Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
searching my trunk
- Thread starter lilj888
- Start date
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
IMO always say NO if they ask. They might search anyways, but you at least have a shot at getting any charges dismissed later.
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
PM Heatherrae, she's a lawyer.
billfred
New member
The Fourth Amendment
"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 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."
lilj888 said:
that was the probable cause..
the protection of evidence..
example, you are in a locked car, with the windows rolled up, the police have stopped you for speeding..
as the officer approaches the car, he notes that you are shoving a green leafy substance into your mouth, and the windows are closed, and doors are locked..
he gives an order for you to stop, and to open the door, you continue to destroy possible evidence, he has every right to forcibly (break glass and choke you out to stop you from swollowing the evidence) secure the evidence.
that's the law, and rules for search and seizure.. at least it was when i went through the police academy.. but that was in 1979.. there have been slight changes, but the preservation of evidence is still true..
good luck..
partagus
New member
lilj888 said:
In my time in Law Enforcement, I had a lot of people complain about illegal search and seizure. I never had one case thrown out becuase in my written report, I was always able to clearly state why I had probable cause. You being drunk or people ratteling around usually is enough. Especially now, in the Orwellian days of George Bush, the rules are completely out the window.
I am no longer a cop, but I work in a jail. Pre-9/11, if you and I were face to face on the street, I could tell you "I'm going to kick your ass" and nothing would happen to me. I would not have committed any crimes. Now, if I say that to you it is considered "making terroristic threats" (at least where I live) and it is an arrestable misdemeanor. Times are a changing brother, and not for the better.
Spend the money on a good lawyer and learn from your interaction with law enforcement. GOOD LUCK!!!
If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The only reason he's asking you is because he doesn't have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request you give up one of the most important constitutional rights you have—your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A majority of avoidable police searches occur because citizens naively waive their Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to warrantless searches. As a general rule, if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person.
Don't expect a police officer to tell you about your right not to consent. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. In addition, police officers are trained to use their authority to get people to consent to a search, and most people are predisposed to comply with any request a police officer makes. For example, the average motorist stopped by a police officer who asks them, "Would you mind if I search your vehicle, please?" will probably consent to the officer's search without realizing that they have every right to deny the officer's request.
If, for any reason you don't want the officer digging through your belongings, you should refuse to consent by saying something like, "Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I do not consent to any searches of my private property." If the officer still proceeds to search you and finds illegal contraband, your attorney can argue that the contraband was discovered through an illegal search and hence should be thrown out of court.
You should never hesitate to assert your constitutional rights. Just say "no!"
A majority of avoidable police searches occur because citizens naively waive their Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to warrantless searches. As a general rule, if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person.
Don't expect a police officer to tell you about your right not to consent. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. In addition, police officers are trained to use their authority to get people to consent to a search, and most people are predisposed to comply with any request a police officer makes. For example, the average motorist stopped by a police officer who asks them, "Would you mind if I search your vehicle, please?" will probably consent to the officer's search without realizing that they have every right to deny the officer's request.
If, for any reason you don't want the officer digging through your belongings, you should refuse to consent by saying something like, "Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I do not consent to any searches of my private property." If the officer still proceeds to search you and finds illegal contraband, your attorney can argue that the contraband was discovered through an illegal search and hence should be thrown out of court.
You should never hesitate to assert your constitutional rights. Just say "no!"
GeneticMutation
New member
advanced-stealth said:
Whoa really? here in Canada, people consenting to a search must be dutily informed of their right to refuse consent, their right to revoke consent when given as well as to be informed of consequences of the search.
Now, I'm not saying cops always do the above, but it is required by law technically.
Interesting how law differs country to country.
Not here.
msam76
New member
If it is locked, they cannot. Police can only search what is in your "grabbable" area, which, if you are in the front seat, you cannot grab anything from your trunk to use against them. But, might as well consent anyway, otherwise they will arrest you on so stupid charge and have your car towed to the police impound where they will search every crack of your car. You just can't win.
chewyxrage
New member
I got a DUI and they didn't search my car then or at the inpound.
Had some shit in there, too.
Had some shit in there, too.
True only if a concern for police safety and preservation of easily destructible evidence.
NJRipped said:
chewyxrage
New member
chewyxrage said:
yea I had a little billy club next to me wedged inbetween the seat and the middle console, cop spotted that right away. Told me to take it out and put in the trunk, then get back in and we'll start over
holy ghost
New member
Its the plainview doctrine, anything illegal in plain sight they can sieze
like at a party if they bust in and see a bong
or a sack of yayo
its theirs
or if they come in and smell herb
they can snoop
like at a party if they bust in and see a bong
or a sack of yayo
its theirs
or if they come in and smell herb
they can snoop
1968Charger
New member
the sad part is the cop will just call for a dog ,and the dog will walk around the car and sit and bark ,then they do what ever they want !!advanced-stealth said:
bigwavesurfer
New member
It all depends on what state and jurisdiction your in. Once you've been arrest for any offense(ex. DUI, warrant, suspended license) your car is is to be searched "incident to arrest". Incident to arrest is your surrounding area which in a four door vehicle would be the whole inside, everything but the trunk.
