Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Incorrect. Granting permission and probable cause are too different things. With probable cause, the driver has no say whether the vehicle can be searched.
Pair arrested for possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle following a traffic stop on the Thruway.
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Consent for a search is not probable cause.
They are completely different justifications.
Probable cause means that they observed something that led them to believe that a search would most likely (i.e. probably) turn up evidence of a crime.
Consent means "I asked and he said OK".
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Since we don’t know what the correct answer is, we'll just have accept our difference of opinion on that.
You don't need to explain it to me. I have a very through understanding.
Still, for a press release, "proper cause was established" could be something as simple as "yeah go ahead" or an admission to having something in the car they they shouldn't have. In either case, your baseless suggestion of wrongdoing, is unfounded.
But can we actually form an opinion by the information in this report?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
They didn’t say "proper cause" which would have included the possibility of consent.
They said "probable cause", which doesn't.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
No, you would need to include the context of modern American policing where establishing a "pretext" for a search that *should* be impermissible is SOP.
It's a derailed and pointless discussion. There is no evidence of wrongdoing. Only crazy theories pulled from thin air. Unless you can prove something, we will assume it was by the book and they were caught with their illegal belongings properly and lawfully. They can answer to their felonies in court. None of it is my problem.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I have no doubt it was by the book and entirely according to their training, procedure, and legal precedent.
That is the problem. It *shouldn't* be.
Where in the report did they mention speeding?
Also separate of your comment and on to others comments .
How so?
Police shouldn’t be able to search when there is evidence of a crime? If I’m stopped and say I have 10 illegal guns, 50lbs of heroin and 2 dead babies the police should be powerless and tell me to have a nice day? AOC, is that you? Talk about radical!
Law & Order
Trump 2020
spat
.700 Nitro Express
No, that's not what i'm saying at all.
I am saying that "pretextual" searches to do an end run around the 4th ammendment are wrong.
The purpose of pulling someone over for a violation of V&T law should be to cite them for the violation. Not to conduct a stop and search that would be impermissible without the V&T violation.
We need to go back to requiring a warrant for *any* search that isn’t subsequent to an arrest, or justified by an immediate danger to life or limb.
Pull someone over for speeding and "smell something", fine, detain them until you get a warrant. It would prevent you from doing that a couple times a shift until you get lucky.
It would also allow us to track how often an officer found what they alleged was present in the warrant.
If you "smell pot" a dozen times, but only find it once, then your sense of smell is insufficient to establish probable cause.