Jump to content
revenger

warrantless car searches

Recommended Posts

 NJ Supreme court has overturned a previous ruling and is now allowing warrantless car searches.  Now a cop can stop you for whatever violation fits and for no reason search your car.    so scrape those "3 percenter" , "oathkeeper" and gun related bumper stickers off your car,   make sure your turn signals work as any of those will be their probable cause .    The Police State NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probable cause is now at the cops discretion,  not a warrant issued by a judge.     now ANYTHING the cop feels is probable cause, even an anonymous "tip" will be used as probable cause just like anti-gunners who call in alarms on open carriers in free states.      the police state has taken over.       this action by the NJSC only increases the distrust between us and them.  People shouldn't think for a second that there's nothing to be concerned with just because we are all law abiding,   next they will come up with an excuse for warrantless house searches.      I'm sure there will be an incident in short order that goes to the SCOTUS on this matter.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okie .. i don't love it, but the officer still needs probable cause. We ha extra protections here before, now we follow the national standard,

Actually going back to it Vlad. When I was on a police department back in the 70s warrantless searches of cars were done all the time. The requirement a lot of people forget about is the police have to have probable cause. Not some bs reason but articuable PC. The police have to have enough PC to be able to get a warrant. More restrictions were put on police in NJ over the years and now we are back to the way it was 40 years ago.

 

The concept of warrantless vehicle searches is referred to as the Carroll Doctrine resulting from a SCOTUS decision in 1925 so it's not a new concept. Feds have used it since then and many states follow it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a stupid question, but what happens if you are pulled over and asked where you are going- "I am going to the shooting range officer", and he asks can I see what you are shooting today?  Can you say no?  Is there probable cause that one of your firearms MAY not be 100% compliant with the very complex and at times arbitrary PRNJ anti gun laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a stupid question, but what happens if you are pulled over and asked where you are going- "I am going to the shooting range officer", and he asks can I see what you are shooting today?  Can you say no?  Is there probable cause that one of your firearms MAY not be 100% compliant with the very complex and at times arbitrary PRNJ anti gun laws?

Damn good question!  So now not only has the Second Amendment been suspended in New Jersey, both the Fourth Amendment as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 NJ Supreme court has overturned a previous ruling and is now allowing warrantless car searches.  Now a cop can stop you for whatever violation fits and for no reason search your car.    so scrape those "3 percenter" , "oathkeeper" and gun related bumper stickers off your car,   make sure your turn signals work as any of those will be their probable cause .    The Police State NJ.

as much as i want to proudly display those stickers on my truck.........i refused to put anything on my truck, other than the American flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a stupid question, but what happens if you are pulled over and asked where you are going- "I am going to the shooting range officer", and he asks can I see what you are shooting today?  Can you say no?  Is there probable cause that one of your firearms MAY not be 100% compliant with the very complex and at times arbitrary PRNJ anti gun laws?

Stating you have guns in your car on the way to the range doesn't constitute PC your guns are not compliant to NJ law AFAIC. The judge would decide if the police had PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn good question!  So now not only has the Second Amendment been suspended in New Jersey, both the Fourth Amendment as well?

The 4th Amendment has not been suspended. Feds have always done warrantless searches in NJ. NJ law does not apply if the case is in Federal court. Different system different rules. Carroll Doctrine e searches are only one exception permitting warrantless searches.

 

This decision is going back what was considered common practice in the 70s as I stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Articulate Probably Cause means that the officer has cause to believe that you probably have committed a crime and the evidence is in your car.  Articulate means that cause is clear enough that he would be able to articulate (explain) it prior to the search.

 

Saying "he was going to the range therefore it was reasonable for me to believe he probably had illegal firearms" isn't likely to hold up.

 

My issue with this ruling is that the 4th amendment says a warrant for a search shall list "the persons or things to be seized."  It doesn't say a warrant is required to do a search (it does say PC is required) but I believe the intent is clear.   You can't search hoping to find something.  You have to know what you're searching for and you need to be able to articulate what it is ahead of time.   And there has to be PC to believe the thing you're searching for is going to be there.  Searching for an open container and then stumbling upon a firearm should not make the firearm admissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Searching for an open container and then stumbling upon a firearm should not make the firearm admissible.

 

I'm not sure. Lets say you pull a car over because it matches that fleeing a robbery but then when you are looking for the ski mask you find a body .. err .. there is a crime here probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

easiest way to avoid this is to not get pulled over. don't drive like a jackass, maintain your vehicle properly, and you should never seen those reds/blues behind ya. unless you forget to renew your drivers license, drive past a maple shade cop with an alpr on his vehicle that is. even then, just be polite, and you shouldn't have any problems......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Articulate Probably Cause means that the officer has cause to believe that you probably have committed a crime and the evidence is in your car. Articulate means that cause is clear enough that he would be able to articulate (explain) it prior to the search.

