Montrose - Daily Press

MONTROSE — A recent Supreme Court decision caused drug charges against Joshua Boots to be tossed.

Overall, Arizona v. Gant will change how law enforcement agencies conduct vehicle searches that for 28 years have been considered automatically permissible upon a suspect's arrest.

Boots was arrested earlier this year on suspicion of driving under restraint. He was on probation for criminal trespass at the time. Police searched his Jeep after arresting Boots and because they reportedly found suspected methamphetamine in the vehicle, he was also charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Advertisement

Defense attorney Stephens Dooley sought to suppress the evidence supporting that charge, and he based his argument on Arizona v. Gant, a high court ruling issued at the end of April.

The district attorney's office agreed to dismiss the drug charge.

Now, an amended complaint against Boots that seeks to revoke his probation and alleges driving under restraint and weapons offenses will be addressed July 15.

Boots is expected to enter into a plea agreement.

According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's Legal Division, the Arizona v. Gant decision held that police can search the interior of a vehicle incident to arrest of an occupant or recent occupant only if it is reasonable to believe that the person being arrested might access the vehicle at the time of the search, or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which a person is arrested (offense-related evidence).

Other exceptions to search warrant requirements remain available, such as reasonable suspicion that someone in a vehicle poses a danger or may have access to a weapon.

In the Boots case, it could not have been reasonably construed that the vehicle's interior contained evidence of him driving under restraint.

"In this particular case, there was nothing to indicate drugs, drug usage or anything of that nature (prior to the search). That's why we went ahead and dropped those charges," Assistant District Attorney Jerry Montgomery said.

"It's not the cop's fault," Dooley said Tuesday. "He did exactly what the law thought he could do."

———

For the full story, see today's print edition. The online story may not reflect all relevant information that was reported. We encourage readers to obtain the full story by reading the print edition or our e-edition, To subscribe, call (970) 252-7081 or click on the subscription link on the main page.

Comments

Understand wrote on Jul 13, 2009 2:20 PM:

" Law enforcement is like a guard dog. You gotta have one, but you need to keep it on a tight leash. "




Report Abuse

jimmy wrote on Jul 13, 2009 12:35 PM:

" the problem we face here is that most of the LE professionals in our area are rejects from some other area, which is why there is a lack of investigative skills and few protocals, its an ad-hoc system. "




Report Abuse

to constitution wrote on Jul 13, 2009 12:29 PM:

" your quote has no validity since the passing of various National security acts, the 4th amendment is legally void. "




Report Abuse

Seriously wrote on Jul 13, 2009 8:04 AM:

" I am tired of the way alot of people look at LE in this area as well. Yet when you have a problem the first people you call are LE. And you say help me! help me! And they do it with out any negative feelings towards you or any one else. LE in this area is doing the best they can do with what they have. Stop complaining and think about if they all left for somewhere they could make money!! "




Report Abuse

jimmadison wrote on Jul 11, 2009 3:41 PM:

" Kudos to Mary! what people seem to forget is these rulings from the Supreme Court are handed down to protect EVERY citizen!!!! i feel better, at least, knowing someone is making sure MY rights are protected. Rulings are there for police to follow not to find ways around , contrary to their belief THEYare not the law. "




Report Abuse

Mary wrote on Jul 10, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Well, for one thing, we'd like them to follow the Constitution. The prohibition against unreasonable searches has been in the Constitution for over 200 years. The police are constantly lobbying state legislatures to pass laws that make officers' jobs easier, in spite of their violation of the Constitution. Without rulings like this, it would be only a matter of time before we had Gestapo-like police forces. "




Report Abuse

BJ wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:44 AM:

" I am pretty tired of they way some of you bash our LE. Where would you be without them?
Further annoys me that we expect our police to be trained, give them the tools and skills to enforce the laws that we need...then tell them they cant use those tools., What do you people want from LE? "




Report Abuse

Constitution wrote on Jul 9, 2009 7:59 PM:

" 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. "




Report Abuse

H. Craig Bradley wrote on Jul 9, 2009 7:49 PM:

" LAW ENFORCEMENT A STATE ISSUE

What does the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center have to do with the local police application of Arizona vs. Grant. Police departments enforce Colorado's Revised Statutes, not the Title 18 of the United States Code (Federal Criminal Code). You must have a BLM Ranger giving you the theoretical info instead of someone who does real law enforcement in Colorado every day and night. "




Report Abuse

Justifiable wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:44 PM:

" Being on probation alone should be justifiable cause for a search. The criminals, all the way up to the White House are now running the country. "




Report Abuse

Stupid decision wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:46 AM:

" Revoke his probation, and put him in jail to serve the rest of his time. This is a stupid decision by the Supreme Court. "




Report Abuse

Reality wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:16 AM:

" I find it somewhat amazing that a person ("stunned") who can barely put together a coherent statement is criticizing the police.

Boots was arrested on March 13, 2009. The Arizona v. Gant ruling came down on April 21, 2009. The officers' investigation of the crime was done in good faith and in adherence with standard search procedures.

Even the defense attorney admitted that the officer was acting under color of the (then) law. Now the law has changed, and the attorney found a loophole. It's unfortunate, but that's how it goes. "




Report Abuse

stunned wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Isnt amazing the cops messed up another investigation. Sounds like one that you people have already convicted a man on without him going to court. Sure seems like law enforcement in this valley needs ot learn how to investigate a crime. This law had been passed long before this incident happened. Wouldn't surprise me that the Sherriffs Office was involved in this case as well "




Report Abuse