ImUrOBGYN Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 "This is a real court case report based in Virginia. Basically, a police officer decided something was not right based on the assumption of home-made CDs viewable in the driver's car. Bear through at least some of it, as the story gets interesting." http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/15149/Car_Searched_For_Suspicion_Of_Pirated_Music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemosley01 Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Wow. At least they got it right...after appeals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Made it about 1/3rd of the way. I will be reading it in instalments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin R. Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cliffnotes on how it ended? For some reason reading that annoys the fuck out of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemosley01 Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cliffnotes: Dude gets pulled over Cop sees slimline cases and homemade CDs on his seat (not many, but a 'number'). Cop assumes said CDs are illegal (per a virginia statue) and therefore invokes probable cause to search the car. Search turns up more CDs and some weed. Dude goes to court, found guilty of possession of MJ with intent to distribute. Dudes lawyer appeals on the grounds that the police did not have probable cause to search the car. This therefore violates the 4th amendment and the evidence (weed) is inadmissable. Appeals court agrees with dude's lawyer as the Virigina statue on the CDs was interpreted too broadly by the police and lower court. Therefore the police had no reason to search the car, and violated Dude's civil rights. Dude gets off, goes home, burns more CDs while probably smoking MJ. Good for dude and good for the appeals court. Another disturbing thing about this case is that the guy claimed that he didn't know the weed wasn't there. The car was not his and the weed didn't belong to him. Normally, the police say 'your car, your weed'. But in this case they said 'not your car, still your weed'. WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin R. Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cliffnotes: Dude gets off, goes home, burns more CDs while probably smoking MJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cliffnotes....anyone?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rally Pat Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cliffnotes....anyone?? Way to pay attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted June 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yea, it's a bitch to read. A little touch up on lemosley01's synopsis. Originally, I believe they were prosecuting only for the possession and intent. But since the driver refused to give permission for a search and the officer had no probable cause, they argued it was illegal search and seizure. So they came back and basically said that ok, you're right, we agree the officers had no probable cause and we reverse the conviction. Then they came back and said becuase the officer saw what appeared to be 'pirated cd's', it gave him probable cause to search for more cd's. So, when they found the weed, it was during a legal search and can be used in court to convict him. I would like to add, the driver had a 9mm pistol on the passenger seat in plain view for the officer to see. The pistol doesn't even come up for probable cause yet, this officer recognized 'pirated cds' from his record company (assuming RIAA) training. When in the hell did the RIAA start training our officers to arrest us for having a blank cd? Anyway, if you have any blank cds, "pirated" or not and you know you do, I suggest keeping them out of the eyesight of the fuzz. Yea, fuzz... I'm getting old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted June 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'm feeling lazy so I'll pull some intersting quotes from it. "By Officer Barker's own testimony, he concluded they were "bogus" merely because he saw "thin case CDs and the labels on them were real blurry."" "Reversing a trial judge's finding that the police had probable cause, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Commonwealth noted: We have considered a number of instances in which an officer's expertise and training made his observation of an item suspected to contain contraband a significant factor in the probable cause analysis. In none of these cases, however, has that fact alone supported a finding of probable cause when the suspicious item is also capable of legitimate use." "270 Va. at 420, 620 S.E.2d at 763. The Court explained "that for the last 25 years, [it] has consistently declined to find that probable cause can be established solely on the observation of material which can be used for legitimate purposes, even though the experience of an officer indicates that such material is often used for illegitimate purposes." Id. at 420-21, 620 S.E.2d at 763." So, that's what the guy's lawyer is fighting for. Illegal search and seizure which means all charges would have to be dropped. There is, of course, much more detail, etc to this story, but then you're lazy ass should read it yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.