|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5742507 - 06/12/06 04:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
another thing to consider is that he searched you for a reason. whether or not that reason is admissible in court is one thing, but cops are good at sniffing things out and they don't usually search people without finding something. the cop was probably intent on searching your vehicle before he asked you to step out of the car. why do you think this was?
|
deadheadjpc2000
Blade


Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 1,277
Loc: Emerald Triangle, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: wilshire]
#5742566 - 06/12/06 04:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I'm still puzzled as to the reason they are searching at all. If you are nice, obviously not fucked up, and nothin' in plain sight, what would be the probable cause? Going to a show= not P.C.!! Either way, legal or not, you still lose your shit. Even if it gets throw out later. IDK about other states, but here in Calif. that would never happen to me...Course I always have witnesses, a camera, and a tape recorder handy. One time, at the entrace to the parking lot at a Dead show, they tried to search my car. I hopped out, camera in hand, my friend stated that this is being recorded. I snapped pictures of the van in front of us, the bus in back of us, the intended searchers, everything I could find...My friend was holding the voice recorder out, recording evrything that was said. I finally threatened to call the Real police, stating that this is a case of unlawful detainment, illegal search, etc. They never even asked for my drivers' license, and waved us thru!1 Sometimes, offense works better than defense. Good thing they didn't search us on the way out, cause we went shopping!! Peace
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
|
i wish someone would answer the original question regarding search procedures.
thanks for all your insight and i still will ruthlessly drive around with nugs simply out of sight due to the decriminalization of MJ in our state. it's not like i'm transporting large amounts etc. just like taking some bowls to my girls house to smoke with her.
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: wilshire]
#5742675 - 06/12/06 05:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"and they don't usually search people without finding something."
Bullshit.
I agree with you that they're good at profiling people much of the time. To go as far as to suggest that it's highly successful is a bit too much. If that were the case, they could probably do away with probable cause all together, heh.
-------------------- You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!
|
greengrrl
Oh, well, whatthe hell...
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 8
Loc: A Conspicuous, Ruthless C...
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Koala Koolio]
#5744358 - 06/12/06 11:16 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
From what I understood in the Flex Your Rights video, your denying the search without a warrant should make it illegal. I think you should contact NORML or the ACLU very soon and see if they can help you cover the cost of a lawyer. It's right: conviction is more than a $100 fine. It will follow you forever because of those stupid cops and the fucked up laws of our wonderful country. I think you have nothing to lose by at least presenting your case to a lawyer or two, and there are organizations who can help get you a good one. Sorry this happened to you, man.
Glad you know your rights. Everyone should visit www.flexyourrights.org and watch their video. It's worth the little cost and I pass it on to all my friends.
Let us know what happens.
Best...
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5744628 - 06/13/06 12:44 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
i wish someone would answer the original question regarding search procedures.
police are not required to tell you how they've established probable cause for a search until you file for discovery. it will usually be in the criminal complaint though. they don't need to tell you before they search.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5744968 - 06/13/06 06:08 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
> i wish someone would answer the original question regarding search procedures.
See attached PDF...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Seuss]
#5745175 - 06/13/06 09:14 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
if they don't have to tell you before a search can't they just establish it once something has been found? so this is a flaw in the system.
the visor card pdf did not state anything obvious regarding to my situation.
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5745459 - 06/13/06 11:34 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
if they don't have to tell you before a search can't they just establish it once something has been found?
if a cop is going to lie in court under oath, he's not going to have a problem lying to you on the side of the road. he can always say he smells/smelled cannabis and that you appear/appeared under the influence of drugs. most cops are not going to put their hand on a bible and commit perjury (a felony) and violation of your civil rights to bust some random person for a little bit of pot. there are those however that will, especially when you consider how unlikely it could be proven that the cop was lying. after all, he might have just made a mistake, and cops are allowed to make 'mistakes'.
