3 probable cause questions?

Question

First: Why don't police have to have probable cause to pull you over, and disrupt your evening and make you take a breathalizer for just driving where they have one of the road blocks set up to check people.
Second: I am thinking of the M Vick case in particular here. If the police have a warrant for Drugs and don't find drugs but find dog fighting paraphenalia instead. How can they be allowed to go back and get a warrent for the dog stuff.
Third: If you tel the police you don't want them to search your car, how is that enough for them to get a warrent to search your car. and hold you their untill the warrent is secured. This allows police to make people miss flights, appointments, and other important events.
Thanks for the answers in advance

the dog paraphinalia is not in plan sight. they find it while looking for drugs.
if you refuse and they get a warrent and search your car, why bother even asking to search. I don't like my police friends digging through my junk seeing chicks numbers and pictures, what condoms i use etc. it ain't their buissness

Answer 1

Okay, in order...

1.) Sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional because they only present a minimal intrusion on your privacy and routine ( a brief conversation with a police officer) and promote the public safety by removing impaired drivers from the road. You don't get to the breathalyzer part unless there is already other evidence that you are Driving While Intoxicated.

It should be noted that other checkpoints that do not have the public safety aspect (such as drug checkpoints) are NOT allowed.

2.) If police have a warrant for an area, they are allowed to search anywhere that the item(s) specified in the warrant may be. If the warrant is for drugs, then the police may look anywhere there may be drugs hidden. If they find other evidence or contraband while they are there, it is considered to be in "plain view" and is admissible in court (and can be used to obtain further warrants).

3.) Refusal to allow a search of your vehicle (in and of itself) does not provide probable cause to obtain a warrant. There may be cases that officers already have PC to search, and try to get consent first rather than detain for the warrant, but every prosecutor and judge I have ever met would laugh me out of the building for applying for a warrant based solely on a refusal to allow consent.

Answer 2

First; there is probable cause here, they believe there are people who may be driving while intoxicated.
Second; if criminal activity is in plain view, a second warrant can be obtained for the criminal activity. Check out the plain view doctrine.
Third; if you have nothing to hide, let the officer search your car. If I had an important flight I couldn't miss, I wouldn't object to him searching it. Sure it's a few minutes, but it's a lot better than an hour or two.

Edit; police can be fairly clever when they get a search warrant. Imagine police getting a search warrant with a very small item which could be held anywhere. Say a screw, that pretty much entitles them to search the entire house/area/garage...etc.

Don't like the fact that police officers may know what you have in your trunk? Don't keep it in the trunk!

Answer 3

Probable Cause means that the person has probably committed a crime -- and that since they have probably committed a crime, that gives the police a good reason (good cause) to stop them.

However, probable cause is not the only grounds for a stop. The standard road-block is another separate grounds to stop people, one that does not require probable cause.

As long as it is neutral and not arbitrary (every car, or every third car, or every car with a 'young' drive) -- the roadblock is valid. But the police cannot pick and choose individuals outside of the established pattern without probable cause.

In the second instance, once police have a legal reason to conduct a search, they can also seize and/or arrest if they discover any obvious contraband or other indicators of illegal felony activity. It's another exception to the normal warrant requirements -- if the police had a valid reason to search in the first place, including a warrant for something unrelated.

In the third instance -- the rules for car searches are less than for other searches, based on the idea that cars are more mobile (hence easier to escape and/or destroy evidence) and based on the fact that cars are current regulated already. The courts have thus determined that most car searches can take place based on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity, which is significantly less than probable cause.

Answer 4

First question: The police don't need probable cause to pull someone over. The police only require reasonable suspicion of something illegal happening. It can rise to the level of probable cause if, while they have stopped you, they see an open can of alcohol, a tell-tale white powder dripping out of your nose, etc.

Second question: While they are searching for the drugs, they come upon the dog stuff, enough of which can lead to probable cause that something illegal is happening. They can search ANYWHERE for the drugs, since drugs can be hidden in such minute places.

Third question: Yes, you can tell the police you don't want them to search your car. They have to get probable cause to search your car, unless you are being arrested, in which case it is a search incident to an arrest. Also, they have to have probable cause to get a warrant to search your car (although if they see a gun sticking out the back seat of a car [or somewhere within reach of your hand, they can do a small search of the area for a weapon].

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

1) With road blocks, they are making either random checks for sobriety or they are checking everyone that goes by the checkpoint for sobriety. Since they are not singling anyone out to pull over, there is no need for probable cause.

2) If they have the warrant that spells out that they are looking for drugs, it will also spell out the specific area they are entitled to search. If there is evidence of another crime in that search area, it is fair game. That would be probable cause to get another warrant that specifies the new scope of the search.

3) If you don't give permission to search the car, that does not give probable cause to get a warrant to search it. There has to be some specific reason other than refusal to search to get a warrant. They might call a K-9 unit to sniff out the car, if the dog indicates drugs, that would be your probable cause.

Answer 6

1. The Supreme Court said that those road blocks were constitutional.

2. The police already had the search warrant for drugs. Finding the dog stuff gave them probable cause to get a warrant to look for that stuff instead. They found the initial dog stuff legally with a search warrant, even if that wasn't what they were looking for originally.

3. If they have probable cause to search your vehicle and you deny permission, they can keep you there because of the probable cause until they get the warrant.

Answer 7

To answer your questions

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you are driving where there is a roadblock, you have to stop. If you don't, that gives them probable cause anyway to chase you down and stop you.

2. If items are in plain sight related to the dogfighting stuff, they can then use that as probable cause to get a warrant on the dogfighting stuff

3. I was not aware of the last situation (them needing to secure a warrant as you sit on the side of the road), I would think it would give them probable cause to search your vehicle though. Nine times out of ten, they aren't just going to ask unless they suspect you have something to hide.

Answer 8

The probable cause for the road block is that the people are stumbling out of the car IN PLAIN SIGHT. That's the biggest clutch when it comes to probable cause. It has to be IN PLAIN SIGHT. If they are searching your house for drugs, and see dog fighting paraphernalia IN PLAIN SIGHT, then, bingo, probable cause for animal cruelty.

And if the person is doing something that they obviously shouldn't be doing, do you really want them to get on that plane???