Unlawful search and seizier ?

[framer]

I had a friend who got stopped outside a small town for speeding. He said
the cop had a dog in the back of his car. The cop asked him if he had any drugs in his possession and if he would consent to a vehical search. He said the cop told him if he didn't give permission to search that they would impound his truck and take it down the station and do it. My friend smokes pot and the cop found a tobacco grinder with pot residue in his truck and patted him down and found a small bag of pot on him. They got him for possession of a controlled substance and drug contraband. If you were to refuse a search because you haven't done anything and they did take your vehical and search it without finding anything would you have any legal recourse. ( Besides hiring a lawyer to defend you for the drugs that they would probly plant in your vehical to cover their ass)
It seems we are living in a govorment controled police state more every day. You should not be harassed and violated just for the hell of it.

 

[samoth]

It seems we are living in a govorment controled police state more every day. You should not be harassed and violated just for the hell of it.

Those of us who don't do anything illegal don't really care, but I can see how others fear getting caught.

 

[p0ink]

they can do that.

a swat deputy i know pulled over someone for having a radar/laser blocker (different than a detector - these are illegal here). when someone uses one, it gives the detector a distinct error, so he knew what was up.

so, he went and pulled the guy over and demanded he hand over the piece. well, the guy refused to do so and swore up and down he didnt have one. so, my buddy had his car impounded.

yeah, it turned up after that.

 

[gonelifting]

they can do that.

a swat deputy i know pulled over someone for having a radar/laser blocker (different than a detector - these are illegal here). when someone uses one, it gives the detector a distinct error, so he knew what was up.

so, he went and pulled the guy over and demanded he hand over the piece. well, the guy refused to do so and swore up and down he didnt have one. so, my buddy had his car impounded.

yeah, it turned up after that.

Good story, but it makes sense because he had probable cause from the electronic signal he got. Unlike the OP which there was no reason to impound the car and search for drugs or whatever.

 

[heatherrae]

It comes down to probable cause. An officer must have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed by that person for a warrant to issue for the search. If there is a later determination that no probable cause existed and there is not a good faith exception for the search, the resultant evidence is inadmissable. There are exceptions when a search and seizure is okay without a warrant. Some of the really common ones are when you leave something in plain sight for the cop to see it or when the search is incident to arrest.

A vehicle has a lower protection than a home with regard to search and seizure. A routine traffic stop does not give rise, without other circumstances, to probable cause to search the vehicle. However, cops will act like it does to get your consent to search. If you consent to the search, the search and seizure is lawful. The cases state that if you have a resonable belief that you have the right to not consent that the consent is valid. Your "friend" may ask his lawyer to present the defense that the cop acted as if he did not have the right to refuse consent, but I doubt that it would work in this case.

Now, there is a stop that is called a "Terry stop." The cop does not have to have probable cause, only a reasonable suspicion to briefly stop you and ask you to identify yourself and to pat down the outside of your clothing. If they find something this way, it is admissable and is not unlawful search and seizure.

NOW PEOPLE PLEASE READ THIS! If you are ever in trouble it will give your defense attorney something to work with. When interacting with police:

1. Don't run.
2. Don't argue or resist.
3. Don't EVER touch a police officer.
4. Request a lawyer immediately!
5. Don't make ANY statements beyond your name and address. SHUT UP. 99% of cases that are lost seem to be because defendants can't STFU. If you fail to give your name, you can be arrested for it. However, if your name alone will incriminate you for something much bigger, then consider the STFU method and let your lawyer defend it later.
6. For the love of Pete, don't consent to any searches of your car, your home, your person, NOTHING, unless you have absolutely NOTHING to hide.

Some more things you should know:
1. Once you request a lawyer, the interrogation must stop. However, if you are an idiot and just start initiating conversation with the cops again, it is admissable.

2. Police can and do LIE. They can and will lie to you about what other people told them, what evidence they have, etc. They do this to get you to give up and confess or to start making ridiculous statements or start changing your story. PLEASE SEE STFU section, above...lol.

