...But now you're moving into where things are gray. ...why else would the cops mention the wad of cash? CYA That way if anyone b****es about unlawful search, they can come back and say "probable cause." "He acted unreasonable and billegerant, would not identify himself, had an out of state license and a wad of cash....we thought he was a drug dealer."
do you realize that's just like saying "stats have shown that 40% of all art is bad." Law isn't usually so cut and dried that you can claim stats on it. At least not in this case. You could claim that 40% of all cases end in mistrial (that's something tangible), but a search without a warrant is one of those things that's up for interpretation. After Iowa, not too many cops are gonna be dumb enough to not claim they didn't have probably cause (or one of the other reasons that gives them the "right" to a search without a warrant). The "searchee" of course, will claim they didn't have the right. There's three sides to every story. The truth is one of those sides, and it's up to the courts to find that out. I wouldn't lay odds on how often or not they're successful. So back to your 40% statistic: is that 40% of searches are found to be unconstitutional in a court of law? Or is it that some other body deems 40% of them unconstitutional?
Pole, I didn't mean to stress what was unlawful (though I've found some states declare it such), but rather what is harassment (ie, why claim the Belton Rule and continue searching if you have the evidence you need??).
I haven't argued with you in a while......it beats work, ya know? The bottom line is all (or at least most) of this **** is open to interpretation...be it by some court in Marian County or by the court of clutchcity.net. you think he was harrassed; I think he was being a dick. But in the grand scheme of things, none of it really matters.....because the Pacers aren't gonna lose next Wednesday anyway.
I think he was a dick, and he was harassed. How's that!! imo, it is not an either/or situation. plus, you and I both know why we are interested in studying these rulings. btw: without congressional law, your "interpretation" point is up to the courts, not us. Some states have already declared thatsearches where the accused was arrested for oustanding warrants and safely tucked away in the squad car prior to the search are unlawful, based on the fact they are unreasonable because they are unnecessary. Those acquittals have never made it to the Supreme Court because acquittals can't be appealed by prosecutors, right? But if such a case ever does make it the the US court, my money is on the Supreme Court confirming that the Belton rule does not apply when no further evidence is needed for a full custodial arrest. Once that happens, there are no more interpretations.
It's funny how you keep arguing when it has already been explained to you. You see, there is a reason why they let people study law for years and make them take (bar) exams. I am sure you might understand it as well if you had done that. Let me clarify my statement from above to be more precise following the systematic approach the Supreme Court is taking. It would have been correct to say that a mere traffic citation by itself does neither constitute probable cause for a search nor does it qualify for one of the two rationales behind the "search incident to arrest" exception. This is exactly what the Supreme Court held in the decision you quoted (by the way, it is Knowles vs. Iowa, not Fowles). The mistake you made is not entirely uncommon. You took a case that decides one isse ("citation alone is no sufficient reason for search") and constructed a false general statement from this - "The police under no circumstances can search a car during a traffic ticket citation." During a traffic ticket citation, there can be other circumstances that justify a search, it's just basically that "giving you a ticket doesn't give the police the right to search your car".
I love it when smarty pants non-practicing lawyers try their 3 yrs of studying on US constitutional law when it isn't their speciality or their interest, like a pediatrician trying to be a pyschiatrist or something. I knew it is Knowles (Clutch turned off edits today for awhile, if you didn't notice), but I'm sure you had to look it up. Probably cause has nothing to do with Knowles v Iowa. That was never argued by Iowa, as the police officer readily admitted to that fact. Getting that wrong, you are now researching the topic and trying to save face, by trying to say that there are other reasons for a full search...and there are not without an incident to arrest. You are confusing probably cause to search with probably cause to arrest. Knowles had nothing to do with probably cause to arrest as basis to do a Belton search (which defines a search based on that). Now, are you going to look up NY v Belton. There must be an arrest, probably cause for an arrest, consent, or within the eyesight outside the vehicle (Michigan v Long). You are missing the point of the Supreme Court...that with only a citation, there is no justification for a Belton search, and without justification for a Belton search only a Terry pat-down is allowed. bottomline...I have a state case that exlains it further, if you want to search for that one, too. Studying the History of Supreme Court 4th Amendment rulings does not require a law degree. Yet, apparently being a smarty pants about law does require a degree.
Probably cause . "You are missing the point"...heypartner's favorite sentence when he has been talking nonsense . Face it. Maybe you would like to be a lawyer, but you are not.
hey man, it's your court. don't take your law school ball and leave. show us what you know. don't just strut around with some law school shirt and shoes on. you got nothing on the 4th amendment rulings.
Just went back to read this again. It is just plain wrong. This is not what the Supreme Court said. It said "a traffic ticket alone is no sufficient justification for a search". Do you see the difference?
I have one question for anyone that thinks Thomas was hosed. If you have a person who is driving in a closed lane in order to pass up traffic that is slowed and that person is rightfully stopped by police and that person refuses to give identification to the officers, what should have happened?
And for anyone who doesn't know me.....NO, I don't really think he should have been night-sticked. I think what should have happened.....happened. He was belligerant, so he was cuffed. When it was determined that he has some status, he was released. Do I believe that celebrity status should get you some deferential treatment? To a degree, yes. If for no other reason than celebrities have better access to the media and the money to throw at lawyers to make the police's lives more miserable than they already are. Thomas will know that he can't always act like a spoiled child, but at the same time, the police can always say, "hey, he was uncooperative, but we let him go anyway."
