Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

An officer must have probable cause to search your vehicle i.e. smelling the odor of weed etc... If he/she doesnt have that probable cause he/she must obtain your permission or obtain a warrant for searching your vehicle. Or they could call in a k-9 unit who could possibly generate probable cause for a search.
The officer has to have probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant to search a building. And, with very few exceptions, would have to obtain that warrant prior to the search.

But, since a vehicle is mobile, and capable of being transported great distances in short time, the same level of probable cause allows vehicle searches without a search warrant.

Short answer: Police do have to have either probable cause or permission to search your vehicle.

As far as suing the officer, you can sue anybody for anything, at any time. But, unless the officer acted completely out of the scope of his training and employment, he's going to be awarded qualified immunity. You'll end up having to sue his employers.
quote:
Just because you get pulled over for speeding, does that give them the right for an officer to search your vehicle, or do they have to have probable clause to do so????? Can you tell them to obtain a search warrant to do so??? Or can you sue an officer for violating your rights...


Wow......

it always amazes me that there are people like this out there driving around.

How about first off dont have anything in your car that would get you arrested or give the office cause to search you car.

second....how would he have violated your rights?

It seems to me that the people who have the most trouble with police are the criminals!!!
quote:
Originally posted by barksdale.jeff:
quote:
Just because you get pulled over for speeding, does that give them the right for an officer to search your vehicle, or do they have to have probable clause to do so????? Can you tell them to obtain a search warrant to do so??? Or can you sue an officer for violating your rights...


Wow......

it always amazes me that there are people like this out there driving around.

How about first off dont have anything in your car that would get you arrested or give the office cause to search you car.

second....how would he have violated your rights?

It seems to me that the people who have the most trouble with police are the criminals!!!


As law guy explains below:

"Police must have probable cause or consent to do a full vehicle search. There are some situations that will allow a limited search for weapons."

Whether you are in your car, or your home, or just walking along the street, you have a Constitutional right against "unreasonable search or seizure." That is just the way it is, bub. Probable cause must be proven in order for any evidence seized from any person to be used in a court of law against that person. That is just the way it is, bub, and the way it should be. You hard-core, self-anointed "law and order" types do not make the rules. Your personal perceptions ("It seems to me that the people who have the most trouble with police are the criminals!!") are decidedly NOT the Constitution, thank God!
quote:
Whether you are in your car, or your home, or just walking along the street, you have a Constitutional right against "unreasonable search or seizure." That is just the way it is, bub. Probable cause must be proven in order for any evidence seized from any person to be used in a court of law against that person. That is just the way it is, bub, and the way it should be. You hard-core, self-anointed "law and order" types do not make the rules. Your personal perceptions ("It seems to me that the people who have the most trouble with police are the criminals!!") are decidedly NOT the Constitution, thank God!


Betern:

It is kind of like the old saying if you tell the truth about every thing you dont have to remember every thing.

If you have nothing to hide who gives a crap who searches you!!!

Pull me over today and search away. It is always the dill hole criminals who cry about being searched

BUB
quote:
Originally posted by barksdale.jeff:
quote:
Whether you are in your car, or your home, or just walking along the street, you have a Constitutional right against "unreasonable search or seizure." That is just the way it is, bub. Probable cause must be proven in order for any evidence seized from any person to be used in a court of law against that person. That is just the way it is, bub, and the way it should be. You hard-core, self-anointed "law and order" types do not make the rules. Your personal perceptions ("It seems to me that the people who have the most trouble with police are the criminals!!") are decidedly NOT the Constitution, thank God!


Betern:

It is kind of like the old saying if you tell the truth about every thing you dont have to remember every thing.

If you have nothing to hide who gives a crap who searches you!!!

Pull me over today and search away. It is always the dill hole criminals who cry about being searched

BUB


If you want to surrender your liberties because you consider yourself innocent, then have at it, but just remember that each time you do so, you are abdicating very fundamental principles by which this free land is governed.
quote:
If you want to surrender your liberties because you consider yourself innocent, then have at it, but just remember that each time you do so, you are abdicating very fundamental principles by which this free land is governed.


I didnt say i wanted to surrender my liberties.

You hardly ever hear of an innocent person going "I am so pissed because a cop searched my car and found nothing"

It is usually some person going "man some a**hole cop searched my car and found a joint" can he do that when he only stopped me for speeding?

