Homicide Scene Photographer Claims Intimidation By Police; Film Destroyed

Here is our interview with a woman named Bunny, who was taking photographs of the scene where Kelly Thomas was killed on the night of July 5th.

Bunny says a Fullerton police officer intimidated her into handing over film from her 35mm camera, thereby exposing and destroying the film in the process. While she admits to turning over the film voluntarily, I note that the policeman in question took possession it – for reasons that remain unexplained, and at which point the cop’s belligerent attitude ceased.

She also notes that the District Attorney is aware of this incident and also of the destruction of the film.


249 Replies to “Homicide Scene Photographer Claims Intimidation By Police; Film Destroyed”

    1. Forms of character assassination found in politics..

      In politics, perhaps the most common form of character assassination is the spread of allegations that a candidate is a liar. Other common themes may include allegations that the candidate is a bad or unpopular member of his family, has a bad relationship with his spouse or children or is not respected by his colleagues. Another theme claims that the person routinely engages in disturbing, socially unacceptable behavior, such as sexual deviancy. The person may also be portrayed as holding beliefs widely considered despicable within society, such as supporting racism or other forms of bigotry.
      …sound familiar tu sabes?

    2. It’s really amazing how the powers that be are trying to sidestep this. Wanna tell the public to forget about the death of a dead man? Blame his father. Blame the person who started this blog. Call the commentors paranoid. How about producing some untampered evidence that this is all a big mistake? If you can’t, go the f*ck away.

      1. Meant to be a reponse to#2

        by tu sabes on September 2, 2011
        If bushala worked this hard on his marriage he’d probably still be married

    3. One of the unique things Mr. Bushala has in common with most cops, a failed marriage. Not sure what to make of that.

      One look around the payroll office in Fullerton and you’ll notice an awful lot of wage garnishments by former spouses of cops or, worse, the mothers of children from cops who were never their spouses. Seems like cops and relationships are not exactly peas and carrots to quote ol’ Forrest Gump.

      Maybe Mr. Bushala should have been a cop. Of course, if he had he’d be retired now.

    1. What is the relevance of Tony’s marriage to Kelly being murdered? There is none, so stay on topic, focus!

  1. totally useless information, she GAVE the cop the film without him asking for it. Where does she think Fullerton is, Russia??

      1. Funny how all u ffff freaks have forgotten about the original agenda! Bushala has all u conspiracy freaks so focused on the non facts he is abel to get his political agenda which is the recall to the forefront!!! Funny how u freaks just focus on the next big conspiracy!!! All you ffff freaks probably Think the attacks on 9/11 were made up to justify going to war!!!!

        1. Is not a conspiracy theorist! Bases opine on facts of the case thus far. There has been no evidence shown to exonerate these filthy, dirty cops! Nothing!
          And for the cops from FPD making their comments about what we don’t know? Were you on scene while Kelly was being bludgeoned? Did you do anything to stop it? If you were as we suspect, stop criticizing us! We are doing more diligent work to get justice than you are….you are defending the defenseless!

    1. Yeah, she blew it. Should have told the f-er to go screw himself.

      Notice how the cop got the film and immediately became nice. It’s clear that the FPD didn’t want the scene photographed.

  2. I agree it’s important but it’s not something that can be used since she gave it to him without him asking for it, if he had forced her to give it to him that would be a different story. Yes, he intimidated her and I agree with that, but, this isn’t Russia, it’s America she didn’t have to give it to him.

  3. Why would the cop take exposed film? Where did it go? Will the owner get it back when the investigation is over? Did the cop give her a receipt for the property he took?

    Just add “destruction of evidence” to the long list of FPD crimes.

    1. Exposed film would be in a canister if it had been rewound, hanging out if the canister it would be ruined!

  4. I am trying to understand something; from the interview it sounds like there were TWO rolls of film and she took the first one out because the flash did not work?

    If that’s the case, WHERE is the first roll of film?

    1. The D.A. confiscated the film why do you think he met her in a crowded starbucks and instead of with a stenographer and witnesses. He squashed this evidence.

      1. That doesn’t make sense to me. Are you suggesting she had the film and never attempted to develop it?

  5. Cop to the photographer: “Now you’re involved. What are you going to do?”

    What the hell does that even mean? Dirty, dirty cops pushing around law-abiding citizens to protect their own.

    She needs to remember that cop’s name. He’s probably not one of the six.

    1. Murdering cop to the nice lady housewife type of photographer, with a young child to worry about. “Now your involved”, of course she gave the bastaard the film.

  6. Thompson you have out done yourself with this one. Woman who wants shot of red blood to see the moon exposes film herself…..Maybe the conversation when like this..Cop..the man who lost his life might have a family why would they want to see his blood on the street on your web site, That’s kinda sick don’t your think? Woman you might be right officer who wants to see blood i came to take a photo of a dead body…Shit.

    Woman…”I have a hard time remembering , I have a certain condition”

    1. Those cops didn’t seem to mind the blood when they were cracking open Kelly Thomas.

      Don’t let the idiot above fool you… anyone taking photos and gathering evidence on behalf of police beating victims is a hero!

    2. Pretty interesting how we left that in, don’t you think? Maybe the city, the police and the DA could learn a thing or two about transparency from ffff.

  7. Sounds like the first roll was used up,and thats why the flash didnt work.As for her giving up the second roll,hell,she was scared,and didnt know that she didnt have to part with it.I think she done what most people wouldve done at the time.Sad to say ,but i think alot of people have learned alot in the last couple of months due to this case. GOOD JOB FFFF.Illinois here.

  8. IMAGINE how scared she was


    Men with badges JUST MURDERED a citizen RIGHT THERE where she was standing

    SHE had on idea if he was one of the murderers or not..

  9. Right before the crack reporters cell phone rings, the woman states,

    ”I have a hard time remembering , I have a certain condition”

    Why did she say that?

    1. I know this woman and she had a brain tumor removed from her head about two years ago. I know it’s hard for the cop trolls to lay off the insults, but really, the woman had enough courage to come forward and all things considered, back off with the insults!

  10. veth didnt have his camera ,he got bamboozled by the cop ,dropped his camera,forced to,his buddy picked up his camera and kept filming.

    1. The important thing is, it doesn’t matter what happened to the film, the memory of what was filmed is forever in Bunny’s brain, her hard drive!

  11. She mentioned her video phone having been stolen.

    If its and iphone and she synced it, the video may be on her computer. Please follow up on that. If not find out what kind of phone it is and a case description.

    The video she shot may still be there and if the person in possesion hears abou this, they may upload to youtube or get it to you.

    I realize its after the incident video but it will show the aftermath.

  12. LA Times….

    Political experts said it’s no surprise that Fullerton would become such a flash point. Decades ago, the city helped elect ultra-conservative Rep. William E. Dannemeyer to office.

    Tony Bushala, a libertarian-leaning Republican who has launched a recall campaign against three council members over the Thomas case.

    Vote Repudlican No thank you

    1. Frankly, most of the activist-level concern over police abuse in the US is from libertarian oriented folks. It sure is not from Democrats. At least not usually, given their love for government union protectionism and statist control in general.

      Fortunately, we have a happy alliance here of people like Tony and liberals and progressives of the more traditional civil libertarian school. it is an essential alliance we need to have any hope of changing the system. The current system is in place via a combination of authoritarian-school Republicans and Democrats protecting special interests. Let’s remember that and not bicker among ourselves.

      1. “we have a happy alliance here of people like Tony and liberals and progressives of the more traditional civil libertarian school. it is an essential alliance we need to have any hope of changing the system.”

        It gives me hope!

        1. It matters nor what your political affiliation is, those attending the protests and blogging here are true patriots! They are Teapartiers, tired of govt run amuck!

  13. D.A. met her at starbucks,a complaint should have been filed.Seems like D.A. really went out of his way to see her.Also, why did it take her almost 2 months to come forward to tell her story

  14. LA Times

    Thomas said that he has been frustrated by what he sees as attempts by people with political agendas to further their own causes through his son’s death.

    “I honestly think some folks are out there to use my son’s death to bring light to their own cause,” he said.

    1. …and who did he think was responsible for oversight of the police department who caused his son’s death? The three little pigs on the city council that’s who!
      Hence the need for Fullerton residents to wake up and recall these fools now, or allow them to continue on this path of fiscal and moral irresponsibilty for an additional three long years.

  15. Why would someone want to take photos of the moom light in the blood? Oh and I love the comment ” I have a condition”. Do better next time FFFF.

    1. Photographers take pics of everything. She probably shot the whole area and then noticed the moon reflection.

      Its a morbid thing for sure but think about some of the famous pics from Viet Nam, WW2 etc. Some very graphic pics out there.

      As to the comment, “I have a condition”, she’s just being herself. It was funny, odd but no one’s perfect.

      What bugs me most is that she stuck around long enough for the cop to approach her. Get the pics and get away from there. But that goes back to her being a photographer, you get caught up in the moment.

      1. One thing is for sure…anyone who can beat another person into a coma has some sort of “condition” that only a therapist can figure out.

        Anyone standing by and watching suffer from apathy…quite common actually.

  16. #15 by Fedupwithmorons on September 2, 2011

    Exposed film would be in a canister if it had been rewound, hanging out if the canister it would be ruined!

    And you can feed yourself too?

  17. 1). Is there any way to find her cell phone and get that video?

    2). Where is her first roll of film?

    Bunny: ” I saw Kelly Thomas dead. I swear he was dead. He was gray, pale or he just basically lost a lot of blood. You couldn’t see his face. His hair and his body were laying in a pool of blood about this (motions with hand showing 3-4 inches) deep and it was about that ( holds arms 3-4 ft apart) wide and they put him on his side.”

    3). The goons who did this to Kelly should be sitting in jail.

  18. Jim Dandy :
    LA Times
    Thomas said that he has been frustrated by what he sees as attempts by people with political agendas to further their own causes through his son’s death.
    “I honestly think some folks are out there to use my son’s death to bring light to their own cause,” he said.

    Agenda or not , anyone putting the effort into getting the truth out and keeping this on people’s minds is a good thing. Anything to get Kelly’s murderers brought to justice, and the system that allowed and covered up the murder reformed.

    1. Plus, for Ron the Agenda is only his son’s case, which may well be understandable. But this case is no isolated incident, except in its grizzly outcome. It is a systemic problem across the country. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda to change it in Fullerton.

      1. If it is systemic across the country, is it related to the spread of Lexipol’s influence and training across the country? Is Kelly Thomas simply a casualty in the risk management and officer safety campaigns of Gorden Graham, Bruce Praet, and Dan Merkle?

        Ron Thomas alsoclaims to be an expert in police take-down techniques and offers alternatives to the Lexipol system.

        1. Use of force continuum is taught in most police academies across the US. In Kelly’s case they violated the rules set in place with force escalation.

  19. Most all good new phones have gps,maybe phone co. can track it.1st roll was used up.D.A. says investigation is over half finished,so if this still goes on past holloween,then what?Lawyers wont let it get that far.

  20. She must be the unluckiest photographer in the world… she takes pictures and video of a national news event and manages to come away with nothing. She gives up her 35mm film (who uses that stuff any more anyway?) to a cop and, coincidentally, someone stole her video phone. Hmm.

    And then, when it comes to explaining just how the cop “intimidated” her into giving up the film, she can’t really remember what he said or how he did it except to repeat over and over that he said “Now you’re involved. What are you going to do?”

    Sorry, but that just doesn’t sound very intimidating, and I’m pretty sure if a cop had intimidated me into giving up my personal property I’d damn well remember what he said that scared me enough to give up my film.

    Strange interview for sure.

    1. she takes pictures and video of a national news event and manages to come away with nothing.It only became a national news story a month later.

  21. EyeNeverSayNo

    You have no way of knowing how you would react in that situation. And she may have a bad memory but there was a recording of the conversation between her and that cop. Hmm, wonder if that will ‘go missing’ too.

    She may have had some bad luck, but props to her for making an effort to record it and come forward. Something good will come out of it.

  22. we will see if the audio that the DA’s investigator told this witness that he had is ever heard. I am doubtful and I am not so sure “Miss Bunny” would be a very good witness she is too easy to intimidate but her story does describe behavior by the cop that is consistent within the FPD

  23. For those doubting what she says is true, you really think she would go out and lie to the DA about it if she really didn’t see what she saw? In a case so publicized and important? She would be in loads of trouble. So keep dreaming, the truth will be out soon. Justice for Kelly.

  24. Ms. Bunny you will be first to be called to the stand… Please tell the jury about the puddle of blood you tried to photograph..Now you were shooting a 35mm film camera were you…where can you buy 35mm film this day and age? You say you were shooting a telephoto lens with a flash…that’s odd what is the effective range of a flash maybe 15 feet..The Police had a crime scene tapped off less than 15 feet way from evidence? Now that’s the big story.

    How fast was your lens, the aperture on the lens, You can shoot low light and get the reflection of the moon when using a flash does that not knock down and reflection of the ambient light a photographer would want to capture in a low light shooting situation?

    is not not true ms. Bunny you walked onto the crime scene and took some photos. The officer said to you, oh you did it now. I need your name because you like anyone else needs to be logged into a crime scene you are now a witness and I need your name so you can be summons to court to testify.

  25. I’m from St. Louis. Another town with out of control police.

    This may sound crazy. But, I plan on buying a hidden body cam that is audio capable. Townships around the country are trying to ban public photography of police. Catching crooked cops is costing them alot of money. The Camera is your only weapon.

    I feel bad for the citizens of Fullerton. When the settlement for Kelly Thomas’s murder comes due, it’s going to come out of tax increases. In reality it needs to be taken directly out of the Police Pension Fund.

    1. I love your suggestion about the police mis-conduct legal settlements being taken directly from the police pension fund.
      I’ll bet we’d hear a lot more squeeling and the blue code of silence would become non-existent if it was coming out of their own money. I promise you we’ll explore that possibility if and when the next contract comes up for negotiation.

  26. Cont’d

    and Ms. Bunny did you not tell the officer that you were sorry you were drunk and you have a condition that causes you to make bad decisions. Is it not true Ms. Bunny you told the officer “i don’t want to go to court. I’m taking a photography class and I don’t even know how to take photos. These exposures are no good. To avoid being a witness to anything i will take out the film…..Bunny removes the film..Officer there’s a trash can over there do you want me to throw that away for you?

  27. Jim Dandy,

    Please do not broad-brush all republicans as bad. I do not like what was done to Kelly, but I do not broad-brush all officers.

  28. I do broad-brush dirty pigs the kind that have such an ego that the feel they need to take steroids. I’m sure those kind of dirty cops would have and could have other criminal act while wearing a badge. You mister bus driver with a badge make me sick.

  29. I knew a little short cop who took steroids. He was skinny pile of shit then he became a thick pile of shit then he was fired…was that you?

  30. Perry Mason: “..Now you were shooting a 35mm film camera were you…where can you buy 35mm film this day and age?”

    Fullerton Photographics. To name one. I’m sure there’s plenty more. I have several SLR cameras and a BW darkroom. Many people do. I also use Digital as well.

    The moon reflecting in Kelly’s blood should be on the front page of every newspaper in the world IMO.

    1. “I have … a BW darkroom.”

      Exactly. Proves the point, actually. You are a photography buff, a pretty hardcore hobbyist. The last of the 35mm film shooters. Last year film camera sales dropped to under 100,000 units, down from a 2000 peak of nearly 20 million. So is Bunny a photo buff too? If she is, don’t you think it’s awfully strange that she’d give up her film? I’m an action phographer and hobbyist, I would never give up my film or digital media. Never. I doubt you would either.

