MeanStreaker
Member
I was reading most of the long "Can I look in the vehicle" thread, and had a specific question that I thought I'd ask here.
I'm aware of the requirements for a Terry Frisk and for probable cause to justify a non-consentual search of a vehicle.
Anyway, here's the hypothetical scenario: In OH, you have to notify the officer when you're carrying. Say I have a CHL and I politely notify the officer of that. Does that give him enough probable cause that there's likely a weapon in the car so that he can perform a non-consentual search? Now, what if I happen to be carrying and notify him of such? Could he search the rest of the vehicle for additional weapons? What if I'm not carrying at the time and notify him of such?
Does having a CHL give sufficient probable cause to search for weapons?
If anyone is a lawyer or has sufficient knowledge to believe that what they post is more fact than their opinion, I'd appreciate you saying so. Thanks.
I'm aware of the requirements for a Terry Frisk and for probable cause to justify a non-consentual search of a vehicle.
Anyway, here's the hypothetical scenario: In OH, you have to notify the officer when you're carrying. Say I have a CHL and I politely notify the officer of that. Does that give him enough probable cause that there's likely a weapon in the car so that he can perform a non-consentual search? Now, what if I happen to be carrying and notify him of such? Could he search the rest of the vehicle for additional weapons? What if I'm not carrying at the time and notify him of such?
Does having a CHL give sufficient probable cause to search for weapons?
If anyone is a lawyer or has sufficient knowledge to believe that what they post is more fact than their opinion, I'd appreciate you saying so. Thanks.