Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want to be a Trendy'' yuppie even.... I have nothing to hide, we say.... I like it when they come on to private property and tell the home owner **** and get back in the house, So American I get shivers ...I - We are also all for Agenda 21, stick all those breathers in city's living in shoe boxes, thats Ultimate trendy'' my goal..
"Probable cause" is easy as all the cop has to do is claim you were behaving suspiciously and the definition of suspicious is anything the cop can imagine so it is literally no barrier at all and can be used as an excuse for indiscriminate searches.
No suspicion is not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is what allow a officer to detain you legally. No matter what a state does it can not allow what supreme court does not allow in search. vehicle searches have exceptions since its a movable object to the reasonableness of getting a search warrant.
The first paragraph of the decision makes it clear: the police need probable cause. The court based its decision on judicial precident at the federal level, from what I'm reading. Anyone read it differently?
Oh for god's sake, the car was stopped, for a tinted window violation. The cops smelled marijuana, and asked the driver if there was anything in the vehicle that they should know about. The driver responded by saying "some weed." The driver proceeded to get out of the vehicle and attempted to flee.
The cops arrested the idiot, got a K-9 to indicated drugs in the car and the police proceeded to search the vehicle. The defendants argument hinges upon the fact that because he was already under arrest outside of the vehicle the police were required to get a warrant before searching the car.
The state essentially argues that the exception warrantless searches is a long standing precedented based upon a 1925 Supreme Court decision which allows the police to search any conveyance that can be moved before the police can obtain a warrant as long as they can demonstrate probable cause.
Call me a fascist statist if you like but even an old pot smoker (retired) like me knows that a. too much tint on the windows is begging to get stopped, b. cops do have noses and if you lit it up before you get stopped certain questions are going to asked, and c. the last freaking thing you want to do is to answer the question with "Yes officer, I have weed in the back of the car!" Now to my way of thinking you can pick a, b, c, or all of the above, so it doesn't take a rocket science to see the existing probable cause.
Officer :" Sir, please step out of your vehicle I smell marijuana"
Passenger : "I do not smoke weed"
Officer: Sir, "I smell it and once again step out of the car or I will force you out"
Passenger:"This against my constitutional rights "
Passenger gets out of car is searched and his vehicle is searched, works every time. I have seen this played out numerous times on the show COPS. And thus, a accusation of " smelling marijuana" has replaced your constitutional rights.
Oh for god's sake, the car was stopped, for a tinted window violation. The cops smelled marijuana, and asked the driver if there was anything in the vehicle that they should know about. The driver responded by saying "some weed." The driver proceeded to get out of the vehicle and attempted to flee.
The cops arrested the idiot, got a K-9 to indicated drugs in the car and the police proceeded to search the vehicle. The defendants argument hinges upon the fact that because he was already under arrest outside of the vehicle the police were required to get a warrant before searching the car.
The state essentially argues that the exception warrantless searches is a long standing precedented based upon a 1925 Supreme Court decision which allows the police to search any conveyance that can be moved before the police can obtain a warrant as long as they can demonstrate probable cause.
Call me a fascist statist if you like but even an old pot smoker (retired) like me knows that a. too much tint on the windows is begging to get stopped, b. cops do have noses and if you lit it up before you get stopped certain questions are going to asked, and c. the last freaking thing you want to do is to answer the question with "Yes officer, I have weed in the back of the car!" Now to my way of thinking you can pick a, b, c, or all of the above, so it doesn't take a rocket science to see the existing probable cause.
Read cases not headlines.
Untangle you nylons, sweetheart. I'm in agreement that the police had probable cause and that people should be so damn worried, in this instance, that there's uncontrolled police action.
Probable cause may as well be interpreted as "if I want to." Again, the idea of a warrant was to get a second or third opinion as to whether there is probable cause. When you put interpretation of probable cause to one man holding a handgun, nightstick, handcuffs, and a tazer, you are walking on very dangerous ground.
If the citizens of that state allow this to stand, they are complete fools.
I don't like this ruling any better than you do, but let's not be alarmist, here. This is not an encroachment on the 4th Amendment. Probable cause is, and has been, the standard in most States. Yes, some cops abuse that discretion on occasion, but it's not as simple as "if I want to". They have to actually see or smell something, and justify their decision.
And let's also consider what's driving rulings like these. Philadelphia is starting to resemble Detroit and D.C. more everyday. Violent crime is rampant. Until we have the political will to address the real problem, more people are going to see these infringements as the only way to allow the police to keep them safe.
I am glad to see that some herein looked at the decision.
It is a very long decision: I quit reading it word for word at page 37 (62 page decision) since much of the decision thereafter is examining what the law is in other jurisdictions.
Here is the finding of the Court:
"In sum, our review reveals no compelling reason to interpret Article I, Section 8 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution as providing greater protection with regard to warrantless
searches of motor vehicles than does the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we hold that,
in this Commonwealth, the law governing warrantless searches of motor vehicles is
coextensive with federal law under the Fourth Amendment. The prerequisite for a
warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search; no exigency beyond the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle is required."
The reason for the lengthy decision is this: in Pennsylvania it had been the general rule that a warrantless search of a motor vehicle could be done if 1) there was probable cause and 2) there was an 'exigent' circumstance. Since the PA court was overruling its own prior decisions, then it felt a need to explain itself.
The PA court reviewed the US Supreme Court decisions since 1925. Originally, the US Court had mandated that the 'exigent' circumstances must exist, in addition to 'probable cause', in order to perform a warrantless search.
However, over the decades the US Court had determined that the very fact that a motor vehicle can be driven away, and emptied of any contraband, itself was 'exigent'. Thus, so long as 'probable cause' existed, then the 'exigent' circumstance existed (if a motor vehicle). The Court saw no reason to divide the two.
Note that the Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution virtually mirrors the Fourth Amendment (slight change in wording). Hence, the PA court felt that there was no need to provide a defendant greater protection (via court interpretation) than that determined by the US Supreme Court.
It looks like I won't be visiting the family cemetery plot in Martinsburg anytime soon.
Sorry, grandma, grandpa, mother, and uncles, I will not be returning to PA.
then again, I hadn't been planning such an expensive trip anyway...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
