Court now okays police conducting warrantless searches of your car.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-supreme-court-ruled-police-warrant-search-vehicle/

n Thursday, police were give the authority to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe there is contraband or evidence of a crime as long as the circumstances that led to the probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous.

In other words, cops in New Jersey, can now make up any reason they want to search your private property.

“One can only wonder why the State and the majority of this Court find it appropriate to turn from the progressive approach historically taken in this State to privacy and constitutional rights of motorists,” Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote in her dissent.

The door has once again been left wide open for abuse by police in searching vehicles. With the billions stolen annually from innocent people in the name of civil asset forfeiture, does it seem like a good idea to give police even more power to violate the rights of the citizens?

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/st...e-warrant-search-vehicle/#bK7tmLy3Sfw21ZAX.99

Click to expand...

"Yes your honor, I believed that I needed to search to the car to prove that he/she/it was violating some law, some how."

Freedom1Man said:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-supreme-court-ruled-police-warrant-search-vehicle/


"Yes your honor, I believed that I needed to search to the car to prove that he/she/it was violating some law, some how."

Click to expand...

Meh, search incident to arrest, or inventory searches of autos being impounded has been lawful for as long as I can remember.





P.S. I have not been able to located that ruling to see what it really says.

notalawyer said:

Meh, search incident to arrest, or inventory searches of autos being impounded has been lawful for as long as I can remember.





P.S. I have not been able to located that ruling to see what it really says.

Click to expand...

Still wrong.

sudden valley gunner said:

Still wrong.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But this is nothing new or surprising.

Now, if the "search incident to arrest" was to simply protect the arrested from loss of property and also to protect the LEA from claims of "lost" property then I'd be ok with it and I suspect many of use here also would be.... But, as long as LE is able to charge additional crimes based upon what is found during this "search incident to arrest" then it is just wrong!

Three links followed to find the decision.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A914StatevWilliam.pdf

Now I'm off to read it.

stay safe.

notalawyer said:

Absolutely. But this is nothing new or surprising.

Click to expand...

True. Yet if we remain apathetic to the abuse the abuser will continue to abuse.

quote: Thursday’s decision brings the state’s requirement for warrantless car searches in line with the federal standard, which requires no such exigent circumstances under the so-called “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. Most states follow the federal standard. unquote. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/09/25...-state-standard-for-warrantless-car-searches/

reading office of the clerk's syllabus, the only thing NJ highest court overturned was their warrant telephonic system which was implemented from good intentions but turned out to be, in practice horrific for all concerned. i'm afraid even those with no critical thinking skills can read the state trooper(s) seem to purposely overloaded 'system' quote: The State Police also reported that since Pena-Flores, its state-wide consent to search requests rose from approximately 300 per year to over 2500 per year, and that its patrol policy is to exhaust the consent search option prior to making a determination to seek a warrant, telephonic or in-person. unquote https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A914StatevWilliam.pdf

bottom line, IMHO, the shock and awe reporting mentality from the tabloids (term used extremely loosely) flourishing on al gore's invention still captures the attention for knee jerk reactions over much to do about nothing since it doesn't affect federal standard the majority of the states follow!!

'sides NJ is not a vacation spot since they do not like OC or CC, coupled with the fact i don't know Christie personally to get a permit and i sure don't want to interrupt his presidential aspirations to bother him to ask for a pardon.

ipse

JoeSparky said:

Now, if the "search incident to arrest" was to simply protect the arrested from loss of property and also to protect the LEA from claims of "lost" property then I'd be ok with it and I suspect many of use here also would be.... But, as long as LE is able to charge additional crimes based upon what is found during this "search incident to arrest" then it is just wrong!

Click to expand...

Because cops that would the stuff afterwards wouldn't just do it before?

"No clue where your gold is. I inventoried the car and never saw it."

The Court:

Third, the panel agreed with defendant’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that Officer Racite did not have a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” to stop defendant for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 because the statute requires drivers to dim their high beams only when “‘approach[ing] an oncoming vehicle’” within five hundred feet. Id. at 614-16 (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:3-60). The panel reasoned that the officer’s vehicle was not an “oncoming vehicle” because it was parked when defendant drove by with active high beams. Id. at 615-16. Because the officer’s vehicle was not “in operation and in the lane of traffic opposite to” defendant’s car, in the panel’s view, Officer Racite had no right to stop him. Ibid.

Click to expand...

We conclude that it would be unfair, and contrary to our established rules, to decide the lawfulness of the stop when the State was deprived of the opportunity to establish a record that might have resolved the issue through a few questions to Officer Racite. The trial court, moreover, was never called on to rule on the lawfulness of the stop. Under the circumstances, the Appellate Division should have declined to entertain the belatedly raised issue. We therefore reverse the Appellate Division and hold that the lawfulness of the stop was not preserved for appellate review.

Click to expand...

In other words, a miscarriage of justice has no basis if not raised at trial. No different than Justice delayed is justice denied.

As Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Click to expand...

Here lies George Johnson hanged by mistake – 1882 – He was right we was wrong but we strung him up and he's gone.

Click to expand...

The truth does not matter. It is us against them and don't you forget it.

NJ...meh.

color of law said:

The truth does not matter. It is us against them and don't you forget it.

Click to expand...

+100

Color of Law, where did you find this quote...

As Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:
A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Click to expand...

Overloaded federal courts lead to delays in civil, criminal cases as judges...

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney Martha Gomez has been waiting more than three years to hear from a federal court whether a group of farm workers in California's Central Valley can proceed with their lawsuit alleging wage theft.


The case in California's Eastern District could result in payouts for thousands of migrant workers, but each passing day raises the possibility that they will have moved on and be impossible to track down, Gomez said.

http://www.startribune.com/wheels-of-justice-slow-at-overloaded-federal-courts/329693721/

Click to expand...

So much for the 6A.

Grim_Night said:

Color of Law, where did you find this quote...

Click to expand...

https://www.nysba.org/courtfundingreport/
See page four of the PDF or page (iii).

Warren E. Burger, “What’s Wrong With the Courts: The Chief Justice Speaks Out,” U.S. News & World Report (Vol. 69, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1970) 68, 71 (address to American Bar Association meeting, Aug. 10, 1970) (available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied (last visited Jan. 10, 2012)).