a cop is not required to show probable cause to have a drug dog sniff around the outside of your car. as long as you are pulled over for a legitimate reason, and not detained for any longer than is reasonably necessary with respect to that reason, a cop can have a drug dog sniff the outside of your car without any reason whatsoever. if you have cannabis inside the car, the dog will probably be able to smell it from the outside, and there is their probable cause for a full search. the courts have upheld this in many cases.
you have little search and seizure protection with a vehicle. if a cop wants to search you, he can probably find a way. if you have drugs on you, and he can get a dog on the scene quickly, he can definitely find a way.
you have to avoid raising their suspicions in the first place.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: wilshire]
#5747169 - 06/13/06 08:14 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: a cop is not required to show probable cause to have a drug dog sniff around the outside of your car.
to the contrary, the officer needs to be able to articulate that probable cause to the K-9 handler, often tmes the handler doesnt care and makes an assumption that the incident officer has in fact got PC, but at times the handler will question the legitimacy of the search himself.
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Prisoner#1]
#5747489 - 06/13/06 09:42 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
the us supreme court has ruled that a drug dog may be used to sniff the outside of your vehicle without probable cause, or any reason for suspicion at all, as long as you are being lawfully detained when it happens.
this means that if you get pulled over for a legitimate traffic stop, as long as the dog is on the scene during the time in which it takes to reasonably execute the traffic stop, the cops can use it to sniff the outside of your car without any reason at all. if the dog hits on your car, they have probable cause for a full search. their reasoning for this is that unlike other searches, a drug dog will only uncover the presense of contraband. unless you're carrying contraband, it poses no inconvenience nor gives any information about your private affairs. it doesn't violate any legitimate interest of privacy. i'm not saying i agree, but that's how they ruled.
ILLINOIS v. CABALLES
certiorari to the supreme court of illinois
No. 03-923.Argued November 10, 2004--Decided January 24, 2005
After an Illinois state trooper stopped respondent for speeding and radioed in, a second trooper, overhearing the transmission, drove to the scene with his narcotics-detection dog and walked the dog around respondent's car while the first trooper wrote respondent a warning ticket. When the dog alerted at respondent's trunk, the officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested respondent. At respondent's drug trial, the court denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence, holding, inter alia, that the dog's alerting provided sufficient probable cause to conduct the search. Respondent was convicted, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that because there were no specific and articulable facts to suggest drug activity, use of the dog unjustifiably enlarged a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation.
Held: A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 2-4.
207 Ill. 2d 504, 802 N. E. 2d 202, vacated and remanded.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case.
ILLINOIS, PETITIONER v. ROY I. CABALLES
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of illinois
[January 24, 2005]
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped respondent for speeding on an interstate highway. When Gillette radioed the police dispatcher to report the stop, a second trooper, Craig Graham, a member of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the transmission and immediately headed for the scene with his narcotics-detection dog. When they arrived, respondent's car was on the shoulder of the road and respondent was in Gillette's vehicle. While Gillette was in the process of writing a warning ticket, Graham walked his dog around respondent's car. The dog alerted at the trunk. Based on that alert, the officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested respondent. The entire incident lasted less than 10 minutes.
Respondent was convicted of a narcotics offense and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and a $256,136 fine. The trial judge denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence and to quash his arrest. He held that the officers had not unnecessarily prolonged the stop and that the dog alert was sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to conduct the search. Although the Appellate Court affirmed, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, concluding that because the canine sniff was performed without any " 'specific and articulable facts' " to suggest drug activity, the use of the dog "unjustifiably enlarg[ed] the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation." 207 Ill. 2d 504, 510, 802 N. E. 2d 202, 205 (2003).
The question on which we granted certiorari, 541 U. S. 972 (2004), is narrow: "Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop." Pet. for Cert. i. Thus, we proceed on the assumption that the officer conducting the dog sniff had no information about respondent except that he had been stopped for speeding; accordingly, we have omitted any reference to facts about respondent that might have triggered a modicum of suspicion.
Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause, and was concededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 124 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002). We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained.
In the state-court proceedings, however, the judges carefully reviewed the details of Officer Gillette's conversations with respondent and the precise timing of his radio transmissions to the dispatcher to determine whether he had improperly extended the duration of the stop to enable the dog sniff to occur. We have not recounted those details because we accept the state court's conclusion that the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop.
Despite this conclusion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the initially lawful traffic stop became an unlawful seizure solely as a result of the canine sniff that occurred outside respondent's stopped car. That is, the court characterized the dog sniff as the cause rather than the consequence of a constitutional violation. In its view, the use of the dog converted the citizen-police encounter from a lawful traffic stop into a drug investigation, and because the shift in purpose was not supported by any reasonable suspicion that respondent possessed narcotics, it was unlawful. In our view, conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner, unless the dog sniff itself infringed respondent's constitutionally protected interest in privacy. Our cases hold that it did not.
Official conduct that does not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy" is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Jacobsen, 466 U. S., at 123. We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed "legitimate," and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband "compromises no legitimate privacy interest." Ibid. This is because the expectation "that certain facts will not come to the attention of the authorities" is not the same as an interest in "privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable." Id., at 122 (punctuation omitted). In United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983), we treated a canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics-detection dog as "sui generis" because it "discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item." Id., at 707; see also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, 40 (2000). Respondent likewise concedes that "drug sniffs are designed, and if properly conducted are generally likely, to reveal only the presence of contraband." Brief for Respondent 17. Although respondent argues that the error rates, particularly the existence of false positives, call into question the premise that drug-detection dogs alert only to contraband, the record contains no evidence or findings that support his argument. Moreover, respondent does not suggest that an erroneous alert, in and of itself, reveals any legitimate private information, and, in this case, the trial judge found that the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk.
Accordingly, the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog--one that "does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view," Place, 462 U. S., at 707--during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. In this case, the dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement.
This conclusion is entirely consistent with our recent decision that the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect the growth of marijuana in a home constituted an unlawful search. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001). Critical to that decision was the fact that the device was capable of detecting lawful activity--in that case, intimate details in a home, such as "at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath." Id., at 38. The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is categorically distinguishable from respondent's hopes or expectations concerning the nondetection of contraband in the trunk of his car. A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
united states supreme court, illinois vs. caballes (2005)
Edited by wilshire (06/13/06 09:53 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: wilshire]
#5747552 - 06/13/06 10:00 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: the us supreme court has ruled that a drug dog may be used to sniff the outside of your vehicle without probable cause, or any reason for suspicion at all, as long as you are being lawfully detained when it happens.
this means that if you get pulled over for a legitimate traffic stop, as long as the dog is on the scene during the time in which it takes to reasonably execute the traffic stop, the cops can use it to sniff the outside of your car without any reason at all.
thats from the illinois state supreme court, not the US, of course laws vary by state regarding these searches and I can only speak for the way it's handled here but my experience has shown me that in a couple states that the handler wants to know the reason for the stop as well as why the sniff was called for when I inquired about it I was given the answers I have given here.
probe a little further and you;ll find that many of these handlers dont want to be hassled with a lane change violation by some kid that just got his license or by a cop thats known for searching almost everyone, they feel it unjustly ties up resources that could be applied to legitimate cases. what happens if the K-9 unit is on the way to sniff your car from across town and on the other side of the county another officer has a suspect stopped and is also requesting a sniff
now comes the reasonable time issue, it also varies from state to state, a traffic stop generaly last 10-15 minutes, some states have put limits on whats considered a reasonable amount of detention time ranging from 20 to 45 minutes
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Prisoner#1]
#5747614 - 06/13/06 10:12 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
thats from the illinois state supreme court, not the US
no, it's the US supreme court. the illinois supreme court originally ruled in favor of caballes. the us supreme court reversed that. you can read the decision of the us supreme court in the link i posted. the decision was delivered by justice stevens, joined by o'connor, scalia, kennedy, thomas, and breyer. ginsburg and souter filed a dissenting opinion, and rehnquist didn't take part in the proceedings. it was a 6-2 vote in the united states supreme court.
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: wilshire]
#5769650 - 06/19/06 08:03 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting situation, I went to court, all paperwork (reports, tickets, ie) was missing and DA dropped everything.
Anyways food for thought I had today:
If you deny cops the right to search your car, there is no drug dog, no probable cause, and the cop basically knows 99% of the time there is something to be found in that car because hey why wouldn't you consent to the search? They know there is probably something in there and will establish probable cause once it's found. Of course the search and seizure laws show favor to LEO. Not everyone plays fair.
Edited by rawtoxic (06/19/06 08:06 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5769989 - 06/19/06 09:47 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
the US supreme court has ruled that refusal to consent to a search is not probable cause, if they had PC they wouldnt need your consent
Quote:
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.
how can you be secure if saying 'no' to what you feel is an unreasonable search suddenly becomes probable cause.
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5772265 - 06/20/06 11:47 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They know there is probably something in there and will establish probable cause once it's found.
that is unlikely. it's more likely that they will invent probable cause before searching if they're going to invent it. they can say they smell marijuana or something.
cops usually don't do this because often they can see something in plain sight, they do smell marijuana, or most often, they can convince the driver to consent to a search.
a good friend of mine was once pulled over for running a stop sign. the cop got her out of the car, looked for what he could possibly see in plain view, and asked if he could search the car (probably based on how she and the car looked). she declined, and the cop let her on her way. she had some pot in the car of course. most cops place law-and-order and professionalism higher than busting some kids for drugs. they will do everything they can to find probable cause or to convince you to consent to a search, but it's not often that they will lie to the court to bust you.
there are ones that will do that though. again, the key is not getting pulled over, and if not that, not raising their suspiscions. if there is a dog handy, all you have to do is give them a reason to pull you over and some reason to want to have the dog take a sniff, and they've got you. every time i've been pulled over (and i haven't been for a long time now), i have had cannabis or pipes in my car. i have never had my car searched, been asked to step out of the car, or been asked for consent to search.
keeping the inside and outside of your car clean and losing the "i probably do drugs" bumper sticker goes a long way. personal appearance is also important, but i'm not going to tell you to change your whole look so unless you're a professional drug smuggler or something. remain calm and deal with the cops politely. don't act weird or suspiscious. speak plainly and look them in the eye. only lie when you must. keep things out of plain view (preferably in a locked container in the trunk). do not drive under the influence. don't carry more than you have to. if the cop asks to search, politely decline (without getting nervous, scared, or combatative) and explain that a search would be embarrissing and inconvenient to you, and that unless there is a reason for you to be searched, you feel you have every right to decline. avoid getting out the legal jargon if you can.
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: wilshire]
#5772524 - 06/20/06 01:40 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Why would they invent probable cause before searching when you made clear in a earlier post they don't need to verbally indicate probable cause until the report is filed anyways.
It's too bad we live in a world that one would consider changing there appearence to avoid profiling of LEO.
BTW I was pulled over in my diesel flatbed dump truck with a load of gravel on the back. I wasn't jamming PHISH with my MJ leaf t-shirt on. I looked like a average work stiff. Everything went to shit when I refused on the consentual search.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5773903 - 06/20/06 08:09 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
it usualy does which is why rule number 1 is always "do not transport drugs"
|
Microcosmatrix
Spiral staircasetechnician


Registered: 10/20/05
Posts: 11,293
Loc: Ythan's house
Last seen: 17 years, 1 month
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Prisoner#1]
#5773921 - 06/20/06 08:14 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, tape all drugs to a paper airplane and fly them to their destination. Much safer.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Microcosmatrix]
#5776697 - 06/21/06 02:04 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
give the dope man a few extra bucks to deliver
|
|