Argued January 14, —Decided April 23, Rather than issuing the summons required by Virginia law, police ar-rested respondent Moore for the misdemeanor of driving on a sus-pended license.
A search incident to the arrest yielded crack cocaine. Virginia v. Moore, U.S. (), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that addresses use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest if that arrest is later found to be unlawful.Download