One of my friends the other night..

[birdgirl73]

FBR's right. Cops can make stops in other jurisdictions and often do. Like FBR explained, they're sworn peace officers whether they're on or off the clock or in or outside of their jurisdictions. Even local or county cops get their law enforcement authority from the states in which their peace officer certifications are issued. They're actually compelled to make stops outside their jurisdictions if they see what they believe to be a felony crime in progress. They can use their own discretion about intervening in misdemeanor offenses. Some states and municipal jurisdictions have limitations on who can make traffic stops in specific local areas, but many more do not.

If the cops said "We're going to search your vehicle," and your friend who was pulled over didn't stop them, then they essentially had consent to search. They don't have to have very much on which to base probable cause, and the officers' word, even when they don't really have sufficient probable cause, nearly always stands up in court. They are definitely taking advantage of the element of surprise and fear--and few young people really know their rights well enough to protect themselves in such a situation. Did your friend have any other offenses on his record such as previous misdemeanors for possession or paraphernalia or DUI that might have made them suspicious? Do you know if your friend had anything like his pipe in plain sight?

[FakeBoobsRule]

What is cd of marijuana? Did you read Carroll v. US. Here's a link:

Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1924)

I haven't read it in a while but I still know the jist of it. You have more rights in your home than you do in your car because a car is mobile and evidence can be destroyed or moved and this is the case that helped set the caselaw. To perform a warrantless search you have to have probable cause and an exception to warrantless search. Those exceptions are consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, incident to arrest, terry pat, inventory, booking, or administrative. I have to warn you, this cop I know always blasts me when I explain it because he likes to split hairs and I know what I want to say but sometimes it doesn't come out right so I'll try my best. With a car exigent circumstances exist because evidence could be lost while trying to obtain the warrant. Another exigent circumstance would be if someone was in danger. An example of that might be if a cop came to your house and wanted to question you and when he went to ring the doorbell, there was fresh blood all over the front door. Consent is obvious, plain view is obvious, terry pat is when an officer frisks you to check for weapons for his safety even though he hasn't arrested you and he finds something. Terry pat is more complex than that because I think there are rules to not turning pockets inside out and more things like that. I should stop trying to explain the other exceptions because I will say it wrong. They also can get around a search warrant requirement for a car by towing it and taking inventory before towing it so you don't claim something was stolen.

I'm basically trying to say you have to have probable cause and an exception to the search warrant requirement to search your car but because it is a car you have far less rights than your house so it is easy for them to get around this. I'm not saying the search was bad but it is going to be harder to challenge than a house. Plus they can argue inevitable discovery. They might have done something wrong but inevitably they would have found it even though at some point they screwed up. Conversely there is "fruit of the poisonous tree" which means that had they not screwed up they would have never figured things out so everything discovered is "poisonous" and off limits.

I should get Birdgirl to rewrite all that because she is quite eloquent in her writing.

If your friend had pot in the car or a pipe, I bet the officer smelled it. People who don't smoke weed, especially police officers, can smell it very easily. If the cops says he smelled it, your friend will be fighting an uphill battle. So he might want to go back to whether the stop was valid or not.

[OLDE ENGLISH '800]

terry pat is when an officer frisks you to check for weapons for his safety even though he hasn't arrested you and he finds something. Terry pat is more complex than that because I think there are rules to not turning pockets inside out and more things like that.

i believe they can only do a outside patdown to check that you dont have any concealed weapons not putting there hands in your pocets or shoes onless you consent

[Markass]

I highly doubt they did the search based on smelling something..

[jamstigator]

Yeah, but does it matter? They can *say* they smelled something, anytime they want. And since there's no evidence you can provide in court that they *didn't* smell anything (can't prove a negative), they will always win. This seems to me to be a rather huge loophole in 'the system' that is ripe for abuse. In fact, it is abused, often.

[Markass]

they found a very small amount of marijuana and a pipe, which took them 10-15 minutes to find, and before they found it they enjoyed rummaging through his glovebox..I just find it hard to believe that they'll be able to say they smelled anything to lead them to believe that would be in there...

we're just trying to figure out what he can do as far as try to find a good argument

[FakeBoobsRule]

He needs to get a lawyer and if he didn't do anything wrong or have any faulty equipment on his car, he needs to get the lawyer to try to throw out the stop making the search illegal or something along those lines.