Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pa. Supreme Court ruling: Cops discuss warrantless searches, probable cause
Lancaster Online ^ | 5-2-14 (updated) | Brett Hambright

Posted on 05/03/2014 1:00:25 PM PDT by smokingfrog

This week’s Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on warrantless vehicle searches has motorists wondering when a cop will be rummaging through their car.

The ruling now permits police to search a vehicle without a driver’s consent or a judge’s signature on a warrant.

Local police professionals, however, say little will change as far as who is subjected to searches.

They claim it all comes down to an officer having “probable cause,” as the high-court ruling states.

What exactly is probable cause? What qualifies as means for an officer to search a vehicle?

“There must be probable cause that there is evidence of a crime or contraband in the car,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Thursday. “Traffic stops will not get (an officer) into a car, unless there is a lot of other evidence.”

Stedman and other local police professionals say the legal standard for a search hasn’t changed at all.

(Excerpt) Read more at lancasteronline.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; donutwatch; policestate; warrants
You have an air freshener in your car?

You look nervous?

Driving an out-of-state rental car?

Bend over...

1 posted on 05/03/2014 1:00:25 PM PDT by smokingfrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Yup.

Officer: “I smell x, y, or z”. Bingo, probable cause.


2 posted on 05/03/2014 1:01:58 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

It really doesn’t matter either way if they wanna search they will get one and you will just have to wait! At home they call the canine unit and if he hits! Your gonna be searched.


3 posted on 05/03/2014 1:10:59 PM PDT by DocJhn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
It goes like this at the hearing.

Cop: Your honor, he had a tail light out, which was clear evidence to me that he is a slovenly individual who cares little about personal safety, and is therefore likely a drunk or drug dealer.
Citizen: But as it turns out, my tail light was not, in fact, out.
Judge: That's OK. There's a good-faith exemption. What did you find?
Cop: We found an unloaded 45 caliber pistol in a case, which the defendant is licensed to carry.
Judge: That's not a crime yet.
Citizen: Great, may I have my gun back?
Cop: Submit a request and you may see it again in five or six years.

4 posted on 05/03/2014 1:11:50 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
They claim it all comes down to an officer having “probable cause...”

What if I have “probable cause” to search a cop's car?

5 posted on 05/03/2014 1:14:35 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

As we have seen lately, all it takes are Colorado license plates.


6 posted on 05/03/2014 1:19:44 PM PDT by Cololeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
I miss the days when we were a free country, government agents needed probable cause to get a warrant, and those government agents needed that warrant to conduct a search of our persons, houses, papers, and effects (including vehicles, phones, etc.).

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Today, it's more of an either-or, unless the police feel like waiving both requirements on their own initiative. This was a predictable result of the "Living Constitution", and it will get worse. Liberals and the ACLU claim to stand for these rights, but that turns out only to be true when their favored criminals are inconvenienced. Conservatives want to protect those rights equally for all - a goal that the far left describes as "racist".

7 posted on 05/03/2014 1:20:59 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

I guarantee that they receive more training on how to find “probable cause” than on any other aspect of police work.


8 posted on 05/03/2014 1:26:08 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Looking nervous? I like the fact that a subjective assessment is now a fact to justify probable cause.

The way things are now, you’d have to be semi-comatose not to be a little nervous when stopped by a cop.


9 posted on 05/03/2014 1:36:30 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est. New US economy: Fascism on top, Socialism on the bottom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

A Federal Court in New Mexico just rule that “stiff” driving posture is reason enough to pull someone over. There’s a thread here about it.


10 posted on 05/03/2014 1:44:01 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

All of which comes down to defining the terms “unreasonable” and “probable cause.”


11 posted on 05/03/2014 1:45:32 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

“Looking nervous? I like the fact that a subjective assessment is now a fact to justify probable cause.

The way things are now, you’d have to be semi-comatose not to be a little nervous when stopped by a cop.”

Just don’t clench your butt cheeks holding back a fart. Or you’ll get a search you won’t forget. Cops are nuts.


12 posted on 05/03/2014 5:31:17 PM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
I miss the days when we were a free country, government agents needed probable cause to get a warrant,

Apparently Pennsylvania had a higher standard in which a warrant was required in addition to probable cause. Now that's changed to where probable cause is enough, and a warrant isn't always required, which is constitutional. You're drama isn't necessary.

13 posted on 05/03/2014 6:29:11 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

I wonder how they get away with warrant-less searches in Mississippi - we pay property taxes on our vehicles and they are considered an extension of our homes for legal purposes.


14 posted on 05/04/2014 3:39:04 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson