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.
|
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.
You are joking, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
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...
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 pocketQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
he didn't get a ticket for the seatbelt which was supposed to be the reason why they rolled up on usQuote:
Originally Posted by guam707
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
I must admit that I was incorrect here too.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
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.'
Unlike on this forum, if I were defending OP I would want to know everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
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:Quote:
The legal advice I offer doesn't change whether the guy is guilty or not. Yours shouldn't either.
I think GOOD public defenders are just like me. They fight for their clients whether they're GUILTY or NOT.Quote:
Do you think a PD will be willing to fight for him?
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:Quote:
Do you think a PD will be willing to fight for him?
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...Quote:
An overburdened PD weighs the odds and tries to get you to take a plea
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:
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.Quote:
What are the odds that the PD will win even if he actually puts up a good fight?
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:
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.Quote:
OK, so two of you think he can get fully informed and get his PD to do his job. Let's hope so.
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.
ShootQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
cadoor was my auto correct it Solano Co CAQuote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
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.
Sure, on the road. They were in a parking lot. So it was for the cops convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
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 had less than a 1/4 ounce on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
So what stage are you with your PD? What sense are you getting from him or her?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by guam707
I haven't met my pd yet. I posted bail n I have court next monthQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:33 AM. |