searching my trunk

[chewyxrage]

I got a DUI and they didn't search my car then or at the inpound.

Had some shit in there, too.

 

[advanced-stealth]

This site is real good.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

 

[NJRipped]

This always depends on the state you're in. In Texas they can search incident to arrest to "inventory" the car (at the scene or station).

This site is real good.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

 

[advanced-stealth]

True only if a concern for police safety and preservation of easily destructible evidence.

This always depends on the state you're in. In Texas they can search incident to arrest to "inventory" the car (at the scene or station).

 

[chewyxrage]

I got a DUI and they didn't search my car then or at the inpound.

Had some shit in there, too.

yea I had a little billy club next to me wedged inbetween the seat and the middle console, cop spotted that right away. Told me to take it out and put in the trunk, then get back in and we'll start over

 

[holy ghost]

Its the plainview doctrine, anything illegal in plain sight they can sieze
like at a party if they bust in and see a bong
or a sack of yayo
its theirs
or if they come in and smell herb
they can snoop

 

[1968Charger]

If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The only reason he's asking you is because he doesn'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 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 reasonable and therefore 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 officers are trained to use their authority to get people to consent to a search, and most people are predisposed to comply with any request a police officer makes. For example, the average motorist stopped by a police 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.

If, for any reason you don't want the officer digging through your belongings, you should refuse to consent by saying something like, "Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I do not consent to any searches of my private property." If the officer still proceeds to search you and finds illegal contraband, your attorney can argue that the contraband was discovered through an illegal search and hence should be thrown out of court.

You should never hesitate to assert your constitutional rights. Just say "no!"

the sad part is the cop will just call for a dog ,and the dog will walk around the car and sit and bark ,then they do what ever they want !!

 

[bigwavesurfer]

It all depends on what state and jurisdiction your in. Once you've been arrest for any offense(ex. DUI, warrant, suspended license) your car is is to be searched "incident to arrest". Incident to arrest is your surrounding area which in a four door vehicle would be the whole inside, everything but the trunk.

The exceptions to this rule would be if you were arrested in your vehicle for possession of controlled substances(ex. marijuana, anabolics, cocaine) or found controlled substance during the search incident to arrest. Once controlled substances have been found you can search the whole vehicle(ex. trunk, tires, door panels) because they can be hidden anywhere due to there size.

Another exception to this rule is say your car gets towed for whatever reason, even if you weren't arrested. You could have your car towed for it not be registered, unsafe motor vehicle, expired license and the list goes on. If that police departments rules and regulations state that a inventory of the vehicle must be completed upon towing of a vehicle than that police officer can search that car to make an inventory of whats in the vehicle. If upon completing an inventory search and contraband is found you can be placed under arrest. A inventory search is done to protect the officer, department, and tow company from the owner/operator of the vehicle. If something is missing from inside the vehicle(ex. laptop, camera, money) or is "said" missing than an investigation would be completed and be a big mess. The inventory makes everything accountable for in that vehicle. Hope I was of some help.

 

[magico]

The Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment has become, essentially, a myth.

Automobile Searches
The Supreme Court recognizes three distinct doctrines permitting the police to search automobiles without warrants. First, since Carroll v. United States (1925), a warrant has not been required so long as there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. This “automobile exception” has been greatly expanded since Carroll. For example, the Court held in California v. Carney (1985) that a mobile home capable of traveling on a highway was included within the exception, and in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), the Court held that the police may use the exception to search the personal belongings of passengers (but not the passengers themselves).

Second, the Court held in New York v. Belton (1981) that the police may automatically search an automobile's passenger compartment without a warrant after arresting an occupant of the vehicle because a criminal may hide contraband or weapons in the vehicle before the arrest. Since the Court held in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) that the police may arrest motorists for even petty traffic violations, the police now have an incentive to arrest minor traffic violators in order to perform “Belton searches” of their automobiles.

“Inventory searches” are the third doctrine permitting the police to perform warrantless automobile searches. In Colorado v. Bertine (1987), the Court held that the police may thoroughly search vehicles that have been lawfully impounded for any reason. The Court explained that such inventory searches are justified to protect the owner from misappropriation, to protect the police from false claims of theft, and to prevent dangerous items from being stored on police property.

Taken together, the expansion of the automobile exception, Belton searches, and inventory searches have largely eliminated the expectation of privacy that American motorists may once have had in their automobiles.

Not to mention the "reasonable suspicicion" and "stop and frisk" exclusions.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person; has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.


Precedent
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop. An arrest is not permitted based on reasonable suspicion; probable cause is required for an arrest. Further, a person is not required to answer any other questions during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief.

Stop and Frisk Rule
The phrase “stop and frisk” refers to the authority of a police officer to stop and search a person for concealed weapons without a warrant. The search may take place with less than the probable cause otherwise required by the Fourth Amendment.

In 1942 the Uniform Arrest Act allowed an officer to search a person stopped or detained for questioning if the officer had “reasonable ground” to suspect a concealed weapon. Only three states adopted the Uniform Arrest Act, but in 1964 New York adopted what became known as a “stop and frisk” law. Several studies of police behavior indicated that when officers suspected a person they were talking to had a concealed weapon, they frisked that person (“frisking” being defined as running hands on the outside of the suspect's clothing to feel for a weapon, and not intruding inside the garment unless the officer felt something suspicious).

The Supreme Court gave its imprimatur in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Chief Justice Earl Warren described the practice as one a reasonably prudent police officer should take for both personal and public safety if the circumstances warranted it. In subsequent cases during Chief Justice Warren Burger's tenure, the Court expanded the Terry holding to allow warrantless searches for weapons, narcotics, and illegal aliens on “reasonable” suspicion of their concealment

And if the police do'nt have reasonable suspicion, they can just make it up. In court you would be screwed because they're the cops and cops would never lie

 

[gslben]

If a department has a policy of taking an inventory of all towed cars and uses it on all tows then they will go through the entire car to "guard against accusations of theft". Almost every department in Mass. has this policy and as long as you can't prove it's used selectively then whatever they find is theirs.