A friend of mine was just pulled over and arrested because he had an unpaid ticket for possession of a controlled substance (weed ofc). He had some shit in the car, pipes, an oz, etc and it was found but here's where I need some help.
The officer that detained him asked him to step out of the car and then proceeded to radio for a "warrant" and after getting verbal permission from his superior or whatever (which took no more than 3 seconds) he began searching the car without my friends consent and found his stuff.
So would that be considered an illegal search because he didn't have a physical warrant and no consent or was the cop completely within the law to search his vehicle?
He had probable cause because of the unpaid ticket, which most likely went to warrant status. More info needed to make a better guess, but that's what I would wager.
Gavin Gray
what info would help make a better guess? friend is out on bail right now
Isaac Lee
as far as I know, in the US, long as they have probable cause, the cops can search without consent.
Ryder Anderson
That's TV not reality, sorry
James Foster
...
Adrian Brown
Don't be friends with people like that, OP. Seriously. If I had any advice for younger me it would be "don't hang out with stoners".
Austin Myers
Would need to know if he had a warrant...
You can check city clerk and county sheriff's office, if you don't know the arresting entity, it'll take a while. Either way he's likely fucked. Tell him to put the pipe down until he's done with the legal shit or he's going to fuck his future up further.
Weed isn't that bad, people who can't go a single God damn day with getting high are. He's probably a loser and you are judged by the company you keep. Most people probably think you're a dipshit like him.
Sebastian Green
i'm sure his friend already had a warrant for the unpaid ticket. same thing happened to a friend years ago. cop approached him while he was just hanging out at a park at around 1:00AM. cop could have just given him a ticket, but due to his warrant for unpaid tickets, the cop took him in. honestly, his fault for being at a closed park
Sebastian Peterson
Dealt with cops tons of times in my life, you gys should of stated clearly they can't search, but if you said they could lock the car, etc or just passivley allowed them thats good enough most the time, got to make sure to always state no clearly, its gotten me out of getting caught a haldf ounce of crystal, but if you had any weed, blunts, etc sitting out in plain sight thats probable cause too, so take all that into consideration.
And Ive also been arrested on a warrant, and fuckers impounded my car because I wouldnt give them consent, so they decided to be spiteful punks.
But Remember A arrest warrant, and search warrant and very fucking different, but both come from a judge, and cant be issued in 3 seconds by a higherup pig over radio.
Andrew Powell
Ok, I don't think anyone here is an attorney. I'm licensed to practice in California and Arizona. I know this is Sup Forums and "artistic works of fiction and falsehood," etc etc, so you can choose to believe that or not. Up to you.
This is what's called search incident to arrest. When someone is arrested the officer is allowed to perform a search of the immediate premises without a warrant or consent (he might have told your friend he was getting a warrant - he wasn't, that can only come from a judge, not his supervisor - but cops are allowed to lie to you). When the arrest is of a driver of a car the search incident may include anything on their person and anything in the passenger compartment of the car
So. Basically. Your friend's probably fucked. He can lawyer up and try to suppress the evidence in court but he's got, like, probably a 10% chance of that working. Only if the prosecutor is retarded and fucks up the hearing will he get off
Jeremiah Green
Like I mentioned, Ive gotten charges dropped in Cali for illegal search of my residence when they bust in my room on a felony warrant, they riginal charge stayed, new ones dropped just FYI, but only arrest, and then In nevada had my car impounded when I was arrested on a warrant, and wouldnt consent to search and they got mad, and impounded my car because side of road.
So Im posting personal experiences, so I cant really quote a certain law, etc. But if your a proffesional/edumacated then post your source, quotes from that specific law, etc. cause I call bullshit on what your saying and want to see some proof;
Ryan Green
Vehicles are tricky. As a general rule, if your friend was driving, and especially if he was driving alone, the second he was arrested on the outstanding warrant, the car would have to be impounded. At that stage, the officer would be allowed to legally search the vehicle without a search warrant or anything else, really. Whether he implied he had a warrant or whether he was radioing in to ask the dispatcher what color panties she was wearing is irrelevant.
Does an officer sometimes ask for permission in this situation cause he's new/tired/retarded? Sure. But he doesn't have to.
Sup Forumsro knows his shit.
Tl;dr: 99.9% of the time that search is gonna be legal and your buddy is fucked.
U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Robinson ""a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html "holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured."
he was not read his rights or formally arrested before the search occurred, only detained. would that make any difference?
Brayden Moore
I still think area of immediate control is alot different than anywhere not immediately visible but that point is very clearly defined it seems for a reason, give cops more leeway is my guess. But your right I concede, good job, ill make sure you get your weeklyGood Boy Points plus some.
Jace Sanchez
Your Miranda rights aren't triggered until you're subject to custodial interrogation. So that likely doesn't help.
What do you mean by formally arrested? There's no such thing as an informal arrest. Either you / your buddy were arrested, or you weren't. If the police officer told you "you are under arrest" or some variant thereof, you are under arrest, even if you aren't handcuffed or aren't read your rights
James Evans
isnt any different* and isnt clearly defined* my bad its bed time makin typos night
Hunter Garcia
Sounds like your friend is a dipshit that should go to jail for being a fucking moron that carries weed around when its illegal in their state.
Liam Cook
this. even in legal states, you can't just carry that much weed with you either
John Perry
Oh, believe me, I'm not saying the search incident to arrest exception is fair or right. The way it's used now is utter bullshit.
The original justification of search incident (which is a creature of common law, not of the legislature) is to either allow officers to protect themselves by searching an arrested person for weapons that might be used against the officer, or to find evidence that might be destroyed. It wasn't intended to be a free-warrantless-search card for the police to use every time they arrest someone. But this is America, where your rights don't really matter most of the time! And whether we like it or not, the courts have given police considerable leeway to use it, despite being given ample opportunity to restrict it.
Andrew Flores
cop never told him he was under arrest, they just told him that he had a warrant and had him step out of the car. the other odd part is that he was making payments on the ticket as he was supposed to and hadn't missed any so we're unsure as to why he had a warrant for failure to pay anyway
Ayden Taylor
bump this shit
Carter Lee
One more quick question since I have you here, and you proved enough competency to me atleast. I got a criminal warrant in cali for a probo. violation, and It was 2 misdemenor charges, possession of a deadly weapon lowered from a felony to a specified misd., and under the influence if those matter.
But Ive already done 4 1/2 months on it, so is it like nevada where you can only do a max of 180 days per misdmeanor, or can they make me do a county year on it, or can I just go do another 2 months or something and get off probation so im off papers, or can they just make me do as much county as they want and keep violationg me unless I do the stupid ass 3 year probo they want of me?
Brandon Scott
if the officer said "we have a warrant" and "step out of the vehicle," that is sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that they are under arrest
You can try investigating the warrant, see why it was issued. It's possible that someone somewhere made a mistake and the warrant shouldn't have been issued. However, when the police rely in good faith upon a warrant that is later shown to be invalid, the search is generally upheld. If you managed to prove that the police lied to get the warrant, or were negligent / reckless in that they made statements to the judge that they should have known were incorrect, then it's possible that the stuff uncovered in the search could be suppressed, but I don't want to give you a lot of hope here. It's possible but a very long shot. If you want to try for this, I would recommend getting an attorney. Hire a good one if you can, public defender if you can't, but they're overworked and underpaid
Ryan Stewart
This is unfortunately something that I'm not an expert on, user. My practice is civil. The other stuff I can answer because it's general criminal law that is uniform nationwide and I had to study to get through law school / pass the bar exam. But this stuff is state-law specific criminal defense practice. You'd need someone who specializes in that kind of practice to answer these questions. Sorry, man. Wish I could help more
Christian Hill
we don't have a lot of hope for the situation as it is but I appreciate the straight and honest answers. He's going to be getting a lawyer and trying to see what he could do about it.
Regardless to what other anons in this thread think he's a good guy and not an air-headed stoner who just smokes all day. He unfortunately had just purchased his supply for the next 2 months or so and it happened to be in the glove box with his 2 pipes while he was on his way home.
Owen White
I completely understand. But your buddy really needs to get his priorities in order. Recreational drugs are fun and all, but whenever you get in trouble with the law, you need to be SUPER careful for a while for this exact reason.
Don't buy massive amounts at one time, even if it would save you money, because the amount in possession can make a big difference. Don't travel with paraphernalia. If you limit your drug usage and paraphernalia to the privacy of your own home, your risk of ever getting fucked goes down by such a huge amount.
Jack Russell
Is anyone paying attention?
The search incident to arrest power is designed to permit an officer to perform an immediate search for weapons, means of escape available to the arrested, and evidence of the offence for which the person was arrested that might be destroyed.
Your friend was not committing a new offence. He was arrested on the strength of a warrant for unpaid fines. What are the police searching the car for, proof that he didn't pay the fine? They already have that due to the issuance of the warrant.
Assuming his ounce of weed wasn't in plain sight inside the car, this is an illegal search. If he's already detained at the roadside and in handcuffs, means of escape / weapons in the vehicle are irrelevant, and as discussed the search incident to arrest power doesn't permit blanket searches, but rather searches for specific evidence relating to a substantive offence discovered by the officer. The warrant in question is not for an outstanding drug charge, but for an unpaid fine.
Aaron Moore
I don't really know much about it, is an oz considered a lot? Like is he completely fucked or is there a chance that he won't go to prison or something?
Julian Evans
Well thanks anyways, hopefully when it comes to it theyll just let me do the jailtime, cause fuck probo. Im already doin a year drug court and that sucks, so i just want off papers once im done with that, haha.
But also since your civil whats the easiest, and most reliably financially beneficial way to commit insurance fraud through lets say personal injury, etc.
Cause walking infront of nice car with reckless abonden hasnt gotten my run over yet, motherfuckers pay too much attention to the road I swear, haha.
Benjamin Brown
Assuming facts not in evidence, user. I don't think OP ever said he was at the roadside and in handcuffs. In my (admittedly limited) experience clerking for a DA back in one of my summers in law school, when police want to do a search incident to look for drugs, they generally do not handcuff and leave the defendant in reach of the vehicle so as to be okay under Gant.
Alexander King
Also, as a follow-up, the search incident exception isn't intended to permit blanket searches, but in practice, it does. It doesn't have to be a search for specific evidence. It allows an officer to perform a search for weapons or destructible evidence if and only if the defendant is not secured and is within reach of the vehicle. And as I said in >748535077 police have learned (they're tricky fucks) that when they aren't worried about a defendant becoming violent or escaping, they can leave them unrestrained within reach of the vehicle and be fine under the new stricter post-Gant standard
