JMusic
member
As Jeff stated earlier it depends on case law and juristiction. Probable cause is defined as "Cause that a reasonable prudent person believes a crime has been committed."
Jim
Jim
What, exactly, is probable cause for a vehicle search?
- Thread starter BigBlock
- Start date
- Status
Everybody needs to read You and the Police by Boston T. Party. His tendency to be a lead-foot has caused many transactions with the police.
The police are not always our adversaries, but they can be. A lot depends on the type of officer that you are dealing with. He could be a good old fashioned peace officer or an intimidating or rogue cop.
At a minumum, "Reasonable Suspicion" is required to pull you over. If you keep your vehicle in perfect operating condition and do not violate any traffic laws, your chances of having to deal with the police is reduced to almost nothing. Also, it would be helpful to remove that "Bad Cop, No Donut" sticker.
If you do get stopped, the officer may subject you and your car to a "Terry Frisk", which means that he can look for weapons by patting you down and looking in the immediate grabbable area of your car. Reaching into pockets for items that are not clearly weapons is not allowed. The legal requirement for a "Terry Frisk" is "specific, explainable fear for safety and reason to believe a weapon is in a particular reachable area of the car". Of course this has morphed into "they can do it whenever they want."
They might ask you to consent to a search. There is no advantage to consenting to a voluntary search. Don't do it. If he thought you were innocent, he wouldn't be interested in you. Probable cause is required and if the officer had it, he wouldn't be asking. PC comes from evidence seen in plain view, including all five senses.
He can get a search warrant from a judge. If he threatens to get a warrant, reply that since warrants are based on probable cause, and you are doing nothing wrong, it is doubtful that he could get one.
He can have a drug dog run around your car. A dog handler might touch a drug sample then touch your car while running the dog around, even though it is strictly against procedure to touch the car. Bingo, dog alerts, probable cause, and search.
Then there is search incident to arrest. In Texas, an officer can arrest you for anything but speeding. He cannot arrest you, search, then un-arrest you. Apparently state laws vary on this.
Also remember that you do not have to answer any questions. Usually the officer is not making small talk. He is fishing for PC. The less said, the better.
Rules for pedestrians are a little different.
Remember that the police work for the state and their job is to arrest criminals. During any confrontation, there is at least some risk that you could be arrested.
If you get treated poorly, always write a letter of complaint. It goes in the officer's file and for all we know, there may be 40 already in there.
Stand up for your rights, people!
IANAL and this is not complete information.
The police are not always our adversaries, but they can be. A lot depends on the type of officer that you are dealing with. He could be a good old fashioned peace officer or an intimidating or rogue cop.
At a minumum, "Reasonable Suspicion" is required to pull you over. If you keep your vehicle in perfect operating condition and do not violate any traffic laws, your chances of having to deal with the police is reduced to almost nothing. Also, it would be helpful to remove that "Bad Cop, No Donut" sticker.
If you do get stopped, the officer may subject you and your car to a "Terry Frisk", which means that he can look for weapons by patting you down and looking in the immediate grabbable area of your car. Reaching into pockets for items that are not clearly weapons is not allowed. The legal requirement for a "Terry Frisk" is "specific, explainable fear for safety and reason to believe a weapon is in a particular reachable area of the car". Of course this has morphed into "they can do it whenever they want."
They might ask you to consent to a search. There is no advantage to consenting to a voluntary search. Don't do it. If he thought you were innocent, he wouldn't be interested in you. Probable cause is required and if the officer had it, he wouldn't be asking. PC comes from evidence seen in plain view, including all five senses.
He can get a search warrant from a judge. If he threatens to get a warrant, reply that since warrants are based on probable cause, and you are doing nothing wrong, it is doubtful that he could get one.
He can have a drug dog run around your car. A dog handler might touch a drug sample then touch your car while running the dog around, even though it is strictly against procedure to touch the car. Bingo, dog alerts, probable cause, and search.
Then there is search incident to arrest. In Texas, an officer can arrest you for anything but speeding. He cannot arrest you, search, then un-arrest you. Apparently state laws vary on this.
Also remember that you do not have to answer any questions. Usually the officer is not making small talk. He is fishing for PC. The less said, the better.
Rules for pedestrians are a little different.
Remember that the police work for the state and their job is to arrest criminals. During any confrontation, there is at least some risk that you could be arrested.
If you get treated poorly, always write a letter of complaint. It goes in the officer's file and for all we know, there may be 40 already in there.
Stand up for your rights, people!
IANAL and this is not complete information.
Last edited:
one-shot-one
Member
????
dang what do ya'll look like or what do you do, that gets your car searched?
i'm 46 and have been pulled over a few times, i'm not now nor have ever been in law enforcement, i have one cousin that i know of who works for the constable. my vehicle has never been searched and i've been stoped by:
houston police, county cops and hiway patrol, some have written me tickets (not all
) but none have ever searched my wheels.
i was stopped by the feds on my way back from the rio grand valley and the dog sniffed my back bumper and i smiled at the officer with the m16. he asked "are you a us citizen?" i said yes he said "have a nice day".
am i charmed or do i look that inocent?
dang what do ya'll look like or what do you do, that gets your car searched?
i'm 46 and have been pulled over a few times, i'm not now nor have ever been in law enforcement, i have one cousin that i know of who works for the constable. my vehicle has never been searched and i've been stoped by:
houston police, county cops and hiway patrol, some have written me tickets (not all
) but none have ever searched my wheels.i was stopped by the feds on my way back from the rio grand valley and the dog sniffed my back bumper and i smiled at the officer with the m16. he asked "are you a us citizen?" i said yes he said "have a nice day".
am i charmed or do i look that inocent?
ilbob said;
I am afraid you are mistaken. PC will be decided by the officer's original report, made at the time of arrest. If I arrest someone at work tonight, the states attorney has to have my report by the time court convenes in the morning. There is no concocting a good scenario months after the fact.
I don't know any judge who is going to be too happy if any supplemental reports are significantly different in facts from what the initial report says. Probable cause is based on what the officer knows at the time, not what additional investigation reveals.
Jeff
I am afraid you are mistaken. PC will be decided by the officer's original report, made at the time of arrest. If I arrest someone at work tonight, the states attorney has to have my report by the time court convenes in the morning. There is no concocting a good scenario months after the fact.
I don't know any judge who is going to be too happy if any supplemental reports are significantly different in facts from what the initial report says. Probable cause is based on what the officer knows at the time, not what additional investigation reveals.
Jeff
The worst thing you can do is to attempt to argue constitutional law on the side of the road. You will never win out there. Consult an attorney and argue the law in court.
Jeff
1911 guy
Member
And the argument happens because...
There are people in this world, some who wear badges, that will knowingly violate that Constitution.
If a police officer is somehow justified in believing that everyone he stops is capable of being a dangerous criminal, why is the Average Joe not justified in thinking that the cop who pulls him over is the one guy in the county with an axe to grind with the public? Double standard perhaps?
I've harped on this before. The majority of police officers are honest people trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. So are most non-cops. Sticking your head in the sad and pretending the other one percent do not exist does not make the trouble makers go away.
If I'm ever pulled over in Illinois, I hope it is by Mr. White, I can expect to be treated fairly, I believe. Crooked cops are like crooked everybody elses, I'd imagine, inventive. I'd expect bogus info to be on a report filed immediately.
There are people in this world, some who wear badges, that will knowingly violate that Constitution.
If a police officer is somehow justified in believing that everyone he stops is capable of being a dangerous criminal, why is the Average Joe not justified in thinking that the cop who pulls him over is the one guy in the county with an axe to grind with the public? Double standard perhaps?
I've harped on this before. The majority of police officers are honest people trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. So are most non-cops. Sticking your head in the sad and pretending the other one percent do not exist does not make the trouble makers go away.
If I'm ever pulled over in Illinois, I hope it is by Mr. White, I can expect to be treated fairly, I believe. Crooked cops are like crooked everybody elses, I'd imagine, inventive. I'd expect bogus info to be on a report filed immediately.
Troutman
member
Definitions-Add on to my first post
Some definitions
Reasonableness:
What is reasonable under the 4th Amendment depends on the circumstances.
Example: Certain searches and seizures are considered to be reasonable only if the government has first obtained a warrant authorizing the action, while other searches and seizures are reasonable without a warrant.
Search:
A search can be defined as a governmental intrusion into an area where a person has a reasonably and justifiable expectation of privacy.
Seizure:
A seizure can be defined as the exercise of control by the government over a person or thing
-------Note: I’m going to be reasonable here, and take a break for a moment to do a search and seizure of the fridge and apprehend a couple of buds’ (tall boys) that I put on ice. ------
Probable Cause:
Reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed.
If during an investigatory detention, the officer develops probable cause, the detention becomes an arrest, and the officer can proceed on that basis. He can, for example, conduct a full search incident to arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion:
Not specifically defined by the Court. Something more than vague suspicion, but less than probable cause. Whether the standard is met is judged by the totality of the circumstances.
Like probable cause, reasonable suspicion need not arise from a police officer’s personal knowledge. The suspicion can be based on a flyer, a police bulletin, or a report from an important,
Informant’s Tips….. Note: And I’m not talking about a tip as “The “A” horse in the third race”, either.
The tip must be accompanied by indicia of reliability sufficient to make the officer’s suspicion reasonable.
Some definitions
Reasonableness:
What is reasonable under the 4th Amendment depends on the circumstances.
Example: Certain searches and seizures are considered to be reasonable only if the government has first obtained a warrant authorizing the action, while other searches and seizures are reasonable without a warrant.
Search:
A search can be defined as a governmental intrusion into an area where a person has a reasonably and justifiable expectation of privacy.
Seizure:
A seizure can be defined as the exercise of control by the government over a person or thing
-------Note: I’m going to be reasonable here, and take a break for a moment to do a search and seizure of the fridge and apprehend a couple of buds’ (tall boys) that I put on ice. ------
Probable Cause:
Reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed.
If during an investigatory detention, the officer develops probable cause, the detention becomes an arrest, and the officer can proceed on that basis. He can, for example, conduct a full search incident to arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion:
Not specifically defined by the Court. Something more than vague suspicion, but less than probable cause. Whether the standard is met is judged by the totality of the circumstances.
Like probable cause, reasonable suspicion need not arise from a police officer’s personal knowledge. The suspicion can be based on a flyer, a police bulletin, or a report from an important,
Informant’s Tips….. Note: And I’m not talking about a tip as “The “A” horse in the third race”, either.
The tip must be accompanied by indicia of reliability sufficient to make the officer’s suspicion reasonable.
pacodelahoya
Member
Jeff, not to be obtuse, but how can any one expect fairness in courts when judges rule that it is constitutional to pull people over at DUI check points. I know it is "legal", but I read and comprehend english fairly well and I know it is unconstitutional.
Just like plants grown in ones back yard for ones personal use affect interstate commerce.
Just like shall not be infringed means that the gov can keep lists, can dictate what is allowable to own, can outright ban etc.:banghead:
Face it, the system is broken and checks and balances aren't working. When it comes to the gov, it is us against them. I think this is one of the reasons people distrust the police, because they are one of the most visible parts of a government that has gone astray.
Just like plants grown in ones back yard for ones personal use affect interstate commerce.
Just like shall not be infringed means that the gov can keep lists, can dictate what is allowable to own, can outright ban etc.:banghead:
Face it, the system is broken and checks and balances aren't working. When it comes to the gov, it is us against them. I think this is one of the reasons people distrust the police, because they are one of the most visible parts of a government that has gone astray.
Cops do not take well to having their mistakes pointed out while they are in cop mode. Its called obstruction, or resisting, and often it results in serious criminal charges being placed against the innocent party.
