I am specifically talking about the amendments which protect individual from searches and seizures without warrants and what not. Or another way: What methods do law enforcement officers use to get around those amendments which at times impede their work. For instance: Suppose an officer pulls over a car on the road in the middle of nowhere, he suspects that something is not quite right. The officer, on a hunch, knowing that he's not suppose to without consent searches the vehicle while the driver opposess it saying that he doesn't give the cop permission to search the car. Lo And Behold the officer finds drug, after arresting the individual, the cop states in his report that the person did give consent, all the while the driver denies it. Who wins in court? Is it a matter of the cops word vs. the defendant? Thanks
2006-10-05
08:43:46
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Law & Ethics