Probable cause?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jnyork

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
912
Location
Arizona and Wyoming
OK, t two guys on another high road thread have had their car searched by the police because they have an NRA or other gun-related bumper sticker on their car. I have never heard of such things happening and have a hard time believing a person exercising the right of free speech gives the police "probable cause" to conduct a search of a vehicle. Did the cops overstep their authority here? How about some of the lawyers on the board address this?
 
Are your friends assumeing thats why they got searched or were they informed of this by the police? Also if they had not comitted some form of violation they would not have got stopped.
 
ashtxsniper said:
Are your friends assumeing thats why they got searched or were they informed of this by the police? Also if they had not comitted some form of violation they would not have got stopped.
Click to expand...

I agree. Only a real rookie with inadequate training would think they had the right to stop and or search based on an NRA sticker (or other pro-gun sticker). I've had some LEO training years ago and have a family member that is active LEO now ... There are probably a lot of reasons to pull someone over (erratic driving, speeding, tail light out or whatever) but for a bumper sticker? I think not.

Well, not yet. If our country continues down the current path where our leaders openly attack news media and individuals who simply don't agree with them, then getting stopped simply because you don't have the "correct" bumper stickers will become much more likely in the near future. Don't believe me? You are not paying attention to the news, are you?
 
Probable cause?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, t two guys on another high road thread have had their car searched by the police because they have an NRA or other gun-related bumper sticker on their car. I have never heard of such things happening and have a hard time believing a person exercising the right of free speech gives the police "probable cause" to conduct a search of a vehicle. Did the cops overstep their authority here? How about some of the lawyers on the board address this?
Click to expand...

Need more information. There is probable cause and reasonable cause.
 
Any officer can ask for your consent to search your car. It's not unlawful.

You have the right to decline.

In most cases the officer will ask AFTER he/she has completed whatever actions were required to resolve the reason they stopped you in the first place (write you a "ticket" and you sign it). Anything after that is "new" business. If you're asked for consent to search your vehicle for whatever reason, the best response is to answer with your own question, "Are you asking to search my car or are you telling me that you're going to search my car?" If the answer is that he/she is "asking," you have the right to decline.

At that point you should ask "Am I free to go?"

If he/she says otherwise then you have no choice - you can verbally protest and peacefully refuse to cooperate (i.e., don't sign any documentation related the search). You're not going to resolve any issues in the field you may have with the officer/legality of the search. Any problems you have will have to wait for court.

I had my own experience with an NRA sticker on my car a few years ago. I was pulled over for speeding on a military base. After making contact with me and checking my license, registration and insurance card, the civilian contractor police officer asked if had any guns in my car (which would be in violation of base commander's policy unless registered). I replied, "What gives you that idea?" He said, "You have an NRA sticker in your back window." I told him, "Hmmm, guns in the car? Well, I hope not!" And he retorted, "You're not answering my question!" I said, "I disagree, you just didn't like my answer."

I scraped my NRA sticker after the incident.

(There were a few times when I unknowingly carried a handgun on base in violation of policy simply because I forgot it was in my bag. So even though when I was pretty sure I didn't have any "contraband" I always answered, "I hope not. To the best of my knowledge I don't.", when asked, because if I said "no" and contraband was discovered, then I'd look like a liar. There'd be times when I was standing in line to pass through a security checkpoint that I'd have to return to my car to drop off a knife or a kubaton that I'd suddenly remembered.)
 
There has indeed been a case where a car was searched because of an NRA sticker. The court ruled the search was without probable cause and hence unconstitutional.
 
The standard is the same in a police probable cause search as a search warrant, and to my understanding (I'm not a Lawyer, nor do I pretend to be) if it goes to court the cop has to prove that there was evidence (not gut feeling) of such a nature that an unbiased party (the judge) would have issued a warrant and that circumstance required that the cop intervene.

Or the cop witnessed or had reason to believe that the person commited a felony (a detain then search, actually kinda hard because since they have you, they have time to get a warrant for your car)

Unless you give them reason or permission to search, I think that one of the search because of bumper sticker or NRA stickers was that the cop "FELT" endangered because people with NRA stickers carry guns. That is the same rational as a cop tossing a money green El Dorado with Jesus on the hood and gold rim because the guy driving it was Latino, and we all KNOW that's what gang members drive. Just in that case it would be racial profiling and the ACLU would make that department much poorer.
 
Need more information. There is probable cause and reasonable cause.
Click to expand...

There is also the LIE, that is when a LEO lies so he can legally do nearly anything he wants, probable and reasonable cause are loopholes used by LEO's to conduct illegal searches, IMO.

With that said, we would have tons more "bad guy's" on the street if they didn't have the legal loopholes. I personally think the current laws are to vague and need some improvements.
 
People can get pulled over for just about any reason. In the small town I live in people have been stopped test driving a car with a magnitic plate that was at a slight angle, or for turning their turn signal on to soon.

In one case I know they had an NRA sticker on the auto.
 
I was once going onto a military post, at a gate where I was searched regularly. After a search, the guard asked me if I had any guns in the car. (There was a gun publication on the back seat.) One half of my brain wanted to ask; "Why do you ask?", but the other half of my brain reminded me that I had a formation to get to and the last thing I needed was to have my 1SG get a phone call regardless of how innocent I was. I just said "no".

Um, WAY NO. An NRA sticker is neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion that there is a gun in your car. The stories I have read in here recently about guys getting searched (as far as the story explains here) because they had one dropped my jaw. In Utah, I would say this could never happen, but then I remind myself that I have had some experiences with cops (one state university cop in particular) who treated their territory like their own little prison, and did pretty much anything they wanted, including lengthly detainment, and kept getting away with it because most of the time they didn't cite. I had one park, blocking me in, he asked me a lot of irrelevant questions which I refused to answer, and I finally looked him in the eye and told him to cite me or let me go. He said "Maybe I will, maybe I won't." I told him that I needed to go, and I had noticed that he hadn't checked in on his radio, and that his dash cam, if he was running it, would show that I had been there over thirty minutes. (I was pretty sure he had neither called me in nor run the cam. If I decided to claim he had detained me OR done something illegal while he had done it, he wouldn't have a butt-cover.) He grumbled something about us stupid kids thinking we owned the world and left. I never saw him again, my dad asked the university police supervisor about him, he said that they had mutually decided with the officer that it was time for him to leave. I guess someone called his bluff. It was odd, because I usually find older officers are less likely to pull stunts like that. (He was older.)

As far as admissibility of that search from the sticker goes, Is it dirty? You betcher bippie. Will the judge listen to reason and precedent? He might force you to play hard, hire a lawyer, etc.
 
Probable cause is issued by the officer as he sees fit when it suits his interests or curiosity. All he needs to do is say those magic words...."I smell weed".
 
Reasonable Suspicion versus Probable Cause (http://law.jrank.org/pages/10050/Search-Seizure-Probable-Cause-Reasonable-Suspicion.html)

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion
Once it has been established that an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched or a thing to be seized, the Fourth Amendment's protections take hold, and the question then becomes what are the nature of those protections. Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion. Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer.
Click to expand...
 
Shawn Dodson said:
Any officer can ask for your consent to search your car. It's not unlawful.
Click to expand...

Truth be told, such a request for a search is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment makes it clear that in order for a search to be reasonable, a warrant must be issued. There is no exception in the Fourth Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution to allow an officer of the law to circumvent the warrant requirement. Not only the foregoing, your rights are inalienable which means you cannot divest yourself of them. You couldn't give permission for an unwarranted search to begin with. Once we get this tested in a righteous court, these unwarranted searches will cease.

Look at it this way: For the sake of discussion, if you can refuse an unwarranted search, obviously the law has no power to conduct such a search in the first place. For you to consent to an unwarranted search would be tantamount to being a witness against yourself unless you can somehow deny the use of any such evidence gathered as a result of an unwarranted search in a court of law. Using such evidence is tantamount to you being compelled to testify against yourself in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Woody
 
More (http://www.ehow.com/facts_5003941_probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion.html#):

Definition of Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.

Legal Repercussions
If a police officer has reasonable suspicion in a situation, he may frisk a suspect or detain the suspect briefly. Reasonable suspicion does not allow for searching a person or car, and is not enough for a search warrant or arrest.

Definition of Probable Cause
Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.

Legal Repercussions of Probable Cause
Probable cause is enough for a search or arrest warrant. It is also enough for a police officer to make an arrest if he sees a crime being committed.

The Difference Between the Two
Reasonable suspicion is a step before probable cause. At the point of reasonable suspicion, it appears that a crime may have been committed. The situation escalates to probable cause when it becomes obvious that a crime has most likely been committed.
Click to expand...
 
Shawn Dodson from the linked quote said:
Once it has been established that an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched or a thing to be seized, the Fourth Amendment's protections take hold, and the question then becomes what are the nature of those protections.
Click to expand...

That is bass ackwards. Everyone STARTS with an expectation of privacy. It is thusly protected in the Fourth Amendment. As for there being some supposed difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion", that's bogus if it takes the same ability to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion.

What are the credentials of whomever that link takes us to?

Woody
 
Suggest you Google "Define Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" for court cases.

Current law may not agree with your personal beliefs.
 
Just so everyone knows the U.S. Military does not require probable cause for a search on the installation. Being on the installation is a consent to search period!
 
You have the right to remain silent.
Click to expand...

If I have the right to remain silent, how can I refuse an unconstitutional request for an unconstitutional search? The answer is that an officer of the law can't ask in the first place.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Only after a lawful, constitutional arrest if you believe such power has been granted to government to use anything you say against you in the Constitution. It seems to me that that would violate the Fifth Amendment as well.

Woody
 
Current law may not agree with your personal beliefs.
Click to expand...
Since my "personal beliefs" are rooted in what the Constitution says, you're right. The truth doesn't always come from the majority on the Court. In such cases, you'll likely find the truth in the dissent.

Woody
 
Sorry, just having the NRA sticker is not enough reason to; 1) pull the vehicle over and 2) search the vehicle based on the sticker alone.

An officer can ask to search, and you can either deny or allow the search. Allow the search, and no warrant is needed. It is not a violation of the 4th Amendment to give consent to the search.

For the search to be legal, you as the driver must already be free to leave from the stop. In other words, the basis for the stop, either issuance of a citation or a warning must be over with and the driver is free to leave. The request for the search cannot be made before the driver is free to leave, because the driver at this point is still not free to leave and the officer would need grounds for the search.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Probable cause searches in vehicles....
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Texasgrillchef
T
J
  • Locked
Tx: Man arrested for a Stun Gun
Replies
15
Views
906
JJohnston015
J
B
  • Locked
Assessing Effectiveness of Campus Carry Activism
Replies
12
Views
533
bogie
B
M
  • Locked
Is CHL probably cause to search a vehicle?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
ball3006
B
gk3
  • Locked
Gun stickers on cars
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
138
Views
9K
berettaprofessor
berettaprofessor
Back
Top