The exceptions to this rule would be if you were arrested in your vehicle for possession of controlled substances(ex. marijuana, anabolics, cocaine) or found controlled substance during the search incident to arrest. Once controlled substances have been found you can search the whole vehicle(ex. trunk, tires, door panels) because they can be hidden anywhere due to there size.
Another exception to this rule is say your car gets towed for whatever reason, even if you weren't arrested. You could have your car towed for it not be registered, unsafe motor vehicle, expired license and the list goes on. If that police departments rules and regulations state that a inventory of the vehicle must be completed upon towing of a vehicle than that police officer can search that car to make an inventory of whats in the vehicle. If upon completing an inventory search and contraband is found you can be placed under arrest. A inventory search is done to protect the officer, department, and tow company from the owner/operator of the vehicle. If something is missing from inside the vehicle(ex. laptop, camera, money) or is "said" missing than an investigation would be completed and be a big mess. The inventory makes everything accountable for in that vehicle. Hope I was of some help.
The exceptions to this rule would be if you were arrested in your vehicle for possession of controlled substances(ex. marijuana, anabolics, cocaine) or found controlled substance during the search incident to arrest. Once controlled substances have been found you can search the whole vehicle(ex. trunk, tires, door panels) because they can be hidden anywhere due to there size.
Another exception to this rule is say your car gets towed for whatever reason, even if you weren't arrested. You could have your car towed for it not be registered, unsafe motor vehicle, expired license and the list goes on. If that police departments rules and regulations state that a inventory of the vehicle must be completed upon towing of a vehicle than that police officer can search that car to make an inventory of whats in the vehicle. If upon completing an inventory search and contraband is found you can be placed under arrest. A inventory search is done to protect the officer, department, and tow company from the owner/operator of the vehicle. If something is missing from inside the vehicle(ex. laptop, camera, money) or is "said" missing than an investigation would be completed and be a big mess. The inventory makes everything accountable for in that vehicle. Hope I was of some help.
The Fourth Amendment has become, essentially, a myth.billfred said:
Automobile Searches
The Supreme Court recognizes three distinct doctrines permitting the police to search automobiles without warrants. First, since Carroll v. United States (1925), a warrant has not been required so long as there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. This “automobile exception” has been greatly expanded since Carroll. For example, the Court held in California v. Carney (1985) that a mobile home capable of traveling on a highway was included within the exception, and in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), the Court held that the police may use the exception to search the personal belongings of passengers (but not the passengers themselves).
Second, the Court held in New York v. Belton (1981) that the police may automatically search an automobile's passenger compartment without a warrant after arresting an occupant of the vehicle because a criminal may hide contraband or weapons in the vehicle before the arrest. Since the Court held in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) that the police may arrest motorists for even petty traffic violations, the police now have an incentive to arrest minor traffic violators in order to perform “Belton searches” of their automobiles.
“Inventory searches” are the third doctrine permitting the police to perform warrantless automobile searches. In Colorado v. Bertine (1987), the Court held that the police may thoroughly search vehicles that have been lawfully impounded for any reason. The Court explained that such inventory searches are justified to protect the owner from misappropriation, to protect the police from false claims of theft, and to prevent dangerous items from being stored on police property.
Taken together, the expansion of the automobile exception, Belton searches, and inventory searches have largely eliminated the expectation of privacy that American motorists may once have had in their automobiles.
Not to mention the "reasonable suspicicion" and "stop and frisk" exclusions.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person; has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.
Precedent
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop. An arrest is not permitted based on reasonable suspicion; probable cause is required for an arrest. Further, a person is not required to answer any other questions during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief.
Stop and Frisk Rule
The phrase “stop and frisk” refers to the authority of a police officer to stop and search a person for concealed weapons without a warrant. The search may take place with less than the probable cause otherwise required by the Fourth Amendment.
In 1942 the Uniform Arrest Act allowed an officer to search a person stopped or detained for questioning if the officer had “reasonable ground” to suspect a concealed weapon. Only three states adopted the Uniform Arrest Act, but in 1964 New York adopted what became known as a “stop and frisk” law. Several studies of police behavior indicated that when officers suspected a person they were talking to had a concealed weapon, they frisked that person (“frisking” being defined as running hands on the outside of the suspect's clothing to feel for a weapon, and not intruding inside the garment unless the officer felt something suspicious).
The Supreme Court gave its imprimatur in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Chief Justice Earl Warren described the practice as one a reasonably prudent police officer should take for both personal and public safety if the circumstances warranted it. In subsequent cases during Chief Justice Warren Burger's tenure, the Court expanded the Terry holding to allow warrantless searches for weapons, narcotics, and illegal aliens on “reasonable” suspicion of their concealment
And if the police do'nt have reasonable suspicion, they can just make it up. In court you would be screwed because they're the cops and cops would never lie
gslben
New member
If a department has a policy of taking an inventory of all towed cars and uses it on all tows then they will go through the entire car to "guard against accusations of theft". Almost every department in Mass. has this policy and as long as you can't prove it's used selectively then whatever they find is theirs.
bigdofba
New member
billfred said:
That sounds nice but it shouldn't be comforting.
