Posted: 2/3/2007 4:23:31 PM EDT
|
Police officer/Deputy pulled over a man for a tag light being out, the guy had been arrested in the past for possesion. They cited him for his light then asked to search his car, he said no. A few minutes later a Deputy reached INTO his car and retrieved a pack of cigarettes, which he(the Deputy) opened and found a pipe. My question is, if he denied them searching his car and they still pulled an object out would that not be a violation of his right to deny them a search w/o a warrant, when they had no PC to take anything out of, or search the vehicle? -Lets try and keep this somewhat civil, and no Ends justify the mean BS either- |
Wouldn't be the first time.  Probably not the last either.
|
We have argued the above many times here. Technically no it doesnt give 'em consent but I have seen it go the other way as well, and seen it personally be used as an excuse for PC, but that was before I reallu understood certain rights or the disregard thereof |
That is what I saw too. The woman that lied about her name and no ID... Did you see the cop open her mail that was in the back of the Jeep? He just started opening envelopes. WTF? I'd hit that too. 
|
I figured I had the wrong info, but it did seem like thats what I had heard. I'd rather throw it out and look stupid and learn, than to keep thinking I know it all.
|
|
I thought "probable cause" was like, if you get pulled over and the LEO smells weed, he can search your car whether or not you agree. In Ohio, the LEO has to say, "You are free to go" or something to that effect before he can ask for a search. I always say 'No' anyways. If they want to search my car, get a warrant. Most cops won't wait. |
|
The way the story was described in the opening post would lead me to believe it was an illegal search. Thier could be several factors to consider before we make a judgement about the incident. 1. If he saw the pipe in the car then it is in "PLAIN VIEW". No warrant or consent needed. 2. Saying no to a search is not probable cause. The officer could have been building probable cause by observing the suspect. For example: Suspect smelled of marijuana, had blood shot eyes and appeard lethargic. It was late at night in area town where several persons were arrested for dealing marijuana etc... 3. Even when you have probable cause it's sometimes easier to ask for consent first. With consent, the burden o PC is not longer on your shoulders. |
That alone would not let you search the car. It does however help build your case if something else is found later on. However with the above I would ask the person to step out of the vehicle. The rest I pretty much agree with. |
There used to be a website that picked apart all the wrongdoing shown on COPS. A LOT of it was BS, but some was very compelling... |
Did you miss the part where the man ASKED the Deputy to reach in and get the cigarette pack, and asked the guy if he could check the pack before handing it to him? |
Uh No, I stated I missed that PART, and had you taken the time to actually READ this thread you would have seen that
|
So you are trying to lambaste me for pointing out you weren't paying attention to the scenario when you started the thread. Good one, you are an ironic master. |
If it was a mail truck you might have a case. If not, it is like any other article that might be encountered in the vehicle. |
Not being there to see it and not paying attention are two different thing, so until you know WTF im talking about go troll another thread and stop jumping to conclusions. This thread was civil until you showed up, so do me a favor and go find another thread to be a PITA in |
First, I don't have to read every post before I respond. Secondly, if you opened your ears and shut your trap you would've heard the obvious. Third I didn't mean to offend you by pointing out what you missed. Fourth your smart ass response was what took this from nice to rude. Sorry I pointed out your error, and that you acted like a complete asshole about it. |
Sealed items need permission or a warrant to open - at least that is what I was taught in the acadamy. The envelope was sealed and not within reach of the driver (trunk under some stuff). What he did was wrong. Av. |
Next time read the posts before criticizing someone or asking a question like they are stupid, especially when it had previously been answered. If you dont like what in a thread or god forbid that someone didnt see every second of a show and it offended you just find another thread
|
First, that would be true in the '80's. Nowadays it isn't. Do we know to a certainty that that was actually mailed to that person, and not an envelope they sealed themselves? Even if it had been search incident to arrest, part of the issue was the arrested person's ID since she gave another person's name. Plus, consent trumps that. Sealed mail, in a private person's possesion isn't "US Mail". US mail, say in the back of a long haul truck, or the letter carriers truck would be afforded more protection, also I doubt legally a letter carrier, or postmaster can give consent to search in that way, since the person who mailed the mail, and the addressee both have an expectation of privacy. |
That's what I think you meant. I'm glad you can accept that you NEEDED to be corrected when you started a thread on an erroneous premise. |
I didnt start any thread on an 'erroneous premise', I was otherwise ocupied when they said he asked for the pack, so I was not there to see it, hence my question. Im sorry your so sensitive that a mere peon would dare question the almighty thin blue line you are so ravenously upholding due to your own insecurities about Law Enforcement and their activities. I wasnt accusing anyone of anything I asked a simple question, I didnt realize you were so insecure about questions regarding LEOs, makes one wonder why you would so viciously attack someone for just asking a question. Im glad I dont go through life feeling so insecure about a proffession that I have to resort to tactics like those that you have shown in this post to make myself feel better. Of course youll rationalize it with more looking down your nose and self righteous chest thumping and convince yourself your right no matter what, im just glad I grew out of that type of behavior in grammar school. I bet your the type that would become a LEO(if your not already and I think you are) just so you can feel important and act like you have some power over mere peons like myself, or that you are somehow important to anyone else but yourself |
|
Yes by all means, don't admit your mistake. Get huffy at people that pointed out your mistake. Go ballistic on people that point out your mistake. Listen up. Your original post was flawed. I commented on that. I don't care if other people did or didn't. Maybe next time you'll try to be more accurate when you describe a situation to start a thread. But whatver you do don't admit your mistake. |
|
I would have to do some research on the mail issue but I would guess that the fact that the crime in question was giving a false ID...and the mail would have a name/address on it which would either confirm or lend credibilty to one of the names in question, it would be fair game... She was in posession of the mail and gave multipe names so the mail could assist in confirming who she was or was not. I don't know for sure on that though. I think I would shoot for consent or wait and do an inventory search after impounding the vehicle. |
IL passed a "Somebody's goin' to jail" addendum to the existing DV law a few years ago. While I've sadly seen many totally legitimate applications of the DV law, several of the ladies in our jurisdiction found a way to "get even" with their man for stepping out or staying out late, and they argued when he returned late that night (more precisely, early in the am), and the cops got called for noise. Included in this was one couple we dealt with about 8 times in a 6 week period one year. "Oh, yeah, by the way, officer...he hit/pushed/shoved me" <smirk> Despite his denial of events, he got hauled in. The ladies were surprised when they recanted, explaining that they had "just said it" because they were angry, and their man wasn't just cut free a few hours later, but instead had to process and go to bond court. Eventually, the guys got the idea to counter with spurious claims. "Yeah, I hit/pushed/shoved her... buit only 'cuz she hit/pushed/shoved me first, and I was tryin' to get away" <countersmirk>
|
