Ask LEO a question

Mike, you are indeed correct (almost -- just on the fine part), and it further shows that LEO 229 and his fake "ask a LEO" is a bunch of crap. His "if you have a receipt you're good to go" is not supported by VA code. He plays a cop during his dreamtime.

As stated in the code, there is a rebuttable presumption that the driver has been drinking if there is an open container present. Again, not drinking, the open container is not a problem. And by definition, PASSENGERS cannot be convicted of "Drinking while operating a motor vehicle.

Click to expand...

I'm a wannabe too, just like LEO 229. Come on, man. Your self-righteousness is sickening!

Click to expand...

For officer safety.. He may take it from you or tell you to leave it be. I normally let you keep it. An officer has the legal right to remove you from the vehicle to pat you down and search any area under your control from the drivers seat. He cannot search the trunk. When the officer returns to your car.... have your hands on the wheel again. This is the first thing we see when we approach.

Click to expand...

The code does not specify that the driver needs to be observed actually drinking from the container. You even pasted the code but failed to read it. The textrebuttable presumption means it can be argued thatyou did it!

Click to expand...

On this board, Sir, we do not accept unsupported statements. Please cite case law.

I'd be very interested in which stretch of the 4th Amend. allows a police officer to search any area of my car within my driver-seat reach while I am outside the car and have already been patted down Terry-style there.

Click to expand...

2. The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them.

Click to expand...

The U.S. Supreme Court has always taking officer safety into account when defining a "Terry" search.

Click to expand...

Again, non-LEO 229, you're wrong and you're stupid....a PRESUMPTION can be argued that you did it. A rebuttable presumption means that you can argue that you didn't do it. You are, indeed, obviously to all NOT a LEO.

This thread was spawned off by you, not another, thinking that your cop fantasies could be passed off to others as you being a.....MAN. Again, NOT!

Click to expand...

I see what your trying to say Citizen but I'm not quite sure being in possession of a permit constitutes "an articulatable fact" While it may show the individual has the ability to gain immediate control of a weapon, it most certainly doesn't show the individual is dangerous.

Click to expand...

I doubt LEO 229 removesmost people their vehicleand pats them down and searches any area "undertheir control from the drivers seat"....... just because. Just think of the time and animosity that would add to each stop. If I thought he had meant that, I'd beupsetas well (he can correct me if I am wrong).

Click to expand...

Perhaps the courts agree with you. I hope they do. I'll bet there are plenty of police who see it the way I implied. It seems LEO 229 does.

He also thinks that police have rights ("...have the right to [search the...car]"). Only citizens have rights.Government agents have powers and authority. We've known for quite a while on this board that it is pointless to consult police on law. The answers too frequently are wrong, biased, etc. But, lets let him talk. Lets see what other misleading information he posts.

Click to expand...

OK... I see you are a stickler for detail. It really did not make a difference to me.In the future.. I will usePower or Authority.

I guess that does sound better. Thank you for pointing that out. It was my error to try to use rights and authority interchangeably.

Click to expand...

I wasn't making up"rights vs authority." The reference is the US Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the word "right" used in connection with a government body or agent, only"power" and"authority." This alignsexactly with the founding concept that the power is inherent in thegoverned and isdelegated to the government.

Here is how this exercise in "stickler-ism" applies. Toomany police forget that they have delegated authority and power; and they only have exactlyas much as has beendelegated--not onemillimeter more.

Lets then extend this tofirearms. The only reason a police officer can carry a gun is becausecitizens have or had the right.The police officer could not have received the delegated power or authority unless it was first possessed by the delegator.

Click to expand...