I have known people in LE and even been on a ride a long before. It gave me some good insight on how things are done.
Cops can search someone's trunk pretty much anytime they want. Almost anything can be considered probably cause. Likewise, a cop can pull over anyone they want. It is impossible to drive 100% perfectly all the time therefore if a cop feels someone is dirty they can pretty much find a reason to pull that person over.
People need to be careful and act normal but don't be under any false assumptions that your car can't be searched without a warrant.
gslben
New member
You are correct sir.
45 year old women driving their Camray's to work have to go out of their way to get pulled over. But someone they want to take a look at will cross the center-line or the shoulder line or have an expired Reg or inspection sticker or a tail/plate/headlight/directional light out or go 4mph over or fail to signal or have set-back at a stop sign etc. if you follow them long enough.
Once they have you over forget it....It's like shooting fish in a barrell.
"Furtive gestures" are the keys to the kingdom. "Well I saw him reach under the seat or towards the back seat and feared for my saftey" At that point you out of the car and at least the passenger compartment is being searched and if they can find a reason to tow it like the inspection sticker failing for saftey or the things I mentioned above then they are going through the whole car.
45 year old women driving their Camray's to work have to go out of their way to get pulled over. But someone they want to take a look at will cross the center-line or the shoulder line or have an expired Reg or inspection sticker or a tail/plate/headlight/directional light out or go 4mph over or fail to signal or have set-back at a stop sign etc. if you follow them long enough.
Once they have you over forget it....It's like shooting fish in a barrell.
"Furtive gestures" are the keys to the kingdom. "Well I saw him reach under the seat or towards the back seat and feared for my saftey" At that point you out of the car and at least the passenger compartment is being searched and if they can find a reason to tow it like the inspection sticker failing for saftey or the things I mentioned above then they are going through the whole car.
Singleton
New member
billfred said:
I said that once to a cop who wanted to search me.
He got aggressive and grabbed me. I pulled back out of reflex.
There were other cops around who I did not see.
They beat me, threw me in the wagon, charged me with two counts A&B on public officer.
I had a good court appointed atty. There was a civilian witness. I was lucky. The cop never got in any trouble, of course. In fact, he came and lied on the stand to a full jury.
If I had not had those, I'd be a burger-flipping ex-con.
Trying to avoid this sort of Drama. Cops will fuck things up sometimes; it depends on the situation and people involved. Looking like a thug will not help.
herblcure
New member
Listen - if you are driving drunk and still arguing about whether or not it is your constitutional right to not have your car searched, you have a serious problem. It is your moral right to not drive drunk...you can't possibly argue about someone searching your car when you have already broken the law by driving intoxicated.
Once you have given him prob. cause, he can do anything. For example - perhaps he was searching to see if there were any open containers in the car. Since you were drunk, this is good reason for him to search. If he finds other shit during the search, then you simply are outta luck. Besides, why keep shit in your car that is not legal while you are drunk driving? Are you trying to get into some serious trouble?
You can also reject a search just like you can reject to take a breathalizer test - at which time your car can me impounded and searched at a later time.
IMO - don't drive drunk to begin with - but if you simply dont have a choice (hmm not sure I like how that is worded) get the illegal shit outta your car before hand. (if that makes any moral sense at all)
Once you have given him prob. cause, he can do anything. For example - perhaps he was searching to see if there were any open containers in the car. Since you were drunk, this is good reason for him to search. If he finds other shit during the search, then you simply are outta luck. Besides, why keep shit in your car that is not legal while you are drunk driving? Are you trying to get into some serious trouble?
You can also reject a search just like you can reject to take a breathalizer test - at which time your car can me impounded and searched at a later time.
IMO - don't drive drunk to begin with - but if you simply dont have a choice (hmm not sure I like how that is worded) get the illegal shit outta your car before hand. (if that makes any moral sense at all)
chewyxrage
New member
herblcure said:
Agreed 1000%
bushmills
New member
Even if the police have enough time to obtain a warrant, police may still conduct a search of the car if the officer has probable cause of criminal wrongdoing. Unlike a home, cars can easily be moved, and the Supreme Court has reasoned that drivers do not have the same level of privacy in a car as do they in their home. In fact, once an officer has established probable cause to search the car, an officer can also search objects belonging to the passengers. If police discover incriminating evidence, both the passenger and the driver can be arrested.
bigdofba
New member
bushmills said:
Thank you.
People are stupid if they think their car can't be searched. LE can come up with just about any reason to search a vehicle. They don't need a warrant.
I have done a ride-along before for educational purposes. I got some insight on how things work. People can talk about amendments and rights all they want. If the cops know you are dirty you will most likely get busted. Forget about what rights you think you have.
My advice, don't be stupid. Plan and simple.
