In the past, some states had allowed the prosecution to introduce a certified affidavit indicating the results of forensic analysis into evidence without calling the technician to testify.  This meant that the defendant could not question the technician about the process by which the analysis was conducted or the accuracy of the results.  Now, defendants who have been notified that the state intends to introduce forensic analysis may then notify the State of his/her desire to confront the witness.  The Court also made clear that althought the state must produce the witnesses for trial, it may also impose procedural rules concerning the testimony.  As such, it is likely that the states will adopt rules that require the defendant to make the election to require testimony within reasonable time frames or lose the right.

In the ruling, the Court did not completely prohibit warrantless searches of vehicles.  It did, however, give law enforcement a clearer test to determine whether a particular search will be proper.  After the ruling  an officer may search a vehicle without a warrant “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.”  The test the Court established now prevents the police from searching a vehicle after the defendant has been safely taken into custody and there is no risk of danger to the officer, but does allow a search for evidence of the particular crime the defendant is being arrested for.  As such, the days of a routine traffic stop leading to a full-scale search of a vehicle when no other criminal activity is found may now be over.