Successfully avoiding a vehicle search!

[Dillon Hunt]

If the probable cause was for cracked Windsheild and you recieved the ticket for Only No DL, No Insur. and No Registration then I believe that they have no probable cause for giving you that ticket. Since the cracked Windsheild was the orginal cause of the Stop.

Just my input, not advice

Dillon

[quasimodo]

I would contest a charge what ever it is on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Several different ways of going about that.

[Shoonra]

I disagree. The legal trend of thought is that IF you were pulled over for ANY plausible reason, such as a cracked windshield, then (1) the cop has the right to see, and the driver has the legal duty to present his DL and registration, and (2) whatever is in PLAIN VIEW can be the basis for further police inquiry and action (e.g., drug paraphrenalia).

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I disagree. The legal trend of thought is that IF you were pulled over for ANY plausible reason, such as a cracked windshield, then (1) the cop has the right to see, and the driver has the legal duty to present his DL and registration, and (2) whatever is in PLAIN VIEW can be the basis for further police inquiry and action (e.g., drug paraphrenalia).

Then PC must have been for No DL, Regis and Insur. I wonder How the Officers Knew that before the stop. Maybe they had a police physic with them the cop car.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I disagree. The legal trend of thought is that IF you were pulled over for ANY plausible reason, such as a cracked windshield, then (1) the cop has the right to see, and the driver has the legal duty to present his DL and registration, and (2) whatever is in PLAIN VIEW can be the basis for further police inquiry and action (e.g., drug paraphrenalia).

Then PC must have been for No DL, Regis and Insur. I wonder How the Officer Knew that before the stop. Maybe he had a police physic with him in the cop car.

[heyday]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I disagree. The legal trend of thought is that IF you were pulled over for ANY plausible reason, such as a cracked windshield, then (1) the cop has the right to see, and the driver has the legal duty to present his DL and registration, and (2) whatever is in PLAIN VIEW can be the basis for further police inquiry and action (e.g., drug paraphrenalia).

Under the 7th and 10th Circuits that conclusion is qualified by the crack:

The propriety of the traffic stop does not depend . . . on whether Cashman was actually guilty of committing a traffic offense by driving a vehicle with an excessively cracked windshield. The pertinent question instead is whether it was reasonable for Trooper Spetz to believe that the windshield was cracked to an impermissible degree."

See footnote 3 of

TRIPP, JR. v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2005 OK CIV APP 47, 117 P.3d 266

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

Then PC must have been for No DL, Regis and Insur. I wonder How the Officer Knew that before the stop. Maybe he had a police physic with him the cop car.

No. IF there had been probable cause to stop the car - for ANY reason, such as taillight out or speeding, THEN the cops have the right to demand to see the DL and the driver has the legal duty to present it - and his failure to do so can be a separate or additional charge. Additionally, any other offenses "in plain sight" such as something illegal that can be seen through the windshield or windows may also be added.

[mrg]

Uncle Bernie:

What, precisely is "legal trend of thought?"

Is that like a "fad?"

Is it akin to "current federal law?"

[Livefire]

Lets face it, the defective equipment gave them PC to stop the vehicle. The request for search was a fishing expedition that was successfully diverted. Most likely, the cop profiled you (they have a record of nailing people for other things besides the equipment problem). Check the citation to see if the offenses are correctable (i.e. having a police officer sign off the ticket, as in the case of an equipment problem)

If that isnt the case you can always try Ticketslayer if there is time to default them.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by artificialsteve

Pig: "Do you have anything in the car that I should know about? Guns, knives, rifles, DRUGS?"
Me: "no, may I leave now?"
Pig: "Would you just read this real quick?...
(hands me a small leaflet)
....Basically what it says is that you give us permission to search your vehicle and your personal belongings just in case you're lying to me about not having any illegal substances in here."

I have noted the latest:

Do you have anything in your pockets?

I of course read into that question "contraban". - "Do you have any needles, knives or drugs in your pockets?"

My answering the question at all was construed as permission to pat me down. Then the officer came across my gloves in the cargo pocket on my pants:

What are these?

See? Now he had caught me in a lie. I did have something in my pockets - gloves.

Do not appear to be giving consent to questioning by answering any questions other than your name. Do not even give a DOB. Answer questions, No man can be compelled to incriminate himself.

And of course, like shown here, make it clear when they proceed on consent that you expressly withdraw any such presumption.



Regards,

David Merrill.