 

Saying "he was going to the range therefore it was reasonable for me to believe he probably had illegal firearms" isn't likely to hold up.

 

My issue with this ruling is that the 4th amendment says a warrant for a search shall list "the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't say a warrant is required to do a search (it does say PC is required) but I believe the intent is clear. You can't search hoping to find something. You have to know what you're searching for and you need to be able to articulate what it is ahead of time. And there has to be PC to believe the thing you're searching for is going to be there. Searching for an open container and then stumbling upon a firearm should not make the firearm admissible.

You are pretty much correct in your assessment.

 

I'm not sure. Lets say you pull a car over because it matches that fleeing a robbery but then when you are looking for the ski mask you find a body .. err .. there is a crime here probably.

You're throwing something else in the mix Vlad.

 

Let's say car leaving scene of an armed robbery was a red mini van, license plate 123??? (last part unknown), left tail light out, heavy tint windows, occupied by 2 males. You have enough PC to get a search warrant. You stop the van. While searching for evidence of robbery (gun, ski mask, money, etc) you find a body. This would fall under plain view as:

 

1. The police were legally where they were, searching the van for evidence of an armed robbery. They had sufficient PC to get a warrant.

 

2. The discovery of the body was incidental to the search for evidence of the armed robbery.

 

This would be the same as if the police had a search warrant for stolen tubas. While executing that warrant they found a pallet of cocaine. That would be admissible for the same reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting are the comments after the artical. There is one or two that sight other rights taken away by the state (such as the second A). But most are how the state is stripping away out right to privacy by warrantless searches. I get the feeling that most of the commenters bitching about their right and civil liberty be violated in this instance are the same liberals that want to out right abolish 2A because its not what "they want". Typical liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a cop obligated to tell you what the probable cause actually is prior to doing a search if you ask him? Or just keep repeating 'step out of the car..."

Generally no. The shoulder of the roadway is no place to discuss PC. You may think it's not probable cause when it is. Remember the police will have to articulate the PC and contrary to what many think it's very hard to make it up. There are plenty of criminals out there, there is no need to make it up. Any cops who do will have a record of bum arrests when those cases get thrown out.

 

Look at this another way. If someone abduct a child and a cop sees vehicle,description, etc shouldn't they be able to stop it? Or would you prefer the police let it go because they don't have a warrant. Not trying to play "it's for the children" but warrantless vehicle searches have been recognized for 90 years. Some states put additional restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Look at this another way. If someone abduct a child and a cop sees vehicle,description, etc shouldn't they be able to stop it? Or would you prefer the police let it go because they don't have a warrant. Not trying to play "it's for the children" but warrantless vehicle searches have been recognized for 90 years. Some states put additional restrictions.

 

That's a whole different topic: Exigent Circumstance.

 

If someone is in imminent danger, a search can be conducted without PC or a warrant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a whole different topic: Exigent Circumstance.

 

If someone is in imminent danger, a search can be conducted without PC or a warrant.

 

 

 

You are correct. The example I gave would fit more in exigent circumstances.

 

 

 

People dont realize police in NJ have some of the most restrictive search and seizure rights. Its amazing anything gets done at all

BLF is 100% correct. When I worked for a Federal agency I worked in at least a dozen different states with state and local LEOs. I can't think of any state that had more restrictions than NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

easiest way to avoid this is to not get pulled over. don't drive like a jackass, maintain your vehicle properly, and you should never seen those reds/blues behind ya. unless you forget to renew your drivers license, drive past a maple shade cop with an alpr on his vehicle that is. even then, just be polite, and you shouldn't have any problems......

So in other words:

"If you aren't guilty you have nothing to hide"

Or

"Papers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally no. The shoulder of the roadway is no place to discuss PC. You may think it's not probable cause when it is. Remember the police will have to articulate the PC and contrary to what many think it's very hard to make it up. There are plenty of criminals out there, there is no need to make it up. Any cops who do will have a record of bum arrests when those cases get thrown out.

 

Look at this another way. If someone abduct a child and a cop sees vehicle,description, etc shouldn't they be able to stop it? Or would you prefer the police let it go because they don't have a warrant. Not trying to play "it's for the children" but warrantless vehicle searches have been recognized for 90 years. Some states put additional restrictions.

You are missing something very important. Is the person still arrested? Does the person still need to pay for a lawyer? If the judge decides, no crime was committed, Does the person get reimbursed for destroyed reputation? Reimbursed for legal expenses?

 

Great system, arrest them all let a judge figure it out. Hey better safe than sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...