It is called act in a mature manner and most of the time you will be treated in the same manner. I do understand there are cops out there that are out of line...but I am willing to bet its about 1%. 99% of the time when some one is complaining about the police its because they got stopped for something they should have been stopped for and are just pissed off because they got caught.
When a vehicle is stopped, LEO is surveying entire contents and under the "Plain View Doctrine" may arrest the driver, possibly passengers, and the CAR. Most departments require the contents of the "arrested" car to be inventoried..contraband discovered becomes evidence in the initial arrest. Officers lighting up the interior of your car are looking for illegal items accessible through the Plain View Doctrine, that will advance their case and get another "bad guy" off the street.
Here's another nugget of truth. When an officer has contact with someone he or she has the right to "terry frisk" a person based on reasonable, articulable facts as to why you believe the person may be armed. The same applies to a vehicle. If your acts lead me to believe a weapon may be in the car it is getting searched in your area of reach. If I find drugs they are seized and may be used as evidence. If they get suppressed then at least I didn't get shot.
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
When a vehicle is stopped, LEO is surveying entire contents and under the "Plain View Doctrine" may arrest the driver, possibly passengers, and the CAR. Most departments require the contents of the "arrested" car to be inventoried..contraband discovered becomes evidence in the initial arrest. Officers lighting up the interior of your car are looking for illegal items accessible through the Plain View Doctrine, that will advance their case and get another "bad guy" off the street.


I have no argument with the "plain view doctrine," since no "search" in the legal sense is involved there. But if you have done nothing whatsoever to create any reason for a LEO to believe that you have hidden illegal items in your vehicle, he has no right to search it without your permission. And if his "reason" is spurious, a good judge will disallow any evidence improperly seized.

If the hard core philosophical and Consitutional arguments invoked by dedicated Second Amendment enthusiasts were equally applied to the Fourth Amendment, there would be none of the flimsiness inherent in the barksdale.jeff sell-out of the latter.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
When a vehicle is stopped, LEO is surveying entire contents and under the "Plain View Doctrine" may arrest the driver, possibly passengers, and the CAR. Most departments require the contents of the "arrested" car to be inventoried..contraband discovered becomes evidence in the initial arrest. Officers lighting up the interior of your car are looking for illegal items accessible through the Plain View Doctrine, that will advance their case and get another "bad guy" off the street.


I have no argument with the "plain view doctrine," since no "search" in the legal sense is involved there. But if you have done nothing whatsoever to create any reason for a LEO to believe that you have hidden illegal items in your vehicle, he has no right to search it without your permission. And if his "reason" is spurious, a good judge will disallow any evidence improperly seized.

If the hard core philosophical and Consitutional arguments invoked by dedicated Second Amendment enthusiasts were equally applied to the Fourth Amendment, there would be none of the flimsiness inherent in the barksdale.jeff sell-out of the latter.



Never voluntarily allow a search. The cop is not there to HELP you. He is trying to find something wrong.
Unless you keep your vehicle windows up and vehicle locked you don't know what could be in it. Easy way to get setup.


Say I don't like you. I know you leave your window down slightly in the hot summer days. I walk by and shove some dope through your window, then call the police...guess what, you now have a criminal record.

Most people have enough items in their home to be charged with attempting to make meth. Never allow a search. If you require a warrant, at least then you have a judge involved.
quote:
Originally posted by WH:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
When a vehicle is stopped, LEO is surveying entire contents and under the "Plain View Doctrine" may arrest the driver, possibly passengers, and the CAR. Most departments require the contents of the "arrested" car to be inventoried..contraband discovered becomes evidence in the initial arrest. Officers lighting up the interior of your car are looking for illegal items accessible through the Plain View Doctrine, that will advance their case and get another "bad guy" off the street.


I have no argument with the "plain view doctrine," since no "search" in the legal sense is involved there. But if you have done nothing whatsoever to create any reason for a LEO to believe that you have hidden illegal items in your vehicle, he has no right to search it without your permission. And if his "reason" is spurious, a good judge will disallow any evidence improperly seized.

If the hard core philosophical and Consitutional arguments invoked by dedicated Second Amendment enthusiasts were equally applied to the Fourth Amendment, there would be none of the flimsiness inherent in the barksdale.jeff sell-out of the latter.



Never voluntarily allow a search. The cop is not there to HELP you. He is trying to find something wrong.
Unless you keep your vehicle windows up and vehicle locked you don't know what could be in it. Easy way to get setup.


