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.
You most certainly can be searched without a warrant. That doesn't mean they can do it randomly. Or that confiscating a cell phone isn't a violation of the 4th.
We know there exceptions but they are specific. And if I'm on the jury, searching a cell phone without permission or a warrant would get my vote for "not guilty" because that is a violation of the 4th amendment.
Here is a good description;
While police generally need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause to legally search your vehicle. Probable cause means police must have some facts or evidence to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.
In other words, an officer’s hunch without evidence of illegal activity is not enough to legally search your car. Before searching, he must observe something real. Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.
Be aware that minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, or expired registration) are not considered probable cause.
We know there exceptions but they are specific. And if I'm on the jury, searching a cell phone without permission or a warrant would get my vote for "not guilty" because that is a violation of the 4th amendment.
Well, no, the evidence obtained from the illegal search would be excluded. If you voted not-guilty based on that, the D.A would probably move for a mistrial.
oh????
so you get in an accident at 1330...at 1329 you get a text....was the accident due to a text????
meanewhile the iphone was in your purse in the backseat, and you didnt even hear it.......
is it still due to a text???
it can never be enforced if they make this a law
Well you dont have to shoot the messenger. i posted the topic and link to get some debate on how people feel about such laws, my liking the law is based on the assumption that it may provide some thought on a texters actions that there will be accountability to persuing that action and maybe they'll think twice about texting and driving, seems the overwhelming response is it wont do anything to stop people texting and driving, seems the cops will have to pry those cell .........yadda yadda.
Probably cause and the police can do the same with your house here.
They are staking out a suspected drug dealer. They see him go into a house and decide to pick him up. They knock on the door and start hearing the toilet flushing.
Probably cause and the police can do the same with your house here.
They are staking out a suspected drug dealer. They see him go into a house and decide to pick him up. They knock on the door and start hearing the toilet flushing.
They would have probable cause to go in.
The difference is that with the car, there doesn't have to be exigent circumstances.
The difference is that with the car, there doesn't have to be exigent circumstances.
Your article says there does. The police can not simply pull you over and decide they want to search your car.
You first had to have done something illegal to get stopped in the first place and then there must be something that gives them probable cause.
Just as I note they can do in your house.
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.