      So yeah, strange.

      1. I don’t think it’s strange at all. Photography buff or not, if a cop is allegedly intimidating you, you WILL hand over the film.

      1. you’re dreaming. it took them 6 yrs but they convicted the killer kops in NOLA after the locals screwed the investigation so bad a tame judge could throw out the case. if you cant get bought off in NOLA it wont happen here.

  31. LA Times

    Thomas said that he has been frustrated by what he sees as attempts by people with political agendas to further their own causes through his son’s death.

    “I honestly think some folks are out there to use my son’s death to bring light to their own cause,” he said.

    I figured this out weeks ago…..

  32. How fast was your lens, the aperture on the lens, You can shoot low light and get the reflection of the moon when using a flash does that not knock down and reflection of the ambient light a photographer would want to capture in a low light shooting situation?

    Perry Mason is right you can’t use a flash and capture a reflection.

    1. Looks like the trolls did a quick and dirty job of leading some folks astray here.

      This post is for the uninformed and trolls, not for EyeNeverSayNo and We Are All One. They already knew this stuff.

      Flash on a 35mm camera with a removable/interchangeable lens is not the same as flash on your silly cheap little fixed focus camera. On a good SLR the flash is a separate unit (it costs extra too) and you have to turn it ON for it to work. (doh!) Having a flash means you have that option, not that you will use it for every shot. Good grief!

      Personally, I do wonder the camera, lens, flash, film type (B&W or color)–brand, and ASA/DSN–of the film Bunny was using. What was her shutter speed, and f/stop? It is possible to get much faster, tighter grain film in Black and White than color. Of course any film can be pushed (shot at higher–smaller f/stop and/or faster shutter speed than recommended), but that increases the grain (reduces detail in blowups). Sometimes photographers even do that to get a desired artistic effect. I have myself with a 1600 speed Kodak B&W film. Not going to brag, but was pleased with the result.

      While a photographer I talked my way through many airport security screenings in various countries. Yes, that was before 9/11, but I lost over a dozen rolls (approximately 36 frames per roll) of film at Heathrow Airport less than a year after the Lockerby Scotland crash. Those limey jerks absolutely would NOT take no for an answer, and it was mostly rolls of fast film, so I was hosed for that entire trip. Now, I plan to purchase the new Canon 5D Mk III (6D?), if they ever release it. That should help keep my blood pressure lower when traveling. Next person tells me the X-ray machine is ‘film safe,’ I’ll hire a young buck to punch him in the mouth. ‘Film safe’ X-ray is like a ‘dry’ martini (hint: a ‘dry’ martini is not really DRY).

      This was not intended as a primer in photography, just letting some of you know the trolls really got over on you.

      ‘Perry Mason’ IS a bad joke. :-p

  33. #69 by We Are All One on September 2, 2011

    Perry Mason = Troll.

    If I see weakness in her statement I’m a troll? I just happen to know something about photography and i watch CSI. It is a good argument don’t you think?

    1. You don’t know anything about photography. She took 25 photos. You don’t think she could have found a use for both a telephoto lens and a flash at some point?

    2. If you learned your photography from some idiot TV show, you don’t know jack about photography. My earlier post clearly indicates what I think of your “argument.”

      Bunny was intimidated by a bully cop into giving up her film because she believed if she did not she would go to jail. Evidently more American cops are beginning to act like Mexican Federales. The Federales are the primary reason I stay out of Mexico. The Drug Cartels are the secondary reason. Like any photographer, Bunny was upset at being coerced into giving up her film. I DON’T BLAME HER. She wanted to publicly air her legitimate grievance, so she did it here. What is wrong with that?’ Bunny’s testimony is one more nail in 6 BAD cops coffin. “Don’t you think?”

      1. It helps to take photography 101 and some forensic photography classes if you like snooping and shooting. OCC, Golden West, and Rio Hondo colleges offer these classes.

      2. Yer a sarcastic kinda person. Hafta be generic here in addressing youz! So, when youz smiley face moi is left pondering wut you really meant by all dat!

  34. Nobody like dirty cops…not even dirty ex-cops except for the bottom feeders on this blog. You wrote before you broke the law when you were a cop….you should have been fired..It’s the boiling frog in the pot…the cops get away with the little things the next thing you know they are taking painkillers and steroids or using excessive force or stealing ipads. You my friend are a dirty ex-cop no love here.

    1. Jackass 9c1 used steroids before they became an illegal substance! The steroids he used were prescribed by a physician. It was legal, and he was NOT working in law enforcement when he used them for three short months! So shut the fuck up you half wit!

          1. Sorry ’bout your recent loss. Mine’s still a’ kickin’. she’s in her nineties. Dad went thirty+ years ago, Still miss him all the time. For awhile it looked like mom was going to outlive me too. She still may… I would be the second son she outlived.

            Hope 9c1copcar is enjoying his visit with the boys. You got grandkids?

      1. The unprofessional departments back east have an issue of hiring, firing and rehiring fired cops. And they wonder why their department ends up in the nightly news!

    2. Give it a rest. 9c1copcar is on here because he cares about police brutality and hates it. He is one of the good guys. Its pretty obvious.

    3. Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

      Thus, we the people do hereby declare not only our rights, but do now establish this bill of responsibilities.
      1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.
      2. Because I have the right to worship as I choose, I have the responsibility to honor the right of others to worship as they see fit.
      3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.
      4. Because I have the right to pursue happiness, I have the responsibility to show humility and express gratitude for all the blessings I enjoy and the rights I’ve been given.
      5. Because I have the right to honest and good government I will seek out honest and just representatives when possible. If I cannot find one then I accept the responsibility to take that place.
      6. Because I have the God given right to liberty, I have the personal responsibility to have the courage to defend others to be secure in their persons, lives and property.
      7. Because I have the right to equal justice, I will stand for those who are wrongly accused or unjustly blamed.
      8. Because I have the right to knowledge, I will be accountable for myself and my children’s education…to live our lives in such a way that insures the continuation of truth.
      9. Because I have the right to pursue my dreams and keep the fruits of my labor, I have the responsibility to feed, protect and shelter my family, the less fortunate, the fatherless, the old and infirm.
      10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will I stand idly by as others do.
      Unconditionally, while maintaining my responsibility to compassionately yet fiercely stand against those things that decay the natural rights of all men. And for the support of this declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

    1. Right, but it’s a little detail, among others, that just doesn’t sound quite right.

      Let me just put it this way: I’d be very surprised if we heard from Ms.Bunny at trial.

      1. You can buy film because you generally need it for college classes in photography especially black and white!

        1. Yoy can buy a slide rule, but it sure would be strange to see somebody whip one out instead of a calculator, right?

          1. Yoy can buy a slide rule, but it sure would be strange to see somebody whip one out

            Look out, girl. I Still use film if I am taking an important subject. IMO digital will never match the beauty of good film. Why do you think movies are still shot on film? Some TV shows are too. As for Bunny giving up her film. She was coerced! Hello?

            At Heathrow I argued like the Dickens to keep my film AND have it not be X-rayed. Finally the Security jerk told me I could mail it to myself from a post office in the airport. I did. The b*stards X-rayed it anyway. I have NEVER returned to Heathrow Airport, nor do I ever intend to. I didn’t give up my film willingly. I was coerced. Bunny was coerced. Anything else?

        1. Absolutely.


          After watching this recent interview with the OC DA, I’m convinced that serious charges will soon be brought. In it T-Rack says twice the investigation is nearing completion, and he again puts public pressure on the sheriff/coroner to step up with a final report concerning the cause of death. This was all piggybacked upon a discussion of a subject near and dear to any bureaucrat: Budget cuts to his office. His budget woes aren’t very newsworthy, we’ve all got our own budget problems, but the Kelly Thomas story still has the juice, so the reporter plays along.

          Now, if T-Rack wanted to talk to reporters about the budget cuts, and he also wanted to keep the Thomas murder swept under the rug, he could have easily found another pending hot, newsworthy case upon which to piggyback his budget concerns. He didn’t, he chose the Thomas beating. This indicates strongly to me that he’s not going to embarass himself and his office with a no-file or a slap on the wrist.

        2. I spoke with Ron Thomas about how the crime scene was handled. This apparently wasn’t done with yellow taping the area off. Ron said the scumbag cops moved his body from where they commenced the pummeling to another spot that became a bloody crime scene as well. Why did they do this? Did they commence the beating for a second time after the move? If this doesn’t show premeditation, I don’t know what does!!!!

        1. All Blog PostsMy BlogAdd

          Greater Phoenix Tea Party have been reported to the FBI!
          Posted by Adonia Deakin on August 3, 2011 at 10:15am
          View Blog
          Quartzsite, AZ Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert, announces this morning on public record that Greater Phoenix Tea Party and Oathkeepers have been reported to the FBI as terrorist organizations coming to his town on August 27th for the peaceful rally.
          Kelly posted the above on face book. All I can say is “Gentlemen start your engines!”
          This “terrorist” is NOW planning for a roadtrip to Quartzsite on August 27th!
          Views: 661

          Join Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots
          Comment by JPD on August 17, 2011 at 8:47am
          Listened to the recording twice, in my opinion there seems to be some issues?
          1. Chief Gilbert needs to learn how to shut his trap.
          2. I heard Chief Gilbert call me and others “domestic terrorists”.
          3. Chief Gilbert knew he was being recorded and conducted himself accordingly.
          4. Chief Gilbert not knowing who his and/or Quartzsite’s legal counsel is is absurd at best.
          5. I suspect his legal counsel is intimately involved in his public comments here and elsewhere.
          6. Minute 12:00 Chief Gilbert states that people have seen an increase of service with less police officer’s on duty. What I hear the Chief saying is; before the Quartzsite Ten were placed on administrative leave, there was a visibly less presence of officers in the community. Clearly this is an indicator of a lack of supervision? Isn’t one of the claims concerning Chief Gilbert about him not being around?
          7. Minute 24:00 recording tampered with.
          8. Minute 24:06 recording tampered with.
          9. Minute 24:38 recording tampered with.
          10. Minute 25:01 recording tampered with.
          11. Minute 25:14 Chief Gilbert admonishes Jennifer Jones for talking but fails to admonish others that talk out.
          12. Chief Gilbert, YOU LIE! YOU are and are doing what you are accusing us PRO Government, Brother and Sister Patriots of………… we are NOT anti government!!     Pull your head out of the sand, quit fear mongering Chief Gilbert. 
          I for one take extreme exception to Chief Gilbert’s comments. He is/has talked with the FBI and such, he is calling us TERRORISTS – hardly are we Terrorists!
          Chief Gilbert’ message of ‘they were trying to shut down the Government of Quartzsite’ is hilarious and misses our message.
          13. Minute 26:21 possible recording tampered with.
          14. Minute 26:41 recording tampered with.
          15. Minute 30:16 Chief Gilbert speaks about confidential personnel issues.
          16. Minute 33:20 recording tampered with.
          17. Minute 46:00 Jennifer Jones asked Chief Gilbert why he broke his own “protocol requirement for promotion”. Chief Gilbert’s response clearly displays his arbitrary and capricious deportment, that which makes for an adverse work environment.  
          Several places that I feel the recording was tampered with are due to clicks with broken – disconnected verbiage. Other tampers are clearly edit skips.  

        2. They were attempting to hide the fact that they were interviewing witnesses And pay ’em off with a coffee! They know we are watching what goes on at TRacks office, so what better way to interview, than do it offsite?

      2. EyeNeverSayNo on September 2, 2011
        …I’d be very surprised if we heard from Ms.Bunny at trial.

        Wouldn’t that depend on the DA more than Bunny?

        It really seems like the DA should have far more witnesses than he actually needs to prove his case, provided he really has the guts to try it. I hope you are right about him and he does.

  35. Chris Thompson,

    Mostly pretty good interview. Could one make a suggestion? When interviewing use questions like, did the officer’s attitude or behavior toward you change _in any way_ after you gave him the film, if so how? Rather than. “did he become nice?” That way it doesn’t have the appearance you are putting words in her mouth. Just a suggestion.

    Bunny was too rambling interjecting extraneous info and leaving out pertinent observations, though I did love the one about the moon reflected in the pool of blood–very visual, that’s good stuff.

    Perhaps you could spend 5-10 minutes before the next interview sitting down and jotting a few notes as to how you would like to guide the interview? Sorry, just another suggestion.

    One last suggestion: Before taping an interview do a short pre-interview to put the subject more at ease, get them accustomed to the camera/mic and provide them with some idea of what sorts of questions to expect. (It IS okay to roll tape on the pre-interview also.)

    Don’t mean to try and direct you, but these are pretty standard interviewing techniques. I still think for an amateur you are doing great, certainly a service to the community and those of us who read and/or post here looking for the truth. Thank you, Chris. Thanks also to your volunteer camera person. Rock on!


      1. You do a good job, Chris. Give your open mind about constructive criticism, I would certainly like to have heard more details about the meeting with the DA. Maybe you could do a second interview with her that focuses on this as the “investigation” has been such a mystery to most of us. Given her memory issues, this might not be terribly revealing, but who knows.

        BTW, I hope I’m not missing out on things by living in Cabo and not attending Taco Tuesdays at the Slidebar!

    1. In other words…put more words in her mouth. Also pay her a little more money so she can really clear her mind of all the BS she is saying. She is not creditable at all. Next time get someone with a little more brains. She spoke to the DA at a Starbucks. Hopefully she got a free Tall Caramel Mocha out of it.

      1. Way to go, John Doe. Follow the plan:

        Defame the victim. Defame his family. Defame the witnesses. Defame the bloggers. Defame everyone who seeks the truth. Lie, distort, cover-up, distract.

        You’re doing great!

  36. Bunny, don’t feel bad for falling for the dirty cop trick. They are experts in trickery. Like most good people, you probably thought you were doing the right thing by following the cop’s order. Everyone out there take note; never, never, never believe a cop has any good intention what so ever, the only thing they care about is preserving that big, fat, overloaded, never at risk, closed-session City Council spiked pension check that they all just drool over the thought of getting.

  37. I was actually at the Slidebar that night with a group of my girlfriends from work. I remember sitting at a table next to this women and she had been at the bar for over 2 1/2 hours. She was drinking very heavily so I’m not too sure if she would remember much of a conversation with anybody. I’m not saying I know she was drunk. but for sure drinking them down.

    1. How many drinks did you have, Misty? If you knew she was there 2.5 hrs, you must have been there. too. Drinking water?


    2. Misty, her memory is just fine. In fact, you won’t be surprised at the things she remembers. Stay tuned for part 2.

    3. Arizona v Gant is important case law. Supreme Court decided that a traffic stop did not constitute probable cause to search a vehicle!

  38. Disturbing… I had a CUP officer threaten me for evading when I backed up my car two feet by accident (car was still in reverse when I leaned over to get registration). He said “you wanna go down for evading a peace officer huh?” And I just looked at him, petrified, realizing that there was nothing I could do about it. They are everywhere… disturbing. Feels like Mexico, not America.

    I will post the full complaint filed with CHP later.

    Good work guys, keep the pressure on.

    BTW anyone who says there is no evidence and that this lady is lying: then why did the DA have the recording if it didn’t happen? Idiots.

        Understanding Search and Seizure Law
        Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.

        The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law. This article covers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the 4th Amendment itself. (To read the 4th Amendment and other amendments in the Bill of Rights, check out Nolo’s list of The Most Important Cases, Speeches, Laws & Documents in American History.)
        The 4th Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy
        The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
        “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 search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.
        The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
        the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, orthe particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
        Search warrants are discussed in detail in Search Warrants: What They Are and When They’re Necessary.
        When the 4th Amendment Doesn’t Protect You
        The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.
        Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
        Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?Is the person’s expectation objectively reasonable — that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
        For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people — including judges and juries — would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a “search” and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.
        On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).
        A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger’s head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag’s exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to 4th Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 (2000).)
        Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you’re shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.
        For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager’s backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct.
        What Happens When A Search Violates the 4th Amendment
        The exclusionary rule. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the “exclusionary rule.”
        To this day, many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly “lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred.” But the rule’s supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police won’t conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can’t be used to convict the defendant.
        Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence, under a legal rule colorfully known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. The “tree” is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the “fruit” is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are inadmissible at trial.
        Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe’s home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Officer Wiley then found the phone cards in that location. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, the phone cards are the fruit of that unlawful search and are therefore inadmissible into evidence.
        Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can be:
        considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following convictionadmitted in civil cases and deportation cases, andin some circumstances, be used by a prosecutor to impeach (attack the credibility of) a witness who testifies in the trial.

    1. “anyone who says there is no evidence and that this lady is lying: then why did the DA have the recording if it didn’t happen? Idiots.”

      And you know that the “DA has the recording” how? Because the person who’s story it backs up told you so, right? Not exactly the most clear thinking there Dick.

  39. Why would she lye? Each cop wears a recording device on his/her belt.

    Didn’t put car in park because the cop was screaming bloody murder at me for stopping to ask a simple question. Then, when I asked for his name, he went psycho… will post full complaint later so you can read whole story.

  40. Just read the story how Los Angeles is getting to the bottom of an Officers involved in a shooting on Aug. 25th. Too bad FPD can’t come clean and be as up front as LA.
    It took the Christopher Commission and five years to get that mess headed in the right direction. There are about 8500 LA cops Vs. about 160 in the FPD. There is a role model in place :: DON’T COVER-UP….OPEN-UP.
    If you are involved or have any information you may be called to task.. ONLY a spouse and your Attorney are exempt from testifying against you.

  41. Do you think the FBI will review the telephone and E-mail records of Mr. Bankhead & Mr. McKinnley.
    Dr. Dick could get by pleading insanity, but just being an incoherent motor mouth is not a defense.
    Don’t forget ..anything you say may and will be used against you in court.

  42. FFFF has shed more light on this incident than any other entity in the county. This woman describes a chilling scenario. On that night, the moon would have been a waxing crescent setting towards the western horizon. To her, it seemed incomprehensible there could have been such a large amount of blood as to form a placid pool capable of reflecting that moon so distinctly. The officer who approached her intimidated her by saying she was “involved now” as if getting involved or being a witness to police activity should frighten citizens. Apparently, his jaw dropped to learn that she had a quality camera with zoom capabilities and physical film as opposed to erasable, digital files. According to Edward, the witness Chris interviewed a month ago, there was another woman whose cellphone was confiscated by a different officer who took the phone behind a car for awhile. Good job guys.

  43. …I’ve personally spoken with this woman and she related the exact same story to me and my impression was that she was extremely credible and it seemed apparent to me that she had been brow beaten into surrendering her film. One has to ask one’s self why the officer would unlawfully detain a middle aged woman armed only with a camera behind the yellow police tape? If I was her I would contact Ron Thomas, and see if his attorneys could hire private investigators to try and retrieve that cell phone that was left on an OCTD bus at the beach. Bunny may also want to contact OCTD on her own to see if someone might have turned her cell phone in to lost and found.

    1. Yes, she should definitely contact Garo Mardirossian 800-341-4607

      He seems like a nice guy and is clear about wanting to talk with anyone with additional info on this case, AND anyone else who has experienced excessive force or police brutality from the FPD.

  44. ziggy :

    Simple Justice :
    FFFF has shed more light on this incident than any other entity in the county. This woman describes a chilling scenario. On that night, the moon would have been a waxing crescent setting towards the western horizon. To her, it seemed incomprehensible there could have been such a large amount of blood as to form a placid pool capable of reflecting that moon so distinctly. The officer who approached her intimidated her by saying she was “involved now” as if getting involved or being a witness to police activity should frighten citizens. Apparently, his jaw dropped to learn that she had a quality camera with zoom capabilities and physical film as opposed to erasable, digital files. According to Edward, the witness Chris interviewed a month ago, there was another woman whose cellphone was confiscated by a different officer who took the phone behind a car for awhile. Good job guys.

    Like I stated before but the trolls and others hide from

    Two or more Fullerton Police Officers just murdered M U R D E R E D a citizen of Fullerton in that very same spot


    I have been a buffed 6′ 280 and I would be afraid of the badge too if I were in her shoes

    I wonder.. since the police chief allowed the murderers to go back onto the street

    CAN WE

    throat chop knee drop


    His ass and then just call it a good night.. as if nothing wrong happened whatsover

    THE CHIEF NEED PUNISHED MORE THAN THE actual physical participants..

    He raised/nurtured and then COVERED UP FOR the murderers

  45. ziggy :

    Why do you own a computer.. you are obviously just some tiny coward hiding in his closed curtains room thinking the Gov protects and cares about you when you are less than a pissant in the world order.. you are less than the toenail fungus under George Bush’s toenails


  46. Cops Lie, Dont Be Afraid Of Them, Dont Ever Give A Cop Your Camera It Is Illegal For Them To D That, If They Ever Try It Make A citizens Arrest on the son of a bitch

  47. If a cop ever tries to take your camera It is your Legal right to say no and make a citizen arrest on the sonofabitch. Cops Lie Lie Lie Lie and Lie.

  48. ALL COPS are the biggest cowards and governments bitch. They Are NOTHING. Did you know Police Departments Only Hire men with low IQ’s. They are easier to boss around this way and they do as their told like a good little slave. Their true duties are to protect the rich cowards that extort the citizens hard earned money. Yea if you were robbing millions of people blind would’nt you want the boy scout street thug gang members in blue to protect you?

  49. Travis,

    You can post anything you want, doesn’t make it so! I am not Misty! Get over your clever self. lol

    You and Chris are sooooome piece of work!

    1. Jay just because you say or write something doesn’t make it so, especially since you have already appeared to be a perjurer!

  50. I remeber seeing her walk toward the area with a white cell phone and a woman cop kept her back. I left the area quickly when the police started asking questions who saw what,.She must have been there after that with her other camera

  51. EyeNeverSayNo :
    Because it doesn’t matter. T-rack needs to build a case against the cops that is 100% non-dependent on cops testimony of any kind. He knows from the People vs. Hibbs case in 2009 that the FPD cops will get on the stand and change their stories or “develop severe sudden amnesia,” just like Deputy Hibbs’ OCSD colleagues did at his trial.

    And when has a judge ever convicted a blue line participant with perjury?

    1. it has been said she had a brain tumor jackass. so in your mind drinking necessarily equals stupid. alcoholics are typically very intelligent although they are typically honest but most easily intimidated. they are looking for a quiet place to sit. barfly? 1930 called yadda yadda yadda. you think shes not on the camera? by checking the video here i can see the camera can cover anything in view

  52. I listened to the interview.
    If there was really a pool of blood that was casting a reflection of the moon I’m sure the clean-up crew can confirm that. The cops don’t clean up after an event. They have others that take care of that sort of thing.

    1. The blood has stained the concrete at the bus terminal. There were two areas saturated with blood because the ape cops moved Kelly’s lifeless body to another spot and commenced the beating.

  53. The LAPD is supposed to have pensioned Ofc Cincinelli off with a 70% pension. ‘If’ he was still getting the LAPD pension; in addition to his FPD salary, which itself includes a second pension, he must be about the highest paid street officer on the FPD, or any other Dept. Even if he cashed out LAPD’s pension in lieu of regular payments; he should still be quite well off, because in addition to his FPD salary, he would also be getting the interest, dividends and capital gains from the investments from the pension cash out. When he was hired by the FPD he must have been laughing … all the way to the bank.

