I was a backseat passenger when we got pulled over by a cop that was going the opposite way, he makes a u turn and pulls up along side of us at a traffic light the driver of our car looked over at the cops car, then the light turns green he gets behind us then turns on his lights on us we had just got through the light , he comes to the car ask for the drivers license witch he didn't have he thought they might be suspened he the ask the rest of us for our ids and the ask us if we had ever been arrested we gave him our answer that we had he went to his car then at that time another cop walk up then he came back and order the two boys up front out of the car pated them down and had them sit on the curb the came to get me out as I was getting out the cop told me to leave my purse in the car I said no that I was taking it with me he then want to look in my purse I told him no that I hadn't done anything wrong he said he had to check for weapons I then held it open and showed him there where no weapons in my purse he then took me to the curb and he stared searching the car didn't find anything he then comes to me and checks my pulse and then put me in cuffs lets the other two go puts me in the car gets my purse and dumps out an finds check and id I go to jail, then didn't file at first but now they have


Have my forth amendment rights been violated?:confused:

Sounds like your rights have been violated you need a GOOD lawyer.
If they didn't give a ticket or a reason for your initial pull over that should be in your favor since they didn't establish probable cause.
They are SUPPOSE to ASK to search the car not just search it with no reason

Plain view doctrine
n. the rule that a law enforcement officer may make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search.
Example: a policeman stops a motorist for a minor traffic violation and can see in the car a pistol or a marijuana plant on the back seat, giving him "reasonable cause" to enter the vehicle to make a search.

I was a backseat passenger when we got pulled over by a cop that was going the opposite way, he makes a u turn and pulls up along side of us at a traffic light the driver of our car looked over at the cops car, then the light turns green he gets behind us then turns on his lights on us we had just got through the light , he comes to the car ask for the drivers license witch he didn't have he thought they might be suspened he the ask the rest of us for our ids and the ask us if we had ever been arrested we gave him our answer that we had he went to his car then at that time another cop walk up then he came back and order the two boys up front out of the car pated them down and had them sit on the curb the came to get me out as i was getting out the cop told me to leave my purse in the car i said no that i was taking it with me he then want to look in my purse i told him no that i hadn't done anything wrong he said he had to check for weapons i then held it open and showed him there where no weapons in my purse he then took me to the curb and he stared searching the car didn't find anything he then comes to me and checks my pulse and then put me in cuffs lets the other two go puts me in the car gets my purse and dumps out an finds check and id i go to jail, then didn't file at first but now they have


Have my forth amendment rights been violated?:confused:
Well, if it all really went down like that, then I suggest you talk to a lawyer. The fact is the police (check your local laws though) can stop any vehicle just with probable cause or suspicion. If the plates are registered to the person that was driving, then they can also run a check and see if the driver had any license or not. It doesn't take that much time to check the records. He couldn't search you, but could look through your purse after an arrest has been made. The question that I am wondering is what were you arrested for? Did you have any warrants or anything? To make a long story short because I don't have all of the facts, your 4th amendment wasn't violated because all they need is probable cause to search and that makes it legal. They also can search to make sure that they aren't in any danger, thus the search for weapons.

That is one long run on sentence... All the cops need is probable cause to stop a vehicle.

Correct Nohelp4u. Generally the cops will disclose the purpose for the stop to the driver, but not always. I will bet hard $$$ that probable cause will be disclosed in the police report.

I was a backseat passenger when we got pulled over by a cop that was going the opposite way, he makes a u turn and pulls up along side of us at a traffic light the driver of our car looked over at the cops car, then the light turns green he gets behind us then turns on his lights on us we had just got through the light , he comes to the car ask for the drivers license witch he didn't have he thought they might be suspened he the ask the rest of us for our ids and the ask us if we had ever been arrested we gave him our answer that we had he went to his car then at that time another cop walk up then he came back and order the two boys up front out of the car pated them down and had them sit on the curb the came to get me out as i was getting out the cop told me to leave my purse in the car i said no that i was taking it with me he then want to look in my purse i told him no that i hadn't done anything wrong he said he had to check for weapons i then held it open and showed him there where no weapons in my purse he then took me to the curb and he stared searching the car didn't find anything he then comes to me and checks my pulse and then put me in cuffs lets the other two go puts me in the car gets my purse and dumps out an finds check and id i go to jail, then didn't file at first but now they have


Have my forth amendment rights been violated?:confused:


I don't understand what you were arrested for - the reason for the probable cause will come up when you enter your plea. Did they claim that your refusal to allow them to search your purse was resisting an Officer?

Correct Nohelp4u. Generally the cops will disclose the purpose for the stop to the driver, but not always. I will bet hard $$$ that probable cause will be disclosed in the police report.

Problem is if they CLAIM they stopped them for whatever reason and they didn't give a ticket then it could be the cops word against their word and without the ticket it would seem to favor the stopped car.

Also they had no right to do a search without plain view, permission or a warrant.

Have my forth amendment rights been violated?Hello me,

I think they have.

Suspicion is something ALL cops have. If that was all it took, they'd be stopping us all the time. But, it ISN'T. Probable cause is MORE than mere suspicion. They must articulate the specific reason they had to think you/the driver had committed an infraction/crime.

That's a pretty high threshold. Plus, even if the driver DID have a suspended license, that doesn't give them probable cause to search everybody else. Simply because the driver is driving illegally isn't reason to think the passengers have contraband in their possession.

excon

Exactly Plus all they can do is give him a citation for no drivers license and if it isn't suspended all he has to do is show his license to the Judge and they Judge may dismiss the citation if he wants to. Even if he was suspended the cops should have simply given him his ticket and left it go at that.

As a retired police officer sorry most of you are totally wrong, yes they do need something to stop you for, but guess what, there are 1000's of them, that is why there are so many silly laws.

Let me tell you some, * from GA law** is there anything, hanging from your rear view mirror, if so, that could be blocking your sight, so they can stop you. Do you have a sticker or some decal on your back window, they can stop you to see if that is blocking your line of sight.
Also after that do you have a license plate cover over your real plate, like a college team, or a dealer one, most cover some of the wording, and guess what that gives them a reason to stop you. Add to that 100 other things we see all the time, the truck lock popped, tape on a window, a parking light out, was everyone wearing seat belts And I could go on and on and on, I normally court that at least every 3 out of 4 cars I could stop legally. And of course the officer can merely say your tail light was out, and there is not much you can do.

And to be honest you are lucky you were not face down on the ground, if the officer tells you to leave your purse in the car, you say "yes sir" not no, that is a red flag to him that you are hiding something.

Next yes the officer can pat down people, had you left your purse in the car, guess what, he could not have looked into it, since you refused, he then had a legal right to look into it for his safety.

What is happening, the people in that car is most likely known as someone who does something illegal, and the police were doing their job in protecting the public using every bit of law that allows them to do traffic stops and search public areas of the car.

Next time say yes sir or no sir to the officer and do what they say. You could have even been charged with refusing the lawful order of a police officer.

is there anything, hanging from your rear view mirror, if so, that could be blocking your sight, so they can stop you. Do you have a sticker or some decal on your back window, they can stop you to see if that is blocking your line of sight.
Also after that do you have a license plate cover over your real plate, like a college team, or a dealer one, most cover some of the wording, and guess what that gives them a reason to stop you. Add to that 100 other things we see all the time, the truck lock popped, tape on a window, a parking light out, was everyone wearing seat belts And I could go on and on and on,

TRUE BUT don't they have to tell you OR write you a ticket for WHY they pulled you over?


And to be honest you are lucky you were not face down on the ground, if the officer tells you to leave your purse in the car, you say "yes sir" not no, that is a red flag to him that you are hiding something.

Next yes the officer can pat down people, had you left your purse in the car, guess what, he could not have looked into it, since you refused, he then had a legal right to look into it for his safety.

Very true, except she said they DID search the car.



What is happening, the people in that car is most likely known as someone who does something illegal, and the police were doing thier job in protecting the public using every bit of law that allows them to do traffic stops and search public areas of the car.

next time say yes sir or no sir to the officer and do what they say. you could have even been charged with refusing the lawful order of a police officer.

Seems to me like they were out of bounds on a couple things and she should get a lawyer unless she wasn't telling us everything.

Correct again Nohelp4u. But remember, typically when it comes down to your word against the cops, unless its blatantly obvious, the officer of the courts word will usually win.

If the cops were suspicious of the vehicle, for example, matched a description of a car they were looking for, they will stop that car to investigate. It may lead to a citation, it may not.

Another point to remember, a cop may ask to search the car or the driver... you have the right to decline but do so at the risk of arrest for failing to cooperate with the police. If they arrest you for failing to cooperate, that's all they need to do as they wish.

Police will often ask the passengers for identification, especially if the driver fails to show a valid driver's license, this is not uncommon. Police will also ask the passengers for ID if they appear to in violation of curfew. Police will also detain an individual if they have zero form of ID and will keep them detained until they can determine who that said individual is. Once detained, they can search away.

Some states have passed laws that no driver under the age of 18 can have more than one passenger, AZ is one of them. In this situation, based on observation alone, the cops can stop and enforce this law. The passenger will then become subject to the request to present ID and ultimately searched.

Some states have laws propitiating multiple passes down the same street in a given time. If they witness this, they can and will stop the car. When they do, they will request ID and search the car and the occupants. You can thank the street gangs for many of these laws.

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the police in this situation were in the right, I'm suggesting that the police have plenty of law on their side. I would suggest that she retain a good lawyer to review the particulars of her case, only he will be able to ascertain the true merit of a potential violation to her rights.

Yeah it would boil down to their word against the cop but I think they have something's on their side.
Although the police can claim whatever works for them no matter how far stretched.
I know with the Homeland security they do ask everybody in the car for identification now,
They can even ask for ID walking down the street.
I know they can use a law to stop a car for the lamest excuse.

As a retired police officer sorry most of you are totally wrong, yes they do need something to stop you for, but guess what, there are 1000's of them, that is why there are so many silly laws.

Let me tell you some, * from GA law** is there anything, hanging from your rear view mirror, if so, that could be blocking your sight, so they can stop you. Do you have a sticker or some decal on your back window, they can stop you to see if that is blocking your line of sight.
Also after that do you have a license plate cover over your real plate, like a college team, or a dealer one, most cover some of the wording, and guess what that gives them a reason to stop you. Add to that 100 other things we see all the time, the truck lock popped, tape on a window, a parking light out, was everyone wearing seat belts And I could go on and on and on, I normally court that at least every 3 out of 4 cars I could stop legally. And of course the officer can merely say your tail light was out, and there is not much you can do.

And to be honest you are lucky you were not face down on the ground, if the officer tells you to leave your purse in the car, you say "yes sir" not no, that is a red flag to him that you are hiding something.

Next yes the officer can pat down people, had you left your purse in the car, guess what, he could not have looked into it, since you refused, he then had a legal right to look into it for his safety.

What is happening, the people in that car is most likely known as someone who does something illegal, and the police were doing thier job in protecting the public using every bit of law that allows them to do traffic stops and search public areas of the car.

next time say yes sir or no sir to the officer and do what they say. you could have even been charged with refusing the lawful order of a police officer.


I would think this would be more of a violation of the poster's civil rights if the Police HADN'T found anything, if she HADN'T refused to open her purse, if she HADN'T been arrested for something - so what was the arrest for?

I believe the OP told us what she wanted us to know or believe and left out the rest. There is more going on here.

No, the police do not have a obligation to tell you why they are stoping you, they are required in their report to say why, and the person can request a copy of the police report, or the stop report ( incident card) of the stop. When you go to the window you merely ask for the ID, and not get into a discussion of why they are being stopped. May sound rude but that is the official training used by many states as of a few years ago.

The officer is under no obligation to actually give a ticket for that offense, he merely has to make mention of why he did the stop in his report of the stop. Many times realisticly it is the fact he wants to stop them because he suspects something else, from where the car is at a certain time of night,

The police can search anyplace in plain view of the car after asking the people in the car to get out. They don't do this normally unless they really believe there is something hidden in the car.

Hello me,

I think they have.

Suspicion is something ALL cops have. If that was all it took, they'd be stopping us all the time. But, it ISN'T. Probable cause is MORE than mere suspicion. They must articulate the specific reason they had to think you/the driver had committed an infraction/crime.

That's a pretty high threshold. Plus, even if the driver DID have a suspended license, that doesn't give them probable cause to search everybody else. Simply because the driver is driving illegally isn't reason to think the passengers have contraband in their possession.

excon



Actually, anyone that is in a car that the police pulls over can be asked for ID and searched. It is the officer's way of making sure that they are 'safe' from all weapons and dangers. Suspicion and probable cause is the same when it comes to the police. Although I agree with you that probable cause is a lot more in depth, suspicion of illegal activity, possible illegal activity, drug use, etc all leads to probable cause. They also can do warrant checks and things of that sort. But of course all states have different laws, but in all and all, I think that most people agree that this was not a violation of me's 4th amendment right.

My son was in high school, in a car with three other teen boys. It was fifteen minutes past curfew and one of the tail lights was out. The police stopped them, asked for ID, and then took them to the station for a talking-to. Parents were notified and had to pay $50 to buy back their kid. My son never broke curfew again.

There was probable cause (a car full of teens, just after curfew, and a tail light was out). I bet in your case, me, there were similar suspicions.

It could be as simple as the police doing a routine traffic stop... such as DUI check points... and upon hearing your answer that you had been previously arrested

"ask us if we had ever been arrested we gave him our answer that we had "

He had suspicion and concern for his safety... Your defiance makes you even more suspicious and you are lucky you didn't get strip searched... I'm not a cop and have had my share of tickets that I feel were dishonestly given by the police, but I know enough not to try to make waves in such cases with someone who has a gun and police authority. You cooperate and complain in court if you have been violated in some way that you can prove.

Hello one:

"Routine" traffic stops are illegal as are DUI checkpoints. The cops need PROBABLE CAUSE. Being bored ain't it.

excon

DUI check points are legal in many states, they still do them every weekend here in Atlanta.

It may be a matter of different state laws. In Ohio, they do it frequently. For years, they (highway patrol) have had the right to pull a car over for a safety inspection to check for such things as working horns or emergency breaks... You get a sticker good for one year to show your car passed. I have only ever gotten one of those stickers in over twenty years and that was because I asked to have my car inspected. But, it is legal for them to do it here at any time.

Hello again:

It ISN'T a matter of state law. It's Constitutional law which covers every state in the union. Below is the Fourth Amendment for your perusal:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What I love about our Constitution is its clarity.

Certainly one, you wouldn't argue that because Bush does what he does, it's legal simply because he does it. That's a Gonzales theory. It doesn't wash.

What these stops are, is a matter of state policy. When they're challenged in court, as they regularly are, the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that the Fourth Amendment matters. States know, of course, that as the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, the law does too. If it makes it this time, they're hoping that Scalito, Thomas and Roberts will give the cops what they want.

I think they will too.

None of that changes my belief that these stops are illegal, and I don't care how much anybody wants to change what our founding fathers wrote.

excon

Certainly one, you wouldn't argue that because Bush does what he does, it's legal simply because he does it. That's a Gonzales theory. It doesn't wash.



I sure would not argue about Bush doing things legally... I see your points related to the constitutionality of the state laws. Not trying to argue that either.

Only telling what happens regularly. The police seem to think they have the right to inspect vehicles for safety purposes because the law states that each car must pass those criteria. In the process they can say things like I thought I smelled alcohol or weed... then they feel cause for further investigation...

I agree that it seems pretty far from the ideas in the constitution, but there are so many loopholes... that it happens regularly... doesn't make it right, just not unusual.

I sure would not argue about Bush doing things legally... I see your points related to the constitutionality of the state laws. Not trying to argue that either.

Only telling what happens regularly. The police seem to think they have the right to inspect vehicles for safety purposes because the law states that each car must pass those criteria. In the process they can say things like I thought I smelled alcohol or weed... then they feel cause for further investigation...

I agree that it seems pretty far from the ideas in the constitution, but there are so many loopholes... that it happens regularly... doesn't make it right, just not unusual.



Nothing to do with this conversation but I have a problem with the entrapment laws -

I had 3 investigations, all involving what may or may not have been illegal stops, all involving alcohol. In the course of looking into things I discovered they all were coming from the same restaurant. So I went in and sat at the bar (which is interesting because I don't drink so I dragged my all-to-willing-to-work-with-me husband along to keep me company while I drank diet Pepsi). And, sure enough, the BARTENDER was calling the Police when intoxicated patrons left. Keep in mind the BARTENDER was the one "over serving" the customers.

The DWI arrests stuck, entrapment or no entrapment!

On one hand, intoxicated drivers were off the street and maybe one of them would have killed me; on the other, well, is it entrapment? I do a fair number of bar surveillances and have never done one since that time without keeping a close eye on the bartender for a number of reasons. I still have no idea what the involvement of the bartender was - or the why's?

As a side note - the bar got sued on the entrapment cause of action but went bankrupt long before anything was settled.

Don't think it would take patrons long to find another establishment if word ever got out that the bar tender was doing that!