NJ Supreme Court Just Ruled that Police DO NOT NEED A WARRANT to Search Your Vehicle

[JEDI]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/09/25...-state-standard-for-warrantless-car-searches/

In a split ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that police don’t have to demonstrate an urgent need to dispense with a warrant when they have probable cause to suspect a car on the road contains evidence of a crime.

WTFBBQ?!
4th amendment huh?

edit:
see my post below

 

[mrjminer]

Yea, we'll see how that pans out.

These judges should be forced out of their positions immediately. Especially Barry T. Albin, who, paraphrased in the article, "And he questioned whether the stricter standard [for searching a vehicle] actually protected the rights of drivers." What a piece of shit. His argument doesn't hold up to any sort of validation, even using the most base of logic.

Problem: Police officers can't conduct searches that violate the rights of drivers because the searches are illegal.
Response: I don't think this standard for conducting searches protects drivers rights.
Solution: Lower the standard for conducting searches so that the police can conduct searches that have been ruled to be illegal in order to ensure driver's rights are protected.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Just what rock have you been under all these years? The cops have ALWAYS had the ability to search you,(match a description), your car,( I smell something), or your house,(we heard something), without a warrant! They might not in all instances be able to use what they find against you, but they DO NOT need a warrant.
Oh, and FYI, they DO NOT need a reason to pull you over.

 

[Jaskalas]

In a split ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that police don’t have to demonstrate an urgent need to dispense with a warrant when they have probable cause to suspect a car on the road contains evidence of a crime.

Thursday’s decision brings the state’s requirement for warrantless car searches in line with the federal standard, which requires no such exigent circumstances under the so-called “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. Most states follow the federal standard.

I'd like to know what issue you have with the Federal standard of probable cause for vehicle searches.
Should vehicle searches have the same requirement as homes, and if so, why?

 

[JEDI]

I'd like to know what issue you have with the Federal standard of probable cause for vehicle searches.
Should vehicle searches have the same requirement as homes, and if so, why?

I thought it should then
got a pm informing me that vehicles aren't treated the same as homes because it's mobile.
someone can drive off w/it.

and that the US Supreme Court has ruled an exception to the 4th amendment for vehicles because of it.

 

[Venix]

I thought it should then
got a pm informing me that vehicles aren't treated the same as homes because it's mobile.
someone can drive off w/it.

and that the US Supreme Court has ruled an exception to the 4th amendment for vehicles because of it.

The third sentence of your own article explains all of this. Did you not read the article before posting?

 

[JEDI]

The third sentence of your own article explains all of this. Did you not read the article before posting?

"exigent circumstances under the so-called “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment."

no idea what this meant.
the pm I got explained it clearer.

 

[werepossum]

Hey, you guys are always squealing for more government.

A government powerful enough to give you everything you want must also be a government powerful enough to take everything you hold dear.

 

[nickqt]

Hey, you guys are always squealing for more government.

A government powerful enough to give you everything you want must also be a government powerful enough to take everything you hold dear.

No, we aren't always...squealing...for more government. We want effective government. It doesn't require there to be more of it.

First thing that could help government function more effectively is not electing the jackals who campaign on causing the government to stop working.

 

[TeeJay1952]

You can always be arrested and prosecuted. Whether or not you are bound for trial is where the rubber meets the road. Conviction is literately further proof. I see this being adjudicated by higher courts and rejected. Loss of money and time will make these tactics untenable.

 

[sm625]

The 4th amendment is very clear. At the very least, the officer should have to fill out a simple form that clearly states the crime for which he believes he has probable cause to search the vehicle. This would take all of 30 seconds to jot down a couple quick notes on a piece of paper. This form must be presented to the driver of the vehicle prior to search. The form must also state specifically the scope of the search. Is it for drugs? Is it for weapons? And most importantly, do the items to be searched for bear any relevance to the reason the officer made the stop? If not then it is unlawful siezure. You cannot search for drugs unless the officer clearly states the reason for him making the stop was that driving was impaired. If the stop was made to serve a warrant or a complaint, then perhaps a case can be made for a weapons search.

This is how police would have to act if we actually lived under the constitution.