    1. But he got 70% of what? He had no time on, no seniority, and he more than likely only had a basic POST certificate, which means he was making just basic pay.

  54. Known’ More :
    John, Me thinks there is some jealousy going on here. Want a pension too? I think you do.

    Epic! Either a City or Gov employee..

    Your city.. will be INTERNATIONAL SHAME HAVEN for awhile …

    the amount of people who move there, let their kids go to college there, build new business in Fullerton, CA.. WILL DROP bigtime until hee haw and his rancid THIEVING MURDEROUS gang of badges and RETIREMENT SCAMMERS are gone

    Scary that one little town.. can be so horribly corrupt

    ^^ says a lot about humans

        1. Fullerton is on the mend. First we get rid of the three elderly baboons on the council and find us some real leaders.

          1. You really think getting rid of the 3 council members that Tony wants out is going to solve the police problems you think Fullerton has? come on.

  55. ARIZONA v. GANT (No. 07-542)
    216 Ariz. 1, 162 P. 3d 640, affirmed.

    HTML version
    PDF version HTML version
    PDF version HTML version
    PDF version HTML version
    PDF version HTML version
    PDF version
    Justice Stevens, Opinion of the Court

    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.


    on writ of certiorari to the supreme court ofarizona

    [April 21, 2009]
        Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

        After Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement, as defined in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) , and applied to vehicle searches in New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981) , did not justify the search in this case. We agree with that conclusion.

        Under Chimel, police may search incident to arrest only the space within an arrestee’s “ ‘immediate control,’ ” meaning “the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” 395 U. S., at 763. The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s reaching-distance rule determine Belton’s scope. Accordingly, we hold that Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. Consistent with the holding in Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004) , and following the suggestion in Justice Scalia’s opinion concurring in the judgment in that case, id., at 632, we also conclude that circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.


        On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner. Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later. The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.

        When the officers returned to the house that evening, they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Gant was the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as it drove by him. Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Gant’s car. Griffith immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him.

        Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.

        Gant was charged with two offenses—possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia (i.e., the plastic bag in which the cocaine was found). He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment . Among other things, Gant argued that Belton did not authorize the search of his vehicle because he posed no threat to the officers after he was handcuffed in the patrol car and because he was arrested for a traffic offense for which no evidence could be found in his vehicle. When asked at the suppression hearing why the search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: “Because the law says we can do it.” App. 75.

        The trial court rejected the State’s contention that the officers had probable cause to search Gant’s car for contraband when the search began, id., at 18, 30, but it denied the motion to suppress. Relying on the fact that the police saw Gant commit the crime of driving without a license and apprehended him only shortly after he exited his car, the court held that the search was permissible as a search incident to arrest. Id., at 37. A jury found Gant guilty on both drug counts, and he was sentenced to a 3-year term of imprisonment.

        After protracted state-court proceedings, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the search of Gant’s car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment . The court’s opinion discussed at length our decision in Belton, which held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of an arrest of the vehicle’s recent occupant. 216 Ariz. 1, 3–4, 162 P. 3d 640, 642–643 (2007) (citing 453 U. S., at 460). The court distinguished Belton as a case concerning the permissible scope of a vehicle search incident to arrest and concluded that it did not answer “the threshold question whether the police may conduct a search incident to arrest at all once the scene is secure.” 216 Ariz., at 4, 162 P. 3d, at 643. Relying on our earlier decision in Chimel, the court observed that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement is justified by interests in officer safety and evidence preservation. 216 Ariz., at 4, 162 P. 3d, at 643. When “the justifications underlying Chimel no longer exist because the scene is secure and the arrestee is handcuffed, secured in the back of a patrol car, and under the supervision of an officer,” the court concluded, a “warrantless search of the arrestee’s car cannot be justified as necessary to protect the officers at the scene or prevent the destruction of evidence.” Id., at 5, 162 P. 3d, at 644. Accordingly, the court held that the search of Gant’s car was unreasonable.

        The dissenting justices would have upheld the search of Gant’s car based on their view that “the validity of a Belton search … clearly does not depend on the presence of the Chimel rationales in a particular case.” Id., at 8, 162 P. 3d, at 647. Although they disagreed with the majority’s view of Belton, the dissenting justicesacknowledged that “[t]he bright-line rule embraced in Belton has long been criticized and probably merits reconsideration.” 216 Ariz., at 10, 162 P. 3d, at 649. They thus “add[ed their] voice[s] to the others that have urged the Supreme Court to revisit Belton.” Id., at 11, 163 P. 3d, at 650.

        The chorus that has called for us to revisit Belton includes courts, scholars, and Members of this Court who have questioned that decision’s clarity and its fidelity to Fourth Amendment principles. We therefore granted the State’s petition for certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2008).


        Consistent with our precedent, our analysis begins, as it should in every case addressing the reasonableness of a warrantless search, with the basic rule that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment —subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnote omitted). Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914) . The exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 230–234 (1973) ; Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763.

        In Chimel, we held that a search incident to arrest may only include “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Ibid. That limitation, which continues to define the boundaries of the exception, ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. See ibid. (noting that searches incident to arrest are reasonable “in order to remove any weapons [the arrestee] might seek to use” and “in order to prevent [the] concealment or destruction” of evidence (emphasis added)). If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply. E.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367–368 (1964) .     

        In Belton, we considered Chimel’sapplication to the automobile context. A lone police officer in that case stopped a speeding car in which Belton was one of four occupants. While asking for the driver’s license and registration, the officer smelled burnt marijuana and observed an envelope on the car floor marked “Supergold”—a name he associated with marijuana. Thus having probable cause to believe the occupants had committed a drug offense, the officer ordered them out of the vehicle, placed them under arrest, and patted them down. Without handcuffing the arrestees,1 the officer “ ‘split them up into four separate areas of the Thruway … so they would not be in physical touching area of each other’ ” and searched the vehicle, including the pocket of a jacket on the backseat, in which he found cocaine. 453 U. S., at 456.

        The New York Court of Appeals found the search unconstitutional, concluding that after the occupants were arrested the vehicle and its contents were “safely within the exclusive custody and control of the police.” State v. Belton, 50 N. Y. 2d 447, 452, 407 N. E. 2d 420, 423 (1980). The State asked this Court to consider whether the exception recognized in Chimel permits an officer to search “a jacket found inside an automobile while the automobile’s four occupants, all under arrest, are standing unsecured around the vehicle.” Brief in No. 80–328, p. i. We granted certiorari because “courts ha[d] found no workable definition of ‘the area within the immediate control of the arrestee’ when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile.” 453 U. S., at 460.

        In its brief, the State argued that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the jacket was under the officer’s exclusive control. Focusing on the number of arrestees and their proximity to the vehicle, the State asserted that it was reasonable for the officer to believe the arrestees could have accessed the vehicle and its contents, making the search permissible under Chimel. Brief in No. 80–328, at 7–8. The United States, as amicus curiae in support of the State, argued for a more permissive standard, but it maintained that any search incident to arrest must be “ ‘substantially contemporaneous’ ” with the arrest—a requirement it deemed “satisfied if the search occurs during the period in which the arrest is being consummated and before the situation has so stabilized that it could be said that the arrest was completed.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in New York v. Belton, O. T. 1980, No. 80–328, p. 14. There was no suggestion by the parties or amici that Chimel authorizes a vehicle search incident to arrest when there is no realistic possibility that an arrestee could access his vehicle.

        After considering these arguments, we held that when an officer lawfully arrests “the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile” and any containers therein. Belton,453 U. S., at 460 (footnote omitted). That holding was based in large part on our assumption “that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach.’ ” Ibid.

        The Arizona Supreme Court read our decision in Belton as merely delineating“the proper scope of a search of the interior of an automobile” incident to an arrest, id., at 459.That is, when the passenger compartment is within an arrestee’s reaching distance, Belton supplies the generalization that the entire compartment and any containers therein may be reached. On that view of Belton, the state court concluded that the search of Gant’s car was unreasonable because Gant clearly could not have accessed his car at the time of the search. It also found that no other exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case.

