Check out some similar questions!

joypulv · Aug 16, 2013, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by ebaines

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.

AK lawyer · Aug 16, 2013, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by ebaines

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?

Originally Posted by joypulv

.... 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.

N0help4u · Aug 16, 2013, 08:58 AM

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.

AK lawyer · Aug 16, 2013, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

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"".

guam707 · Aug 16, 2013, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by guam707

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

joypulv · Aug 16, 2013, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by guam707

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.

guam707 · Aug 16, 2013, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by joypulv

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

joypulv · Aug 16, 2013, 11:41 AM

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?

guam707 · Aug 16, 2013, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by joypulv

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

joypulv · Aug 16, 2013, 02:48 PM

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

N0help4u · Aug 16, 2013, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

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.

N0help4u · Aug 16, 2013, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by guam707

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

AK lawyer · Aug 16, 2013, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

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) search.

N0help4u · Aug 16, 2013, 04:44 PM

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

AK lawyer · Aug 16, 2013, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

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.

guam707 · Aug 16, 2013, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

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) search.

exactly

N0help4u · Aug 16, 2013, 04:50 PM

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

Alty · Aug 16, 2013, 05:02 PM

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?

ScottGem · Aug 16, 2013, 05:02 PM

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.

joypulv · Aug 16, 2013, 05:18 PM

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.