police searching your car?

[Killermiller]

Hiding junk in your glove box may not be a good idea if you keep your proof of insurance in there. Open it up and the cop catches a glimpse and your done for. Not sure if all states are like ohio where they ask for proof of insurance as soon as they stop you. But thats just what I've always thought.

[Green Love]

The 4th amendment protects you
against unwarranted searches. I
happen to learn this late, might
have been handy to have known.
Would have saved me a lot trouble
in my younger years.


GL

[slipknotpsycho]

4th Amendment Victory!
Submitted by scottmorgan on January 17, 2006 - 12:33pm.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled last week that police may not automatically search vehicles following an arrest of the driver. This finding contradicts the U.S. Supreme Courtâ??s ruling in New York v. Belton, which holds that police may search any vehicle following the lawful arrest of its driver. The Belton rule is supposed to prevent suspects from destroying evidence or reaching for weapons, but in practice it's just another excuse to search people:

1. Protocol dictates that arrested suspects be immediately hand-cuffed and placed in the back of a squad car. Once arrested, they no longer have access to the contents of their vehicle.

2. Most arrests are minor and unlikely to inspire a reckless or desperate act by the arrestee. The limited potential for such conduct should not displace the 4th Amendment.

3. In states that allow discretionary arrests for minor crimes (e.g. Texas), the Belton rule encourages police to perform pretextual arrests just so that they can search. This is horrible.

4. Other exceptions to the warrant clause will apply in cases where the discovery of additional evidence seems probable. If police see or smell anything, they can search. Belton only helps when there isnâ??t any such evidence.

Fortunately, Iâ??m not the only one who lies awake at night cursing the Supreme Courtâ??s decision in New York v. Belton. In a unanimous ruling, the NJ Supreme Court concluded that Beltonâ??s logic â??simply does not pass muster.â?� The article also notes that MA, NV, OR, NM, WY, and PA have similarly rejected the Supreme Courtâ??s outrageous effort to strip arrestees of their 4th Amendment protections.

Iâ??m hopeful that this case will embolden defense attorneys in other states to take a look at the search-incident-to-arrest issue and seek relief under their state constitutions. Constitutional minimum standards enable states to offer more stringent Bill of Rights protections than the federal government, meaning that efforts at the state level can undermine Belton even if the Supreme Court hesitates to revisit it.

Search-incident-to-arrest is one of the nastiest and far-reaching 4th Amendment exceptions our highest court has created. If defendants and attorneys are willing to fight, we can erode this ridiculous policy one state at a time.

taken from Flex Your Rights.

[Awill3449]

4th Amendment Victory!
New Jersey Supreme Court and MA, NV, OR, NM, WY, and PA

Thats the important part. So this would any apply if you live in those states.

[smanrocks]

thanks for all the help
this thread ran itself haha

[anycraic]

it sure did

[rab]

In Wisconsin, I was pulled over for a headlight out (it failed at that moment in view of a cop). I had a revoked license, having nothing to do with drugs or alcohol. I was clean cut, dressed well, and not drunk or high at the time. There was no suspicion of drugs.

Because of the revoked license I was sent home (on foot) and the car was towed to the pound.

When I recovered my minivan, it had not only been searched, the contents of the glove compartment, cassette tray, etc. were scattered all over the floor.

The same thing happened another time, whatever they pulled me over for I don't remember, but with that revoked license they wouldn't let me drive the car so they towed it AND SEARCHED IT.

It also happened about three times, I was pulled over with the revoked license, and the cop wouldn't let me drive, but hinted that he wouldn't see anything after he left. They didn't tow the car. I just walked about 100 feet away, waitied for the cop to leave, then got back in and drove home. Two cops even apologised for the trouble (driving after rev is about $600). They just wanted to give me a tail light warning or whatever.

But they should not be able to open a locked glove compartment without a warrant.

When I drive, I put my stash outside in the gas cap compartment. I'm not saying that's a good idea! I just feel better not having it on me.

[anycraic]

indeed

[slipknotpsycho]

When I drive, I put my stash outside in the gas cap compartment. I'm not saying that's a good idea! I just feel better not having it on me.

actually, that's not a bad idea... i've never had a cop search the gas door (even if he suspected drugs to be present) .. only way you'd probably get caught is if someone hinted at it, or you tensed up when they got by it (they look for body language, and usualy, atleast around here they will make a full sweep of the car, but subtly, and if they see you show signs of stress or fear, they'll search that area extensivily) or they brought a drug dog.. i've had cops even rip open empty soda cans on the floor, look in trash that had been up under the seat for over a year (chip bags and such) but never, not even once, did they ever think to search the gas door.. now of course this would only really apply if you got pulled over, if you try to cross a border or something, unless they've changed it, that's one of the first places they look, since so many people wrap the drugs up and throw them in the gas tank.