3. Cops will tell you that if you are a good boy/girl that they will go easy on you. That isn't their job. Don't fall for that. Police have NO AUTHORITY over what crime is charged. The prosecutor does. SEE STFU, above and save any plea bargaining/deals for the prosecutor and your lawyer to hash out. The police are not going to cut you loose and have no authority over what eventual charges the prosecutor will charge.

4. Politely note the names and badge numbers of all officers with whom you deal, but don't act like a belligerent asshole and yell demands for them.


hmmmm...if I think of anything else I will add it.

Your friend f'd up by consenting to the search.

EDIT TO EXPLAIN MIRANDA RIGHTS*****
A cop can ask you your name and address without reading you your miranda rights. However, if you are being detained or are going to be arrested, statements resulting from questioning are inadmissable unless you are read your Miranda rights. However, if no one asks you a damn thing and you blurt out things before you are mirandized, they are admissable. Likewise, if you are Mirandized and still choose to speak, it is admissable. SOOOOO....See STFU above. You have the right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution not to incriminate yourself. So, STFU.

Anyone seeing a pattern here? lol.

 

[Big Rick Rock]

It comes down to probable cause. An officer must have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed by that person for a warrant to issue for the search. If there is a later determination that no probable cause existed and there is not a good faith exception for the search, the resultant evidence is inadmissable. There are exceptions when a search and seizure is okay without a warrant. Some of the really common ones are when you leave something in plain sight for the cop to see it or when the search is incident to arrest.

A vehicle has a lower protection than a home with regard to search and seizure. A routine traffic stop does not give rise, without other circumstances, to probable cause to search the vehicle. However, cops will act like it does to get your consent to search. If you consent to the search, the search and seizure is lawful. The cases state that if you have a resonable belief that you have the right to not consent that the consent is valid. Your "friend" may ask his lawyer to present the defense that the cop acted as if he did not have the right to refuse consent, but I doubt that it would work in this case.

Now, there is a stop that is called a "Terry stop." The cop does not have to have probable cause, only a reasonable suspicion to briefly stop you and ask you to identify yourself and to pat down the outside of your clothing. If they find something this way, it is admissable and is not unlawful search and seizure.

NOW PEOPLE PLEASE READ THIS! If you are ever in trouble it will give your defense attorney something to work with. When interacting with police:

1. Don't run.
2. Don't argue or resist.
3. Don't EVER touch a police officer.
4. Request a lawyer immediately!
5. Don't make ANY statements beyond your name and address. SHUT UP. 99% of cases that are lost seem to be because defendants can't STFU. If you fail to give your name, you can be arrested for it. However, if your name alone will incriminate you for something much bigger, then consider the STFU method and let your lawyer defend it later.
6. For the love of Pete, don't consent to any searches of your car, your home, your person, NOTHING, unless you have absolutely NOTHING to hide.

Some more things you should know:
1. Once you request a lawyer, the interrogation must stop. However, if you are an idiot and just start initiating conversation with the cops again, it is admissable.

2. Police can and do LIE. They can and will lie to you about what other people told them, what evidence they have, etc. They do this to get you to give up and confess or to start making ridiculous statements or start changing your story. PLEASE SEE STFU section, above...lol.

3. Cops will tell you that if you are a good boy/girl that they will go easy on you. That isn't their job. Don't fall for that. Police have NO AUTHORITY over what crime is charged. The prosecutor does. SEE STFU, above and save any plea bargaining/deals for the prosecutor and your lawyer to hash out. The police are not going to cut you loose and have no authority over what eventual charges the prosecutor will charge.

4. Politely note the names and badge numbers of all officers with whom you deal, but don't act like a belligerent asshole and yell demands for them.


hmmmm...if I think of anything else I will add it.

Your friend f'd up by consenting to the search.

You forgot to mention one more thing... Shut The Fuck UP. NOTHING you say to a Cop will make a difference for the better... For the worst MAYBE, but not for the better.

