New law?

[Guest Harris92]

Somebody just told me that a law was just passed, that says that if you get pulled over, cops can search your car without your consent, or probable cause. This sounded fishy to me, and quite suprising. Does anyone know anything about this?

[Guest GSRchick714]

I wouldn't believe that. How does that even make sense? They have no probable cause or anything but they just feel like searching your car so they do? graemlins/bsflag.gif

[AngryBMW]

Originally posted by GSRchick714:

I wouldn't believe that. How does that even make sense? They have no probable cause or anything but they just feel like searching your car so they do? graemlins/bsflag.gif

Agreed.

-Marc

[copperhead]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4752616,00.html

[Berto]

doesn't the patriot act do that?

[TurboII7]

That is some BS that he got pulled over for going 6 over... they must have really wanted that guy for some reason.

[96MustangCobra]

Man I really hope that isn't the case, having your car searched is a pretty shitty experience and a waste of your time.

[El Karacho1647545492]

If a guy is acting fishy and there are other elements that lead an officer to believe that further investigation is necessary, then he should have to contact a superior officer. Make it difficult for the cops, so they will use their judgement to prevent a waste of their own goddamn time.

 

Unfortunately, politics > common sense in the U.S. and the supreme court's collective heads are so far up their asses that they are beginning to see daylight again.

 

EDIT: I realize the above statement is a physical impossibility. I don't care.

[pg]

To what Mike posted, is that law just for Illinois or is it for everywhere? If its for everywhere thats really shitty and rediculous.

[Guest Harris92]

I think that they are trying to do this everywhere, but may Mike can chime in, because Im not really sure. To me, this just seems like an invasion of privacy, and is giving police officers more power, which in my opinion is not what we need. graemlins/bsflag.gif

[copperhead]

According to that article, the U.S. Supreme Court made the decision. That generally means that the ruling can apply anywhere in the country, seeing how the same type of case can come up from another state, and the Supreme Court would refer to their previous decision.

 

What this means is, anywhere in the country police can approach your vehicle with a K9 unit, trained to sniff for anything. Realistically, you probably won't have this happen anytime in the near future, unless you are doing something suspicious. Mostly, I would think that even if police tried to bring out the dog regularly, it would become enough of a hassle getting the dog out, putting it on it's leash, and putting the dog back into the car at the end of the stop that it won't become regular practice.

 

Cliff's notes: police dogs can sniff your car whenever.

[LJ]

If a police dog is brought to your car, and reacts to a scent from the outside of your car, that is probable cause to search anyways.

[Total Sign]

Originally posted by 96MustangCobra:

Man I really hope that isn't the case, having your car searched is a pretty shitty experience and a waste of your time.

Been there done that, all because the officer saw $400 in 20 dollar bills on the passenger seat. I produced atm recipt from 15 minutes prior also.

 

This patriot act and anti terror crap is starting to really take away the freedoms granted by past laws.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Originally posted by The_Wang_Of_Fury:

reacts to a scent from the outside of your car

key phrase...

 

couldn't they always do that? Its not really an invasion of privacy if they are not entering the vehicle, until they are given reasonable cause (dog picks up scent).

 

Still, it isn't really that great a law.

[LJ]

Originally posted by Assured Risk:

Been there done that, all because the officer saw $400 in 20 dollar bills on the passenger seat. I produced atm recipt from 15 minutes prior also.

 

This patriot act and anti terror crap is starting to really take away the freedoms granted by past laws.

No it's not. That was still probable cause.

[Total Sign]

Originally posted by The_Wang_Of_Fury:

No it's not. That was still probable cause.

Is it really?

 

Then I have nothing to complain about.

[LJ]

Originally posted by Assured Risk:

Is it really?

 

Then I have nothing to complain about.

ANything that seems suspicious is probable cause for a car search. A young person with $400 cash on them, depending on the area of town you are in, could be very suspicious

[HotCarl]

The simple act of an officer walking a dog past your car or around it is an act of search. My step dad trains these dogs and tell's me all these stories about them.

 

So if the officer ask's to search and you say no but he still brings the K9 around your car, he's searching you anyway.

[Guest Harris92]

Thats what I thought. It just seems like this somewhat breaks down the relationship between the police and the public, because people will always be worried about being hassled graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

[95probegt]

i think that it is bullshit, the 4th amamendment protects us from search without a cause, but this whole county is fucked up with some of the rules that we have

just my .02

[Mowgli1647545497]

Originally posted by Assured Risk:

Been there done that, all because the officer saw $400 in 20 dollar bills on the passenger seat. I produced atm recipt from 15 minutes prior also.

Cool, what ATM machine, or bank I guess, lets you draw $400 in one day? I thought the per-day withdrawal limit was $200/$300. Am I behind the times?

 

Anyway - I've found your best insurance against a search is a fresh haircut, sad but true.

[LJ]

Originally posted by harry's94tsi:

The simple act of an officer walking a dog past your car or around it is an act of search. My step dad trains these dogs and tell's me all these stories about them.

 

So if the officer ask's to search and you say no but he still brings the K9 around your car, he's searching you anyway.

I asked my cousin's grandpa who worked with CPD for 30+ years and now trains officers. He said that if a dog is present and catches whiff of a scent of drugs, it is not a search. The dog has to be actively searching. If the dog is just standing there and picks up the scent, it is legal in all ways

[2stangs]

its always been that way ever since the k9's have been used by law enforcement. the supreme court has ruled that the area outside of the vehicle is

not the property of any one person and if a dog can hit on a SCENT in the air then it gives the officers probable cause to search. that is why the dog is walked around a vehicle on the outside. an officer cant put the dog inside the car until it hits on the outside. dogs that are used in airports( before all the terrorist problems)to sniff luggage have no probable cause to sniff they are just sniffing the air around the luggage. the existing law was just being tested again by an atty who wants to make a name for himself.