[joypulv]

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.

[N0help4u]

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

[excon]

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

[joypulv]

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

[joypulv]

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

[excon]

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

[joypulv]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[guam707]

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

[guam707]

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

[joypulv]

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.

[N0help4u]

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

[joypulv]

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.

[N0help4u]

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

[joypulv]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[guam707]

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.

[joypulv]

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

[guam707]

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.

[guam707]

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