how much will 5 points effect my licence/insurance ?

[1972LT1]

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)

[wrong generation]

Originally Posted by 1972LT1

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.

[BigAls87Z28]

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

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

Appellate Decision: State v. Carty
332 N.J. Super. 200 (App. Div. 2000)
[Decided March 4, 2002]

* Full Decision Text
* AP Story

In a 5-0 Decision on March 4, 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court continued its nation-leading protection against police searches. The court decided, with 4 judges signing the primary decision and 1 writing a concurrence, that even with written consent police were not allowed to search the person or vehicle of someone stopped for a traffic violation without "reasonable, articulable suspicion" unrelated to the traffic violation for which the vehicle was stopped.

The New Jersey Court ruled on the basis of the New Jersey State Constitution and thus it is not reviewable by the federal Supreme Court. NJ has long had some of the most protective constitutional law regarding police searches during traffic stops. Until this ruling, the New Jersey police were required by the courts to have each person actually sign a consent document in order to allow traffic-stop searches. The consent documents were quite strongly worded, in an attempt to inform citizens that they had the right to refuse searches. The text of the consent document included:

The New Jersey Supreme Court goes on to be extremely clear about what they're saying and explicitly deny the use of consent-based searches without there being some evidence of a crime:

We agree with the Appellate Division that consent searches following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle should not be deemed valid under Johnson unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that an errant motorist or passenger has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity. In other words, we are expanding the Johnson two-part constitutional standard and holding that unless there is a reasonable and articulable basis beyond the initial valid motor vehicle stop to continue the detention after completion of the valid traffic stop, any further detention to effectuate a consent search is unconstitutional. A suspicionless consent search shall be deemed unconstitutional whether it preceded or followed completion of the lawful traffic stop. The requirement of reasonable and articulable suspicion is derived from our State Constitution and serves to validate the continued detention associated with the search. It also serves the prophylactic purpose of preventing the police from turning a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for criminal activity unrelated to the stop. [NJ State vs Courty]

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.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by wrong generation

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

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?

[BigAls87Z28]

Yeah, not getting the full story here.

[sweetbmxrider]

So much stupid

[maroman88]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Yeah, not getting the full story here.

[NastyEllEssWon]

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.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by redsoxsstink

I don't get it? The public only hears the bad things cops do, does that mean they are all bad? I don't get how people say cops don't know crap about the Law and can't do their jobs. They are trained, tested, re tested and re trained more rigorously that any other civilian job... Guh end rant. Don't mean to change the topic

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

[V]

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.

[greenformula92]

Originally Posted by V

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

[Mike]

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?

[79T/A]

They don't need a warrant to search vehicles. Since vehicles are able to flee with evidence inside the officer is able to search with his or her discretion. If it was your home the officer wouldn't be aloud to enter unless there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. I would never try to outsmart a cop at the scene. No one knows NJ law better than cops and lawyers. If you wanted to outsmart him let him search then talk to a lawyer and he would tell you weither you have any ground in court.

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.

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

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...

[Mike]

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"

[wrong generation]

Originally Posted by V

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

exactly. i also don't know where the whole illegal search rant is coming from,

umm what rant ???

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

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.

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

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

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"

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.

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

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?

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?.

Originally Posted by Frosty

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?

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.

[LTb1ow]

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

notsureifsrs.mpeg

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by LTs1ow

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?

[V]

heres where 8 points came from...

Originally Posted by wrong generation

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

[redsoxsstink]

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

[BigAls87Z28]

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.

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by V

heres where 8 points came from...

Paul:

What was done to earn those points is unclear.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

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.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by wrong generation

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.

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"?

[maroman88]

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

and what exactly makes me a "cop wannabe"?

[79T/A]

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.

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.

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.