afkidd Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 a car is not treated as a house under the law, and they can even go in a house under the right conditions w/o a warrant is it not treated as private property? police require warrants to search concealed areas where i reside. of course anything in plain view is actionable. (exception is obviously border areas) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 They have probable cause, crimes have been committed in those areasThis response is beyond the pale. Probable cause isn't a sweeping jurisdiction. They have to have probable cause you committed a crime. Not probable cause a crime has been committed. Otherwise, police would stop every vehicle within 5 miles of a crime "just in case" you were the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 This response is beyond the pale. Probable cause isn't a sweeping jurisdiction. They have to have probable cause you committed a crime. Not probable cause a crime has been committed. Otherwise, police would stop every vehicle within 5 miles of a crime "just in case" you were the criminal. Which they do at times afkidd....if they have a dog that signals or any other reasonable grounds,they can search or impound....your choice,and like seatbelt law,a result of you being on the road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Ummmm, when you are outside 20 mile of the border, DHS has no right to stop you and demand proof you are a citizen anymore than I have the right to stop you in downtown DC and ask you for proof you are a citizen. How do you feel about Arizona's controversial recent Immigration ID law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afkidd Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 afkidd....if they have a dog that signals or any other reasonable grounds,they can search or impound. can a police officer not walk up to your home door with a dog on a community involvement program, ring the door bell, look through your windows, see a bomb, pound of cocaine, etc, and do the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 How do you feel about Arizona's controversial recent Immigration ID law?I think the spirit of the law has good intentions, but the execution and reality of the law spits in the face of everything this country stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 can a police officer not walk up to your home door with a dog on a community involvement program, ring the door bell, look through your windows, see a bomb, pound of cocaine, etc, and do the same thing? he cannot make me open the door,nor are my windows required to be opaque....among a number of other things the mobility of the vehicle changes expectations thru the Carrol Doctrine http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/carroll-doctrine/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 The Carrol Doctrine still requires that probable cause is established. Probable cause means someone must have sufficient evidence to suspect that somebody is engaged in unlawful acts. Driving down the road, looking from the exterior of a vehicle there is no way to make such a determination. Asking somebody a question and having them refuse to respond is not grounds for cause to be established, as nobody is required to submit to questioning, searches, and seizure of property simply because the officer has a completely unfounded hunch. If we allowed officers to do such things based off hunches or suspicion then it would be legal for anybody to stop you at any time anywhere and demand that you explain your life story to them. If you don't feel like doing it or even if you don't do it to their satisfaction they can then detain you as a suspicious individual. Without a video camera present there is a good chance that many of the stops in that video would have seen a police officer simply fabricate probable cause for the purpose of investigating beyond what would normally be the limits of their power. It's just like when a cop pulls someone over because they suspect they're trafficking drugs down the highway. The reason to pull them over is officially "unsafe lane change" or some made up bs, and then the cause for searching a person's vehicle is that an officer smelled an illegal substance or the driver appeared "nervous". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 The Carrol Doctrine still requires that probable cause is established. Probable cause means someone must have sufficient evidence to suspect that somebody is engaged in unlawful acts. and these checkpoints are set up in areas where unlawful acts are judged to be occurring.....standard stuff I mentioned earlier DWI checkpoints....no different,and at those they can require a breath test or worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 a car is not treated as a house under the law, and they can even go in a house under the right conditions w/o a warrant Patently untrue. They HAVE to have probable cause to search your car. They HAVE to have probable cause to ask for identification. They HAVE to have probable cause to enter a house without a warrant. Probable cause can take many forms (seeing a beer can on the front lawn of a house full of underage kids constitutes probable cause). But these checkpoints cannot just pull everyone over and search their car -- b/c they might have something -- without any sort of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Patently untrue. They HAVE to have probable cause to search your car. They HAVE to have probable cause to ask for identification. Try telling that to a cop at the next roadblock and get back to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Try telling that to a cop at the next roadblock and get back to me That's funny. I've driven through several without getting stopped. You know why? I wasn't weaving, I didn't give them any probable cause. Even if they stop me, unless they smell alcohol which would constitute probable cause, they do not have the right to search my car or ask for identification. Where are you getting your information