Say I don't like you. I know you leave your window down slightly in the hot summer days. I walk by and shove some dope through your window, then call the police...guess what, you now have a criminal record.

Most people have enough items in their home to be charged with attempting to make meth. Never allow a search. If you require a warrant, at least then you have a judge involved.


I totally agree with you WH. Or what if those aren't your pants. OOH OOH what if the weed fairy leaves a bag under your seat. More plausible reasons along with a bag being shoved in your window on a hot summer day.
betern and WH:

You 2 have to share a brain....and I dare to say brain. I think you share space.

quote:
Never voluntarily allow a search

quote:
a good judge will disallow any evidence improperly seized.


You 2 sound like you have been to court one to many times on drug charges to know the lingo.

quote:
Say I don't like you. I know you leave your window down slightly in the hot summer days. I walk by and shove some dope through your window, then call the police...guess what, you now have a criminal record.


Stop hanging out with drug heads and you wont have that problem!!
quote:
Originally posted by barksdale.jeff:
betern and WH:

You 2 have to share a brain....and I dare to say brain. I think you share space.

quote:
Never voluntarily allow a search

quote:
a good judge will disallow any evidence improperly seized.


You 2 sound like you have been to court one to many times on drug charges to know the lingo.

quote:
Say I don't like you. I know you leave your window down slightly in the hot summer days. I walk by and shove some dope through your window, then call the police...guess what, you now have a criminal record.


Stop hanging out with drug heads and you wont have that problem!!


You, barksdale.jeff, are about as dense as depleted uranium.

One need not have a criminal record, a personal history of miscreant behavior or a habit of associating with undesirables in order to savor one's constitutional rights.

Get real!
Good response from the posters who are familiar and utilize the guidelines allowed by courts on Vehicle Searches..

Steps an Officer will take...

Open View Search Doctrine..
Probable Cause for further search...
1. Smell of Alcohol or other type of drug use
2. Behavior of Driver or passenger and condtion of such.
3.Information pertaining to stop of vehicle
4.Terry Frisk and some case laws have stated, that an officer has the right to protect themselves from harm, thus they have the right to search the immediate area in which the person they are talking to is located. Meaning any area where it is reasonable that person may be able to get to quickly and get their hands on a hidden weapon.
5. Exclusionary Rule...Officer can't justify serching in a small 6 Inch Area if he is looking for a 42 Inch TV without permission or a warrant.
6. Bring in K-9
7.Information from Passenger
8.Information obtained from Driver
9.Make arrest for some misdemeanor charge, then call for tow truck. Under the Inventory Rule, they can then search the car to inventory things in the vehicle. Anything found is open to the officer to use in most cases.
10. Get Permission from the Owner of the Vehicle or Driver.

Because the Vehicle is so mobile, the courts look at Vehicle Searches with a different view, in that once let go, the items they are or were looking for can be done away with. Thus, the courts allow the officers to have a broader discretion in why and how they search a vehicle.

Most Officers if in doubt will impound the vehicle and have it towed to a secured area. A search warrant will be obtained to cover all of the bases as insurance the case or evidence found will not throw out under the banner of illegal search or seizure.

In the majority of the cases, the individuals who have their vehicle searched have created some probable cause for the officer to do so.
Most individuals who have nothing to hide or fear would not object to the officer looking in their vehicle.
Every person has the right to refuse. But to me, it seems reasonable if someone refuses, they can expect a long delay and they most definitely are not going anywhere anytime soon. They will be waiting for supervisors to arrive, a k-9 dog to arrive, and conferences with the DA's Office to determine if there is enough information to impound the vehicle so a warrant can be obtained.
Now! that is a lot of waiting...but that is everyone's right to do so...just keep in mind the officer has more options than you do in the long run.

Most Officers understand how a defense attorney will attack a case..

First Try reason to stop the vehicle
Second Try the probable causes the officer utilized further search of the vehicle which led to the charge
Third Try the method of search and seizure against case law rendered by appeallant courts, etc
Fourth Try demeanor of officer or officers
Fifth Try questioning technique, Miranda, Etc
Sixth attempt to delay case for several months
** The issue of Guilt or Innocence has not even come up yet. So far it has been about attempting to get the court to throw out the case without going to trial.Otherwords, the Officer, the procedure and how the courts handled similar cases are tried in vogue first.
Then and only then after all of those have failed to get the results the defense attorney wanted will the defense attorney attempt to do a plea and get either probation or sentence reduced.

If the DA's Office refuses to bargain due to informational circumstances the case will then be set for trial.

Now! do you see why officers have to be as well versed on case law as the defense attorney in order to get a conviction. Officers today are highly educated in their field. To be less than that, would make just about every case the officer made non-prosecutorial. Supervisors would not stand for that, nor would the DA's office continue to prosecute cases the officer made, as they would be thrown out by the assigned judge or the appeallant court judge.
Last edited by trader
quote:
Originally posted by trader:
Good response from the posters who are familiar and utilize the guidelines allowed by courts on Vehicle Searches..

Steps an Officer will take...

Open View Search Doctrine..
Probable Cause for further search...
1. Smell of Alcohol or other type of drug use
2. Behavior of Driver or passenger and condtion of such.
3.Information pertaining to stop of vehicle
4.Terry Frisk and some case laws have stated, that an officer has the right to protect themselves from harm, thus they have the right to search the immediate area in which the person they are talking to is located. Meaning any area where it is reasonable that person may be able to get to quickly and get their hands on a hidden weapon.
5. Exclusionary Rule...Officer can't justify serching in a small 6 Inch Area if he is looking for a 42 Inch TV without permission or a warrant.
6. Bring in K-9
7.Information from Passenger
8.Information obtained from Driver
9.Make arrest for some misdemeanor charge, then call for tow truck. Under the Inventory Rule, they can then search the car to inventory things in the vehicle. Anything found is open to the officer to use in most cases.
10. Get Permission from the Owner of the Vehicle or Driver.

Because the Vehicle is so mobile, the courts look at Vehicle Searches with a different view, in that once let go, the items they are or were looking for can be done away with. Thus, the courts allow the officers to have a broader discretion in why and how they search a vehicle.

Most Officers if in doubt will impound the vehicle and have it towed to a secured area. A search warrant will be obtained to cover all of the bases as insurance the case or evidence found will not throw out under the banner of illegal search or seizure.

In the majority of the cases, the individuals who have their vehicle searched have created some probable cause for the officer to do so.
Most individuals who have nothing to hide or fear would not object to the officer looking in their vehicle.
Every person has the right to refuse. But to me, it seems reasonable if someone refuses, they can expect a long delay and they most definitely are not going anywhere anytime soon. They will be waiting for supervisors to arrive, a k-9 dog to arrive, and conferences with the DA's Office to determine if there is enough information to impound the vehicle so a warrant can be obtained.
Now! that is a lot of waiting...but that is everyone's right to do so...just keep in mind the officer has more options than you do in the long run.

Most Officers understand how a defense attorney will attack a case..

First Try reason to stop the vehicle
Second Try the probable causes the officer utilized further search of the vehicle which led to the charge
Third Try the method of search and seizure against case law rendered by appeallant courts, etc
Fourth Try demeanor of officer or officers
Fifth Try questioning technique, Miranda, Etc
Sixth attempt to delay case for several months
** The issue of Guilt or Innocence has not even come up yet. So far it has been about attempting to get the court to throw out the case without going to trial.Otherwords, the Officer, the procedure and how the courts handled similar cases are tried in vogue first.
Then and only then after all of those have failed to get the results the defense attorney wanted will the defense attorney attempt to do a plea and get either probation or sentence reduced.

If the DA's Office refuses to bargain due to informational circumstances the case will then be set for trial.

Now! do you see why officers have to be as well versed on case law as the defense attorney in order to get a conviction. Officers today are highly educated in their field. To be less than that, would make just about every case the officer made non-prosecutorial. Supervisors would not stand for that, nor would the DA's office continue to prosecute cases the officer made, as they would be thrown out by the assigned judge or the appeallant court judge.


The FACTS are...most cops don't even know simple traffic laws.
Back when I was at Coffee (early '80s) our drivers ed teacher told us to never consent to a search. He said always make the officer get a warrant because most of the time the officer wouldn't have probable cause to get one. I always thought that it was interesting advice.

That said, the only reason I would worry about someone searching my car is that I bought it used off a lot. I have no idea who had it or if they might have hidden something in it; however, the chance that someone had ever hidden something it it is pretty slim. Smiler
quote:
One need not have a criminal record, a personal history of miscreant behavior or a habit of associating with undesirables in order to savor one's constitutional rights.


betern:

It seems you always trust the govt to do what is best for you on every thread on this site....why in this case would you not trust your rights to the govt?
I have agreed to a search of my car ONCE. Never again. They will have to get a warrant or call in the dogs before I go through that again.

I had left a pool to run to a store to pick up something for a bee sting for my son. I had just thrown on a pair of shorts (I had on a bikini) and took off to a store just right down the road. When I got to the store there was a police car in the parking lot with a male and female officer in it. Me and the female officer entered the store at the same time. She gave me a kinda disapproving look as if she thought I wasn't dressed appropriately for public. I went out got in my car and pulled out to a stop sign. I stopped waited for a car to pass then pulled out. They were right behind me and immediately turned on the blue lights. This was a busy highway with no real curb so I just pulled over in the tall weeds as best I could. The woman approached me ask for ID then told me I had ROLLED through the stop sign. I said I did not. She told me to get out of my car and made me stand in the weeds at the back of my car while they ran my ID. I had never had any kind of ticket EVER. I had been driving for 15 years at that point. She then said that she wanted to search my car. I (being naive) agreed that would be fine. I had nothing to hide. This took FOREVER, as I stood there in a bikini top and a pair of shorts on the side of a highway in 90 degree weather. I ask once if I could sit in the car she would not allow it. There was a bottle of antibiotics in the glove box of my car that my brother had left after a recent trip out of town. They had his name on the bottle and she kept trying to say that they were some sort of illegally obtained controled substance. By this time I was distraught. I had 2 kids at a pool with a friend and one with a bee sting waiting for me. I was standing on the side of a highway in a bikini and being eaten alive by bugs. I broke down and started crying. The male officier I guess felt like enough was enough and finally gave me a warning ticket (for the stop sign I DID NOT roll through) and told me I could go.

Next time I will say no way get a warrant or call in the dogs. I am not going to be so accommodating ever again.
quote:
Originally posted by Jankinonya:
I have agreed to a search of my car ONCE. Never again. They will have to get a warrant or call in the dogs before I go through that again.

I had left a pool to run to a store to pick up something for a bee sting for my son. I had just thrown on a pair of shorts (I had on a bikini) and took off to a store just right down the road. When I got to the store there was a police car in the parking lot with a male and female officer in it. Me and the female officer entered the store at the same time. She gave me a kinda disapproving look as if she thought I wasn't dressed appropriately for public. I went out got in my car and pulled out to a stop sign. I stopped waited for a car to pass then pulled out. They were right behind me and immediately turned on the blue lights. This was a busy highway with no real curb so I just pulled over in the tall weeds as best I could. The woman approached me ask for ID then told me I had ROLLED through the stop sign. I said I did not. She told me to get out of my car and made me stand in the weeds at the back of my car while they ran my ID. I had never had any kind of ticket EVER. I had been driving for 15 years at that point. She then said that she wanted to search my car. I (being naive) agreed that would be fine. I had nothing to hide. This took FOREVER, as I stood there in a bikini top and a pair of shorts on the side of a highway in 90 degree weather. I ask once if I could sit in the car she would not allow it. There was a bottle of antibiotics in the glove box of my car that my brother had left after a recent trip out of town. They had his name on the bottle and she kept trying to say that they were some sort of illegally obtained controled substance. By this time I was distraught. I had 2 kids at a pool with a friend and one with a bee sting waiting for me. I was standing on the side of a highway in a bikini and being eaten alive by bugs. I broke down and started crying. The male officier I guess felt like enough was enough and finally gave me a warning ticket (for the stop sign I DID NOT roll through) and told me I could go.

Next time I will say no way get a warrant or call in the dogs. I am not going to be so accommodating ever again.


A very good explanation of why I don't like the cops that post on this board. They convey that same attitude.

I have had similar things happen on more than one occasion. I also know of other people that have been charged with frivolous things.

I don't violate the law except for going a little too fast sometimes. When a cop stops me asking questions...I know how to ask back. I recently had a speeding ticket thrown out. I tried to advise the stupid cop he was out of his territory but he wouldn't listen. He was madder than hell when the judge threw it out.
quote:
Originally posted by WH:


A very good explanation of why I don't like the cops that post on this board. They convey that same attitude.

I have had similar things happen on more than one occasion. I also know of other people that have been charged with frivolous things.

I don't violate the law except for going a little too fast sometimes. When a cop stops me asking questions...I know how to ask back. I recently had a speeding ticket thrown out. I tried to advise the stupid cop he was out of his territory but he wouldn't listen. He was madder than hell when the judge threw it out.


