revenger 473 Posted September 25, 2015 NJ Supreme court has overturned a previous ruling and is now allowing warrantless car searches. Now a cop can stop you for whatever violation fits and for no reason search your car. so scrape those "3 percenter" , "oathkeeper" and gun related bumper stickers off your car, make sure your turn signals work as any of those will be their probable cause . The Police State NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted September 25, 2015 reference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperSixOne 4 Posted September 25, 2015 Reference: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/nj_supreme_court_expands_police_discretion_in_warr.html ...Joy. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted September 25, 2015 Okie .. i don't love it, but the officer still needs probable cause. We ha extra protections here before, now we follow the national standard, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted September 25, 2015 I'm sure this spread like wild fire. Great, I have to drive through Mahwah tonight. I wouldn't be surprised if the storm troopers have a vehicle search checkpoint in the name of "public safety" on Rt. 17. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted September 25, 2015 Did you guys read it? Probable cause is still required. The sky is not falling, it just moved a little closer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sota 1,191 Posted September 25, 2015 "I smelled weed." I bet that gets used a lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManWithBeard 2 Posted September 25, 2015 "I smelled weed." I bet that gets used a lot. "I smelled alcohol, s/he was white/black/hispanic and acted nervously." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted September 25, 2015 Hate to tell you that could probably do that now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 473 Posted September 26, 2015 probable cause is now at the cops discretion, not a warrant issued by a judge. now ANYTHING the cop feels is probable cause, even an anonymous "tip" will be used as probable cause just like anti-gunners who call in alarms on open carriers in free states. the police state has taken over. this action by the NJSC only increases the distrust between us and them. People shouldn't think for a second that there's nothing to be concerned with just because we are all law abiding, next they will come up with an excuse for warrantless house searches. I'm sure there will be an incident in short order that goes to the SCOTUS on this matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 26, 2015 Okie .. i don't love it, but the officer still needs probable cause. We ha extra protections here before, now we follow the national standard,Actually going back to it Vlad. When I was on a police department back in the 70s warrantless searches of cars were done all the time. The requirement a lot of people forget about is the police have to have probable cause. Not some bs reason but articuable PC. The police have to have enough PC to be able to get a warrant. More restrictions were put on police in NJ over the years and now we are back to the way it was 40 years ago. The concept of warrantless vehicle searches is referred to as the Carroll Doctrine resulting from a SCOTUS decision in 1925 so it's not a new concept. Feds have used it since then and many states follow it too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 26, 2015 BTW, being stopped for a MV violation doesn't create probable cause for a vehicle search. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm1827 284 Posted September 26, 2015 Maybe a stupid question, but what happens if you are pulled over and asked where you are going- "I am going to the shooting range officer", and he asks can I see what you are shooting today? Can you say no? Is there probable cause that one of your firearms MAY not be 100% compliant with the very complex and at times arbitrary PRNJ anti gun laws? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted September 26, 2015 Maybe a stupid question, but what happens if you are pulled over and asked where you are going- "I am going to the shooting range officer", and he asks can I see what you are shooting today? Can you say no? Is there probable cause that one of your firearms MAY not be 100% compliant with the very complex and at times arbitrary PRNJ anti gun laws? Damn good question! So now not only has the Second Amendment been suspended in New Jersey, both the Fourth Amendment as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted September 26, 2015 NJ Supreme court has overturned a previous ruling and is now allowing warrantless car searches. Now a cop can stop you for whatever violation fits and for no reason search your car. so scrape those "3 percenter" , "oathkeeper" and gun related bumper stickers off your car, make sure your turn signals work as any of those will be their probable cause . The Police State NJ. as much as i want to proudly display those stickers on my truck.........i refused to put anything on my truck, other than the American flag. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 26, 2015 Maybe a stupid question, but what happens if you are pulled over and asked where you are going- "I am going to the shooting range officer", and he asks can I see what you are shooting today? Can you say no? Is there probable cause that one of your firearms MAY not be 100% compliant with the very complex and at times arbitrary PRNJ anti gun laws? Stating you have guns in your car on the way to the range doesn't constitute PC your guns are not compliant to NJ law AFAIC. The judge would decide if the police had PC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 26, 2015 Damn good question! So now not only has the Second Amendment been suspended in New Jersey, both the Fourth Amendment as well? The 4th Amendment has not been suspended. Feds have always done warrantless searches in NJ. NJ law does not apply if the case is in Federal court. Different system different rules. Carroll Doctrine e searches are only one exception permitting warrantless searches. This decision is going back what was considered common practice in the 70s as I stated above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 510 Posted September 26, 2015 Articulate Probably Cause means that the officer has cause to believe that you probably have committed a crime and the evidence is in your car. Articulate means that cause is clear enough that he would be able to articulate (explain) it prior to the search. Saying "he was going to the range therefore it was reasonable for me to believe he probably had illegal firearms" isn't likely to hold up. My issue with this ruling is that the 4th amendment says a warrant for a search shall list "the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't say a warrant is required to do a search (it does say PC is required) but I believe the intent is clear. You can't search hoping to find something. You have to know what you're searching for and you need to be able to articulate what it is ahead of time. And there has to be PC to believe the thing you're searching for is going to be there. Searching for an open container and then stumbling upon a firearm should not make the firearm admissible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted September 26, 2015 Searching for an open container and then stumbling upon a firearm should not make the firearm admissible. I'm not sure. Lets say you pull a car over because it matches that fleeing a robbery but then when you are looking for the ski mask you find a body .. err .. there is a crime here probably. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted September 26, 2015 easiest way to avoid this is to not get pulled over. don't drive like a jackass, maintain your vehicle properly, and you should never seen those reds/blues behind ya. unless you forget to renew your drivers license, drive past a maple shade cop with an alpr on his vehicle that is. even then, just be polite, and you shouldn't have any problems...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 26, 2015 Articulate Probably Cause means that the officer has cause to believe that you probably have committed a crime and the evidence is in your car. Articulate means that cause is clear enough that he would be able to articulate (explain) it prior to the search. Saying "he was going to the range therefore it was reasonable for me to believe he probably had illegal firearms" isn't likely to hold up. My issue with this ruling is that the 4th amendment says a warrant for a search shall list "the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't say a warrant is required to do a search (it does say PC is required) but I believe the intent is clear. You can't search hoping to find something. You have to know what you're searching for and you need to be able to articulate what it is ahead of time. And there has to be PC to believe the thing you're searching for is going to be there. Searching for an open container and then stumbling upon a firearm should not make the firearm admissible. You are pretty much correct in your assessment. I'm not sure. Lets say you pull a car over because it matches that fleeing a robbery but then when you are looking for the ski mask you find a body .. err .. there is a crime here probably.You're throwing something else in the mix Vlad. Let's say car leaving scene of an armed robbery was a red mini van, license plate 123??? (last part unknown), left tail light out, heavy tint windows, occupied by 2 males. You have enough PC to get a search warrant. You stop the van. While searching for evidence of robbery (gun, ski mask, money, etc) you find a body. This would fall under plain view as: 1. The police were legally where they were, searching the van for evidence of an armed robbery. They had sufficient PC to get a warrant. 2. The discovery of the body was incidental to the search for evidence of the armed robbery. This would be the same as if the police had a search warrant for stolen tubas. While executing that warrant they found a pallet of cocaine. That would be admissible for the same reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fslater 62 Posted September 26, 2015 What I find interesting are the comments after the artical. There is one or two that sight other rights taken away by the state (such as the second A). But most are how the state is stripping away out right to privacy by warrantless searches. I get the feeling that most of the commenters bitching about their right and civil liberty be violated in this instance are the same liberals that want to out right abolish 2A because its not what "they want". Typical liberalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,137 Posted September 26, 2015 Is a cop obligated to tell you what the probable cause actually is prior to doing a search if you ask him? Or just keep repeating 'step out of the car..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueLineFish 615 Posted September 26, 2015 More fear mongering. You still need PC to search a car. Its not stop for no reason and search for no reason. Have a clue if you want to discuss a topic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 26, 2015 Is a cop obligated to tell you what the probable cause actually is prior to doing a search if you ask him? Or just keep repeating 'step out of the car..." Generally no. The shoulder of the roadway is no place to discuss PC. You may think it's not probable cause when it is. Remember the police will have to articulate the PC and contrary to what many think it's very hard to make it up. There are plenty of criminals out there, there is no need to make it up. Any cops who do will have a record of bum arrests when those cases get thrown out. Look at this another way. If someone abduct a child and a cop sees vehicle,description, etc shouldn't they be able to stop it? Or would you prefer the police let it go because they don't have a warrant. Not trying to play "it's for the children" but warrantless vehicle searches have been recognized for 90 years. Some states put additional restrictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 510 Posted September 26, 2015 ...Look at this another way. If someone abduct a child and a cop sees vehicle,description, etc shouldn't they be able to stop it? Or would you prefer the police let it go because they don't have a warrant. Not trying to play "it's for the children" but warrantless vehicle searches have been recognized for 90 years. Some states put additional restrictions. That's a whole different topic: Exigent Circumstance. If someone is in imminent danger, a search can be conducted without PC or a warrant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueLineFish 615 Posted September 26, 2015 People dont realize police in NJ have some of the most restrictive search and seizure rights. Its amazing anything gets done at all Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted September 27, 2015 That's a whole different topic: Exigent Circumstance. If someone is in imminent danger, a search can be conducted without PC or a warrant. You are correct. The example I gave would fit more in exigent circumstances. People dont realize police in NJ have some of the most restrictive search and seizure rights. Its amazing anything gets done at all BLF is 100% correct. When I worked for a Federal agency I worked in at least a dozen different states with state and local LEOs. I can't think of any state that had more restrictions than NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted September 27, 2015 easiest way to avoid this is to not get pulled over. don't drive like a jackass, maintain your vehicle properly, and you should never seen those reds/blues behind ya. unless you forget to renew your drivers license, drive past a maple shade cop with an alpr on his vehicle that is. even then, just be polite, and you shouldn't have any problems...... So in other words: "If you aren't guilty you have nothing to hide" Or "Papers" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted September 27, 2015 Generally no. The shoulder of the roadway is no place to discuss PC. You may think it's not probable cause when it is. Remember the police will have to articulate the PC and contrary to what many think it's very hard to make it up. There are plenty of criminals out there, there is no need to make it up. Any cops who do will have a record of bum arrests when those cases get thrown out. Look at this another way. If someone abduct a child and a cop sees vehicle,description, etc shouldn't they be able to stop it? Or would you prefer the police let it go because they don't have a warrant. Not trying to play "it's for the children" but warrantless vehicle searches have been recognized for 90 years. Some states put additional restrictions. You are missing something very important. Is the person still arrested? Does the person still need to pay for a lawyer? If the judge decides, no crime was committed, Does the person get reimbursed for destroyed reputation? Reimbursed for legal expenses? Great system, arrest them all let a judge figure it out. Hey better safe than sorry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites