N.J. court rules state trooper violated law with warrantless search of cab driver

 

TRENTON

Now this is a win for the constitution, however, that last case I argued that someone fitting the description of someone who had a handgun, I still disagree with. But I will agree to disagree with a few people who felt it was unconstitutional.

Now this is a win for the constitution, however, that last case I argued that someone fitting the description of someone who had a handgun, I still disagree with. But I will agree to disagree with a few people who felt it was unconstitutional.

 

He was a dumbass. he should have called for a Dog, or kept working it to setablish PC for the warrant. As far as the other one. There usued to be a "POublic Safety Exception" that was used in pat-downs for weapons... However, even if the suspect meets a description perfectly an anonymous caller is NOT enough to invoke the Piublic Safety exception. Now, if the Caller identifies themself, and can be interviewed and can give specifics of how the gun was seen, where it was concealed, ect. Then that does ramp up the level of inquiry.

Id argue that the air fesheners (if in excess as implied) in conjunction with the mismatch and behavioral displays of the driver would be enough for PC. Back in the day camera film cases in the right neighborhood qualified because it was a known thing that drugs were distributed in them.

Id argue that the air fesheners (if in excess as implied) in conjunction with the mismatch and behavioral displays of the driver would be enough for PC. Back in the day camera film cases in the right neighborhood qualified because it was a known thing that drugs were distributed in them.

 

nah man you can't search someones car, just based on being suspicious. by him going into departments, such as glove box, closet, blah blah blah, you most definitely need a warrant, unless he consents to a search (I think) maybe not.

Id argue that the air fesheners (if in excess as implied) in conjunction with the mismatch and behavioral displays of the driver would be enough for PC. Back in the day camera film cases in the right neighborhood qualified because it was a known thing that drugs were distributed in them.

 

And you would be correct. PC fopr a Warrant..NOT for a warrantless search, there were no exigent circumstances that would make the time waiting for a warrant a factor. in fact he had more than enough as it was to impound the vehicle and detain the driver for an investigative detention...

there were no exigent circumstances that would make the time waiting for a warrant a factor.

 

Exigent circumstances are defined as situations where the evidence may otherwise be destroyed. IE flushing drugs down the toilet, or in this particular case, if the truck were on fire.

there were no exigent circumstances that would make the time waiting for a warrant a factor.

 

Exigent circumstances are defined as situations where the evidence may otherwise be destroyed. IE flushing drugs down the toilet, or in this particular case, if the truck were on fire.

 

 

yes i'm aware of that.

yes i'm aware of that.

 

I know you are - now everyone else is as well.