Judge Keller - Part Dos

Recently, the Court of Criminal Appeals decided a rather unremarkable case about the extent to which passengers may be searched when the cops stop a vehicle for the driver's conduct.

Suzanne St. George was stopped when the cops noticed a tail light out on her car. She gave the cops proper ID, as requested, and eventually received a "warning" for the broken tail light. But, the cops were obviously more interested in her passenger. They asked him for ID, and when he didn't produce it, they began an investigation of him, and eventually took him out of the car and searched his person. They found marijuana on him, and arrested him. Although a trial judge allowed the search, the Court of Appeals and 8 members of the Court of Criminal Appeals found that the cops had no reason to detain the car after the "warning", and no reason to search the passenger. This is unremarkable, and follows standard U.S. Supreme Court rulings, one as recent as June of 2007 (Boudin).

What makes the case interesting is Judge Keller's dissent. She just dissents - no opinion, no comment. Just "I don't agree." Given the vast authority against a dissent under these facts, I would think that the Chief Judge would owe us a little more.