Assuming that it was unlocked, that still doesn’t give probable cause for a search. Jesus Christ, they aren’t even trying to make it look legit any more.
When is the last time New Jersey and legit were rightly used in the same sentence?
That is not using the plain view/plain sight doctrine, which is what I was responding to - the claim that you can search things that are “in plain sight”.
You can search under “probable cause” but it’s completely unrelated. You can get probably cause through something you see through the plain sight doctrine, or through something you smell, or through something you hear, but there is no rule that you can search things that are in plain sight simply because they are in plain sight.
MC Hammer’s 2 Legit 2 Quit tour live at the State Theater, New Jersey?
I’m not sure I can validate that as ‘right’. Any others?
This may just need to be something that has to be looked up in order to give an appropriate answer. This might change depending on what state one lives in? I will try to see what i find with a cursory search.
And finally, the Wikipedia entry for Plain View Doctrine
Sorry i haven’t had a chance to read these and give insight myself. Trying to problem solve something at work If someone wants to tackle this i would be appreciative.
I think here’s the answer? This seems to be talking about private property, not vehicles though
The Supreme Court decision in Horton v. California summarized the plain view doctrine as having two essential ingredients: “First, not only must the item be in plain view; its incriminating character must also be immediately apparent. Second, not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.”
Note: Evidence may be exposed to plain view but may not be reachable without a warrant or other exception because it requires you to make an entry into private premises. A suspect might have an illegal marijuana plant growing in a pot inside a residential window, for example.
Not sure if a warrant would be needed to search a parked car, even if something illegal was in plain view. I don’t know i couldn’t find something on that. But at least in this gentleman’s case it seemed that nothing illegal was in the car to begin with and for the officer to be searching it he would definitely need a warrant to gain access.
Sure, there has to be evidence of a crime (this includes visible contraband).
I just watched the video and this definitely looks like a bad search. If the back was open and there was visible contraband or evidence of a crime then there’s probable cause to search further without a warrant.
In the video, it looked like the cop was rummaging through the back. Unless the vehicle was abandoned or there was already visible evidence of a crime, this definitely seems like a bad search to me that any lawyer could get thrown out of court.
Well, then, officer, maybe you ought to stop carrying them. Or at least stop shooting people unnecessarily with them quite so much.
It’s common knowledge that illicit gun dealers leave their trunks open for random people to open and take out the product. They collect the money later.
It’s conceivable that the cop would argue that he was worried that somebody would steal stuff out of the unlocked vehicle. I’ll just leave this here. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C19D71C68F28A4CA85256F82005F7EBA/$file/01-3109a.pdf
It wasn’t me! I swear!
I bring you gold, and you ask for platinum? There is no pleasing people
What the shi*'s with that massive man bun?
“Yeah, I bet you’re probably getting a lot of complaints about cops too.”
Yeah, I was thinking that’s not really undercover. Maybe it’s just casual Friday.
Officers fail to the level of their training. This truth is as old as the concept of officers.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.