        Gant now urges us to adopt the reading of Belton followed by the Arizona Supreme Court.


        Despite the textual and evidentiary support for the Arizona Supreme Court’s reading of Belton, our opinion has been widely understood to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. This reading may be attributable to Justice Brennan’s dissent in Belton, in which he characterized the Court’s holding as resting on the “fiction … that the interior of a car is always within the immediate control of an arrestee who has recently been in the car.” 453 U. S., at 466. Under the majority’s approach, he argued, “the result would presumably be the same even if [the officer] had handcuffed Belton and his companions in the patrol car” before conducting the search. Id., at 468.

        Since we decided Belton, Courts of Appeals have given different answers to the question whether a vehicle must be within an arrestee’s reach to justify a vehicle search incident to arrest,2 but Justice Brennan’s reading of the Court’s opinion has predominated. As Justice O’Connor observed, “lower court decisions seem now to treat the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of Chimel.” Thornton, 541 U. S., at 624 (opinion concurring in part). Justice Scalia has similarly noted that, although it is improbable that an arrestee could gain access to weapons stored in his vehicle after he has been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car, cases allowing a search in “this precise factual scenario … are legion.” Id., at 628 (opinion concurring in judgment) (collecting cases).3 Indeed, some courts have upheld searches under Belton “even when … the handcuffed arrestee has already left the scene.” 541 U. S., at 628 (same).

        Under this broad reading of Belton, a vehicle search would be authorized incident to every arrest of a recent occupant notwithstanding that in most cases the vehicle’s passenger compartment will not be within the arrestee’s reach at the time of the search. To read Belton as authorizing a vehicle search incident to every recent occupant’s arrest would thus untether the rule from the justifications underlying the Chimel exception—a result clearly incompatible with our statement in Belton that it “in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests.” 453 U. S., at 460, n. 3. Accordingly, we reject this reading of Belton and hold that the Chimel rationale authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.4

        Although it does not follow from Chimel, we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Thornton,541 U. S., at 632 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence. See, e.g., Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 324 (2001) ; Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113, 118 (1998) . But in others, including Belton and Thornton, the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.

        Neither the possibility of access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search in this case. Unlike in Belton, which involved a single officer confronted with four unsecured arrestees, the five officers in this case outnumbered the three arrestees, all of whom had been handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars before the officers searched Gant’s car. Under those circumstances, Gant clearly was not within reaching distance of his car at the time of the search. An evidentiary basis for the search was also lacking in this case. Whereas Belton and Thornton were arrested for drug offenses, Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license—an offense for which police could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment of Gant’s car. Cf. Knowles, 525 U. S., at 118. Because police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein, the search in this case was unreasonable.


        The State does not seriously disagree with the Arizona Supreme Court’s conclusion that Gant could not have accessed his vehicle at the time of the search, but it nevertheless asks us to uphold the search of his vehicle under the broad reading of Belton discussed above. The State argues that Belton searches are reasonable regardless of the possibility of access in a given case because that expansive rule correctly balances law enforcement interests, including the interest in a bright-line rule, with an arrestee’s limited privacy interest in his vehicle.

        For several reasons, we reject the State’s argument. First, the State seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, see New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 112–113 (1986) , the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection, see Knowles, 525 U. S., at 117. It is particularly significant that Belton searches authorize police officers to search not just the passenger compartment but every purse, briefcase, or other container within that space. A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment —the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.5

        At the same time as it undervalues these privacy concerns, the State exaggerates the clarity that its reading of Belton provides. Courts that have read Belton expansively are at odds regarding how close in time to the arrest and how proximate to the arrestee’s vehicle an officer’s first contact with the arrestee must be to bring the encounter within Belton’s purview6 and whether a search is reasonable when it commences or continues after the arrestee has been removed from the scene.7 The rule has thus generated a great deal of uncertainty, particularly for a rule touted as providing a “bright line.” See 3 LaFave, §7.1(c), at 514–524.

        Contrary to the State’s suggestion, a broad reading of Belton is also unnecessary to protect law enforcement safety and evidentiary interests. Under our view, Belton and Thornton permit an officer to conduct a vehicle search when an arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Other established exceptions to the warrant requirement authorize a vehicle search under additional circumstances when safety or evidentiary concerns demand. For instance, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983) , permits an officer to search a vehicle’s passenger compartment when he has reasonable suspicion that an individual, whether or not the arrestee, is “dangerous” and might access the vehicle to “gain immediate control of weapons.” Id., at 1049 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21 (1968) ). If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 820–821 (1982) ,authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. Unlike the searches permitted by Justice Scalia’s opinion concurring in the judgment in Thornton, which we conclude today are reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment , Ross allows searches for evidence relevant to offenses other than the offense of arrest, and the scope of the search authorized is broader. Finally, there may be still other circumstances in which safety or evidentiary interests would justify a search. Cf. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U. S. 325, 334 (1990) (holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding).

        These exceptions together ensure that officers may search a vehicle when genuine safety or evidentiary concerns encountered during the arrest of a vehicle’s recent occupant justify a search. Construing Belton broadly to allow vehicle searches incident to any arrest would serve no purpose except to provide a police entitlement, and it is anathema to the Fourth Amendment to permit a warrantless search on that basis. For these reasons, we are unpersuaded by the State’s arguments that a broad reading of Belton would meaningfully further law enforcement interests and justify a substantial intrusion on individuals’ privacy.8


        Our dissenting colleagues argue that the doctrine of stare decisis requires adherence to a broad reading of Belton even though the justifications for searching a vehicle incident to arrest are in most cases absent.9 The doctrine of stare decisis is of course “essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law,” but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands “careful analysis.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003) .

        We have never relied on stare decisis to justify the continuance of an unconstitutional police practice. And we would be particularly loath to uphold an unconstitutional result in a case that is so easily distinguished from the decisions that arguably compel it. The safety and evidentiary interests that supported the search in Belton simply are not present in this case. Indeed, it is hard to imagine two cases that are factually more distinct, as Belton involved one officer confronted by four unsecured arrestees suspected of committing a drug offense and this case involves several officers confronted with a securely detained arrestee apprehended for driving with a suspended license. This case is also distinguishable from Thornton, in which the petitioner was arrested for a drug offense. It is thus unsurprising that Members of this Court who concurred in the judgments in Belton and Thornton also concur in the decision in this case.10

        We do not agree with the contention in Justice Alito’s dissent (hereinafter dissent) that consideration of police reliance interests requires a different result. Although it appears that the State’s reading of Belton has been widely taught in police academies and that law enforcement officers have relied on the rule in conducting vehicle searches during the past 28 years,11 many of these searches were not justified by the reasons underlying the Chimel exception. Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result. The fact that the law enforcement community may view the State’s version of the Belton rule as an entitlement does not establish the sort of reliance interest that could outweigh the countervailing interest that all individuals share in having their constitutional rights fully protected. If it is clear that a practice is unlawful, individuals’ interest in its discontinuance clearly outweighs any law enforcement “entitlement” to its persistence. Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393 (1978) (“[T]he mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment ”). The dissent’s reference in this regard to the reliance interests cited in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428 (2000) , is misplaced. See post, at 5. In observing that “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture,” 530 U. S., at 443, the Court was referring not to policereliance on a rule requiring them to provide warnings but to the broader societal reliance on that individual right.