I'm sure the other cops on here are just as broken hearted as I am to hear you don't like us Wink Roll Eyes

If you don't like the "frivolous" things, get your legislative representative to change the law.

Just what "territory" was that cop out of? Guam? Puerto Rico? US Virgin Islands? Roll Eyes

Perhaps you meant "jurisdiction"? Naw, you wouldn't make that kind of mistake, would you? Cool
As stated by the previous poster, accusing you of running a stop sign when you didn't is not "frivolous', its lying. You know what I'm talking about though don't you?

The cop I referred to was within his "jurisdiction" ,but out of the city limits...

I could probably have a field day with you in court too...you seem very childish.
quote:
Originally posted by WH:
As stated by the previous poster, accusing you of running a stop sign when you didn't is not "frivolous', its lying. You know what I'm talking about though don't you?

The cop I referred to was within his "jurisdiction" ,but out of the city limits...

I could probably have a field day with you in court too...you seem very childish.


Then why did you say "frivolous"? Was it because you were referring to charges that you deem to be not worthy of enforcement, rather than what you now claim? I think so...

Jurisdiction and territory are two absolutely completely different terms. Admit it...you messed up.

I don't think you'd enjoy being on the opposite side of the courtroom from me...I haven't lost a traffic case in years.

And you're a big doo doo head if you think I'm childish, you booger eater Eeker Big Grin
quote:
Then why did you say "frivolous"? Was it because you were referring to charges that you deem to be not worthy of enforcement, rather than what you now claim? I think so...


The previous poster referred to a cop lying about them running a stop sign. Can you not stay on subject?

As for frivolous...a cop once stopped me for...driving too close to the white line...I let him know just what a idiot he was, and asked him exactly what code was violated. He mumbled something and returned to his car.


quote:
Jurisdiction and territory are two absolutely completely different terms. Admit it...you messed up.


Nope, said exactly what I meant. A city cop cannot enforce speed laws out of his territory, which is the city limits. He has full authority within that territory. Do I need to define territory for you?


quote:
I don't think you'd enjoy being on the opposite side of the courtroom from me...I haven't lost a traffic case in years.


I sell 747 jumbo jets too, want to buy one?
quote:
Originally posted by WH:
quote:
Then why did you say "frivolous"? Was it because you were referring to charges that you deem to be not worthy of enforcement, rather than what you now claim? I think so...


The previous poster referred to a cop lying about them running a stop sign. Can you not stay on subject?

As for frivolous...a cop once stopped me for...driving too close to the white line...I let him know just what a idiot he was, and asked him exactly what code was violated. He mumbled something and returned to his car.

Yep. I bet you did. Probably told him you sold jumbo jets, too..didn't you Wink


quote:
Jurisdiction and territory are two absolutely completely different terms. Admit it...you messed up.


Nope, said exactly what I meant. A city cop cannot enforce speed laws out of his territory, which is the city limits. He has full authority within that territory. Do I need to define territory for you?

Your use of the term "territory is archaic, not in line with current use and so sadly outdated that it is quite pitiful. Alabama code refers to "corporate limits" when defining where T32-5A-171 may be enforced. Not all municipal officers are restricted to their corporate limits by this code, and this isn't the only code to write citations for excessive speeding.


quote:
I don't think you'd enjoy being on the opposite side of the courtroom from me...I haven't lost a traffic case in years.


I sell 747 jumbo jets too, want to buy one?

Certainly. Deliver it to me at the courthouse....I'll be there waiting for it. Razzer
Last edited by Sassy Kims
an officer will have to bash in my window, drag me out of my vehicle (probably after being tazzed) and detain me to search my vehicle and when you fing nothing (unless you plant it) then we're gonna have some fun in the court room. additionally, a police officer will never be allowed in my home without a search warrant. I value my privacy, break no laws, and will defend my 4th amendmant rights to the fullest extent possible. the police are not your friends, their job is to do everything possible to arrest and convict you.

expert advice from a Regent Law School Professor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...sgik&feature=related
The funny part about this thread is how most posters are people who would never be subjected to a vehicle search. Not all but most. Those of you with horror stories are excluded of course. So partriot let me pose you this question. If your home was burglarized while you were not home and the police want to collect valuable evidence to hopefully find a suspect and recover property will you let them inside? Just curious. Not all police are these "training day" personas you cast upon them. Some take your safety very seriously and have sacrificed to protect it.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×