from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 That's funny. I've driven through several without getting stopped. You know why? I wasn't weaving, I didn't give them any probable cause. Even if they stop me, unless they smell alcohol which would constitute probable cause, they do not have the right to search my car or ask for identification.Where are you getting your information from? From experience if they do not stop you then obviously they cannot require ID or search very well :evilg: if they stop you at a checkpoint, ID is a reasonable request and furnishing it is required by a driver here,a search is a different justification add it does set up a interesting question in the states the DUI checkpoints have been outlawed, but the Supremacy issue seems fairly settled unfortunately Do federal agents trump state law? the DUI checkpoint exception is a state issue ,but used as a model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 From experienceif they do not stop you then obviously they cannot require ID or search very well :evilg: if they stop you at a checkpoint, ID is a reasonable request and furnishing it is required by a driver here,a search is a different justification add it does set up a interesting question in the states the DUI checkpoints have been outlawed, but the Supremacy issue seems fairly settled unfortunately Do federal agents trump state law? the DUI checkpoint exception is a state issue ,but used as a model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz It;s a request. I can refuse, especially if I haven't been drinking, speeding, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RansomthePasserby Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Bingo....if I want orders I will ask sign up for it JSYK, you never land soft on concrete and asphalt, and guardrails are like giant cheese graters . Also, if you have passengers riding with you, your negligence is endangering their lives as well as your own. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Think about what you're doing. I hope you're just baiting people here, and in real life you actually wear a seat belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 It;s a request. I can refuse, especially if I haven't been drinking, speeding, etc. my experience and this say otherwise...but far be it from me to tell you what to do (unlike the seatbelt *******s) http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Traffic-Stops-and-Roadblocks.html Roadblocks Roadblocks or sobriety checkpoints are permitted under the Fourth Amendment so long as they are conducted in a neutral or non-arbitrary manner, their intrusion on motorists is limited, and they further an important governmental or public purpose. There is no requirement that an officer have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a stop at a roadblock. Factors that determine whether a roadblock is neutral and does not overly intrude on motorists include whether: Supervisory personnel or field officers make the decision to set up a roadblock The roadblock is conducted according to neutral plans or guidelines Cars are stopped randomly or are selected at the discretion of officers The roadblock causes an unreasonable delay to motorists The roadblock is clearly marked as a checkpoint Officers conducting the checkpoint are properly trained and experienced Advance notice is given to the public Safe conditions are maintained Roadblocks have been found to further a governmental interest in the following instances: Catching and deterring drunk driving Checking for vehicle or license registration Addressing highway safety concerns, such as seatbelt law enforcement Policing the border Acquiring information on a recent violent crime in the area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 DUI checkponts are not conducted in all 50 states (38 do, 12 do not), which underscores the point there are differing opinions about their legitimacy. In fact, there are some states who prohibit them specifically. They are: Idaho, Iowa, Michegan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Winsconsin and Wyoming. http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 yet Texas has DHS checkpoints,among others...odd isn't it add they do not have DUI check points here because " the checkpoints are unconstitutional unless a statewide governmental entity establishes guidelines for them." http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/15/4487783/should-texas-have-sobriety-checkpoints.html another add how would you like this? http://dwi.dfwattorneys.com/Articles/Texas-Drunk-Driving-No-Refusal-Weekends.shtml police departments across the state have begun instituting “no-refusal weekends” — a program that allows law enforcement to collect a blood sample from people pulled over for suspected DWI regardless of whether the individual refuses testing. In Texas, all drivers are considered to have given implied consent to provide a breath or blood sample if an officer is lawfully requesting it during a DWI stop. Despite that fact, roughly half of all suspects still refuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Sorry Bang, Nanny State laws like the seatbelt law aren't the reason you are protected in that situation. Before seat belt laws were enacted, the "Seatbelt Defense" already protected drivers against situations that you described. Those laws don't protect the public coffers from paying decades of medical bills for someone who is left horribly injured after they refused to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet. edit - beaten by Stadium Armory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Question, if a cop fabricates a story to create probable cause, does he need a warrant to search your car? No...google is my friend. Now that I have answered my own question, if a cop fabricates a story to search you illegally, is there anything you can do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 you can sue or attempt to press charges....if he is smart,you will lose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.