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

I know they need probable cause but how is that established?

2007-02-09 07:01:43 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

15 answers

The have the right to examine anything in plain view. If they can see it when you roll down your window, they do not need probable cause. In other cases, the previous answerer's are correct. Probable cause is triggered by suspicious activity or violation of a law. However, just because you were speeding does not mean the police can search the car. I would disagree that you should give the police permission to search when asked. Make them find a judge and get a search warrant. If you say "yes" to a search, you have given up all your rights to challenge the search. Requiring the police to get a search warrant does NOT lead to any charges like "obstruction of justice." The 5th Amendment says we shall be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." We should be aware of our constitutional rights and force the police to abide by them. If you make them get a warrant, you have a host of issues to challenge the seizures. In my state, many illegal activities do not give rise to probable cause. Remember, to get a search warrant, they have to find an available judge and convince that judge there is probable cause to search. In many cases, saying "no" will defeat the search because they cannot find an available judge.

2007-02-09 07:46:23 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 0 1

Citicop is closest, as you would expect a police officer to be. Probable cause to search a vehicle exists if a reasonable man aware of all the facts known to the police officer would entertain a strong suspicion that a search would reveal either contraband or evidence of a crime which has been or may be committed. The officer's own belief is not the test, the belief must be objectively reasonable, and thus an officer cannot search on a "hunch."

Probable cause to detain (e.g., for a traffic violation) does not mean there is probable cause to search. Failure to consent to a search does not mean there is probable cause to search. This is based upon the U.S. Constitution, and thus is true throughout the country.

And, in case it comes up, the police with probable cause do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle. A police officer with consent does not need probable cause.

ADD: I would suggest that "attorney" David M read Pennsylvania v. Labron (1996) 518 U.S. 938; 116 S. Ct. 2485; 135 L. Ed. 2d 1031; before again advising anybody that a search warrant is needed to search a movable vehicle if the police have probable cause. It is FIRMLY and CONCLUSIVELY established that no warrant is needed.

2007-02-09 07:28:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

2

2016-08-30 18:40:10 · answer #3 · answered by Edwina 3 · 0 0

The Fourth Amendment provides the the citizens shall be free from any unlawful searches or seizure.

However, when there is reasonable suspiscion that criminal activity is underfoot, an officer may stop a driver (Terry v. Ohio).

If, upon further investigation, i.e. the driver is excessively nervous, stammering, slurring words, probable cause may exsist to search the vehicle. However, it is more prudent for the officer to ask for permission to search or obtain a warrant issued by a magistrate, then to have a judge throw out the evidence because the there was determined to be not enough probable cause to search the vehicle.

Thus, it is always better to deny an officer access to your vehicle if you have something to hide.

Let him jammer on about you appearing guilty; he needs to get a warrent, or the evidence unlawfully seized may be suppressed at trial, as "fruits of the poisonous tree"

2007-02-09 08:17:55 · answer #4 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 0 1

Technically no. yet as a exchange of outright refusing, ask the officer what in specific is he searching for and what his probably reason is. If he supplies a reason like there replaced into against the regulation with a automobile description like yours, bypass forward and comply. If he's merely too favourite, or does no longer answer, ask that his field Sargent come via the scene. He could say that he's unavailable (without checking) or say that it would take a a million/2 hour and your respond is which you would be able to wait. If he makes some assertion approximately you having to bypass see him yet first he has to seek you, in a well mannered way refuse and tell him to escort you. do no longer settle for a assertion which you would be able to take it up later. probability is he might have given up way in the previous you get for this reason far. What you're rather doing is delaying the officer and doubtlessly making him seem undesirable in front of his boss. The officer can not make his quota if he continues to be speaking to you.

2016-11-03 00:11:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Get a No Cost Background Check Scan at https://bitly.im/aNENX

Its a sensible way to start. The site allows you to do a no cost scan simply to find out if any sort of data is in existence. A smaller analysis is done without cost. To get a detailed report its a modest payment.

You may not realize how many good reasons there are to try and find out more about the people around you. After all, whether you're talking about new friends, employees, doctors, caretakers for elderly family members, or even significant others, you, as a citizen, have a right to know whether the people you surround yourself with are who they say they are. This goes double in any situation that involves your children, which not only includes teachers and babysitters, but also scout masters, little league coaches and others. Bottom line, if you want to find out more about someone, you should perform a background check.

2016-05-19 07:06:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If they smell alcohol or marijuana, they have probable cause. If these see something illegal(open container, roach, etc), they have probably cause. Truth is, most people give police permission to search their vehicle without know their rights. However, if an officer is hell bent on searching your vehicle, best to let them do it but make your objection to the search noted. After all, you do not want to be charges with obstruction of justice and/or interfering with a police officer.

2007-02-09 07:09:42 · answer #7 · answered by Scottee25 4 · 1 0

"Probable cause is the legal concept of suspicion supported by facts necessary before a search or arrest can be conducted by law enforcement officers." In other words, when the police feel suspicious about a suspect and the vehicle in which he/she is driving, then they have the right to search that vehicle.

2007-02-09 08:16:27 · answer #8 · answered by Çåŗőľîņẫ§ħŷġĭ®ł 5 · 0 1

PC is established by using the totality of the circumstances. Anything that the officer sees or observes that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the driver (or one of the passengers) of the vehicle is involved in a crime or that there is evidence of a crime inside helps establish probable cause.

2007-02-09 07:08:18 · answer #9 · answered by Citicop 7 · 4 0

The patriot "act" has changed things, I'm not sure "probable cause" is heeded, as such. When it was, it could be whatever the officer says brought "the vehicle" to his attention. Anything from erratic driving to a malfunctioning taillight to avoiding eye contact with the officer can be considered as a basis for "probable cause" to search.

If they ask to search and are refused, that provides "probable cause" and one remains in custody until a warrant is issued and the search takes place.

2007-02-09 07:15:42 · answer #10 · answered by S. B. 6 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers