Vehicle Search and Seizure

[funnyvidspd]

B*** S***

[konatown5]

Good job, he took control of the situation real quick.

[Vergon3256]

Good cop. I like him

[geraldlee33]

Damn that is a damn good cop. He is very respectful and calls him buy his name. He never shows aggression toward him at all. I wish there was more police officers out there like him.

[goosedreams]

It is entirely possible that he the stopping of that vehicle was unwarranted. I did not see him not use his signal.

[Doobie1975]

Did the passenger end up going to jail? We don't really get to see what happens to him

[Stink808]

the guy should have said, "If I am being arrested then I would like my friend to drive my vehicle home for me", and then there would be no need for an inventory search to be done.

[WolfEagle1961]

The sup. ct. recently ruled that a passenger in a car doesn't have to stick around during a traffic stop. Police can pull over a Greyhound bus for some infraction, they have a problem with the DRIVER. That does not allow police to rummage thru the pockets and detain 50 passengers. People do not know their rights. The passenger should have just walked away and let the cop do whatever he wanted to then sued him for civil rights violation. That is the law and even enforces of it must obey it.

[rhino1125]

No offense, Wolf, but you're 100 percent wrong. In Brendlin v California (2007), the US Supreme Court ruled that driver AND passengers are detained during a traffic stop. If police pull over a Greyhound bus, all 50 people CANNOT just walk away. The court said police "command ultimate authority" over the traffic stop. If this passenger walked away, he's arrestable. You're right... people don't know their rights... they also don't know the law.

[WolfEagle1961]

I am not going to enter a debate but in Brendlin HE incidently became the focus of investigation. The Brendlin court held: "automobile passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop". But as the court also found, this is NOT to be construed as "roving police patrols". Therefore, 50 passengers on a bus cannot be legally seized unless each one is seized persuant the 4th Amendment.

[rhino1125]

don't want to enter into a debate? why not? roving police patrols does not include probable cause stops, such as a bus driver violating vehicle code. the passengers CANNOT leave until the officer has finished his investigation. all 50 are legally seized and detained within the scope of that investigation. there is no 4th amendment violation.

[WolfEagle1961]

I see where this is going. Here is my case in point. If you are a police officer and I was 1 of the 50 on that bus and you "roved" thru it asking all 50 questions, etc. probing I will sue you, period. I will prevail, period. You will not be allowed to rely upon qualified immunity, period. So as far as I am concerned, I could care less. Let other undereducated people allow their rights be trampled as I really don't care. I can't stop a cop from doing what he wants but can sure make em regret it.

[rhino1125]

You changed the argument. You said the passengers could get up and leave and I said you were wrong. Anyone can assert their refusal to answer questions. If you try and leave, you'll be arrested, PERIOD. Its not a trampling of your rights... its the Supreme Court's decision to let the officer command control over a detention. All fifty people are detained. That's a fact.  Period.

[Doobie1975]

You don't see too many cars the suspect was driving

[Doobie1975]

So did the police end up seizing the suspect's vehicle?

[skirdhu9]

The cop was friendly, professional and calm. Only thing he missed was when he found the knife. He shoulda said "Where's the beef?"

[Doobie1975]

I really liked the officer on this episode, he did seem laid back yet professional, I wish more officers were like him.

[skirdhu9]

"Cuz, you was actin' kinda hinky in there."

I'm gonna use that one ;)

[joel27910]

another 4th amendment violation.

[ahuitzil]

nope; it was all good; he had discretion to arrest for the suspended license; after the arrest, he could search the car as "incident to arrest";

[rhino1125]

ahuitzil is right... this is no way a 4th amendment violation. The US Supreme Court said in Atwater v City of Lago Vista, if the driver is arrest able you can "search the entire vehicle and all of its contents, including the trunk" -Justice O'Connor. Its a search incident to arrest and an inventory search prior to impound. The cop's tactics were horrible, but a textbook search.

[WolfEagle1961]

Arizona v. Gant, (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

[rhino1125]

You're right... for a search incident to arrest. The police still have the right to search the entire vehicle as an inventory prior to impound. Arizona v Gant only limited searches incident to arrest.  You can search the vehicle, its just a different kind of search. Arizona didn't limit cops ability to search. That officer had every right to search that vehicle. Even under Arizona, the suspect still had access to the vehicle... he was sitting in it.

[GeneralUser1926]

@WolfEagle1961 that is a good point and that is new to law enforcement for i believe about a year now. CONSENT can bypass all your problems, just ask nicely... :)

[pentiuman]

@WolfEagle1961 Yes, you are exactly right! Thank you for informing us of this relatively new decision. Police cannot perform a warrantless search of your car unless you pose a continuing threat to the officer, or to perserve evidence...

[Tebok73509]

@pentiuman police can search a vehicle if they have whats called 'reasonable suspicion' If it looks like your trying to hide something, act all figity while they are talking to you, etc, thats enough reason for them to search.

If you keep you hand on the wheel at all times and just pull over, they have no reason to search the vehicle. As a matter of fact, if your with a passenger, they have no need to ask for his ID. Your the one who was pulled over, not your passenger.

[pentiuman]

@Tebok73509 - Yes, but (as you may know), in my earlier comment to Wolfeagle1961, we were talking about a warrantless vehicular search AFTER you have been arrested, not before, in the Arizona v. Gant 2009 decision.

[goosedreams]

@Tebok73509 You are wrong, reasonable suspicion does not justify a search without a warrant. Read the constitution.

[Lefty44745]

@pentiuman police can search your car IF they have a good reason.. this officer sees the driver and passenger reach under the seat which makes him believe a. there is a weapon and b. there is contraband the therefore this search is legal. (i take criminal justice) this is because with a car evidence can be thrown away or destroyed so this is why its legal