Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
SCOTUS (thats the Supreme Court Of The United States, for all you non legal beagles) has ruled that cops don't have the right to search your car just because of a "traffic violation," except for weapons they reasonably believe to be within reach. Lesson: Keep you Illegal stuff out of reach and in a lock box and cops can't search for it, unless they pull you over for transporting said illegal stuff. And remember, if cops knew the law, we wouldn't need lawyers, so feel free to tell them that ARIZONA v. GANT says they can't search your car just cuz they wanna. opinion available at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and a Computer with a copy of Correl WordPerfect with a legal template is more powerful that a drunken Tenn. cop who got all Cs in highschool
Supreme Court scales back police right to search cars The ruling limits searches to cases when there may be a weapon within the suspect's reach or evidence related to the arrest. The decision sets aside broader powers granted by the court in 1981. By David G. Savage
April 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court put a new limit on police searches of cars Tuesday, saying that "countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation" have had their vehicles searched in violation of their rights.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices set aside a 1981 opinion that had given police broad authority to search cars whenever they made an arrest.
Instead, the justices said that an arresting officer could search a vehicle only if weapons were potentially in reach of the suspect or if there was reason to believe that the car contained evidence related to the arrest. For example, if the driver was arrested in a drug crime, the car could be searched for drugs.
Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said that merely arresting a driver does not "provide a police entitlement" to search the vehicle without a warrant.
He said the court's past rulings had given police too much leeway, allowing them to search cars even when there was no threat to officers' safety. For example, if a motorist was handcuffed and put in a patrol car, there was no danger that he could reach a weapon in his car.
The lineup behind Stevens was unusual. Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg formed the majority.
The case arose when Rodney Gant was arrested in Tucson for driving with a suspended license. His car was parked in his driveway, and officers handcuffed Gant and put him in a patrol car. Then they searched the car and found a gun and cocaine in a jacket in the back seat.
Gant was convicted on drug charges, but the Arizona Supreme Court threw out evidence on the grounds that the search of his car without a warrant was unreasonable.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision Tuesday in Arizona vs. Gant.
The dissenters, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the court should have stuck with the old rule that permitted vehicle searches whenever a driver or an occupant was arrested.
mercy, I read this also. The major point that people should remember is know your rights because the police know them and will violate them without a problem. After set in jail, the faulty search or whatever happened may or may not get caught if you have an overworked or under-concerned public pretender. Its a number games, a cop does this 100 times maybe 1 or 2 people will fight it and when but the other 98 dont.. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS........THE POLICE DO
1)Police don't know your rights, they only think they do. police have NO legal training and have legal knowledge that is only slightly above the common man, and usually come from the the same source that the common man uses, hearsay.
2)My neighbor is a public defender, and he is overworked. But he does care. PD are usually good lawyers, but they arn't gonna bust their balls for someone who is obviously guilty with no real legal outs. If you are REALLY guilty, get a real lawyer. It is ALWAYS worth it.
Last Edit: May 6, 2009 15:09:30 GMT -5 by mercy4me - Back to Top
Scent is still probable cause though, so be careful! Don't eat your corn in the car on the way to 'Roo.
To the best of my knowledge, scent is NOT Probable Cause, but they could always make up some BS. I always take care to stop any scent in my car... thats just common "scents." BUT NEVER AGREE TO A SEARCH, in fact print up 3-4 sheets of paper that say you never consent to a search of your vehicle, sign and date them, and give one to a cop if he starts to search w/o consent. Courts like documents.
Last Edit: May 6, 2009 15:15:06 GMT -5 by mercy4me - Back to Top
1)Police don't know your rights, they only think they do. police have NO legal training and have legal knowledge that is only slightly above the common man, and usually come from the the same source that the common man uses, hearsay.
2)My neighbor is a public defender, and he is overworked. But he does care. PD are usually good lawyers, but they arn't gonna bust their balls for someone who is obviously guilty with no real legal outs. If you are REALLY guilty, get a real lawyer. It is ALWAYS worth it.
No the police are not experts in the law and make mistakes but many times they know what they are doing and know it is wrong. As far as public pretenders. There are some good ones, but many I have dealt with (professionally as I am in court almost weekly as a A & D therapist) I have seen as incompetent. One of the best lawyers I know does private practice and public defender (notice I said defender) and specialize in death penelity cases. Chosing who you get isn't always an option for most people in the system so they end up with a public pretender not defender. In the end as I said KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
I don't want to disagree with you as you seem to know more than me BUT I don't understand how scent couldn't be probable cause? I've always heard that it was.
I don't want to disagree with you as you seem to know more than me BUT I don't understand how scent couldn't be probable cause? I've always heard that it was.
thats just what i remember for my Constitutional law class... please don't rely on it. Anyways... take care of the scent. i recommend mason jars... I'll look it up if i get the time. I think is cuz scent is to subjective and can't be documented in any way. but i know that police dog "reacting " to something is not evidence, it's what leads cops to evidence. Who to say what a dogs "reaction" is or what the dog was "reacting" to.
Last Edit: May 6, 2009 15:22:20 GMT -5 by mercy4me - Back to Top
Post by itrainmonkeys on May 6, 2009 15:27:09 GMT -5
I know you have the right to say no...........but depending on the officer........doing so will just piss him off and he will make your life hell trying to get out of what situation you're in. And like others have stated.......if you get caught with stuff - it doesn't matter much if you said no to a search. you will be spending time in a cell most likely.......even if the case is eventually dropped cuz of illegal search
I know you have the right to say no...........but depending on the officer........doing so will just piss him off and he will make your life hell trying to get out of what situation you're in. And like others have stated.......if you get caught with stuff - it doesn't matter much if you said no to a search. you will be spending time in a cell most likely.......even if the case is eventually dropped cuz of illegal search
True, and thats something you have to weigh. Really depends upon the danger of incarceration you face for you crime. Sometimes it's better just to be cool with the cops, but not if you are carrying a lot of illegal stuff. Remember, cops can lie as much as they want, trust them at your own risk. Norml.org has some statistics on the penalty for possessing certain illegal things. Know your rights, but know the penalty too.
Disclaimer: I do not offer legal advice, simply commentary on the state of US laws. If you need legal help, see a lawyer. I do not condone breaking any laws, statutes or ordinances. Please obey all laws.
Last Edit: May 6, 2009 15:51:43 GMT -5 by mercy4me - Back to Top
Scent - if they smell what they think is corn - then they can use that as probable cause. Just as they can say that they smelled alcohol (which technically is not true as alcohol itself does not smell - it is the flavorings and additives that smell) to make you take a breath test - in Mississippi - if you refuse to take a breath test - they charge you with DUI - refusal and revoke your license on the spot.
^^I don't know about that but I know in DUI Defense schools they teach you that peanut butter is more effective at covering the smell of beer/wine/liquor then mouthwash/mit/gum/brushing your teeth
Scent - if they smell what they think is corn - then they can use that as probable cause. Just as they can say that they smelled alcohol (which technically is not true as alcohol itself does not smell - it is the flavorings and additives that smell) to make you take a breath test - in Mississippi - if you refuse to take a breath test - they charge you with DUI - refusal and revoke your license on the spot.
Not true. The recent decision of AZ v Gant raises the standard for warrantles searches of vehicles. no one can really know what the status of the current law is until it's tested in court. But smell is NOT definite probable cause. Just don't let smell be an issue. BTW, your understanding of Mississippi law is not a good comparison; in getting your license you agree to a alcohol or NO NO WORD!!! test. We are talking about searches, and a sobriety test is not a search (the Oregon courts have ruled it a search [State v Nagel] but this is not a legal consensus, either way, a court would certainly see a vehicle search as more invasive that a sobriety test).
Last Edit: May 6, 2009 16:11:40 GMT -5 by mercy4me - Back to Top
^^^In Mississippi - I know tons of cops that would argue otherwise - plus will use the fact that you are DUI as an excuse to search your car for open alcohol and anything else they may find.
But - since you are the bar tested/passed attorney - I'll bow out - I just know what I know in Mississippi from being a criminal defense paralegal for close to 20 years.
If the officer smells burnt,burning or raw corn he or she can apply for a search warrant, or get corn smelling canine and then apply for search warrant. Maybe the judge wil sign it maybe not. But if cop says "consent or I will get a search warrant" implying that it is a foregone conclusion that the judge will sign the warrant, your atty can argue at a motion to suppress that your consent was not knowing or voluntary and any evidence discovered should be excluded from the case. I am a parttime public defender and privated criminal defense attorney. I think that generalizing about Public Defenders across the board is unkind and not based on sufficient statistical evidence. I care about my clients, I work hard on their cases and our Public Defender office has a fantastic support staff(they sometimes give me cake). Forgive me if I rant but I grow tired of ambitious cops and prosecutors using our laws to arrest and prosecute users and smalltime pot or mushroom dealers as if they were bigtime drug lords. I am in the middle of a Murder trial and my client is indigent and I am his Public Defender . I got started on this on another thread because I want everyone to be safe and have fun at Bonnaroo. Christian
^^^In Mississippi - I know tons of cops that would argue otherwise - plus will use the fact that you are DUI as an excuse to search your car for open alcohol and anything else they may find.
But - since you are the bar tested/passed attorney - I'll bow out - I just know what I know in Mississippi from being a criminal defense paralegal for close to 20 years.
I didn't say your point wasn't valid, it is. I was just arguing legaleze. You must respect the amount of power that cops have, but they just lost almost 30 years of legal precedent in their favor. by the way, I would never make the mistake of thinking that a paralegal is stupid or doesn't know the law; they are the complete opposite. They are usually better than Attys.
^^^In Mississippi - I know tons of cops that would argue otherwise - plus will use the fact that you are DUI as an excuse to search your car for open alcohol and anything else they may find.
But - since you are the bar tested/passed attorney - I'll bow out - I just know what I know in Mississippi from being a criminal defense paralegal for close to 20 years.
I didn't say your point wasn't valid, it is. I was just arguing legaleze. You must respect the amount of power that cops have, but they just lost almost 30 years of legal precedent in their favor. by the way, I would never make the mistake of thinking that a paralegal is stupid or doesn't know the law; they are the complete opposite. They are usually better than Attys.
Oh - I did not think you thought I was stupid or paralegals were stupid and I understand what you were saying - I was just using the example of an officer smelling alcohol as a way to try and force you to take a breathalizer as compared to an officer smelling corn as a way to search your car. I prob was not all that clean in my comparison.
.