[Teril]

My client was pulled over after DEA had been watching a known cocaine dealer that owns a car lot. My client was stopped, all papers were proper and advised the office he could search the car. The officer did and found nothing. Instead, DEA orderd Drug dog, (per our client, the dog barked at the home they were in front of) Per the DEA officer, the dog alerted 3X's, the detective that iniated the stop tells 3 different stories in his depo... Anyway, no drugs were found!!

My question is this: My client did give concent to search while on the street. However, once the car was towed to the garage, should there have been a warrant issued?

[Fr_Chuck]

On the street, the driver is in control of the vechile and was a authorised user.

To be honest, why did you add the part about the house ? Has nothing to do with question.

So the drivers permission is really all they needed, it would have helped to have a warrant, they could use the dogs barking for that.

But that would have course still be challenged in court and personally it would not be ruled the same in different states, or even with different judges, some judges are more liberal and others less on their opinion of how search and seizure laws apply.

[excon]

should there have been a warrant issued?

Hello T:

No. They had permission. Are you an attorney? How come YOU don't know this?

excon

[JudyKayTee]

Your "client"? Here we go again!

[excon]

Hello again, T:

Apparently, there WERE drugs found concealed in the car. You or the attorney handling the case now wants to challenge the search. As I said earlier, permission was given. YOU say permission was given to search "while on the street". But people don't give the cops permission like that. When the cop asked if he could search, the answer was YES.

So, your grounds that permission was given for an "on the street" ONLY search, will go down in flames...

That said, I don't want to discourage you entirely. There may be OTHER mistakes the cops made during their search. If you want to challenge it, look further. The feds, however, are VERY GOOD at searching LEGALLY, whereas local cops screw up a lot. That shouldn't stop a competent attorney from looking, though.

You said the cops were watching a cocaine dealer. You did NOT connect THAT fact with the incident your client is involved in. If your client just happened to be driving down the road and was pulled over for NOTHING, there would be GROUNDS for an improper search based on lack of probable cause. However, IF your client drove out of the car lot, they MIGHT have probable cause to stop and search. I don't know. It's sketchy. But, THAT is where I would be concentrating my defense.

Tell me MORE.

excon

[twinkiedooter]

Your "client"? Here we go again!

I, too, was wondering about the "my client" part as well.

Are you an attorney who took this case not knowing the first thing about criminal law hoping to pocket a hefty fee perchance?

[Fr_Chuck]

This could be the supplier and the drug dealer is his "client"

But heck a big time drug dealers know the laws better than the attorneys.