Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles

[Jeffg010]

http://m.lancasteronline.com/news/l...7a43b2370.html?mode=jqm#.U2L81lSTUG8.facebook

I don't agree with this. It is only matter of time before all our rights are gone.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I agree.

The case in question that started this thing is in the article:

In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.

This is when you don't say things like "there's weed in the car". To my knowledge, the smell of MJ was always probable cause anyways. Maybe I'm mistaken.

 

[Matt1970]

Repost.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2380857

ch33zw1z, you posted in that thread.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Repost.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2380857

ch33zw1z, you posted in that thread.

Probable cause bro.

 

[Scotteq]

...something probably caused it..

 

[pcgeek11]

No big deal.

Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.

“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”

Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.

 

[DorothyDay]

Does it make sense to anyone: There was a search warrant for a person, and two people were searched and arrested. One is the renter and the other is the owner of the house the renter was in and he was growing marihuana. Landlord lives nearby. The property seized was put on the police property receipt list: the list includes all related (and unrelated) to main search items. Some are of the renter and the rest is the unrelated to the police search warrant items (of the second person). Both of their names are on the form; one person's name is there in the box for an address. No address is written on the form. The list was left at the house of the person who did not have any of the items listed in the search warrant. Of course, any weapons that the unrelated person had were confiscated. If anyone can see how this search and seizure was conducted according to the California law (or not) please explain the reasoning to me. I am a friend of the landlord that told him his renter is up to no good.

 

[JEDIYoda]

In the article it misleadingly says -- Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.
“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”

When it should have said and honesty counts -- They can fabricate probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”

 

[zanejohnson]

yep, probable cause (at the stop)

translates to
(something probably caused it) in the courthouse

 

[BoberFett]

Probable cause: The driver was acting agitated, so I suspected drug use.

Therefore pigs can search any car, anytime. Who isn't agitated when they get pulled over?

But not, they're not all bad.

 

[jruchko]

Probable cause: The driver was acting agitated, so I suspected drug use.

Therefore pigs can search any car, anytime. Who isn't agitated when they get pulled over?

But not, they're not all bad.

That exact thing happened to me a few years ago. I just parked my car and was changing CD's while waiting on a friend. I heard a loud knock on the window and it startled me and I jumped a bit. The cop proceeds to have me get out of the car talking about I seem nervous and he is going to get me for DUI and shit.

He kept saying I was "unfit to drive" based off of nothing but him being on a fishing expedition. I repeatedly told him I would do a sobriety test, but he refused every time, but continued trying to threaten me with DUI.

I went from being respectful (sir and all that), to just being a complete smartass and talking to the cop like he was a child. That whole situation ended with me getting handcuffed and taken to the police station and having someone come pick me up. I didn't even get charged with anything, the cop must have just been seriously bored.

EDIT: I forgot to add that he kept wanting to search the car, but I kept saying not without a warrant. He was basically just trying to scare me into letting him search my car, and once that didn't work he decided to handcuff me and all that. How dare I not just bow my head to him.

That was the only bad experience I had with the police. His partner even apologized to me.

 

[John Connor]

Probable cause? They can give a K-9 a command to make it look like the dog got a hit and the ass rapping ensues.

 

[Jeff7]

Probable cause: The driver was acting agitated, so I suspected drug use.

Therefore pigs can search any car, anytime. Who isn't agitated when they get pulled over?

But not, they're not all bad.

"Driver was very polite and responsive, obviously done as a front to keep me from searching for drugs."

 

[HumblePie]

Great, now all a cop has to do is state, "I think I smell marijuana in your vehicle, get out of there while I search for what I want in there."

 

[DrPizza]

I thought probable cause was the requirement to get a search warrant. Did the justice side of this decide, "nah, that's too much work for us, determining if the officer really does have probable cause. We'll leave it to the officer."

 

[HumblePie]

I thought probable cause was the requirement to get a search warrant. Did the justice side of this decide, "nah, that's too much work for us, determining if the officer really does have probable cause. We'll leave it to the officer."

Probable cause is required along with a second head that can look at the situation, hopefully, through an objective outside view. Although in large part today, all a cop has to do is ask to search your car, if refused state he smalls the presence of drugs and get a warrant based upon that. It really isn't that hard for a cop to get that warrant at all. The only thing it does add is a measure of self protection to the individual if that warrant was "rubber stamped" on bullshit to allow them to sue. Now, not so much.

 

[BoberFett]

"Driver was very polite and responsive, obviously done as a front to keep me from searching for drugs."

LOL, exactly. A cop can make up anything they want and call it probably cause.

 

[BoberFett]

I thought probable cause was the requirement to get a search warrant. Did the justice side of this decide, "nah, that's too much work for us, determining if the officer really does have probable cause. We'll leave it to the officer."

Exigent circumstances. In the war on drugs, waiting for a warrant gives the perp time to dispose of evidence, so it's vital that cavity searches be performed immediately.

 

[khon]

Probable cause means nothing. A police officer can always claim to smell marijuana, whether they actually did so or not, because it can't be disproven.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

The biggest problem with removing the warrant requirement is a written record of what is being searched for. As stated by many, probable cause is a lost cause. The purpose of the warrant is a record of what they're looking for based on their "probable cause." Take away the warrant and now anything they find in your automobile that shouldn't be there puts you on the hook for a crime whereas with a warrant they can only charge you with finding what they were actually looking for.

 

[smackababy]

Besides the fact this is a necro of a repost, did any of you actually read what happened?

"In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued."

The officer smelled weed and the ASKED THE DRIVER ABOUT IT. The driver then admitted to there being weed in the car. What a complete moron...

Telling a police officer you have weed in your car IS probable cause to search. Case fucking closed!

But, I forgot, we need to make up shit about cops and hate them. God forbid they do their jobs and, you know, arrest people who commit crimes.

 

[Venix]

Besides the fact this is a necro of a repost, did any of you actually read what happened?

"In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued."

The officer smelled weed and the ASKED THE DRIVER ABOUT IT. The driver then admitted to there being weed in the car. What a complete moron...

Telling a police officer you have weed in your car IS probable cause to search. Case fucking closed!

But, I forgot, we need to make up shit about cops and hate them. God forbid they do their jobs and, you know, arrest people who commit crimes.

Not in Pennsylvania prior to this ruling. Pennsylvania did not recognize the federal automobile exception for searches. All vehicular searches required consent, a warrant, or exigent circumstances.

This is clearly explained in the article. Did you not read it?

 

[smackababy]

Not in Pennsylvania prior to this ruling. Pennsylvania did not recognize the federal automobile exception for searches. All vehicular searches required consent, a warrant, or exigent circumstances.

This is clearly explained in the article. Did you not read it?

And they changed it, correct? The justices agreed that telling the officer you have drugs in the car when questioned about the officer smelling marijuana, constitutes probably cause enough to search the vehicle.

 

[HumblePie]

And they changed it, correct? The justices agreed that telling the officer you have drugs in the car when questioned about the officer smelling marijuana, constitutes probably cause enough to search the vehicle.

Before you could walk up to a cop, if you wanted to do so, and say you had weed in your car. That in itself is not probable cause for a search of your vehicle. At least previously. Even if it is probable cause, the officer has to take that cause to a judge for a warrant to look for specifically that item.


Now all it takes is some shady cop looking to bust your balls to state, "Hrmm I smell weed in your vehicle get the fuck out while I look for it."

Say you don't have that in your car but you have a legal to own gun in there. Cop confiscates the gun saying it could be illegal. Do you know the bullshit you have to go through to get it back assuming you ever do get it back? Not to mention possibly arrested, lost work, lost job, and a whole host of problems that come from something like that. All because some bullshit police officer looking to bust our balls does because the law now allows him to be the biggest dickhead and get away with it.

Or worse yet, they find your phone with your kid's pictures in it. I have a newborn son which includes now a couple of pictures of him being born. Guess what, the kid came out out naked and stayed that way while they weighed him. A dickhead cop can no bust me for child porn which in some places even an allegations can get you flagged on the sex offender registry even if you actually don't get busted for it.

This was something the 4th amendment was suppose to stop.

 

[bononos]

http://m.lancasteronline.com/news/l...7a43b2370.html?mode=jqm#.U2L81lSTUG8.facebook

I don't agree with this. It is only matter of time before all our rights are gone.

But doesn't the supreme court already allow warrantless searches of cars based on the motor vehicle exception rule?
"The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.[1] The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant as long as he or she has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.[2]"

So has the 'rule' become 'law' in this case?