|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Vehicle Search Procedure Question
#5731693 - 06/09/06 06:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
OK. I had something happen I don't wish to share all the exact details but someone that ***KNOWS FOR SURE*** please answer.
The cops asked to talk to me outside my car, I said OK. I get out the officer says I am acting nervous and I say 'this is within my normal behavior." They do the typical loaded questions to try and get consent to search which I politely refuse. He says bullshit and he's searching my car anyways, I call him out saying it's unconstitutional and end up in handcuffs being shoved in the back of a patrol car. So anyways he finds a small MJ pipe in the driver door map pocket burried with other shit. He then justifies his search that the pipe was in plain site when I got out of the truck (which it was not)
Anyways my question is:
The officer did not tell me why he did not need consent to search my car until AFTER he found the pipe and then he told me he had seen it, is this correct procedure? His seargant claims that no reason needs to be given that they can go ahead and search and tell you the reason later or in court? This sounds like bullshit but I think it would help me and others if this was better understood.
He has admitted this to his seargant and I as an active community member have been in contact with his boss and the internal affairs regarding the actions of this officer and have already recieved a written apology for using intimidation and searching my car in not-so-orderly manner.
Another excellent point I'd like to bring up is the fact if he saw this item, why did he not go to it right away instead of searching my car aimlessly for 5 minutes before finding this pipe in plain site. Of course I live in an area where dash mounted cameras are not used and nothing can prove this and a cops word vs mine = jack shit.
Another thing some of you will be interested to know, regarding this incident is the opening of my US mail without a federal warrant. All they did was deny it and that's all it took. Maybe if they were to have found something it would be easy to get dropped in court. But the officer just ripped that shit open - again NO PROOF for his boss.
LOL this is really a load of shit, thank god I live in Colorado where a $100 fine is the worse thing that can happen.
Anyways sorry this is my 1st post in a bit.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5731721 - 06/09/06 06:52 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That is bullshit! It sounds like you've got a good chance to get that thrown out of court. Good luck.
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5731943 - 06/09/06 08:00 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Do you have your mail? It should have piggy-prints all over the torn part, right? Did he have gloves on? I suppose he could say he did it after finding the pipe, maybe that's reason enough to open the package. But, if you have it in writing, or testimony that they "did not" open the package, you can catch them up for lying?
If you have a written apology for intimidating to search, then how can they claim that the search was performed because the pipe was in sight? The police report probably says the location of the pipe. Does it claim that it was in the door pocket? With most cars, that is not a spot that is easy to see. With yours it might even be easy to prove that it's nearly *impossible* to see from the window.
It seems like you've got more than nothing, especially as they've been in good communication with you, though not dropping their claims. For a 100 dollar fine, it wouldn't be worth most people's time and money to fight, but naturally it would be the right thing to do.
-------------------- 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!
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5732842 - 06/10/06 12:41 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Did this happen right in front of a patrol car?
All pull-overs are recorded by a recorder in the police car. If your rights were violated it should show up on that tape.
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: RandalFlagg]
#5733025 - 06/10/06 01:56 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Of course I live in an area where dash mounted cameras are not used and nothing can prove this and a cops word vs mine = jack shit."
-------------------- 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!
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Koala Koolio]
#5733450 - 06/10/06 08:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Doh!
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: RandalFlagg]
#5733625 - 06/10/06 09:45 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
As for using intimidation for search even if they have probable cause police would like you to give consent because it will hold up much better in court it's part of their training (information from County Sheriff Seargant I'm dealing with.) Understand police are trained to use intimidation, loaded questions and a few other not so fair tactics.
Here is the context between me and the officer: "There is no weapons, drugs, knifes, bombs, dead bodies (he says jokingly) in your truck correct?" I answer "Yes, nothing like that is in my truck" He says "Well let me have a look around and I'll let you go with your warning (for the original stop)" I answer "I would prefer to just leave now." He says "Why do you have something to hide?" I answer "No, I would just like to leave without having my truck searched, I have places to go." He asserts "You and I both know there is something in there(the truck)." I say "I know my rights and I do not consent to a vehicle search." At this time he becomes pissed tells me he is searching the truck anyhow that he does not need my consent. I ask "Have you ever heard of the constitution." Then he says "Enough of this, I don't need this shit." He turns me around places me in handcuffs and man handles to his squad car. From this point on, I know there is little I can do so I just keep my mouth shut and allow everything to run its course. Running my mouth will only cause more problems at this point and I know I have done nothing he can detain me for longer than the time it takes for him to write the ticket.
The intimidation the officer wrote me an apology for was for being thrown in handcuffs and pushed around not for trying to fool me into a consentual search.
His prints would be on the package from picking it up in the process of his search, so his seargant had no interest in seeing the package. They didn't even care to look at digital camera pics I had taken of how the officer threw personal objects of mine around during the search, stained a dress shirt by throwing it on the floor and ruined some archictectual drawings I had made for clients.
OK please - someone answer the original question: Do police need to tell you their probable cause before performing a vehicle search? Or can they perform the search and simply put the probable cause they had in there report and that is enough? I guess I'll write NORML as well and see if they have a resident lawyer that can answer. I'll keep you all posted.
I feel that I handled this as I should have according to the FlexYourRights video and other materials I had read in the past and this still did not prevent the ticket.
If I were to fight in court I may have a shot but 4+ court dates, hours of my time, and the stress cannot compare to the simple $100 bill that will take care of the ticket. I may plead not guilty off the bat and see if the DA wants to play ball at the second court date.
|
ZippoZ
Knomadic


Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5733962 - 06/10/06 11:43 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
get a lawyer, i now carry a didgital camera, video camera, and tape recorder. if i get pulled over, im going to bust out the mike and start recording. id recomend the same for anyone else.
-------------------- PEACE
zippoz "in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption" "People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: ZippoZ]
#5734338 - 06/10/06 01:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Well since MJ is basically decriminalized in Colorado and only $100 fine why would I pay over $500 for a lawyer.
So really what it boils down to is, I pay the ticket, the cops get away with breaching search and seizure laws, and I go on with life.
|
ZippoZ
Knomadic


Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: rawtoxic]
#5734604 - 06/10/06 03:23 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
yeah, if you get convicted it will be on your record forever, you will be in eligable for any college scolarships, and you might just be fucked in some other ways, think about it man
-------------------- PEACE
zippoz "in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption" "People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: ZippoZ]
#5734781 - 06/10/06 04:44 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
OK. Already have one on my record so that is really not relevant.
Plus I've obtained my degree.
|
biglo
Shroomery BabySitter



Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 603
Loc: US of A
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: ZippoZ]
#5735413 - 06/10/06 08:03 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"get a lawyer, i now carry a didgital camera, video camera, and tape recorder. if i get pulled over, im going to bust out the mike and start recording."
You can actually get in trouble doing this. My one friend got busted for underage drinking and told the officer that he was recording their conversation. The police officer immediately got all pissed and said that he was "violating his rights under wiretapping laws". So my friend turns it off (but fucking forgets to). After the officer dismissed him from the room, you could hear him talking to one of the coordinators for our dorm, muttering about the kid being johnny cochran.
So I don't know if it's possible to record an officer, and I don't believe the evidence will hold up in court. Goddamn double standards, cops hate being caught with their pants down.
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: biglo]
#5735684 - 06/10/06 09:18 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Might hold up in court, I dunno. But, the cop himself could just very well take the tape and claim it never existed. Secret camera would be the only way to go. But shit, it's 2006, that shouldn't be as hard as it once sounded, especially in a car.
-------------------- 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!
|
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: Koala Koolio]
#5737634 - 06/11/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Use a brand new tape for any recordings, otherwise it could be inadmissable in court.
|
RemainRandom50
Do You Need ToKnow Me?
Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 1,695
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Microcosmatrix]
#5737853 - 06/11/06 12:29 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zippoz said: get a lawyer, i now carry a didgital camera, video camera, and tape recorder. if i get pulled over, im going to bust out the mike and start recording. id recomend the same for anyone else.
seriously thats a fucking great idea.
-------------------- At times I get consumed by my everyday life and will leave the Shroomery. Yet, every time drugs come falling into my life for fun.....I always think about the Shroomery and then I'm back!
|
ke1n
Stranger


Registered: 11/15/05
Posts: 359
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: RemainRandom50]
#5739507 - 06/11/06 08:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I dont know why it WOULDNT hold up in court. If you have a recording of an officer and it can be verified it is him then why not? I have a voice recorder on my cell phone for that reason.
Hell, I was thinking about being a lawyer just so I can screw over as many cops as possible
--------------------
Everything that is posted, including pictures and text, are a result of fictional storytelling using images found online and/or created using the latest graphics software. I am a fictional writer who likes to explore the internet world. ------------------------------------ http://www.adobe.com/
|
Koala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: ke1n]
#5739545 - 06/11/06 08:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Umm... if it's illegally obtained evidence, it's illegally obtained evidence.
Isn't that the whole point of the thread? If a cop breaks in through your window, completely illegally, with 0 cause besides your ugly tye-dyed shirt, and finds drugs, should that evidence hold up in court too?
I'm not saying that this recording would be illegal or legal, I don't know the laws, and i'm sure they differ by location. The point is that you can't declare evidence fair game just because it incriminates someone. You need to play the same game you're fighting. But I know you can't record people's telephone conversations without informing them.
-------------------- 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!
|
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: biglo]
#5740687 - 06/12/06 03:35 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> You can actually get in trouble doing this.
From personal experience, I know it really pisses off the police. A bunch of us were coming back home from a road trip in college when we got pulled over. Several of the people in the van had video recorders. The cop was being the typical jerk when he realized he was being recorded. He kept telling the guy with the camera to turn it off, but was being ignored. The cop finally snapped and demanded the camera. When we finished up to let us go, we asked for the camera back. He denied, saying he was taking it for evidence. Against what, we asked? "Obstruction of justice" was the reply. No charges were ever filed, other than the speeding ticket. However, unfortunately for the cop, he didn't know that we had two other cameras going in the van. I don't know what happened to him, but we did get the third camera back (after a lot of hassle and making threats to bring in the media if the stolen property wasn't promptly returned).
> violating his rights under wiretapping laws
I would have asked to police officer to show me the wire that I was tapping which was violating his rights.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: biglo]
#5741070 - 06/12/06 09:21 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
biglo said: "get a lawyer, i now carry a didgital camera, video camera, and tape recorder. if i get pulled over, im going to bust out the mike and start recording."
You can actually get in trouble doing this. The police officer immediately got all pissed and said that he was "violating his rights under wiretapping laws".
So I don't know if it's possible to record an officer, and I don't believe the evidence will hold up in court.
it's perfectly legal to record interaction between yourself and a cop stopping you, most cops wear a hidden microphone and have video rolling in their cars, do you really believe the cop is above the law? The reason they dont want you taping the incident is because many of them routinely violate violate your rights last thing they want is evidence against them. always inform the officer that you are recording the conversation as soon as he approaches the vehicle, you will catch a load of shit but absolutely refuse to turn off the camera/tape
Often times you'll catch the "yopu dont have my permission to record me, you're in violation of XXXX law", if the video is being aired in a movie or on TV, you need his permission and he'll need to sign a waver but no matter his objections, keep the tape rolling and inform him that if he's doing nothing wrong that he has nothing to fear about you taping him, it's the same kind of tricks they use
heres a little bit regarding telephone recording, the same laws hold true for video recording, this mentions being covert but overt is just as suitable http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html
|
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]
#5742455 - 06/12/06 04:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
here is the problem with your position:
you could be mistaken about it being in plain sight. just because you thought it was covered doesn't mean it was. that or you could be lying. the cop can't be mistaken though. he either saw it or he didn't. if he's wrong, he must be lying, and he has less to gain, and more to lose, than you do by lying. you're also a stoner and he's a police officer.
the bottom line is that the possibility of you being mistaken is greater than his, your motivation to lie is greater than his, and your credibility before the court is less than his. i highly doubt the court would throw out evidence gained during the search.
this is why i recommend that those who choose to store or transport contraband do so in a locked opaque container.
|
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
|
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]
#5776961 - 06/21/06 03:40 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, but everybody takes a little bit to the picnic, the show, etc. etc.
It's easy when you know that the worst thing that could possibly happen is you could get a fine and lose the herb. No jail time or arrest in Colorado and a bunch of other states.
Personally I like joints for their edibility, plus no extra fine for a pipe.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Microcosmatrix]
#5776974 - 06/21/06 03:44 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Microcosmatrix said: Personally I like joints for their edibility
wise choice, never more than you can eat
I'll down a quarter pretty quick
|
rawtoxic
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 2,097
Loc: smokey mountains
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: Vehicle Search Procedure Question [Re: Prisoner#1]
#6000843 - 08/27/06 06:14 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Update: This has been a while. But to make this post complete I should post the conclusion.
In court I showed up, typical court appearence, judge lectured some juveniles harshly for MJ usage so I thought I might be in for crap, but simply I got one charge dropped and plead guilty to the other two and was then facing a max fine of $200 + court costs. Then I went before the judge he didn't say anything and said $52 dollars total or something so I thought I got the max fine of $200 + $52 court costs. Well I goto the county clerk to pay and meet a cute young girl there also for MJ possession give her my business card to link up with me sometime (which I'm sure her not so 'heady' mother made her destroy in the parking lot) anyways the clerk says only $52. I don't disagree I just pay the lady.
I filed complaints with the officers sergeant and the internal affairs unit. I have talked with them various times over the phone. The officer was reprimanded and I recieved an official letter apologizing for a few things that went on that is proudly hung on my refrigerator.
Not a total victory for our side but I am happy with the outcome and my life goes on after a small bump in the road.
|
|