imported post
(IANAL but merely a law student. This is not legal advice; this is academic chatter regarding a class that I have not yet passed.)
Texas Jack wrote:
I was stopped for out of state tags (Texas) and in the conversation, asked "Do you have any weapons in your car?" well we all know that that split second hesitation is a sure fire conviction in its own right. When I respond "Yes" I have a hand-gun in the glove box, you would have thought I showed him a rattle-snake. I was asked to step out of the vehicle and place my hands on the hood, Slowly! within a few minutes, there were two (2) additional units and thankfully a older, experience sergant.
Partial quote, emphasis added.
I'm unaware of any precedent that determines whether a gun's existence, when volunteered to the police, can form reasonable suspicion upon which to conduct a frisk under Terry. I'm fairly certain, however, that no one can act upon knowledge that they do not have.
Lawyer and cop agree: Don't talk to police.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Citizen wrote:
4sooth wrote:
This was an illegal search and seizure. The search of the interior of a passenger vehicle must be related to the reason the vehicle was stopped in the first place. So--what evidence of an out-of-state tag would be found in the interior of a car?
You are suggesting that the driver's declaration of gun possession not conforming to the federal Safe Passage Law and illegal in MD is not probable cause for a search?
Sorry to come off lippy. Its just that I cannot cite the cases if I phrase it as astatement of law. Phrasing it as a questionwas the only way I could come upwith.
What he seems to be saying is even if an officer has probable cause to search for a crime that the scope of a search of a vehicle is limited by the possibility of obtaining evidence for the crime (or crimes?) for which reasonable suspicion was present at the time of the stop.
I'm not sure what law he's referring to; he didn't cite anything. It's possible that there is some law (a state law, perhaps) that backs him, but it's not my responsibility to go looking for it. If he is relying on the 4th Amendment then he is wrong. I am not saying that searches are not limited by the type of evidence sought, but the claim that police can never add crimes to search for evidence for after the initial traffic stop is false.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005);
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983);
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
In
Caballes, a man was pulled over for speeding. 543 U.S. 405. A second officer heard about the stop and came by with a drug dog. The dog "alerted" at the trunk, indicating drugs were present. The officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested the driver.
Held, that the search was constitutional. The disputed issues were whether the defendant was detained for an unreasonable duration while the dog was brought in and whether a dog's behavior could give rise to probable cause - That the probable cause would justify the search, despite not being the crime for which the defendant was originally stopped, is implicit in the holding.
Note: They did not pull him over for drugs. They were not going to find evidence of speeding in the trunk.
In
Long, two officers observed a car driving erratically and ultimately crashing into a ditch. 463 U.S. 1032. They walked up to investigate and found the driver, Long, standing at the rear of the vehicle. They then asked for his license and registration. He produced the license and then began walking toward the open front door of the vehicle. One of the officers believed that Long "appeared to be under the influence of something."
Id. at 1036. The officers followed him and saw a long gun in the car. They frisked him and found nothing. (Ostensibly they're looking for any
other guns.) Then they searched the passenger compartment, including opening the glove box, and found nothing. Then they impounded the car, searched the trunk, and found seventy-five pounds (75lbs) of marijuana.
Held, that the search of the passenger compartment was lawful. (The court did not reach the issue of the search of the trunk because it was not raised before the Supreme Court of Michigan. The appellate court upheld the trial court's ruling that it was constitutional.)
In
Belton, a car was pulled over for speeding. 453 U.S. 454. There were four men in it, and none of them owned the car. The officer smelled burnt marijuana, and saw an envelope on the floor of the vehicle labeled "Supergold." He then directed the occupants to get out of the car, placed them under arrest, patted them down, and separated them. He then picked up the envelope, opened it, and discovered the marijuana therein. Then he started to search the passenger compartment, and found a jacket belonging to Belton. He checked the pockets and found cocaine.
Held, lawful search incident to lawful arrest. He had probable cause at the time of arrest, and he lawfully searched the passenger compartment.
[Edited to fix post after hyperlink caused text, and itself, to be omitted. Multiple times. What causes this?]