Why don't they need a warrant? I thought they did unless there was probable cause.( ie. open container, smell of weed, weapon in plain view)

exactly. they do need a warrent unless the above listed reasons. and in this case there were none.

Yeah, was under the same impression. Pretty clear here, unless it was overturned.

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts...comment1.shtml


Innocent until proven guilty, they would have to prove to the court that you were up to no good. If you were up to no good, then you is effed.

So you were pulled over and they just wanted to search your car when they made the stop? What was there reasoning for wanting to search?

Yeah, not getting the full story here.

So much stupid :willy:

:stupid:

eh its happened to me before. pulled over for making a right hand turn without using a blinker (bulb was out). got a ton of ear for being ''in a bad area with too nice of a car''. explained to the officer i lived there, then proceeded to get an ear full of how my car is nice, im young, in a bad area i must be a drug dealer blah blah blah. an hour 45 minutes later of searching i was let go by the officer with a fistful of tickets for proving him wrong.



sucks but it happens.


as for cops knowing the law. **** the police.

Police DONT know the law that well, they interperet it how they feel then a JUDGE decides whether they were correct or not.

so what tickets did u actually get which add up to 8 points?
speeding? careless? reckless? racing?

im confused cuz i know just not letting them search doesnt get you points lol.

it sounds like a combonation of two of those or more....speeding 15+ is a 4 point ticket on its own

if he really did something wrong, he will never tell us anyway. so the only outcome this thread has one in the direction of bashing the police.

did he search your car after you refused?

Yes and no. As some mentioned, a warrantless search is only permitted in exigent circumstances. Even the infamous "smell of weed" doesn't automatically get you into someone's car anymore. Basically, a warrantless search is only permitted in a situation in which safety is a concern and when it is reasonable to believe that evidence would be lost or destroyed. If this is not the case, and the officer finds something that leads him/her to reasonably believe contraband exists in the vehicle, they can ask the operator for consent to search and have them sign the same. If they refuse the search, and the officer still strongly believes contraband exists and he/she can articulate that reason, they can detain the driver and the vehicle until a warrant is requested and approved. I can't say I've ever seen it happen personally, but it is entirely possible. I'll never tell anyone here whether they should or shouldn't refuse a search; that advice is best left to lawyers. Just know that it could happen. Al posted a few very good and very true excerpts of appellate court decisions, BTW.

Nice ignorant blanket statement. I won't pretend that every cop is an expert on the law, but I will say that the majority of the ones I know take pride in their profession and make it a point to know what they can and cannot do. And the ones that don't have the law down pat are new and learning, and are smart enough to ask before they make a bad decision. Yeah, there are knuckleheads out there that fly by the seat of their uniform trousers and play the "my way or the highway" game, but they are rapidly being replaced by the younger generation of cops who go to college and actually have people skills. We live and work in a ridiculously litigious society. Gone are the days of the "strong back weak mind" officers I learned about in college. You have to know the rules of the game if you're going to win it.

I'm with those that have said it already: There's a few details missing from the story. I'd love to hear what really happened, but I doubt we ever will. I will say that there has to be a pretty good reason for a request to search a vehicle and the eight points worth of eff you he got for saying no...

exactly. i also don't know where the whole illegal search rant is coming from, other than saying that the officer Asked to search the car, it does not say he forced him to allow it, or that he did anything other than issue tickets after he was denied permission to search.

and since the story in the first post doesn't include the typical rant and whine about how shafted he got by a "nazi cop", it leads me to believe he would have gotten the 8 points wether he allowed the search or not.

so now the story is changed from all the ranting above to, "he asked me to search my car, and i told him no, so he didn't, but he came back with the tickets i earned rather than letting me go with a slap on the wrist"

come on paul. with your stalker abilities i figured you would have known lol.

i got a wreckless driving ticket which is 5 points and a improper turn which is 3 points as well as a headlight ticket.

umm what rant ???

wait you go from saying im ranting then here im not ranting and then your next thing says im ranting again lmao.

when did my story ever change ? i didnt earn the tickets that he gave me. he gave those to me because he was unable to search my car.

lmao cbrrmike i know your a cop wannabe and all but you really don't need to talk like you are on a forum who are you trying to impress?.

ok sense so many people have pm'd me wanting to know what happend i guess ill spill the beans. the reason i didnt in my original post was because my getting pulled over had nothing to do with a general question and i didnt want any bashing or useless replies.

ok so here is what happened. i was driving down 571 when i was pulled over. the cop told me he pulled me over for my headlight and then said he wanted to search my car. when i told him no that he did not have a warrent he then went and told me he had probable cause in which he said he would have a k9 unit or warrent here shortly. 45 minutes later the cop comes back to my window and says he will give me 1 more chance to let him search my car before the k9 unit gets here. i said id wait for the dogs in which he replied that what ever drugs it is im hiding im lucky to be getting off on that he wasnt able to get a warrent or k9 unit and handed me the tickets and said he would have fun seeing me in court. yes ill admit apparently my headlight was out so did i earn that ticket yes. as for the other two those were clearly given to me because the cop was unable to search my car so he slammed me with tickets that would hopefully cause me to loose my licence and have a huge fine.

So, you got 8 pts, for a head light out?

notsureifsrs.mpeg

Yeah, that's what I don't get.

Where did the 8 points come from? You were minding your own business with a headlight out and he pulled you over?

heres where 8 points came from...

Seems like if you weren't hiding anything it wouldve been better to let him search your car

If he gave you wreckless driving? Were you swerving? I hate that ticket, because unless you have a crowd watching you, its the cops word vs yours.

Paul:

What was done to earn those points is unclear.

The way the OP described the story he did absolutely nothing, the cop wrote up the tickets in response to not being able to search the vehicle. At least that's how I understand it.

If that's truly what happened I don't know how he'll get out of it, if that's really what happened that cop needs a ****ing ass-whooping, scumbag.

ok, i didnt use all the cool quotes, or break down each line, so it might have been hard to understand. as i said in my post... YOU DIDNT EXPLAIN, so i was referring to the OTHER PEOPLE RANTING ABOUT IT.

and what exactly makes me a "cop wannabe"?

:rofl:

Huh...I still think something's missing, and find that in its entirety hard to believe. But there are three sides to every story: Your side, his side, and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I don't think we'll ever know that part.