Is This OK?

Today the Supremes decided that, given probable cause, a search which would violate a state law is Constitutionally valid. I'm at peace with this. The main things to remember are that: a) when it's the state or the Fed, the Fed trumps; and b) probable cause gives all manner of license to a police officer. Can't get a warrant? OK, as long as there was probable cause and exigent circumstances like disappearing suspects or evidence. We leave this to the discretion of the police. Will they always get it right? No. But should the whole case be thrown out based on a state law?

In this case, the petitioner is arguing that his Constitutional rights were blown. He argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest. In fact, the Fourth Amendment says, "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 person or things to be seized." This is generally taken to mean that absent the exigent circumstances noted above, the police can't bust into your house warrantless. It's your home. But that same expectation of privacy, it has been ruled again and again, simply doesn't exist for your car.



Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/