Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  Court Upholds Vehicle Drug Search
Posted by FoM on August 18, 2001 at 09:26:23 PT
By Elizabeth Neff, The Salt Lake Tribune  
Source: Salt Lake Tribune  

justice A Utah Highway Patrol officer did not violate a motorist's constitutional rights by using a cruiser to block in the man's car before searching it for drugs, the Utah Court of Appeals has decided.

The decision reverses 4th District Court Judge Ray M. Harding Sr.'s ruling throwing out a drug charge filed against 44-year-old Kevin R. Gronau. Harding had ruled Sgt. Paul Mangelson illegally seized the Weber County man's car when he pulled in behind the vehicle as it sat in a parking space outside a Nephi restaurant in 1998.

Twenty pounds of marijuana were found in the car's trunk.

The case began when Mangelson pulled Gronau over for speeding Dec. 16, 1998, as Gronau and his 17-year-old son were driving in a rental car on Interstate 15 just south of Nephi. During the stop, Mangelson ran a computer check on Gronau's driving status and criminal history.

The first check showed Gronau had a valid driver license. When Gronau told Mangelson he had to go to the bathroom, Mangelson issued Gronau a written warning for speeding and told him he was free to go. Mangelson also told Gronau he would contact him if the second check showed a criminal history.

Mangelson followed Gronau as he pulled away, and the criminal history check came back showing a 1991 drug arrest.

Mangelson then parked his cruiser behind Gronau's car, which was parked outside a Nephi restaurant.

Once there, Mangelson told Gronau the results of the criminal check and that he suspected him of transporting narcotics.

When Mangelson asked to inspect the car, Gronau refused, and said he and his son were going to eat breakfast.

Mangelson told Gronau he planned to call a K-9 unit to inspect the outside of the car. Gronau told Mangelson to "do whatever you want," and went inside the restaurant.

A drug-sniffing dog then alerted officers to drugs inside the car. When Gronau returned, Mangelson told him he was seizing the vehicle and ordered the car towed to a sheriff's station. A search warrant was obtained and the drugs were found in a duffel bag in the trunk.

Gronau was charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute within the presence of a person under 18.

"Mangelson did not meaningfully interfere with Gronau's possessory interest in his vehicle until after Mangelson had probable cause," William A. Thorne, Jr. wrote for the court Thursday.

Judge Gregory K. Orme dissented, arguing the circumstances of the situation clearly established Gronau's car had been seized before the dog arrived.

"Sgt. Mangelson's indication after the initial stop that he intended to maintain contact with Gronau, his continued surveillance, his subsequent prolonged partial blocking of the vehicle, and his indication that a drug-sniffing dog was on its way, sent a clear signal to Gronau that he was not free to take the vehicle and leave," Orme said.

H. Don Sharp, who represented Gronau in the appeal, said he agreed with Orme.

"I disagree with the opinion that he was free to leave," Sharp said. "I think if he had tried, Mangelson would have detained him or charged him with obstruction of justice. What's really scary about this is you can only nibble away at something for a little while before it's gone, and that's what's happening to our Fourth Amendment rights."

Sharp said he will ask the Utah Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision.

Assistant Attorney General Marian Decker said her office was pleased with the decision. "The defendant never tried to move his car. This might have turned out differently if he had. Having a drug dog come to the car does not indicate a seizure."

Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Author: Elizabeth Neff, The Salt Lake Tribune
Published: Saturday, August 18, 2001
Copyright: 2001 The Salt Lake Tribune
Contact: letters@sltrib.com
Website: http://www.sltrib.com/

Related Articles:

Drug War Kills Rights
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10601.shtml

Seizures By Police Help Fund Drug War
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10223.shtml

Drug Link Common in Forfeiture Cases
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9238.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #6 posted by Thomas on August 19, 2001 at 09:17:55 PT
This Guy is a Nazi
I have had my own run in with Sgt. Mangelson. I was pulled over just south of Nephi (just like this guy) and told I was speeding (which I most certainly wasn't and which resulted in neither a ticket or even a warning). After I was informed why I was pulled over, I was asked if I had been smoking marijuana. After denying any wrong doing, I was asked for permission to search my car. I refused permission, but the trooper searched anyway. He said he smelled alcohol. It was 8 in the morning. He turned up one crushed beer can from a picnic the day before. Try as he might, he could not shake even a drop of beer out. It was dry. What an amazing sense of smell he must have (sarcasm). After arriving back in Salt Lake, we had an attorney call to get the troopers name and any other information on the stop as we were considering a civil rights abuse case. At the time of the call, no one with information was available. The Attorney left a message for the trooper. Sgt. Mangelson decided to return the call, but instead of calling the attorney, he called my wife to let her know how fortunate we were not to have had an "open container" charge brought against us and that the trooper did not violate any of our rights or any law for that matter. Be warned, Salt Lake proper is a fairly liberal island in a sea of jack-booted-storm-trooper-metality-types that call themselves Utah peace officers. Nephi is a particularly bad area and Mangelson is the poster child of civil rights abusers. If you look up Utah case law in regards to civil rights abuses, the Juab county highway patrol is mentioned several times. Each time the name Mangelson appears.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by dddd on August 19, 2001 at 01:58:58 PT
It seems to me...
...that one of the biggest issues in the rape of the Fourth Ammendment,
is how the term "probable cause"is defined....There is a very nebulous
area here,where "probable cause",is widely applied,and could be almost
anything a cop thinks looks weird....So in other words,it seems that
nowdays,the Constitution has been trusted to the loose interpretation
of law enforcement,as opposed to the legal rights of the American people.
If a cop says,"I thought this,or that",,then that can,and has been interpreted
by the courts to be probable cause,,so who needs that old rag of a
constitution any more when some neanderthal,obsessive,psychotic cop
can be the one who defines the extent of ones rights ??

dddd

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Old.Daddy on August 19, 2001 at 00:03:19 PT
Follow up
Another related article
Busted!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/moody/moody24.html


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #3 posted by aocp on August 18, 2001 at 23:05:11 PT
re: old.daddy
Congratulations. I am now sick to my stomach. These
hicks want a banana republic that bad? I really wish
they'd just move to one. As the term goes, they're
nothing more than "tools". And they don't even know it.
Pathetic. I'm curious to see how this plays out.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by Old.Daddy on August 18, 2001 at 19:14:11 PT
Look at this
May I See Your Papers Please?
http://www.anti-state.com/gee/gee3.html


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by lookinside on August 18, 2001 at 18:49:18 PT:

fight, fight...
and then fight some more...

if enough appeals are made, courts are bound to start
finding in favor of the constitution...too many bad calls
will get them into the war crimes tribunal...


[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on August 18, 2001 at 09:26:23