Watchman wrote:I think for practical purposes, if a misdemeanor or felony arrest is made during a traffic stop, an officer shouldn't have to justify a subsequent search of the vehicle. That is just common sense to anyone who has worked a traffic stop, but seems common sense is not so common anymore.
Let me tell you a little secret. If "Reasonable Suspicion" is the only threshold one must meet to make an automobile search, then the Supreme Court ruling has very little impact in changing law enforcement practice. It will require the officer to add a one or two line statement (maybe... if that) in the incident report. Other than that... nada. It is an absolutely inconsequential ruling as long as you do what you are supposed to do to cover yourself.
There is no "reasonable suspicion" leeway. The supreme court enumerated the conditions necessary to do a search. And the only exception they laid out that is of interest is that if there is potential evidence that might be destroyed. You stop someone because a bank was robbed, this car and driver matches the description, and you can search to see if bank property is found. But anything else found can not be used for any reason.
If that leaves you unhappy, the legal way is to go to a magistrate, make your case for probable cause, and have him issue a search warrant. "I want to look in his car to see what I might find" won't fly any longer. This is not about "common sense" at all. It is about a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
As far as your "adding the comments" there is no exceptions given. You do not get to search my vehicle, just because you arrest me. I run over someone, you pull me over and arrest me for vehicular assault and such. Fine. But you can't go in my car. Or you can, but nothing found will ever see the courtroom jury. which is as it should be. Arrest is not tantamount to carte-blanch to look for whatever you can find. Why not extend that to my workplace? To my home? To my friend's homes? etc? It is a gestapo-like idea.
Btw... you need not school me on Fourth Amendment issues. I have had plenty of that already from many law enforcement classes on the subject to actual street practice. You have no idea how appreciative this has made me as a "civilian."
Based on your comments, I am not sure you have been schooled "enough" it would seem. But at least the US Supreme Court agrees with me which makes any other opinion completely moot on this issue.
bob wrote:What would you do if I walked into the police station, pointed you out, and said "you stole my car, I want you arrested and put in jail."??? Do you arrest someone based on the statement of one person?
Is this a test btw? Well... If you said "stole my car" no obviously I don't have enough to make a warrantless arrest for something I didn't observe... I take your information... who you said it was... their information (probably run him for outstanding warrants) and file a report. Maybe I'd call a supervisor so he could notify a detective.
But Officers can and do make arrests everyday on just someone else's word. It is so simple to have someone arrested. And I am not referring to violation of a court separation order (husband told by court to stay away from wife, wife calls 911 saying husband is there. Husband is GOA when officers show up and see court order wife has. Officers drive over to husband's house, who has been watching football for the entire time but has no way to corroborate that; husband then arrested for violating court order). There are other ways which I refuse to explain as I don't care to provide instructions on "how to have thy neighbor arrested."
Btw... you’re asking about having to be "proven" guilty or innocent. Watch someone go through the our "Criminal Justice System" and you soon realize it's not a matter of demonstrating guilt. In our justice system, you are guilty until you manage to demonstrate your innocence. That is my opinion from seeing firsthand how the system works.
Opinions like that make me want to puke. Sorry for my slang. Everyone that believes such nonsense ought to be locked up themselves, IMHO. Fortunately, in serving on juries multiple times, I have not had the misfortune of seeing such drumhead justice dispensed, and I hope I never do.
bob wrote:That is _exactly_ what has happened here. "innocent until proven guilty" is still the rule of law here.
No it isn't! Not by a long shot! You can't take what is essentially a civil matter and throw it into Criminal Court! You can't apply the Law willy nilly as you please! Although I know many who would like to do that! IF and I say IF this matter were to even make it to the inside of a civil proceeding, the Burden of Proof is not "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" but a 51 to 49 "Preponderance of the Evidence" i.e. more likely than not.
Preponderance means majority. To prevail you have to provide evidence. That's my point. Absolutely _none_ has been provided here. And I do mean _absolutely_. There is no preponderance. there is no evidence whatsoever. Get my point?
bob wrote: Vas made the claim, it is clearly his responsibility to offer proof to back up that claim would you not think? Or do we let anyone make a claim and react to it as if it is absolute truth?
Why do we need "proof"? We go from Criminal Law (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) to Civil Law (Preponderance of the Evidence) to Forum "Law." I say all that is needed here is a much lower standard than "More Likely than Not!" I propose the SAR Standard (Sounds About Right). Now I don't go to the other extreme to consider what Vas says as "absolute truth." Vas said Robbolito is a clone of Rybka. Using my "Forum Standard" it “sounds about right” that this is accurate. Could he be fooling me? Sure! So what? If at some point we find out he is a liar on such matters, we can then say, "Be gone! You are a liar on such matters and not a trustworthy source!" End of story. But to apply such high standards that are imposed on Criminal Proceedings is absolutely ridiculous to me. Do we have a court recorder? Who swears us in? Where's the Judge? What are my rights
! And the list is endless and so are the costs in real dollars.
What there really needs to be in this community, in my opinion, is some sort of Oversight Committee. There has to be some sort of accountability by people who are not only well respected, but would understand the programming sections (or however the Engine Author wanted to demonstrate a claim). And there has to be a very real penalty for not complying with this Governing Board. But all this takes time and probably money... so... until then...
Why should Vas want or need to make any other statements?
Because he made the original _claim_. That's why.