 

[heatherrae]

You forgot to mention one more thing... Shut The Fuck UP. NOTHING you say to a Cop will make a difference for the better... For the worst MAYBE, but not for the better.

YEP. Defense lawyers would all rejoice if defendants would just do that one thing --STFU.

 

[Sub-Zero]

It comes down to probable cause. An officer must have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed by that person for a warrant to issue for the search. If there is a later determination that no probable cause existed and there is not a good faith exception for the search, the resultant evidence is inadmissable. There are exceptions when a search and seizure is okay without a warrant. Some of the really common ones are when you leave something in plain sight for the cop to see it or when the search is incident to arrest.

A vehicle has a lower protection than a home with regard to search and seizure. A routine traffic stop does not give rise, without other circumstances, to probable cause to search the vehicle. However, cops will act like it does to get your consent to search. If you consent to the search, the search and seizure is lawful. The cases state that if you have a resonable belief that you have the right to not consent that the consent is valid. Your "friend" may ask his lawyer to present the defense that the cop acted as if he did not have the right to refuse consent, but I doubt that it would work in this case.

Now, there is a stop that is called a "Terry stop." The cop does not have to have probable cause, only a reasonable suspicion to briefly stop you and ask you to identify yourself and to pat down the outside of your clothing. If they find something this way, it is admissable and is not unlawful search and seizure.

NOW PEOPLE PLEASE READ THIS! If you are ever in trouble it will give your defense attorney something to work with. When interacting with police:

1. Don't run.
2. Don't argue or resist.
3. Don't EVER touch a police officer.
4. Request a lawyer immediately!
5. Don't make ANY statements beyond your name and address. SHUT UP. 99% of cases that are lost seem to be because defendants can't STFU. If you fail to give your name, you can be arrested for it. However, if your name alone will incriminate you for something much bigger, then consider the STFU method and let your lawyer defend it later.
6. For the love of Pete, don't consent to any searches of your car, your home, your person, NOTHING, unless you have absolutely NOTHING to hide.

Some more things you should know:
1. Once you request a lawyer, the interrogation must stop. However, if you are an idiot and just start initiating conversation with the cops again, it is admissable.

2. Police can and do LIE. They can and will lie to you about what other people told them, what evidence they have, etc. They do this to get you to give up and confess or to start making ridiculous statements or start changing your story. PLEASE SEE STFU section, above...lol.

3. Cops will tell you that if you are a good boy/girl that they will go easy on you. That isn't their job. Don't fall for that. Police have NO AUTHORITY over what crime is charged. The prosecutor does. SEE STFU, above and save any plea bargaining/deals for the prosecutor and your lawyer to hash out. The police are not going to cut you loose and have no authority over what eventual charges the prosecutor will charge.

4. Politely note the names and badge numbers of all officers with whom you deal, but don't act like a belligerent asshole and yell demands for them.


hmmmm...if I think of anything else I will add it.

Your friend f'd up by consenting to the search.

STICKY!!!!

 

[jh1]

they can do that.

a swat deputy i know pulled over someone for having a radar/laser blocker (different than a detector - these are illegal here). when someone uses one, it gives the detector a distinct error, so he knew what was up.

so, he went and pulled the guy over and demanded he hand over the piece. well, the guy refused to do so and swore up and down he didnt have one. so, my buddy had his car impounded.

yeah, it turned up after that.

That's different that the original story, as he had probable cause based on the detection of the contraband device.

What probable cause did the officer have in the orignal case here?

 

[heatherrae]

That's different that the original story, as he had probable cause based on the detection of the contraband device.

What probable cause did the officer have in the orignal case here?

He didn't even need it. He had consent to search.

Whether he did or did not have probable cause and would actually impound the vehicle to get the warrant is unknown. There may have also been an exception to the warrant requirement. The poster didn't give enough information. There are cases where the smell of marijuana is enough for probable cause. Or the kid could have been all glassy eyes and driving erratically. We just don't know the facts here. He may or may not have had probable cause or a valid exception to the warrant requirement, but, in the end, he didn't need it because the guy consented.