English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If 1 person was arrested (passenger) for a pipe and the car need not be impounded which meant the driver could drive the car away can a search of the trunk be tossed? PLEASE READ BELOW!
to the general requirement for a warrant to search private property. This exception exists because an auto, unlike a house, can be moved out of reach of the law fairly easily.
The courts have long said that when a vehicle is stopped for a legal reason, the police can search the area within arm’s range of the driver without a warrant, provided there is probable cause and not just a hunch that further wrongdoing is suspected (for example, that drugs are involved) or if the driver is arrested so that the search is incident to a lawful arrest. , the trunk could not be searched under the circumstances unless the officers were given express permission. However, there is one caveat. If the car had to be impounded, the trunk could be searched for the purpose of conducting an inventory of the contents of the c

2006-09-02 19:38:30 · 10 answers · asked by carebarri 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

owner NEVER gave consent to search the trunk!! Does this mean that basically since all that was originally found was a hitter box, which was claimed by the passenger. The car could have been driven away by the driver (hence did not need to be imounnded) The owner NEVER gave consent to searh the trunk.......can it be thrown out because of that!!

2006-09-02 19:43:36 · update #1

owner is the passenger

2006-09-02 19:44:59 · update #2

10 answers

The real life answer is, the cops can search your car whenever the hell they want, and I'm not just trying to be a smartass. Think about it, that cop has a sharper sense of the law than you do, don't you think if he wants to see what's in your trunk he can concoct a probable cause excuse that will please a judge or jury? With your word against a cop's, the courts will assume the cop is acting properly unless you can find some extraordinary proof that they didn't.

I'd like to explore the technicalities of what may be thrown out in court if the officer did not follow the letter, but if he/she says they smelled weed or alcohol at the time, said your car was weaving, how are you going to prove otherwise? The classic "acting suspiciously" covers just about anyone who rarely encounters cops and might be nervous addressing a lawman period. You stare at him too long, or avoid all eye contact, stutter in your answers... some folks think cops cannot ask you where you are from and/or where you are going. HA! People that might ordinarily despise liberals will all of a sudden want to be all ACLU-ish, and say a citizen has a right to go anywhere they please. If you are the kid of a senator, celebrity, or CEO, you stand a chance of dancing around with the Armani-suited lawyer pulling rabbits out of his hat. But a regular Joe is just screwed, man. That's why its crucial we keep our noses are clean as a whistle.

I've had a cop pull me over, ask for license and registration, ask me whether I live around here, where I am going, what I do for a living, if I'm married, have kids... he can't wait for me to balk at any oif those questions. Then he'll go back to his car for 10-15 minutes to check it, and believe me, from having cops in my family, many like to take their sweet time just to F with you. See if you get more nervous. You had better not say you were in a hurry to get somewhere. He comes back, gives me my documents and says I was going too fast, or didn't come to a complete stop at a right turn on red, or something just as lame - and that I should be grateful that it's just a warning and says "have a nice night". I can have a chip on my shoulder about what I may feel is the real reason, but what am I going to do? Certainly not start contesting the validity at that moment - he's letting me go. Do I want to rile his ego and spend a night in the pen holding ice to my eye?

And technically, if he asks to look in the trunk and I want to say "no", that right there is probable cause because most law abiding citizens, ESPECIALLY those that never been stopped an inordinate amount of times for no good reason, will go by the old chestnut that if you have nothing to hide, you would not refuse. Besides, they then have the option to hold you until the search warrant can be obtained and that could be hours, so if you're innocent and going on principle, you are wasting both your and their time and man they aren't going to be happy if it's an empty trunk. If you are hiding something, sorry, you are caught, but frankly, I cannot find a lot of sympathy for you.

In major cities as well as remote rural towns, and certainly in the wee small hours of the morning, cops rely on instincts. Anybody with beefs about procedure should spend some time being on patrol with cops, if the TV show hasn't been any insight. A traffic stop is where most cops lose their lives. You think they want to bother with low level pot heads that don't have the common sense to stay in one place, at home, and not travel with any of the tools of the trade? Finding a pipe could mean pot, crack, or cystal meth for starters, and could mean the driver is under the influence - THERE's some probable cause. Here's a what if - what if the car that stopped the subject was a K-9 car, and the dog started going ape right away? I'll tell you what if - you are screwed!

Contrary to what they say officially, cops do still profile, it's the foundation of police work. By playing the odds and the profiles, a ton of people with wants and warrants, and with contraband are caught without making a splash in the press.

They won't give a person back their drugs, or any illegal guns even if a case is tossed out on a technicality. And I can't remember the last time anyone got off scot-free if a body is found back there in the trunk. So again, if a cop wants to look, he/she pretty much is going to do it. The ACLU can't help you at that particular moment. You are trying to illustrate a legality that is on paper, but it doesnt translate into 3-D on the street. Ride clean and the cops can spend more time looking for murderers, the courts can stay clear for the murder cases, and I could have saved a lot of typing.

2006-09-02 21:20:20 · answer #1 · answered by Andre1998 2 · 1 1

Generally, pursuant to a lawful arrest or when there is independent probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found. And you need to distinguish between an inventory search, and a search incident to a lawful arrest. They have different parameters.

If any passenger was arrested, and there is any reasonable grounds to support a search of the trunk, then it is generally legal. That is also independent of the passenger compartment search, which only requires probable cause and has nothing to do with a search incident to lawful arrest.

If the car owner wants to challenge the search, then they should contact an attorney. But generally only the car owner or driver would have standing to challenge anything found in the trunk.

{EDIT}

If the owner is the passenger who was arrested, then any good attorney could argue that the police have a solid claim that there were sufficient grounds to search the rest of the car and the trunk.

2006-09-02 19:42:27 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

A copy can search your car trunk when (1) you give permission, (2) when he has a warrant or has probable cause, (3) in connection with an arrest.

The fact situation you give is complicated, and it raises other issues. It would take a search of law cases in your jurisdiction to get the answer.

Police frequently lie and say they "smelled drugs". So one is up against deliberate misrepresentation of facts. A defendant is entitled to a lawyer, free if he can't afford one -- and only an experienced criminal lawyer can answer your question.

2006-09-02 19:44:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They can not search the trunk without consent. They can only hold you for a certain amount of time, not over hour, in order to produce a warrant.

2006-09-02 19:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not necessarily.

Who owns the car? The driver or the passenger?

Did either one of them give permission for the search?

2006-09-02 19:43:42 · answer #5 · answered by dta_stonecold_dta 3 · 0 0

I think the driver is responsible for their passengers. So if someone had a bowl they do have the right to search the car.

2006-09-02 19:42:10 · answer #6 · answered by platukism 2 · 0 0

we no longer have 4th amendment rights

2006-09-02 19:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by Nathan F 2 · 1 0

So....how much stash was in your trunk?

2006-09-02 20:03:23 · answer #8 · answered by MrZ 6 · 1 1

when he feels like

2006-09-02 19:43:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

So where is your question then.

2006-09-02 19:42:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers