Me and a friend were pulled over after reaching our destination for my friend who was driving not wearing a seat belt. He is on probation, I am not .I exited the car as they pulled up and I was ordered back in the car.

I feel I shouldn't have been searched for riding passenger in a car and the driver not wearing a seat belt. I was wearing mine.

Hello g:

I'm sure you WERE illegally searched... But, there ain't nothing you can do about it.

excon

In my state they are suppose to ask for your consent. If they do not ask or you do not give them permission then it is illegal. Also in my state pulled over specifically for not wearing seat belt is illegal. What is legal vs illegal is one thing trying to fight it is another. IF you had gotten in any legal trouble then illegal would be the way to fight it. Since you were clean you are wasting your time wandering about it

In most states seatbelts are mandatory. If one is not worn, one can be pulled over.

The problem that I see here is that they were pulled over and the OP got out of the car rather than remaining in it. This aroused suspicion of the officers.

Yes you never just get out of the car. They still weren't in their rights to search without consent but nowadays they use the homeland security act to get around the law.

Considering the OP got out of the car, when he should have remained, aroused suspicion with the cops. It has nothing to do with homeland security, but rather safety of the OP and the cops.

When you get pulled over you are to stay seated, in the car, until the cop walks up and talks with you. I could give a better explanation if I weren't about to climb into bed.

I know excon hates them, but my two oldest sons are cops. If someone is pulled over and they, or their passenger, gets out before they walk up, the officers get suspicious that there is illegal activity, and also are concerned for their safety.

They said they were ordered right back into the car. If they complied then ordered back out then Im not so sure they had the right. Safety is where the homeland security seemed to supersede laws for safety reasons. But the bottom line is like excon said there is nothing they can do about it.

Hello again, J:

I know excon hates them, but my two oldest sons are cops.I hate all of 'em, cepting your kids.

You know, if I was robbed, I'd call the cops. You should know, too, that my business IS security, and I've worked VERY closely with cops. Not all of 'em are a$$holes.

But, enough of 'em ARE!

Excon

Yes you never just get out of the car. They still werent in their rights to search without consent but nowadays they use the homeland security act to get around the law.

Totally incorrect. As J_9 notes, homeland security has nothing to do with it.

If the police have cause to pull the driver over, they can search anyone in it for their own protection.

OP had the right to get out of the car, but on the other hand, the cops had the right to search OP under those circumstances.

Bottom line is this: even if there was some illegal search (which there wasn't), unless OP was prosecuted for something, he was not damaged, and thus doesn't have a case against these police.

Many cops are rotten, many aren't but even as my law teachers said many police do not know the law, even more do not follow the law. They know procedures. That's why so many get off on loopholes and technicalities.

I agree. Enough of them are a$$holes. However, in this case the OP got out of the car when he/she should have remained in. This raises the cops hackles as to either illegal activity, or a risk of harm to themselves, giving them the right to search.

Had the OP remained in the car, we would be talking a different story now.

I'm not saying the search wasn't illegal as I don't know the location of the OP, however the actions of the OP gave the cops enough reason to think there was something fishy going on.

Oh, and thanks for linking my kids. They've let off more people than they have arrested. They prefer giving warnings than arresting.

They could not search you in the car, so they had to get you out.

First you never get out of car when being pulled over, without being asked, if you do, you can even find yourself on the ground.

How did they search you ? Pat you down, they are allowed to do that, for safety, when they get you out of car.

They could not search you in the car, so they had to get you out.

Chuck, re-read the post. They didn't get him out. When they were pulled over he got out. Of his own accord. He should have waited until he was asked to get out, but he didn't.

Your bottóm line same as mine. Can't Link on cell so ill continúe later

But he said they ordered him back in car, normally this would be done from their car before they approach. ** that is proper procedure.

If he would not obey command to get in, or got out as they were walking up, he is lucky he was not thrown to the ground and hand cuffed. ** that is also fairly standard procedure

That I can totally agree with.

Hello again,

Jurisdiction DOES matter. In my state, the cops cannot pull you over for ONLY a seatbelt violation.. If they did, EVERYTHING after the stop, including the search, would be held to be unconstitutional. I'll bet California is the same.

I don't disagree at all, though, about how the conduct of the OP may have precipitated the search. But, if the stop was illegal, the search was too.

excon

Hello again,

Jurisdiction DOES matter. In my state, the cops cannot pull you over for ONLY a seatbelt violation.. If they did, EVERYTHING after the stop, including the search, would be held to be unconstitutional. I'll bet California is the same.

I don't disagree at all, though, about how the conduct of the OP may have precipitated the search. But, if the stop was illegal, the search was too.

excon

I for one have a serious problem with the idea that, if you are in a car which is pulled over, you are obligated to stay in the car. Granted, it may not be wise, but it's not illegal.

If the cops want to exercise extreme caution when that happens, fine. But if they jump on you, put the cuffs on you, etc. they are asking for a civil suit.

A question to my colleagues here who are more knowledgeable than I: given that the driver was on probation, does that give the cops more latitude to pull the car over and/or search the driver, car, and passengers?

A question to my colleagues here who are more knowledgable than I: given that the driver was on probation, does that give the cops more latitude to pull the car over and/or search the driver, car, and passengers?

Certainly the driver and his car - where it is, when, and what's in it, and on his person. And since there are rules about with whom he associates, passengers can be unlucky participants in his probation, and are expected to know all this. If they are clean, they don't have much of a case for violation of rights, and if they are doing or holding something illegal, they'd have to have a really good lawyer to get off on no probably cause.

A question to my colleagues here who are more knowledgable than I: given that the driver was on probation, does that give the cops more latitude to pull the car over and/or search the driver, car, and passengers?


.... And since there are rules about with whom he associates, passengers can be unlucky participants in his probation, and are expected to know all this. ....

I disagree that the passenger is required to know that the driver is on probation.

But, as I previously opined. If they have cause to pull the driver over, they can search the passenger for threats to the officers' safety.

A magistrate told me that before you get in anybodys car you are to check their registration, insurance, drivers license, where they stand with the law, because as ebaines and joy say as associations you can get in trouble for being in the car.

A magistrate told me that before you get in anybodys car you are to check their registration, insurance, drivers license, where they stand with the law, because as ebaines and joy say as associations you can get in trouble for being in the car.

The magistrate didn't know what he or she was talking about. Unless, of course, you were on probation. Even then, I don't see how you could be expected to know where they stand with the law"".

I feel I shouldn't have been searched for riding passenger in a car and the driver not wearing a seat belt. I was wearing mine. I was on my phone and didn't know we were getting stopped because we reached our destination. Why should I be ordered back in the car for a traffic violation that had nothing to do with me, so now I got a felony possession charge for weed cause they searched me for the driver not having a seatbelt on

I was on my phone and didn't know we were getting stopped because we reached our destination. Why should I be ordered back in the car for a traffic violation that had nothing to do with me, so now I got a felony possession charge for weed cause they searched me for the driver not having a seatbelt on

You need a GOOD lawyer. Notice how the one lawyer who has been responding is arguing with us? He knows you shouldn't have been searched, but the cops do it ALL THE TIME because you associated with someone on probation. The cops are sick of felons handing off guns and drugs to their mothers, kids, and guys like you. So you need a LAWYER and it's going to cost you.

You need a GOOD lawyer. Notice how the one lawyer who has been responding is arguing with us? He knows you shouldn't have been searched, but the cops do it ALL THE TIME because you associated with someone on probation. The cops are sick of felons handing off guns and drugs to their mothers, kids, and guys like you. So you need a LAWYER and it's going to cost you. That's what I was worried about, IM pretty sure the public defender won't fight for me probably just tell me to take a deal

How much weed, where was it (pocket, backpack, under seat), and what was your friend's conviction for?
Also where was your destination - street, driveway, parking lot?

How much weed, where was it (pocket, backpack, under seat), and what was your friend's conviction for?
Also where was your destination - street, driveway, parking lot? an apartnents parking lot

I take it you don't want to answer the other questions...

The magistrate didn't know what he or she was talking about. Unless, of course, you were on probation. Even then, I don't see how you could be expected to know where they stand with the law"".

She said that as an excuse to stick the fine to me I am sure but those are the games they play to our disadvantage.

I was on my phone and didn't know we were getting stopped because we reached our destination. Why should I be ordered back in the car for a traffic violation that had nothing to do with me, so now I got a felony possession charge for weed cause they searched me for the driver not having a seatbelt on

I thought you were talking like you were totally innocent passenger. You need to get a good lawyer that can try and get you off. Yes you are never to get out of the car until after they approach and tell you get out of the car.
You could only get off on illegal stop if California was a secondary seat belt law. 21 states have primary seat belt laws and yours is one of them

I thought you were talking like you were totally innocent passenger. You need to get a good lawyer that can try and get you off. Yes you are never to get out of the car until after they approach and tell you get out of the car.
You could only get off on illegal stop if California was a secondary seat belt law. 21 states have primary seat belt laws and yours is one of them

The moral of the story is this: If you are carrying weed, don't ride with someone who isn't buckled up.

If they had reached their destination when the police stopped them, OP's lawyer might well argue that the police had no right to search him if he immediately left the car in order to go into the house. As I suggested earlier, I don't think they have a right to restrain the passenger from leaving the vehicle; thus they had no probable cause to question him; and therefore no right to make a (Terry v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio)) search.

Basically what I was saying at the beginning of all this.

Basically what I was saying at the beginning of all this.

Perhaps. But I don't believe the OP indicated, from the get-go, that he had been charged with a crime.

The moral of the story is this: If you are carrying weed, don't ride with someone who isn't buckled up.

If they had reached their destination when the police stopped them, OP's lawyer might well argue that the police had no right to search him if he immediately left the car in order to go into the house. As I suggested earlier, I don't think they have a right to restrain the passenger from leaving the vehicle; thus they had no probable cause to question him; and therefore no right to make a (Terry v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio)) search. exactly

Exactly! I was going on based what the OP stated at the beginning.

This is sort of what I was saying about Homeland Security and the rise in police brutality
Killings highlight epidemic of police violence in US - World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/12/19/poli-d19.html)

I'm not a legal expert, not at all, so can I ask a few questions, maybe the legal experts can clear it up a bit?

The OP was apparently arrested for drugs (something he didn't mention until much later in this question).

He believes he was wrongfully convicted because he and a friend (driver of the car) were pulled over for a seat belt violation. They were pulled over, and he exited the car. I do understand AK's point of view, if they had arrived at their destination, exiting the vehicle would be normal. OP's original post says:


I exited the car as they pulled up and I was ordered back in the car.

Which sounds like he was getting out of the car, like we all do once we arrive to where we're going, when they pulled up and ordered him back into the car.

If the driver (someone on probation) violated the law by not wearing a seat belt, why would that not be a legit reason to pull him over? I believe someone posted that a mere seat belt violation wouldn't have gotten them pulled over. Why not? If it's the law to wear a seat belt, and you're not, you get pulled over and get a ticket, don't you? If, while you're pulled over, they find out you're on probation, isn't that a reason to search the vehicle, and everyone in it? If, during that search, drugs are found on the passenger of the vehicle, can't they charge him?

It's not like the OP is innocent. We're arguing about semantics here. I don't get it. He either had drugs on him, or he didn't. Sounds like he did, and he's just ticked because they found the drugs and charged him for it.

How are cops supposed to arrest guilty parties if their hands are tied?

Yes, the OP left out the very important point that he was arrested and charged with a crime as a result of the search in the initial post.

The successful prosecution will depend on several factors. Clearly his attorney needs to get the search thrown out. If he can then the case falls apart. If he can't the OP goes to jail.

We only know what few details the OP has told us. He claims he didn't know the police had pulled them over. However, in my experience, Police approaching a car they believe violated the law will flash their lights and siren to alert the car that they are "pulled over". So its hard to accept that he didn't know. Which then makes exiting the car a threatening action possibly justifying the search.

In my opinion, this could go either way.

To answer Alty's questions. In NYS the seat belt law was written to not allow police to pull over a driver only for a seat belt violation. Later it was changed to allow it. But there are rules of evidence. The police have to justify a search otherwise the fruits of that search can't be used in a prosecution.

Being indignant about the legality of the search and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. If you want help, you have to be forthcoming with every little tiny detail. We don't know you! What more could you ask for? FREE HELP!
Tell us how much you had on you, where it was when they found it, what your friend's felony is, if they found anything on him, and whether you have a record.

That is exactly what I was basing my answers on was thought innocent passenger getting out at destination. Complying to order to get back in.

....How are cops supposed to arrest guilty parties if their hands are tied?

You are joking, right?

Right answer: by doing their job without violating the Constitution.

Wrong answer: whatever it takes, including but not limited to:

unlawful searches and seizures:
getting confessions by torture and intimidation;
planted evidence;
etc.

right answer: by doing their job without violating the Constitution.

wrong answer: whatever it takes, including but not limited to:

unlawful searches and seizures:
getting confessions by torture and intimidation;
planted evidence;
etc.


That is what I was getting at about the difference between the law and some police procedures that go beyond what they should be bound to. Many cops rough up people and so forth to get what they want.
My state is one of the 29 states that seat belts are a secondary law but that doesn't stop police from making up reasons to stop you and going beyond the plain view law as well, and as you stated planting evidence, etc...

Being indignant about the legality of the search and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. If you want help, you have to be forthcoming with every little tiny detail. We don't know you! What mIore could you ask for? FREE HELP!
Tell us how much you had on you, where it was when they found it, what your friend's felony is, if they found anything on him, and whether or not you have a record. he's on probation for drugs I have a clean record, we were not blurped by the siren no lights it was day time. Weed was in my pocket

he's on probation for drugs I have a clean record, we were not blurped by the siren no lights it was day time. Weed was in my pocket he didn't get a ticket for the seatbelt which was supposed to be the reason why they rolled up on us

Your state is primary seat belt law, they can stop you for that but it is up to them what they want to ticket for and what they are willing to let slide.

It is obvious that the officers must know this person, and know he is on probation. Many officers, if this is the case, find a reason to stop them driving,

Once you got out of the car, you became fair game to a pat down, and even to empty pockets if they felt something in pocket. I will say this search would hold up in court as valid,

The issue of legal, vs illegal, they are all legal, until a court rules they are illegal. So you hire an attorney and dispute the stop, and the search.

Fr Chuck is right ---- with all the additional information that's what it all adds up to

...
If the police have cause to pull the driver over, they can search anyone in it for their own protection.
....

I must admit that I was incorrect here too.

They must have a reasonable suspicion that the person(s) is/are threats to them. I should have reviewed Terry v. Ohio (which I have linked elsewhere in this thread), before I wrote that.

Wow why is it so difficult to answer questions? AGAIN - How much weed did they find on you, and did they find anything on him?
IF you decide that your PD isn't going to help much and you can afford a private lawyer, you are going to find out that arguing the legality of the search is not isolated from the case as a whole. I can think of at least 4 or 5 more questions. If you don't want to say anything here, please say so so I can go away.

Wow why is it so difficult to answer questions? AGAIN - How much weed did they find on you, and did they find anything on him?
IF you decide that your PD isn't going to help much and you can afford a private lawyer, you are going to find out that arguing the legality of the search is not isolated from the case as a whole. ....

Really? How do you figure? You are really convinced that if they only found one joint on OP it can be an unlawful search, but if they found a pound on him maye it's lawful? Enough to make it obvious that he had something in his pocket: I can see that, but otherwise?

And, similarly, what does it matter whether they found anything on the driver?

Do your 4 or 5 other questions include:

What time of night was it?
What color was the car?
Are you left handed or right?
What race are you and the driver?

Is Cadoor a community in Solano County, California? I don't see Cadoor on the map.

AK, I take it that when you are trying to get someone off you say 'don't tell me how much weed was in your pocket, and whether the driver was found with any drugs on him, because the court will never suspect a hand off during that time it took the cops to get you to stop the car or even just be aware they were there, and the cops will never claim they could see a bulge which could be a weapon blah blah. The judge cares about your Constitutional rights only, and will even take an extra 30 minutes just hearing various precedents, instead of the usual 3 minutes takingapleaandbangingthegavelandsayingnextcase.'

AK, I take it that when you are trying to get someone off you say 'don't tell me how much weed was in your pocket, and whether the driver was found with any drugs on him, because the court will never suspect a hand off during that time it took the cops to get you to stop the car or even just be aware they were there, and the cops will never claim they could see a bulge which could be a weapon blah blah. The judge cares about your Constitutional rights only, and will even take an extra 30 minutes just hearing various precedents, instead of the usual 3 minutes takingapleaandbangingthegavelandsayingnextcase.'

Unlike on this forum, if I were defending OP I would want to know everything.

But for us to be effective here, we should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

In my opinion, a suspected hand-off would not be pertinent to the Fourth Amendment issues which OP has posed. If they suspect one, I believe they still need cause to interrogate the passenger, and a reasonable suspicion regarding their safety to search that passenger.

Hello again,

The legal advice I offer doesn't change whether the guy is guilty or not. Yours shouldn't either.

excon

I don't mean to be arguing at cross purposes. I guess (sort of) that I shouldn't be trying to get every fact on this forum. Do you think a PD will be willing to fight for him? He might have tried to when he first started, but if he has the typical case load he expects each one to take a few minutes or plea out. So what would a private lawyer cost in labor hours, do you think, if you think he has a pretty good case?

This is my point about police procedure vs the court.

Hello again, joy:
The legal advice I offer doesn't change whether the guy is guilty or not. Yours shouldn't either.

Do you think a PD will be willing to fight for him?I think GOOD public defenders are just like me. They fight for their clients whether they're GUILTY or NOT.

Why should that make a difference??

Excon

An overburdened PD weighs the odds and tries to get you to take a plea - you know that!
'Goodness' flew out the window a long time ago.
I want to know the odds of winning this with a PD, and with a private lawyer.
But not just on Constitutional grounds. On state drug laws. Because it MIGHT be important.

Hello again, joy:
Do you think a PD will be willing to fight for him?
An overburdened PD weighs the odds and tries to get you to take a plea The responsibility for ones defense rests on the defendant - NOT his lawyer. If a defendant is willing to lay down for his lawyer, then he is. But, if he ISN'T, the public defender is OBLIGATED by law and the ethics of his profession to defend his client to the best of his ability...

I'm not saying this happens as a matter of course.. It doesn't. MOST people DO lay down. But when somebody doesn't, and if he's AGGRESSIVE about obtaining his Constitutional rights, he CAN get them...

My advice here IS, and ALWAYS has been, to BE aggressive when seeking your rights...

Excon

I'm hearing generalities. I'm not hearing what this guy is facing. Let's say he aggressively demands that his PD fight for him based on precedent. What are the odds that the PD will win even if he actually puts up a good fight?
I don't think anyone here knows.
That's why I think he should scrape, beg, and borrow the money for a private lawyer.

I've seen SOME PD's do a better job than MANY paid lawyers.

Hello again, joy:

What are the odds that the PD will win even if he actually puts up a good fight?Of COURSE, we don't know. If, at trial, the cop ADMITS that he pulled the car over because he was bored, then they'll WIN. If the cop can articulate a reasonable suspicion why the stop was made, he might not. And, there's MORE - lots more.

But, NONE of that has anything to do with who pays his lawyer. There are crappy PAID for lawyers, and there are GREAT public defenders...

As I said above, if a defendant AGGRESSIVELY seeks his rights he'll GET them. But, it's on HIM to do it. He MUST not leave the management of his case to anyone but himself. Anybody who listens to MY advice will get the RIGHT information.

Excon

OK, so two of you think he can get fully informed and get his PD to do his job.
Let's hope so.

A quick review of Fourth Amendment precedent going back to Terry (1968) seems to show a trend toward more and more cases involving weapons or suspected weapons, giving police more powers to search - even glove compartments and pockets.
We don't know if the DRIVER'S drug history involved weapons. If it does, OP's case is going to be tougher to win.
In my opinion

Hello again, joy:

OK, so two of you think he can get fully informed and get his PD to do his job. Let's hope so.If you've read what I've said here over the years, you'd know that HOPE has nothing to do with it.. KNOWING what to DO has EVERYTHING to do with it. And, I KNOW what to do.

I don't know what you think I'm talking about when I say he should AGGRESSIVELY seek his rights. Do you think I mean he should DEMONSTRATE in court? Should he HOLLER at the jailers??

Look.. It's NOT difficult. IF his lawyer is NOT defending him to his satisfaction, he can FIRE his lawyer (PD) and get a NEW one appointed. If he does that pursuant to MY advice, it'll WORK. If he just FIRES him over the phone, it won't... If he lays down for him, it SURLY won't work.

Excon

HUH, ex? I said Let US hope so, not the OP.
I agree that hope has no part of this.
I'm hoping because I STILL want more details, but OP thinks he can fight this in some distilled world of Amendments.

The stop for no seat belt was legal because California is one of the 20+ primary seat belt states. IF California law is pat down of all passengers rather than plain view types of law then the OP is going to have a harder time.

Wow why is it so difficult to answer questions? AGAIN - How much weed did they find on you, and did they find anything on him?
IF you decide that your PD isn't going to help much and you can afford a private lawyer, you are going to find out that arguing the legality of the search is not isolated from the case as a whole. I can think of at least 4 or 5 more questions. If you don't want to say anything here, please say so so I can go away. Shoot

Is Cadoor a community in Solano County, California? I don't see Cadoor on the map. cadoor was my auto correct it Solano Co CA

Terry v. Ohio has been expanded upon many times since 1968.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.

How that translates to your association with a felon on probation, only you and your lawyer can work out.

Just on a practical note, 'ordering' you back in the car might be based on the fact that the cops felt that it would take both of them (2, right?) to handle the driver, and they didn't want you bolting. One of those things the judge might be sympathetic to the cops about.

What does shoot mean? Fire away with more questions? You haven't answered all the ones I asked already. ESPECIALLY how much weed you had, and if he had any. It may be thrown out if you win on illegal search, but it's still background that can help or hurt.

It's procedure to order back in the car for safety reasons.

It's procedure to order back in the car for safety reasons.

Sure, on the road. They were in a parking lot. So it was for the cops convenience.
Just going over some of the things he could have refused to do but would have been stupid to do.

Yeah that's what I said earlier was they were at destination and he complied so I don't see the issue there

OP steadfastly wants to believe certain things, such as that he should get off because the driver was not charged with the reason for being pulled over, and he just won't tell us how much weed he had on him, which would have a lot to do with the cops claiming they saw a bulge that could be a gun.
It just occurred to me that he might actually be right about the seatbelt, since they were on private property and the driver didn't have to have it on!!
So if his lawyer can prove that the cops were not trying to pull them over before they got on private property, then there's a chance the whole case could be thrown out.
I'm sorry I keep bugging you about the weed, but I still think that you can't just dismiss all the other factors. If you lose on the bogus violation, you are probably toast.

I suggest ceasing wasting time. I doubt if the OP will be back. I suspect he expected sympathy for his position and since he hasn't gotten that for the most part, he's not going to continue posting. I won't close this, but suggest that contributors not bother adding to this thread until he returns.

I suggest ceasing wasting time. I doubt if the OP will be back. I suspect he expected sympathy for his position and since he hasn't gotten that for the most part, he's not going to continue posting. I won't close this, but suggest that contributors not bother adding to this thread until he returns.
I had less than a 1/4 ounce on me.

So what stage are you with your PD? What sense are you getting from him or her?

I had less than a 1/4 ounce on me. he didn't have and e. They went straight to searching me because I read in the report that the officers said I admitted to having weed on me which I did not admit to.

So what stage are you with your PD? What sense are you getting from him or her? I haven't met my pd yet. I posted bail n I have court next month

Get your facts on paper, in a list form. In order of when they happened.
Tell the truth and don't leave anything out.
Look up the search and seizure and probable cause precedents, starting with Terry v Ohio (on wikipedia), and all the cases that followed, ending with the one I mentioned.
Get hold of your PD.
Don't rant at him. Say you want to plead not guilty. Say the case should be tossed out.

Have you been assigned one? If so, contact them ASAP and discuss the illegalsearch aspect.

he didn't have n e. They went straight to searching me because I read in the report that the officers said I admitted to having weed on me which I did not admit to.

So it wasn't a Terry search at all then. If they are to be believed, you volunteered that you were in possession of the weed; at that point they had probable cause to search you for evidence of the crime. It's going to be your word against theirs. Your PD should institute discovery right now, to determine if there was a recording of what took place, for one thing.


I haven't met my pd yet. I posted bail n I have court next month

What in God's green earth are you waiting for? Don't wait to the day of the trial to talk to your attorney!

So it wasn't a Terry search at all then. If they are to be believed, you volunteered that you were in possession of the weed; at that point they had probable cause to search you for evidence of the crime. It's going to be your word against theirs. Your PD should institute discovery right now, to determine if there was a recording of what took place, for one thing.



What in God's green earth are you waiting for? Don't wait to the day of the trial to talk to your attorney!
Do I call the public defenders office

Hello again, g:

If you've read what I've posted, you'll see that I say YOU have to manage your case. If you leave it to the PD, he'll (they'll) run roughshod over you, and what joy predicts, WILL come true. You'll be chewed up and spit out...

In anticipation of firing your lawyer because he'll ACT like I say he will, you must DOCUMENT everything. Call, tomorrow. Fine.. They'll give you a run around.. Then SEND them a letter documenting the conversation, and send it to them by certified mail, return receipt requested.. A short note will suffice. Just say what happened. DON'T complain. Be matter of fact and polite. Do that EVERY time you talk to them, although you'll probably only see them at your hearings, and it probably won't be the same person every time.. That's part of the problem.. You MUSTN'T let yourself get sucked in. NOBODY is going to like what you're doing. Like you've seen here, EVERYBODY will be telling you that you CAN'T do what I'm telling you that you MUST do. You'll be going AGAINST the grain. Nobody likes that.

Who cares?

excon

Hello again, g:

If you've read what I've posted, you'll see that I say YOU have to manage your case. If you leave it to the PD, he'll (they'll) run roughshod over you, and what joy predicts, WILL come true. You'll be chewed up and spit out...

In anticipation of firing your lawyer because he'll ACT like I say he will, you must DOCUMENT everything. Call, tomorrow. Fine.. They'll give you a run around.. Then SEND them a letter documenting the conversation, and send it to them by certified mail, return receipt requested.. A short note will suffice. Just say what happened. DON'T complain. Be matter of fact and polite. Do that EVERY time you talk to them, although you'll probably only see them at your hearings, and it probably won't be the same person every time.. That's part of the problem.. You MUSTN'T let yourself get sucked in. NOBODY is going to like what you're doing. Like you've seen here, EVERYBODY will be telling you that you CAN'T do what I'm telling you that you MUST do. You'll be going AGAINST the grain. Nobody likes that.

Who cares?

excon
Thanks to everyone that shot me advice on this thread so far. I Went to court, due back next month. I schedule my first meeting with my pd next week.

You should have stayed in the car. You gave the cops the excuse of probable cause by being aggressive.

You should have stayed in the car. You gave the cops the excuse of probable cause by being aggressive.

Handyman, if you read the entire thread the reason he got out of the car is explained. He was at his destination. Most people, once they arrive at their destination, exit their vehicle.

Handyman, if you read the entire thread the reason he got out of the car is explained. He was at his destination. Most people, once they arrive at their destination, exit their vehicle. hey guys I'm back, here's what's going down. I have court tomorrow and my public defender calls about n hour ago n tells me he can't defend me n I'm being appointed a conflict defender

hey guys I'm back, here's what's going down. I have court tomorrow and my public defender calls bout n hour ago n tells me he can't defend me n I'm being appointed a conflict defender I could be wrong but that dude that was driving didn't get arrested. For police contact because I think he the conflict of interest and is working with the police

hey guys I'm back, here's what's going down. I have court tomorrow and my public defender calls bout n hour ago n tells me he can't defend me n I'm being appointed a conflict defender

Did you take Excon't advice given about a month and a half ago and get proactive with the PD? When did you first meet with your attorney? And the PD just realized today, that he had a conflict?

Did you take Excon't advice given about a month and a half ago and get proactive with the PD? When did you first meet with your attorney? And the PD just realized today, that he had a conflict?
I first met him about 3 weeks ago, he
N he just tells me that there is a conflict which he should have noticed the first day when he read me the police report. He even stopped at dudes name and did some things on his little computer so I know he looked up the person. And I seen on the police report during the first meeting a (w) next to that persons name

If he is also defending the other person in car, that is a conflict, But it is not uncommon with public defenders not to even see the one defending you till the day of court.