        The dissent also ignores the checkered history of the search-incident-to-arrest exception. Police authority to search the place in which a lawful arrest is made was broadly asserted in Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192 (1927) , and limited a few years later in Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344 (1931) , and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452 (1932) . The limiting views expressed in Go-Bart and Lefokwitz were in turn abandoned in Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145 (1947) , which upheld a search of a four-room apartment incident to the occupant’s arrest. Only a year later the Court in Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699, 708 (1948) , retreated from that holding, noting that the search-incident-to-arrest exception is “a strictly limited” one that must be justified by “something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest.” And just two years after that, in United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56 (1950) , the Court again reversed course and upheld the search of an entire apartment. Finally, our opinion in Chimel overruled Rabinowitz and what remained of Harris and established the present boundaries of the search-incident-to-arrest exception. Notably, none of the dissenters in Chimel or the cases that preceded it argued that law enforcement reliance interests outweighed the interest in protecting individual constitutional rights so as to warrant fidelity to an unjustifiable rule.

        The experience of the 28 years since we decided Belton has shown that the generalization underpinning the broad reading of that decision is unfounded. We now know that articles inside the passenger compartment are rarely “within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach,’ ” 453 U. S., at 460, and blind adherence to Belton’s faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches. The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations.


        Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.

    It is so ordered.


    1 The officer was unable to handcuff the occupants because he had only one set of handcuffs. See Brief for Petitioner in New York v. Belton, O. T. 1980, No. 80–328, p. 3 (hereinafter Brief in No. 80–328).

    2 Compare United States v. Green, 324 F. 3d 375, 379 (CA5 2003) (holding that Belton did not authorize a search of an arrestee’s vehicle when he was handcuffed and lying facedown on the ground surrounded by four police officers 6-to-10 feet from the vehicle), United States v. Edwards, 242 F. 3d 928, 938 (CA10 2001) (finding unauthorized a vehicle search conducted while the arrestee was handcuffed in the back of a patrol car), United States v. Vasey, 834 F. 2d 782, 787 (CA9 1987) (finding unauthorized a vehicle search conducted 30-to-45 minutes after an arrest and after the arrestee had been handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car), with United States v. Hrasky, 453 F. 3d 1099, 1102 (CA8 2006) (upholding a search conducted an hour after the arrestee was apprehended and after he had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car); United States v. Weaver, 433 F. 3d 1104, 1106 (CA9 2006) (upholding a search conducted 10-to-15 minutes after an arrest and after the arrestee had been handcuffed and secured in the back of a patrol car), and United States v. White, 871 F. 2d 41, 44 (CA6 1989) (upholding a search conducted after the arrestee had been handcuffed and secured in the back of a police cruiser).

    3 The practice of searching vehicles incident to arrest after the arrestee has been handcuffed and secured in a patrol car has not abated since we decided Thornton. See, e.g., United States v. Murphy, 221 Fed. Appx. 715, 717 (CA10 2007); Hrasky, 453 F. 3d, at 1100; Weaver, 433 F. 3d, at 1105; United States v. Williams, 170 Fed. Appx. 399, 401 (CA6 2006); United States v. Dorsey, 418 F. 3d 1038, 1041 (CA9 2005); United States v. Osife, 398 F. 3d 1143, 1144 (CA9 2005); United States v. Sumrall, 115 Fed. Appx. 22, 24 (CA10 2004).

    4 Because officers have many means of ensuring the safe arrest of vehicle occupants, it will be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle remains. Cf. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §7.1(c), p. 525 (4th ed. 2004) (hereinafter LaFave) (noting that the availability of protective measures “ensur[es] the nonexistence of circumstances in which the arrestee’s ‘control’ of the car is in doubt”). But in such a case a search incident to arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment .

    5 See Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79, 84 (1987) ; Chimel, 395 U. S., at 760–761; Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 480–484 (1965) ; Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 389–392 (1914) ; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624–625 (1886) ; see also 10 C. Adams, The Works of John Adams 247–248 (1856). Many have observed that a broad reading of Belton gives police limitless discretion to conduct exploratory searches. See 3 LaFave §7.1(c), at 527 (observing that Belton creates the risk “that police will make custodial arrests which they otherwise would not make as a cover for a search which the Fourth Amendment otherwise prohibits”); see also United States v. McLaughlin, 170 F. 3d 889, 894 (CA9 1999) (Trott, J., concurring) (observing that Belton has been applied to condone “purely exploratory searches of vehicles during which officers with no definite objective or reason for the search are allowed to rummage around in a car to see what they might find”); State v. Pallone, 2001 WI 77, ¶¶87–90, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 203–204, and n. 9, 613 N. W. 2d 568, 588, and n. 9 (2000) (Abrahamson, C. J., dissenting) (same); State v. Pierce, 136 N. J. 184, 211, 642 A. 2d 947, 961 (1994) (same).

    6 Compare United States v. Caseres, 533 F. 3d 1064, 1072 (CA9 2008) (declining to apply Belton when the arrestee was approached by police after he had exited his vehicle and reached his residence), with Rainey v. Commonwealth, 197 S. W. 3d 89, 94–95 (Ky. 2006) (applying Belton when the arrestee was apprehended 50 feet from the vehicle), and Black v. State, 810 N. E. 2d 713, 716 (Ind. 2004) (applying Belton when the arrestee was apprehended inside an auto repair shop and the vehicle was parked outside).

    7 Compare McLaughlin, 170 F. 3d, at 890–891 (upholding a search that commenced five minutes after the arrestee was removed from the scene), United States v. Snook, 88 F. 3d 605, 608 (CA8 1996) (same), and United States v. Doward, 41 F. 3d 789, 793 (CA1 1994) (upholding a search that continued after the arrestee was removed from the scene), with United States v. Lugo, 978 F. 2d 631, 634 (CA10 1992) (holding invalid a search that commenced after the arrestee was removed from the scene), and State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 427–428, 512 A. 2d 160, 169 (1986) (holding invalid a search that continued after the arrestee was removed from the scene).

    8 At least eight States have reached the same conclusion. Vermont, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New York, Oregon, and Wyoming have declined to follow a broad reading of Belton under their state constitutions. See State v. Bauder, 181 Vt. 392, 401, 924 A. 2d 38, 46–47 (2007); State v. Eckel, 185 N. J. 523, 540, 888 A. 2d 1266, 1277 (2006); Camacho v. State, 119 Nev. 395, 399–400, 75 P. 3d 370, 373–374 (2003); Vasquez v. State, 990 P. 2d 476, 488–489 (Wyo. 1999); State v. Arredondo, 1997–NMCA–081, 123 N. M. 628, 636 (Ct. App.), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999–NMCA–107, 127 N. M. 752 (Ct. App.); Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45, 57, 669 A. 2d 896, 902 (1995); People v. Blasich, 73 N. Y. 2d 673, 678, 541 N. E. 2d 40, 43 (1989); State v. Fesler, 68 Ore. App. 609, 612, 685 P. 2d 1014, 1016–1017 (1984). And a Massachusetts statute provides that a search incident to arrest may be made only for the purposes of seizing weapons or evidence of the offense of arrest. See Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159, 161–162, 448 N. E. 2d 1264, 1266–1267 (1983) (citing Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 276, §1 (West 2007)).

    9 Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion also accuses us of “overrul[ing]” Belton and Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004) , “even though respondent Gant has not asked us to do so.” Post, at 1. Contrary to that claim, the narrow reading of Belton we adopt today is precisely the result Gant has urged. That Justice Alito has chosen to describe this decision as overruling our earlier cases does not change the fact that the resulting rule of law is the one advocated by respondent.

    10 Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment in Belton, 453 U. S., at 463, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 444 (1981) , Justice Thomas joined the Court’s opinion in Thornton, 541 U. S. 615 , and Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment in that case, id., at 625.

    11 Because a broad reading of Belton has been widely accepted, the doctrine of qualified immunity will shield officers from liability for searches conducted in reasonable reliance on that understanding.

  56. I don’t understand what the big deal is here. This is nothing new. Police have been killing people for decades. Thousands, if not tens of thousands have died, in a similar fashion as this man.

    What exactly are you expecting from the police?

    Are you that stupid that you believe that silly saying on their car?

    This is what the police do to the public. I thought everyone knew this. Guess not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *