Probable Cause & Car Searches

[Electric Horseman]

I agree the officer's conduct was wrong. The officer has no right to search the car without a warrant, probable cause, or permission, and you should never give permission for an otherwise unlawful search, but because of the ignorance of their civil rights and passivity, unfortunately most citizens just let them do it, so they get in the habit of violating the 4th Amendment all the time, because they know they can get away with it. Why do they do it? Because people let them. It's like service in a restaurant, you get what you put up with. If you don't know your civil rights well enough to speak them clearly and emphatically to a police officer, including the law that says you're going to sue him personally and seek to seize his personal assets including his home, real estate, bank account, wages and income, in a civil rights lawsuit, if he doesn't back off (Title 42, United States Code Section 1983), you're going to lose them every time you get stopped. Your civil rights live in two places, your heart and the law library. Where are they when you get stopped? How many civil rights have you lost since 9-11? What have you done about it? Have you gone to the law library, taken a class, done some reading, done anything to educate yourself, done anything but complain? Probably not, huh. Oh well let's get a Netflix and watch a good movie.

The best way to get a police officer to stop objectionable conversation is to say, "I decline to speak with you without the presence of my attorney".

and,

"You are expressly prohibited from searching my person or my vehicle. If you do I will file a civil rights lawsuit against you and your agency for violation of the 4th Amendment, and I'll seek a civil rights judgment against you, and your personal assets, under Title 42 USC 1983)."

In some cases you may be able to file a civil rights lawsuit in Small Claims court.



Again, the issue here is not the legality of the driver's driving, but rather the behavior of the policeman. Even if the brights were illegal, what right does the policeman have to search the car, slowly, as if trying to provoke a confrontation?

[Sylph]

Your civil rights live in two places, your heart and the law library. Where are they when you get stopped? How many civil rights have you lost since 9-11? What have you done about it? Have you gone to the law library, taken a class, done some reading, done anything to educate yourself, done anything but complain? Probably not, huh. Oh well let's get a Netflix and watch a good movie.




Thanks for your excellent information. We are quick to object when our rights have been personally violated, but pretty lazy about the erosion of rights in our country in recent years. (Speaking for myself and most people I know). Apathy is the culprit. Keep speading the word, Electric Horseman!

[MsTerry]

You've got to be kidding EH.
Unless you have a lot of time on your hand, stopping a cop from searching your car is getting you nowhere,
Can you cite a case where a cop was prosecuted for illegally searching a car?
The last time I made some objections, the cop said; 'We'll note that, M'am"
If a cop does not search your car at your request, they can arrest you (untill they have sorted it out) and impound your car until they have figured out if they can search it.
Now when they impound it they have to make a list of everything that is in it.......................................


I agree the officer's conduct was wrong. The officer has no right to search the car without a warrant, probable cause, or permission, and you should never give permission for an otherwise unlawful search, but because of the ignorance of their civil rights and passivity, unfortunately most citizens just let them do it, so they get in the habit of violating the 4th Amendment all the time, because they know they can get away with it. Why do they do it? Because people let them. It's like service in a restaurant, you get what you put up with. If you don't know your civil rights well enough to speak them clearly and emphatically to a police officer, including the law that says you're going to sue him personally and seek to seize his personal assets including his home, real estate, bank account, wages and income, in a civil rights lawsuit, if he doesn't back off (Title 42, United States Code Section 1983), you're going to lose them every time you get stopped. Your civil rights live in two places, your heart and the law library. Where are they when you get stopped? How many civil rights have you lost since 9-11? What have you done about it? Have you gone to the law library, taken a class, done some reading, done anything to educate yourself, done anything but complain? Probably not, huh. Oh well let's get a Netflix and watch a good movie.

The best way to get a police officer to stop objectionable conversation is to say, "I decline to speak with you without the presence of my attorney".

and,

"You are expressly prohibited from searching my person or my vehicle. If you do I will file a civil rights lawsuit against you and your agency for violation of the 4th Amendment, and I'll seek a civil rights judgment against you, and your personal assets, under Title 42 USC 1983)."

In some cases you may be able to file a civil rights lawsuit in Small Claims court.

[Electric Horseman]

"Unless you have a lot of time on your hand, stopping a cop from searching your car is getting you nowhere"

Uh, you've stopped the cop from searching your car. That's nothing? And what time does it take to say no? Your thinking seems confused.

"Can you cite a case where a cop was prosecuted for illegally searching a car?"

Not from where I'm sitting, but next time I go to the law library I could cite you dozens of them, including officers all over the U.S, California, and Sonoma County But that's your work, that you could do for yourself, and you should, for your own good.

Suing police and police agencies for civil rights offenses is how we keep the cops honest and it works well when people use it.

"If a cop does not search your car at your request, they can arrest you (untill they have sorted it out) and impound your car until they have figured out if they can search it."

This is absolutely untrue, and spreading this kind of foolish ignorance, and encouraging this kind of apathy, is just as bad for your civil rights, your country, and your fellow citizens, as being a bad cop. Shame on you, for not taking the trouble to find out the truth of a very important matter, and then spreading untruth. This is not very good citizenship, and shows an alarming lack of appreciation for the countless multitudes who endured inestimable suffering over centuries to win and preserve our rights, and our obligation, yours and mine and everybody's, to preserve those rights for those who come after us, as those who have gone before have preserved them for us. Refusing a search is NEVER grounds for an arrest. NEVER.

"The last time I made some objections, the cop said; 'We'll note that, M'am'"

Well I would say that with only a few words in this forum I can tell you are a person who doesn't know much about your civil rights, is wrong about what you think you know, and isn't motivated to find the facts and know the truth and be free, and the cop probably felt the same, and felt you wouldn't know enough, or care enough, to pursue it with an attorney, or even his supervisor, and he was right, wasn't he.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -Pogo


You've got to be kidding EH.
Unless you have a lot of time on your hand, stopping a cop from searching your car is getting you nowhere,
Can you cite a case where a cop was prosecuted for illegally searching a car?
The last time I made some objections, the cop said; 'We'll note that, M'am"
If a cop does not search your car at your request, they can arrest you (untill they have sorted it out) and impound your car until they have figured out if they can search it.
Now when they impound it they have to make a list of everything that is in it.......................................

[Sylph]

I would probably say "sure", if a cop asked to search my car or purse, knowing I have nothing illegal to find. This is an issue I don't think about much, but it really is important to know your rights. I found a good site: Flex your Rights, with some very good information:

https://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#02
Isn’t refusing to let the police search me an admission of guilt?
No. If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The main reason why officers ask is because they don’t have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request you give up one of the most important constitutional rights you have -- your Fourth Amendment (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/fourth_amendment_history) protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A majority of avoidable police searches occur because citizens naively waive their Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to warrantless searches. As a general rule, if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person.
Don’t expect a police officer to tell you about your right not to consent. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. In addition, police are prepared to use their authority to get people to consent to searches, and most people are predisposed to comply with any request an officer makes. For example, the average motorist stopped by an officer who asks them, "Would you mind if I search your vehicle, please?" will probably consent to the officer’s search without realizing that they have every right to deny the officer’s request.

[MsTerry]

Uh, you've stopped the cop from searching your car. That's nothing? And what time does it take to say no? Your thinking seems confused.


NO, I've never been able to stop a cop from searching my car, have you?


"Can you cite a case where a cop was prosecuted for illegally searching a car?"

Not from where I'm sitting, but next time I go to the law library I could cite you dozens of them, including officers all over the U.S, California, and Sonoma County But that's your work, that you could do for yourself, and you should, for your own good.

Suing police and police agencies for civil rights offenses is how we keep the cops honest and it works well when people use it.I like to see you produce a recent case where a cop was prosecuted and convicted for the mere fact of searching a car.


"If a cop does not search your car at your request, they can arrest you (untill they have sorted it out) and impound your car until they have figured out if they can search it."

This is absolutely untrue, and spreading this kind of foolish ignorance, and encouraging this kind of apathy, is just as bad for your civil rights, your country, and your fellow citizens, as being a bad cop. Shame on you, for not taking the trouble to find out the truth of a very important matter, and then spreading untruth. This is not very good citizenship, and shows an alarming lack of appreciation for the countless multitudes who endured inestimable suffering over centuries to win and preserve our rights, and our obligation, yours and mine and everybody's, to preserve those rights for those who come after us, as those who have gone before have preserved them for us. Refusing a search is NEVER grounds for an arrest. NEVER.

All a cop needs is probable cause.
A refusal to search is enough probable cause to be suspicious that you are hiding something.
They don't arrest you for your refusal, but for their suspiscion.



Well I would say that with only a few words in this forum I can tell you are a person who doesn't know much about your civil rights, is wrong about what you think you know, and isn't motivated to find the facts and know the truth and be free, and the cop probably felt the same, and felt you wouldn't know enough, or care enough, to pursue it with an attorney, or even his supervisor, and he was right, wasn't he. like I said before, and maybe you get it this time'
"Unless you have a lot of time on your hand, stopping a cop from searching your car is getting you nowhere"

[Electric Horseman]

"I've never been able to stop a cop from searching my car, have you?"

Yes, every time. A police officer has never searched my vehicle when I said no, and said it like I knew what I was talking about.

"All a cop needs is probable cause. A refusal to search is enough probable cause to be suspicious that you are hiding something. They don't arrest you for your refusal, but for their suspiscion."

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. Shame on you for spreading such ignorance!!




NO, I've never been able to stop a cop from searching my car, have you?
I like to see you produce a recent case where a cop was prosecuted and convicted for the mere fact of searching a car.
All a cop needs is probable cause.
A refusal to search is enough probable cause to be suspicious that you are hiding something.
They don't arrest you for your refusal, but for their suspiscion.
like I said before, and maybe you get it this time'
"Unless you have a lot of time on your hand, stopping a cop from searching your car is getting you nowhere"

[Electric Horseman]

Do you know what probable cause is?

It's facts existing which would give a reasonable person cause to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.

The first thing you think to yourself when you see a cop approach you is, "What's the crime being investigated"

"Hello, officer, has a crime been committed? Am I a suspect in the crime? Oh, well, then I decline to speak with you any further without the presence of my attorney"

If no crime has been committed, and no facts exist which would give a reasonable person cause to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, the police officer has no more power over you under the law than a little baby in diapers.




All a cop needs is probable cause.

[MsTerry]

"All a cop needs is probable cause. A refusal to search is enough probable cause to be suspicious that you are hiding something. They don't arrest you for your refusal, but for their suspiscion."

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. Shame on you for spreading such ignorance!!

REALLY???????????????????????
Educate me then
If a cop doesn't need probable cause, when CAN he search your car?
If he says he smells something?
If he thinks he sees something?
if he feels something is wrong?
Or when he makes up something?

[MsTerry]

"I've never been able to stop a cop from searching my car, have you?"

Yes, every time. A police officer has never searched my vehicle when I said no, and said it like I knew what I was talking about.

How often did that occur?

[Electric Horseman]

During the course of a routine traffic stop, the officer has a right under law to order all persons out of the vehicle and detain them all throughout traffic stop, for the officer's safety and for control of the situation. You have to do what the officer tells you, stay where he tells you, and be quiet if he tells you. If you fail to do these things, you can be arrested and taken to jail and have your car impounded for it.

Police can only search your person or your vehicle with a warrant, probable cause, or permission. They cannot search you or your vehicle just because you have committed a traffic violation. The presence of a lawful weapon such as a knife or firearm by itself does not give an officer the right to search, but they will often try to tell you this. A couple of Santa Rosa lawmen of some kind in plain clothes hassled me once at a coffee shop in Santa Rosa because I had a lawful firearm in my truck, visibly unloaded, and securely locked to a cable, and tried to tell me that was cause for a search, and I chewed them out, and they slunk off. An officer may only search you for weapons under probable cause if he can pass a five step threshold. The officer has to have reasons that are (1) real, (2) reasonable, (3) can be articulated and explained (no "hunches"), that you are (4) armed, and (5) dangerous. Four out of five doesn't cut it, and the presence of a weapon doesn't mean you are dangerous. In order for the fifth condition to be true, there has to be some past or present behavior that indicates you may be dangerous, such as a prior conviction for assault on an officer, or violent belligerent behavior on the scene that indicates you may be dangerous.

If he sees or smells anything that would indicate a crime has been committed he can search. He can say he smelled marijuana when he really didn't and if he finds it nobody can prove otherwise and the officer wins and you lose. If he says he smells marijuana and searches and finds none, most likely you win and he loses.

It's not uncommon for an officer to say your eyes are red so I think you're smoking marijuana so I'm going to search, and since there will probably be no way you can prove otherwise, you lose. You can protect yourself from this by always wearing sunglasses when you're stopped during the day, and yellow glasses if you're stopped at night. You can refuse to remove your glasses, because that's a search. Of course he could falsely claim he smelled marijuana first.

If a dirty cop really wants to get you there are many ways for which there is no defense. A cop can pull you over on a lonely road and walk up to your car and blow your brains out and probably get away with it. But if you're armed with a good working knowledge of your rights under the law, and you can speak them firmly and politely, you'll probably avoid any serious abuse.


REALLY???????????????????????
Educate me then
If a cop doesn't need probable cause, when CAN he search your car?
If he says he smells something?
If he thinks he sees something?
if he feels something is wrong?
Or when he makes up something?

[Electric Horseman]

Dozens of times, literally.


How often did that occur?

[Electric Horseman]

I think it's helpful in these kinds of discussions to concern ourselves with WHAT is right rather than WHO is right. Often people hold onto mistaken opinions because they're embarrassed to admit and discard them.

In the Bible, Jesus says something like, "If thine eye offend thee, cast it out, for it is better to lose thine eye, than thy whole body be cast into hell."

I try to do my homework, and I try to know what I'm talking about, but nobody is perfect, and everybody makes mistakes. When I make a mistake, I admit it, and cast it out, rather than 'my whole body be cast into hell'. When I disagree, I damn the deed and not the doer. I love to learn more than I love to win.

[Electric Horseman]

Some people can experience severe physical symptoms and serious health problems from the powerful bass "sub-woofers" that some people run in their cars which emphasize audio frequencies under 30 Hz. For instance, they are so powerful that they can set up sympathetic vibrations in a person's diaphram (which has very roughly the same size, thickness, and elasticity as the speakers). Powerful sub-woofers have the power to set up uncomfortable and even painful sympathetic vibrations in many places in a person's body, such as their diaphrams, or their teeth.

Also, increasingly among us everywhere are soldiers returning from war, more and more suffering severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD), and to some people with PTSD, something like a very loud motorcycle, or a sub-woofer, can cause severe mental and emotional distress, multiple times a day. Personally I don't believe in the death penalty, except for sub-woofers ;-)


Please folks, in music it's spelled "bass" like the fish, but pronounced like "base," which describes the cop's behavior.



Nobody is going to suffer a heart attack from a car going by with loud bass. Nope. Perhaps if you were at a rap concert sitting in front of the speakers and even then I doubt it.



I'd say diarrhea would be the bigger problem as I've nearly crapped my pants when one of those guys drove past.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Answer, the driver turning left at an intersection or upon a highway must come to a complete stop and remain stopped until all vehicles which may be of any danger during the turning movement have passed. Once having done this, THE DRIVER TURNING LEFT HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND ADDITIONAL VEHICLES ONCOMING MUST STOP AND YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY. That's the law, but be careful don't get killed by one of the multitude of ignorant drivers behind the wheel out there if you try it. ...

If you turn left and someone oncoming hits you, you will be cited. Whether that's the law or not that's the way it is. It's kind of like if you hit someone from behind it's assumed you are at least partly at fault. The fact is, if it comes down to it, you are assumed to be fully at fault.

Drive defensively and don't get in wrecks. That's your real defense against lunatics and bad drivers and cops that don't know the laws.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... A police officer has never searched my vehicle when I said no, and said it like I knew what I was talking about.

"All a cop needs is probable cause. A refusal to search is enough probable cause to be suspicious that you are hiding something. They don't arrest you for your refusal, but for their suspiscion."

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. Shame on you for spreading such ignorance!!

Actually, a cop doesn't even need probable cause to legally search your vehicle in California. In 1972 the voters of California gave the cops the ability to search "for weapons" upon suspicion the occupant of the vehicle has a weapon. No other cause is needed. Only suspicion, which can always be justified before a judge. Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the US and has been upheld. I don't know where you've been, Mr. Horseman, but you're wrong. In California we gave up our rights in 1972.

If you really need to carry contraband, put it in your trunk, and keep it locked. They do not have the right to search your trunk and the 4th amendment still applies. Not so in the passenger compartment.

It still makes sense to refuse to allow them to search, but if they say they're looking for weapons, you will lose in court.

Travel safely and fix those taillights.

BTW, get a copy of the video "Busted" which is filled with helpful hints to avoid getting nailed in your car.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

Good advice. I agree, unless you have a video, or witnesses, but there are times when you can safely assert your right of way. However, the right-of-way is never a right to run into somebody.

I believe we will soon be seeing all new cars with a video camera mounted somewhere up front that always keeps the last 60 seconds or so, like the black boxes on aircraft. The cost would only be a few dollars, and insurance companies would reap huge benefits (but they'll probably pass on only about 10 percent to their policy holders).


If you turn left and someone oncoming hits you, you will be cited. Whether that's the law or not that's the way it is. It's kind of like if you hit someone from behind it's assumed you are at least partly at fault. The fact is, if it comes down to it, you are assumed to be fully at fault.

Drive defensively and don't get in wrecks. That's your real defense against lunatics and bad drivers and cops that don't know the laws.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

I don't know where you got this information, but it is absolutely not correct.

Below I am pasting the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in a couple of the outstanding cases concerning this, Terry v. Ohio, and Knowles v. Iowa.

[Supreme Court Decision moved to: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42412 -Barry]




Actually, a cop doesn't even need probable cause to legally search your vehicle in California. In 1972 the voters of California gave the cops the ability to search "for weapons" upon suspicion the occupant of the vehicle has a weapon. No other cause is needed. Only suspicion, which can always be justified before a judge. Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the US and has been upheld. I don't know where you've been, Mr. Horseman, but you're wrong. In California we gave up our rights in 1972.

If you really need to carry contraband, put it in your trunk, and keep it locked. They do not have the right to search your trunk and the 4th amendment still applies. Not so in the passenger compartment.

It still makes sense to refuse to allow them to search, but if they say they're looking for weapons, you will lose in court.

Travel safely and fix those taillights.

BTW, get a copy of the video "Busted" which is filled with helpful hints to avoid getting nailed in your car.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

This is the kind of urban legend that too many people rely on rather than finding the real truth. You can also tell this isn't true without even knowing the details - California voters, nor no voters, nor no state can pass any law contrary to the 4th Amendment. If California or California voters did pass such a law, it would be unenforceable. This is also an important part of knowing your civil rights, knowing what laws are enforceable, and what aren't. The courts have struck down thousands of laws over the years that voters or legislatures tried to pass, that were unconstitutional on their face, but until they were, the cops enforced them. In most cases it was an ordinary citizen, like you or me, or Terry or Knowles, that set things straight. As a citizen, you are the most powerful person in the United States of America.

[quote=Braggi;69931]Actually, a cop doesn't even need probable cause to legally search your vehicle in California. In 1972 the voters of California gave the cops the ability to search "for weapons" upon suspicion the occupant of the vehicle has a weapon. No other cause is needed. Only suspicion, which can always be justified before a judge. Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the US and has been upheld. I don't know where you've been, Mr. Horseman, but you're wrong. In California we gave up our rights in 1972.

[Braggi]

I don't know where you got this information, but it is absolutely not correct.

Below I am pasting the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in a couple of the outstanding cases concerning this, Terry v. Ohio, and Knowles v. Iowa.
...

Note that we are in California, not Ohio nor Iowa.

We gave it up in 1972. I was shocked and incensed when it happened. But I was only 17. It wasn't my fault.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

"Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws"

This is also not correct. An officer doing a "Terry pat-down search" (from Terry v. Ohio) for weapons may ONLY search for weapons, and may ONLY search in places where a weapon may be concealed which could endanger the officer. There is also no clear rule about the trunk. Could a gang-banger grab a pistol from a trunk, or from under the hood, that could endanger an officer? Of course, and I think most courts would accept this under a Terry search. However, opening the suitcases in your trunk, and opening the bottles in them, would be an unlawful search, and any evidence discovered by it would be inadmissible by the "exclusionary rule" which generally excludes from evidence the fruits of an unlawful search.




Actually, a cop doesn't even need probable cause to legally search your vehicle in California. In 1972 the voters of California gave the cops the ability to search "for weapons" upon suspicion the occupant of the vehicle has a weapon. No other cause is needed. Only suspicion, which can always be justified before a judge. Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the US and has been upheld. I don't know where you've been, Mr. Horseman, but you're wrong. In California we gave up our rights in 1972.

If you really need to carry contraband, put it in your trunk, and keep it locked. They do not have the right to search your trunk and the 4th amendment still applies. Not so in the passenger compartment.

It still makes sense to refuse to allow them to search, but if they say they're looking for weapons, you will lose in court.

Travel safely and fix those taillights.

BTW, get a copy of the video "Busted" which is filled with helpful hints to avoid getting nailed in your car.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

Some other points about knowing and protecting your rights:

1) NEVER ask for, or believe, any advice a police officer gives you about the law. Police officers are not qualified nor authorized to give advice on the law, and you MAY be getting correct information, and you may not. The officer might not know, or might deliberately tell you something not correct. It doesn't hurt to ask, but take what you get with a grain of salt.

2) When speaking about civil rights, or listening to someone else, CITE THE LAW. Know what law protects your rights, and know the name and number of it, so other people can look it up and confirm it, and don't accept advice about the law from someone who can't, because they're statistically likely to be wrong, considering the disgraceful lack of knowledge about civil rights among the population today.

3) The only dependable source for knowledge about your civil rights are an attorney and the law library. The Legislature has provided a law library in the county seat of every county in California, for the use of the people of the state, not just judges and attorneys. In Sonoma County it's upstairs in the court building at 600 Administration Drive, open Mon-Sat. You have to pass through weapons screening. Some county law libraries have stuffy staff that look down their noses at legal non-professionals, but in Santa Rosa we're lucky that the library is staffed by people who are ready and eager to help you find what you want. The person who is usually at the desk of the Sonoma County Law Library is Joan. She's been there forever, knows everything, loves to help, and you'll love her.

Want to do something for yourself, your community, and your country? Spend two hours a month exploring the law library and learning your civil rights so you can teach them to your fellow citizens, whom as we see are in dire need of salvation.

At its worst, the law is just plain boring, but at its best its as sublime as mathematics, as interesting as great literature, and as informative as great history.



"Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws"

This is also not correct. An officer doing a "Terry pat-down search" (from Terry v. Ohio) for weapons may ONLY search for weapons, and may ONLY search in places where a weapon may be concealed which could endanger the officer. There is also no clear rule about the trunk. Could a gang-banger grab a pistol from a trunk, or from under the hood, that could endanger an officer? Of course, and I think most courts would accept this under a Terry search. However, opening the suitcases in your trunk, and opening the bottles in them, would be an unlawful search, and any evidence discovered by it would be inadmissible by the "exclusionary rule" which generally excludes from evidence the fruits of an unlawful search.

[Electric Horseman]

These are decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which over-rule the decisions and the laws of any and every other court and state in the U.S. There is no such law enforceable in California at this time.


Note that we are in California, not Ohio nor Iowa.

We gave it up in 1972. I was shocked and incensed when it happened. But I was only 17. It wasn't my fault.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

Also for some laughs, see on YouTube, Chris Rock, "How to not get your ass beat by the cops" or something like that. I don't have the URL but it's probably easy to find.




BTW, get a copy of the video "Busted" which is filled with helpful hints to avoid getting nailed in your car.

-Jeff

[Electric Horseman]

Here are some more thoughts to stimulate your thinking on search and seizure.

Since 9-11 the use of trained dogs by police and security organizations has skyrocketed. Personally I don't transport marijuana in my vehicles but of course a lot of people do. If you do, a trained drug sniffing dog is your worst nightmare. There's no way out. You might as well give it up and not piss them off, because they're absolutely definitely going to find it. However, not every police dog is trained to sniff drugs, but the cops won't tell you, so you're on your own with that decision.

In a certain case I was reading, there was a drug sniffing dog. The dog had repeatedly passed the following test - coins were given to a person to carry around in their pocket for a few hours, then they were put through a medical sterilizer. After going through the sterilizer, the dog sniffed the coins, and went directly and picked the person out of a lineup. Some dogs can sniff which freeway exit you used while traveling in a car.

But ..

Let's say you take a few coins, and you put them in your stash for a while, so they are thoroughly infused with the scent of the herb. Then you put those coins in a little coin purse in the pocket of your driver door, or tape an envelope to your driver door if you don't have a pocket, "for bridge tolls" or "I'm saving my lose change". Let's suppose you're foolish or unfortunate enough to have some herb on board and a drug sniffing dog comes up to your door outside the car and "alerts". I saw a police officer do this to a kid parked at a drive-in hamburger place in San Rafael a few years ago, and twenty minutes later, they took him away in handcuffs and towed his truck.

So the dog comes to your door, outside the car, and "alerts". This is all the officer needs to thoroughly search your car for drugs.

But ...

Suppose .. the dog alerts. The driver door is opened, the dog goes for the coin purse, and VIOLA! there is nothing there but coins, no contraband. This IMPEACHES THE DOG'S TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS, and may make anything else discovered inadmissable under the exclusionary rule.

Before the officer testifies in court about the dog alerting, he has to "lay a foundation" that shows he and the dog are trained and know what they're doing. So the police officer gets on the stand and in response to the DA's questions says something like "I've been a police officer for X department for X years and for X years I've been on the drug task force and for X years my dog Spot who has had X training has worked with me.

This allows the court to believe and accept what he says as sort of an "expert witness" (although he may not really be an official "expert witness" because that's something very specific).

However, if the evidence shows the dog alerted, and made a mistake, that may allow your attorney to argue that ANYTHING ELSE DISCOVERED AFTER THAT IS INADMISSABLE, because the dog demonstrated that he couldn't accurately sniff out marijuana, and therefore IMPEACHED himself as a witness, and therefore the dog's further "alerting", in light if his unreliability, did not constitute probable cause for any search at all at any time.

Another point. A lot of cops are "game players" in that if you present yourself as a person who knows your rights, but isn't a bad guy, and doesn't have prejudice against cops, you get respect. Cops generally are militaristic, and admire discipline and courage under stress, and if you can confront them firmly, but coolly and cordially, they may admire your game, and cut you some slack.

We need cops. Our population isn't well educated enough for successful anarchy. Most cops are good people doing the best they can and worthy of the public trust and responsibility invested in their offices. In most cases, simply being reasonable and polite will get you through ok.

Did you ever think of going up to a cop and saying, "Thank you for choosing a career in law enforcement, and putting your life on the line to protect others"?

[MsTerry]

Dozens of times, literally.
Now this statement got me quite puzzled.
You are saying that you have been pulled over, literally, 24, 36, 48 or more times and all of those times you were requested to have your car searched. Right?
And all of those 24, 36, 48 or more times, you were able to prevent the cops from searching your car. Right?
That is quite an astonishing feat! For both you and the cops!
Now I know a few activist who have been pulled over quite a few times, just for being sighted. But none of them has been pulled over and harassed as much as you!!!

WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING???
WHERE DO YOU LIVE???

[Braggi]

Now this statement got me quite puzzled.
You are saying that you have been pulled over, literally, 24, 36, 48 or more times and all of those times you were requested to have your car searched. Right? ...

Heh heh.

Found this little gem: "Restrictions on Private Security Personnel
Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.

For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct."

More here: https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/understanding-search-and-seizure-law.html

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Great Find!
NONONONONONO, Scary find!
Remember reportanddeport? he was a security guard...................


Heh heh.

Found this little gem: "Restrictions on Private Security Personnel
Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.

For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct."

More here: https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/understanding-search-and-seizure-law.html

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

So here is another snippet from Jeff's find.

In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
So what does that mean?
If the cop says they BELIEVED that the people would drive off with the evidence and destroy it, they can search your car.
The INTENT of the exclusionary rule is noble, but doesn't always hold up in court.


"Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws"

This is also not correct. An officer doing a "Terry pat-down search" (from Terry v. Ohio) for weapons may ONLY search for weapons, and may ONLY search in places where a weapon may be concealed which could endanger the officer. There is also no clear rule about the trunk. Could a gang-banger grab a pistol from a trunk, or from under the hood, that could endanger an officer? Of course, and I think most courts would accept this under a Terry search. However, opening the suitcases in your trunk, and opening the bottles in them, would be an unlawful search, and any evidence discovered by it would be inadmissible by the "exclusionary rule" which generally excludes from evidence the fruits of an unlawful search.

[Electric Horseman]

I don't understand all the naysaying. It seems some people here have a vested interest in proving that civil rights are useless or don't work or what?

The information just presented is partial and misleading but would require exahusive rebuttal and I'm tired of this.

So what's your point, that nothing works and we should just give up?

Look at yourselves



So here is another snippet from Jeff's find.

So what does that mean?
If the cop says they BELIEVED that the people would drive off with the evidence and destroy it, they can search your car.
The INTENT of the exclusionary rule is noble, but doesn't always hold up in court.

[Electric Horseman]

What's the hehe for? Are we having fun making fun of someone?


Great Find!
NONONONONONO, Scary find!
Remember reportanddeport? he was a security guard...................

[MsTerry]

So what's your point, that nothing works and we should just give up?


There is always a loophole to every law. One gets plugged and another pops up.
Just because we have civil rights, that doesn't mean we GET TO USE them.



The information just presented is partial and misleading but would require exahusive rebuttal and I'm tired of this.For you to say we have civil rights, that information is partial and to an extent misleading, because in reality we have to FIGHT for those rights
That's my experience



Look at yourselvesI have no idea what you mean by this???
You can't even explain why the cops would stop and search you so often

[MsTerry]

I don't do heh hehs. that's Jeff.
And I would NEVER make fun of someone.
heh heh


What's the hehe for? Are we having fun making fun of someone?

[Electric Horseman]

"Now I know a few activist who have been pulled over quite a few times, just for being sighted. But none of them has been pulled over and harassed as much as you!!!"

Yes, I'm an activist, and in some places I get stopped on sight, just like the Black Panthers in Oakland in the 60's. Yes I was there too. I've been stopped literally hundreds of time over the decades, sometimes several times a day, sometimes more than once in an hour. I know what I'm talking about from extensive first hand experience.

" WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING???
WHERE DO YOU LIVE???"

I'm not interested in discussing my personal affairs in a public forum and revealing inappropriately private personal information to justify my role as an activist or enduring ridicule when I refuse. In the course of my activism I've suffered horrible traumatic persecution and loss, that I don't even want to talk about at all, which is not an appropriate topic for this forum.

If you were with Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney when the bomb blew up in Oakland would you be eager for somebody to challenge your activist credentials in a public forum and explain yourself and go deep into issues of your own personal privacy and security? I wasn't, but think about what you're asking.

I'm a little disgusted with all the juvenile egotistical (I'm right you're wrong neener neener neener) ad hominem distractions from the real issues here.

I think I'm not interested in participating in this forum anymore.




Now this statement got me quite puzzled.
You are saying that you have been pulled over, literally, 24, 36, 48 or more times and all of those times you were requested to have your car searched. Right?
And all of those 24, 36, 48 or more times, you were able to prevent the cops from searching your car. Right?
That is quite an astonishing feat! For both you and the cops!
Now I know a few activist who have been pulled over quite a few times, just for being sighted. But none of them has been pulled over and harassed as much as you!!!

[Electric Horseman]

"At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards."

This has always been the case. It's nothing new or surprising.

[Electric Horseman]

No, that's not what it means.


So here is another snippet from Jeff's find.

So what does that mean?
If the cop says they BELIEVED that the people would drive off with the evidence and destroy it, they can search your car.

[Electric Horseman]

"There is always a loophole to every law. One gets plugged and another pops up. Just because we have civil rights, that doesn't mean we GET TO USE them. For you to say we have civil rights, that information is partial and to an extent misleading, because in reality we have to FIGHT for those rights"

Well, duh, of course. So what? Most good things you have to fight for, but it's a winnable fight. A lot of people fought for them before you, and you got them served to you on a silver platter. Show some appreciation, join the task.

"You can't even explain why the cops would stop and search you so often"

And why should I have to explain this personal information to you?

Do you see how you are ridiculing me and disparaging me personally instead of addressing my ideas? It's called ad hominem argument, when you distract attention from the issue by calling attention to a person and his personal qualities and trying to emotionally upset him with personal insults. What's the purpose of this? What end does it serve? Does it promote understanding and communication? Why do you do this? Do you realize how offensive it is? I have only stated facts and ideas and I haven't disparaged or ridiculed any person. Why don't you just stick to the ideas, instead of saying things that are really irrelevant to the conversation, but tend to hurt people's feelings and make them feel bad?

[MsTerry]

Dear John King,(not his real name)

I think you have a misguided idea of who you are and how you come across.


I have only stated facts and ideas and I haven't disparaged or ridiculed any person. Why don't you just stick to the ideas, instead of saying things that are really irrelevant to the conversation, but tend to hurt people's feelings and make them feel bad?

FYI I have compiled a few quotes that you wrote in response to me.
I hope you are able to see how they contradict your above statement, (please note that I use the word 'hope')



Shame on you for spreading such ignorance!!

Your thinking seems confused.
spreading this kind of foolish ignorance, and encouraging this kind of apathy, is just as bad for your civil rights, your country, and your fellow citizens, as being a bad cop

I can tell you are a person who doesn't know much about your civil rights, is wrong about what you think you know, and isn't motivated to find the facts and know the truth and be freeIf you need more actual quotes as to your behavior, please don't hesitate to let me know

yours Sincerely
Ms Terry

[Barry]

Do you see how you are ridiculing me and disparaging me personally instead of addressing my ideas? It's called ad hominem argument, when you distract attention from the issue by calling attention to a person and his personal qualities and trying to emotionally upset him with personal insults. What's the purpose of this? What end does it serve? Does it promote understanding and communication? Why do you do this? Do you realize how offensive it is? ...

Good questions! I don't know exactly what MsTerry's motivations are but he will do anything to provoke people. His favorite modus operandi is to twist people's own words so they feel compelled to defend themselves, such is in this case. I don't know if it's just one way to get attention, feelings of inferiority that somehow are asuaged by tearing other people down, or the desire to create chaos, ala the Joker. In any case I suggest your ignore him either not responding to his taunts, or by supressing his post by using the ignore list (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19804).

[MsTerry]

hahahahhahaahahhaahahhaha
oh Barry you are such a charmer
well, since you decided to put " i like to provoke people" under my name
maybe it is now time for you to put "I like to poke people" under your name.
At least that is the message I get from several women,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Braggi]

I don't understand all the naysaying. It seems some people here have a vested interest in proving that civil rights are useless or don't work or what?

The information just presented is partial and misleading but would require exahusive rebuttal and I'm tired of this.

So what's your point, that nothing works and we should just give up?

Look at yourselves

EH, I very much appreciate your desire to educate us about our rights. That is a noble pursuit and I'm here to learn and share. However, MsTerry has called upon you to support some claims you made that sound pretty ridiculous. I don't think you've been ridiculed here, but nobody reading what you've written believes you've been pulled over "literally hundreds of times." It's perfectly reasonable for MsTerry to ask you what you do that would cause such a condition. You should feel no insult from that.

And Darryl Cherney has been a friend of mine for about 15 years now. I know a lot about his situation and I can safely assure you he hasn't been pulled over even dozens of times, let alone hundreds, and he's pretty high profile. In fact, I don't know of him so much as getting a parking ticket in all the time I've known him. And yes, I've protested by his side. We didn't get hassled at all by any cops before, during or after. If he doesn't get pulled over at all, why should you get pulled over so much?

I don't think you've been harassed in any way on this board. Nobody's intended to hurt your feelings, and frankly, I'm kind of amazed you'd even use that kind of language when you're tough enough to tell off cops who want to search your car over and over.

You don't add up.

All that said, again, I appreciate you sharing what you have. I think this is an educational discussion and on a most important topic. I would appreciate it if you now looked into the California situation because I believe it to be different, as I've stated, and stated with no intent to appear negative or belligerent, but as a person who has followed search and seizure laws here in my home state since I was a teenager and found the situation to be different than you describe based on case law from other states.

Agreed, we are all protected by the 4th. However, those rights have been eroded and there are now a whole host of intrusions that we are not protected from. The Supremes have allowed almost any method of evidence collection, even blatantly unconstitutional, when it comes to drug cases.

If the Supreme Court won't uphold our search and seizure rights, you're asking a lot for average citizens to demand those rights in the face of men armed with guns, large clubs and chemicals intended to cause extreme pain as well as a belligerent attitude. I agree with you that it is the right thing to do anyway, even if it results in severe consequences.

-Jeff

[babaruss]

This is the kind of urban legend that too many people rely on rather than finding the real truth. You can also tell this isn't true without even knowing the details - California voters, nor no voters, nor no state can pass any law contrary to the 4th Amendment. If California or California voters did pass such a law, it would be unenforceable. This is also an important part of knowing your civil rights, knowing what laws are enforceable, and what aren't. The courts have struck down thousands of laws over the years that voters or legislatures tried to pass, that were unconstitutional on their face, but until they were, the cops enforced them. In most cases it was an ordinary citizen, like you or me, or Terry or Knowles, that set things straight. As a citizen, you are the most powerful person in the United States of America.

[quote=Braggi;69931]Actually, a cop doesn't even need probable cause to legally search your vehicle in California. In 1972 the voters of California gave the cops the ability to search "for weapons" upon suspicion the occupant of the vehicle has a weapon. No other cause is needed. Only suspicion, which can always be justified before a judge. Any contraband found during a search for weapons can be entered as evidence in court for any violation including that of drug laws. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the US and has been upheld. I don't know where you've been, Mr. Horseman, but you're wrong. In California we gave up our rights in 1972.


I don't know about anyone else out there, but not too many months ago I was driving someone to detox, and was pulled over by a couple of county deputies. Apparently the person in the car did something while drunk, and they wanted to arrest him. I'm not sure how he was tied to my funky old rattle trap of a car.
They asked to search my car, and I said no.
I had thought I was well with in my rights to refuse.
The deputy said he was 'detaining' me until a warrant o.k. was obtained.
Detaining me was ..short tight handcuff behind my back, and seating in the back of the squad care. The back of the squad car had a plastic insert over the seat which allowed no room to move whatsoever which proved very painful, and uncomfortable for this old man
Warrant for search was obtained..car trashed...nothing found...my passenger went off to jail, and I got to go home.
All that came of this was a further increase my distaste for police tactics.
I probably would have taken this sort of stuff a bit more in stride back in my long haired, red mountain, reefer madness, days.
Oh well, it was just a bit more stuff helping to put me in touch with what people are still having to deal with.
Those kinds of incidents just help me to remember that justice, and fairness are absurd fantasies entertained by small children, and idiots.
Life is what it is...my response to it is what makes it a pain, a lesson, or just another little bump in life's long windy road.
Russ

[MsTerry]

Thanks for sharing your Civil Rights Abuse story.
It confirms what I mentioned earlier, we HAVE rights, but we don't always GET them.
The guy with the bigger stick usually wins.
What would you do different next time?




I don't know about anyone else out there, but not too many months ago I was driving someone to detox, and was pulled over by a couple of county deputies. Apparently the person in the car did something while drunk, and they wanted to arrest him. I'm not sure how he was tied to my funky old rattle trap of a car.
They asked to search my car, and I said no.
I had thought I was well with in my rights to refuse.
The deputy said he was 'detaining' me until a warrant o.k. was obtained.
Detaining me was ..short tight handcuff behind my back, and seating in the back of the squad care. The back of the squad car had a plastic insert over the seat which allowed no room to move whatsoever which proved very painful, and uncomfortable for this old man
Warrant for search was obtained..car trashed...nothing found...my passenger went off to jail, and I got to go home.
All that came of this was a further increase my distaste for police tactics.
I probably would have taken this sort of stuff a bit more in stride back in my long haired, red mountain, reefer madness, days.
Oh well, it was just a bit more stuff helping to put me in touch with what people are still having to deal with.
Those kinds of incidents just help me to remember that justice, and fairness are absurd fantasies entertained by small children, and idiots.
Life is what it is...my response to it is what makes it a pain, a lesson, or just another little bump in life's long windy road.
Russ

[Vet-To-Pet]

I haven't been reading this thread since it was started, but I'd like to add an experience I had, altho it wasn't in Sebastopol. I believe, tho, it can be applied to anywhere in this country.

I was driving my Honda Element, which had recently come onto the market (at that time) & was being marketed as a vehicle "for throwing your surfboards into the back", and basically towards a "young" crowd. I was 50 yrs old at the time. I was driving on a two-lane hwy, no other cars in front or behind me, yada, yada. I was pulled over, I believe, because the officer was "profiling me", suspecting me of being a college student (this was in a college town on "Homecoming Day") who'd probably been drinking---a "Certain DUI!". I pulled over, wondering if I'd been speeding..? The officer asked me to get out of the car (??), and gave me a sobriety test (I'd quit drinking about 18 years before that incident). Obviously, I passed that test (he made me blow into the alcohol meter, walk the walk, touch my nose), then he gave me a ticket for speeding. I later noticed that the officer had not made any notation on the ticket for having given me the sobriety test---nothing written in any of those spaces (left them BLANK), altho everything else had been filled in---road condition, traffic conditions, weather conditions, etc.

Okay, here's my point: I demanded that the video of my being pulled over be present in court. I'm pretty sure that ALL incidents of being pulled over by an officer are now being automatically videotaped. They made a fuss & had to postpone my court date, and I was inconvenienced by having to attend court more than once, but I stuck to my insistance that the tape be present---I knew the cop hadn't included the DUI test & had left it off the ticket, so the ticket was invalid. Bottom line, the officer never showed up in court (coincidence?) & the ticket was thrown out. SO: Ask for the video! Ask that the officer show proof that you hadn't stopped. His word against yours? Ask if there's a video available, at least. Why should we expect the officer to be telling the truth, when they so obviously don't always do so? Ask the court what evidence the officer has of the incident. Be polite, but stick to your rights. Dress appropriately for court, speak with respect to the judge, but tell him/her that YOU know you stopped (or whatever the case), and how can the officer PROVE that you didn't? It worked for me---I'm pretty sure that cop (in my case) knew he was NOT going to get 'high points' for leaving information off the ticket/citation, so he no-showed. A police officer's word against a citizen's?---Is that what they expect to stand up in court? In this day & age, that's just not enough, sorry to say.
Vet To Pet