Its unfair, and unconstitutional, and all that, but it is the way it is. shut up, take your medicine and move on.
next time you vote remember the incident, because you will get no satisfaction from the courts or LE, but the political arena has potential for change.
pacodelahoya said;
Someone is getting fairness in the courts. The search and seizure law update is chock full of cases where evidence is suppressed because of an error the police made. I don't think the system is quite as broken as you think.
That's where you are wrong. When the United States Supreme Court upheld it, it became constitutional. It will remain constitutional until the USSC revisits the issue and reverses that decision. The way that you and I affect those decisions is to vote for a presidential candidate who will appoint justices who view the constitution and bill of rights the same way that we do. The system moves with the blinding speed of a glacier moving across the plain, but it still works.
ilbob said;
Are you a judge? What qualifies you to rule on matters of constitutional law? Perhaps we should make judges the police. That way rulings could be made on the side of the road and everyone would be satisfied. Didn't someone make science fiction movie with just that scenario?
If the courts are so broken, how come motions to supress are successfully argued everyday?
The political arena has potential for change? In Illinois? are you a millionaire? You obviously know that Illinois is a pay to play state and that until Fitzgerald manages to put the leaders of both major parties into federal prison, the average citizen in Illinois has only as much influence as he can afford to buy.
Jeff
Someone is getting fairness in the courts. The search and seizure law update is chock full of cases where evidence is suppressed because of an error the police made. I don't think the system is quite as broken as you think.
That's where you are wrong. When the United States Supreme Court upheld it, it became constitutional. It will remain constitutional until the USSC revisits the issue and reverses that decision. The way that you and I affect those decisions is to vote for a presidential candidate who will appoint justices who view the constitution and bill of rights the same way that we do. The system moves with the blinding speed of a glacier moving across the plain, but it still works.
ilbob said;
Are you a judge? What qualifies you to rule on matters of constitutional law? Perhaps we should make judges the police. That way rulings could be made on the side of the road and everyone would be satisfied. Didn't someone make science fiction movie with just that scenario?
If the courts are so broken, how come motions to supress are successfully argued everyday?
The political arena has potential for change? In Illinois? are you a millionaire? You obviously know that Illinois is a pay to play state and that until Fitzgerald manages to put the leaders of both major parties into federal prison, the average citizen in Illinois has only as much influence as he can afford to buy.
Jeff
Handgun Midas
Member
Jeff, this statement, coming from a peace officer, in a paragraph mentioning "how you carry your firearm," doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.Jeff White said:
Could you please elaborate on what you meant, because my gut tells me that you probably didn't intend that statement the way it reads, at least to me.
Handgun Midas,
It means exactly what it says. If you're going to do something that you believe is illegal or could be construed to be illegal, your best bet is to consult with a criminal defense attorney in advance. That way you know how to stay on the right side of the law and avoid problems.
It's a sad commentary on how complicated our society has become, but the former US Attorney for Eastern Missouri (covers the St Louis area) now makes his living in private practice advising CEOs of large corporations on how to avoid criminal prosecution.
There is nothing wrong with checking with an attorney before you do something questionable. It might save you all kinds of trouble and expense later on.
Jeff
It means exactly what it says. If you're going to do something that you believe is illegal or could be construed to be illegal, your best bet is to consult with a criminal defense attorney in advance. That way you know how to stay on the right side of the law and avoid problems.
It's a sad commentary on how complicated our society has become, but the former US Attorney for Eastern Missouri (covers the St Louis area) now makes his living in private practice advising CEOs of large corporations on how to avoid criminal prosecution.
There is nothing wrong with checking with an attorney before you do something questionable. It might save you all kinds of trouble and expense later on.
Jeff
pacodelahoya
Member
Jeff, I'm gonna have to agree to disagree.
CraigJS
Member
Carry a tape recorder.. Bottom line is if your not doing or posessing something you shouldn't, MOST of the time you'll be ok.
jazurell said,
What court said that? There has been a lot that's been said. But been said by who is the question. Unless you can come up with a court cite that says driving between 10pm and 2am is probable cause to be stopped for DUI then it's just another urban legend that will continue to contribute to the confusion on the issue.
Jeff
What court said that? There has been a lot that's been said. But been said by who is the question. Unless you can come up with a court cite that says driving between 10pm and 2am is probable cause to be stopped for DUI then it's just another urban legend that will continue to contribute to the confusion on the issue.
Jeff
Jeff...
My favorite time to ride my scoot in warm weather is between midnight and 5:00 am - little traffic and it's pretty that time of day. I get pulled over on occasion and have been told on more than one occasion by the cops that "...only bad guys are out between 2:00 am and 5:am ".
Believe that or not.
Biker
My favorite time to ride my scoot in warm weather is between midnight and 5:00 am - little traffic and it's pretty that time of day. I get pulled over on occasion and have been told on more than one occasion by the cops that "...only bad guys are out between 2:00 am and 5:am ".
Believe that or not.
Biker
WRONG! I suggest you get your information from somewhere else. It can only be searched incident to an arrest? Why don't you give Michigan v. Long a quick read and come back. Terry "stop and frisk" searches of passenger compartments have been the law of the land since 1983.
I used to joke with my colleagues that the easiest (and maybe most practical) thing for the Supreme Court to do is to just rule that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their automobiles. Just hold that the 4th Amendment isn't implicated in vehicle searches. I know it sounds scary, but it's already been headed that way for decades. At least we wouldn't have to worry about keeping abreast of all the tortured rules and exceptions created by the Carroll Doctrine.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
One problem for us at THR is that we're from different states, and from within different federal judicial districts.
I haven't paid close attention to the "where", but in some states/districts, a car is an extension of one's home, as is an RV or travel trailer. Elsewhere, the protections don't seem to be as stringent. There is no "one size fits all" in this.
Art
I haven't paid close attention to the "where", but in some states/districts, a car is an extension of one's home, as is an RV or travel trailer. Elsewhere, the protections don't seem to be as stringent. There is no "one size fits all" in this.
Art
Like everything else, the laws about tape recording vary from state to state. We had a long thread about that a couple months ago. Check with a lawyer before you get involved with tape recording any conversations.
Jeff
Jeff
profshadow
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 64
Of course, there is always the old joke:
car speeding at 120 mph
A policeman was sitting on the hard shoulder watching the traffic go by when a car zoomed past him doing at least 120 mph!
The policeman chased him down, and pulled the car over. He went up to the car and asked, "Do you know that you were doing at least 50 mph over the speed limit?"
The driver replied, "Was I officer, I'm terribly sorry but I wasn't aware of that."
The policeman said, "May I see your drivers license please?"
The man replied, "I don't have one officer."
"Of course you do," said the policeman.
"No sir, I don't," said the man.
"So why do you have this car?" asked the policeman.
"This is not my car, I stole it," said the man.
"You are driving a stolen car?" said the policeman.
"Yes I'm afraid so sir,"
Looking puzzled the policeman said, "Let me see the registration, so we can find out who it belongs to."
The man said, "There is nothing in the glove compartment except some candy, oh, and my gun."
"Your gun!" exclaimed the officer, clearly worried by this point, as this man was obviously a lunatic.
"So you don't have a drivers license, you stole this car, and there is a gun in the glove compartment!"
"Yes sir," said the man, "Oh and a body in the trunk."
"Jesus!" said the policeman turning white, "Ok so you have no drivers license, you have stolen this car, there is a gun in the glove compartment, and a body in the trunk?"
"Yes," said the man, sounding slightly irritated.
"Look," said the policeman, "You wait right here and don't touch anything! Don’t move, don’t even breathe."
So the policeman ran to his car and radioed the station, "I want to speak to the chief," said the policeman, "And quick!"
He waited about a minute and the chief came on the line, "What is it," he said.
"I've got a man here, he is a complete lunatic he has very calmly stated that he is driving a stolen car, he has no drivers license, there is a gun in the glove compartment, and a body in the trunk," said the policeman.
"I’ll be right there," said the chief.
In ten minutes the man and the car were surrounded. There was the chief of police, a swat team, everybody you could imagine.
The chief walks slowly to the car in his bulletproof vest and says to the driver, "Hello sir, ehm may I see your drivers license?"
"Of course," said the man, and produced it from his back pocket.
Looking puzzled, the chief asked, "Is this your car?"
"Yes," said the man.
"Can I see your registration please sir?" asked the chief.
The man leaned over to open the glove compartment.
"Please don't open it sir!" said the chief.
"Why?" asked the man, "I thought you wanted my registration."
"I do," said the chief, "But there is a gun in there."
"Don't be silly," said the man, and he opened the glove compartment, empty apart from some candy.
"Let me get this right," said the chief, "You have a drivers license, this is your car and there is no gun in the glove compartment."
"Yes," said the man,
"And there is no body in the trunk, I suppose," said the chief.
"BODY!" exclaimed the man, "Why on earth would I have a body in my trunk?"
"Sir I apologize for this, but my officer told me that you had no drivers licence, you had stolen this car, you were in possession of a gun, and a body in the trunk."
"The lying fool, said the man, "I bet he said I was speeding as well!"
car speeding at 120 mph
A policeman was sitting on the hard shoulder watching the traffic go by when a car zoomed past him doing at least 120 mph!
The policeman chased him down, and pulled the car over. He went up to the car and asked, "Do you know that you were doing at least 50 mph over the speed limit?"
The driver replied, "Was I officer, I'm terribly sorry but I wasn't aware of that."
The policeman said, "May I see your drivers license please?"
The man replied, "I don't have one officer."
"Of course you do," said the policeman.
"No sir, I don't," said the man.
"So why do you have this car?" asked the policeman.
"This is not my car, I stole it," said the man.
"You are driving a stolen car?" said the policeman.
"Yes I'm afraid so sir,"
Looking puzzled the policeman said, "Let me see the registration, so we can find out who it belongs to."
The man said, "There is nothing in the glove compartment except some candy, oh, and my gun."
"Your gun!" exclaimed the officer, clearly worried by this point, as this man was obviously a lunatic.
"So you don't have a drivers license, you stole this car, and there is a gun in the glove compartment!"
"Yes sir," said the man, "Oh and a body in the trunk."
"Jesus!" said the policeman turning white, "Ok so you have no drivers license, you have stolen this car, there is a gun in the glove compartment, and a body in the trunk?"
"Yes," said the man, sounding slightly irritated.
"Look," said the policeman, "You wait right here and don't touch anything! Don’t move, don’t even breathe."
So the policeman ran to his car and radioed the station, "I want to speak to the chief," said the policeman, "And quick!"
He waited about a minute and the chief came on the line, "What is it," he said.
"I've got a man here, he is a complete lunatic he has very calmly stated that he is driving a stolen car, he has no drivers license, there is a gun in the glove compartment, and a body in the trunk," said the policeman.
"I’ll be right there," said the chief.
In ten minutes the man and the car were surrounded. There was the chief of police, a swat team, everybody you could imagine.
The chief walks slowly to the car in his bulletproof vest and says to the driver, "Hello sir, ehm may I see your drivers license?"
"Of course," said the man, and produced it from his back pocket.
Looking puzzled, the chief asked, "Is this your car?"
"Yes," said the man.
"Can I see your registration please sir?" asked the chief.
The man leaned over to open the glove compartment.
"Please don't open it sir!" said the chief.
"Why?" asked the man, "I thought you wanted my registration."
"I do," said the chief, "But there is a gun in there."
"Don't be silly," said the man, and he opened the glove compartment, empty apart from some candy.
"Let me get this right," said the chief, "You have a drivers license, this is your car and there is no gun in the glove compartment."
"Yes," said the man,
"And there is no body in the trunk, I suppose," said the chief.
"BODY!" exclaimed the man, "Why on earth would I have a body in my trunk?"
"Sir I apologize for this, but my officer told me that you had no drivers licence, you had stolen this car, you were in possession of a gun, and a body in the trunk."
"The lying fool, said the man, "I bet he said I was speeding as well!"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked