Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/25/2002 9:37:22 AM EDT
Los Angeles Times: Calif. Court OKs Warrantless Searches [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-warrantless-searches0125jan25.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnation%2Dheadlines[/url] Calif. Court OKs Warrantless Searches By DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press Writer January 25 2002, 6:34 AM PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A divided California Supreme Court ruled that police may search a car without a warrant if the driver does not produce proper identification or proof of ownership. Ruling 4-3 in two cases, the justices said Thursday that law enforcement officers could search "within a vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found." The court upheld the convictions of two motorists who were stopped for traffic violations and were found to be concealing drugs in their cars. Neither motorist could produce identification at the time. The decision expands earlier rulings that allowed authorities to search a car's sun visor and glove compartment without a warrant. Legal experts said Thursday's decision would sanction police to look under seats and into door pockets, as well. But the justices said they stopped short of giving authorities carte blanche to search anywhere in a vehicle, such as the trunk. The ruling does not "condone the equivalent of the full-scale search for contraband," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that motorists who are pulled over on an officer's reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed -- not just a traffic violation -- may be searched without consent. In 1998, the court said Iowa authorities could not search a vehicle after a routine traffic stop without probable cause of a more serious crime. But that case differed from Thursday's because the Iowa motorist had a driver's license and registration. California Justices Joyce L. Kennard and Janice Rogers Brown wrote in a dissenting opinion that Thursday's decision was an affront to motorists' expectations to be free from unreasonable searches and "chips away at one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by our federal Constitution." Lawyers for the two defendants said they are considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. California Deputy Attorney General Llanna R. Butler said motorists should carry proper identification. "If you provide an officer with documentation, you have no worries," she said. "The officer will cite you and you can be on your way." ___ On the Net: California Supreme Court, opinion in re Arturo D., S085213: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S085213.PDF Copyright 2002 Associated Press
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 9:42:01 AM EDT
Your papers, please. You haff relatiffs een Zacramento? [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][rocket]
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 11:56:57 AM EDT
Why do we even pretend the Constitution has any meaning in 2002? It's just so much nostalgia. The so-called "Living Document" sure looks dead as hell and dragged through the streets to me.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 12:20:49 PM EDT
The prevalence of this sort of cr@p in MY state is exactly why I call the government the Caliban and the place as Californistan. It's also why I pick and choose which of the Caliban's "laws" to obey, and which to ignore.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 12:44:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2002 12:49:04 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
[b]HO... LY... SH!T![pissed] Does any one else shudder at these quotes:[pissed] [i]California Deputy Attorney General Llanna R. Butler said motorists should carry proper identification. "If you provide an officer with documentation, you have no worries," she said. "The officer will cite you and you can be on your way."[/i] ...but if you don't have your papers in order - you will automatically surrender your Constitutional rights. [pissed] [pissed]This is such total [u]BULLSHIT[/u]!![pissed] Where in the Constitution does it REQUIRE you to be holding proper documentation [u]in your hand[/u] in order to have ANY of your rights protected?? [pissed] Bookmark this one. Cut and paste and email to everyone you know. This is one for the history books. Truly we are witnessing the formation of the Peoples Republic of America. Trickshot is right - our Constitution is but a distant fading memory! [pissed] [pissed]BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA[pissed] * No visits to Los Angeles. * No vacation to San Diego. * No Red Cross donations when "The Big One" hits San Francisco. [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][p­issed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed­][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pis­sed][pissed] [/b]
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 12:52:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]HO... LY... SH!T![/b][pissed] Does any one else shudder at these quotes:[pissed] [i]California Deputy Attorney General Llanna R. Butler said motorists should carry proper identification. "If you provide an officer with documentation, you have no worries," she said. "The officer will cite you and you can be on your way."[/i] ...but if you don't have your papers in order - you will automatically surrender your Constitutional rights. [pissed] [pissed]This is such total [b][u]BULLSHIT[/u][/b]!![pissed] [b]Where in the Constitution does it REQUIRE you to be holding proper documentation[u]in your hand[/u] in order to have ANY of your rights protected??[/b] [pissed] Bookmark this one. Cut and paste and email to everyone you know. This is one for the history books. Truly we are witnessing the formation of the Peoples Republic of America. Trickshot is right - our Constitution is but a distant fading memory! [pissed] [pissed][B]BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA[/B][pissed] * No visits to Los Angeles. * No vacation to San Diego. * No Red Cross donations when "The Big One" hits San Francisco. [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][p­issed]
View Quote
Personally I only amend to "no donations to the "Red Cross 'Ever' (personal experiences)" and please let me visit San Francisco just one more time. (My papers will be in order.) Hopefully, this one is headed to the "Supremes."
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 1:41:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]HO... LY... SH!T![pissed]...Where in the Constitution does it REQUIRE you to be holding proper documentation [u]in your hand[/u] in order to have ANY of your rights protected?? [pissed]...[/b]
View Quote
It doesn't. In fact, a San Diego man named Charles Layton (or Lawton?) won a case in the US Supreme Court on that issue. The man is a well-dressed black Rastafarian who was living in a predominantly white well-to-do suburb of La Jolla (which happens to be where I grew up). He used to walk around LJ with no wallet on him - Just his keys and some cash but no ID. He kept getting hassled by the SDPD, who repeatedly arrested him and took him downtown to jail, then releasing him. He sued the city, and his case ultimately made it all the way to SCOTUS. I'll look it up if I find some time this weekend. It was a landmark case. The decision basically said no US citizen could be compelled to carry ID. Driving without a license on you isn't protected in that way, but it seems like the Caliban has gone too far on this one. Again.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 1:56:02 PM EDT
One time a cop that pulled me over let me slide when I forgot my DL. I did have my DL number memorized and she amazingly let me slide! Stupid ass cousin gave some lady the finger and some cop witnessed it. She reminded me I was responsible for my passengers actions and I told my cousin to STFU!
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 5:16:31 PM EDT
It is a great time to be alive.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 5:26:56 PM EDT
C'MON GUYS, AREN'T WE BEING JUST A LITTLE EXTREME HERE? You have nothing to fear if you have your "papers". A good she..,, er citizen always carries papers so police will know they aren't criminals or terrorists. If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear! What are you, a bunch of libertarian anarchists??? (where,s raf when ya want him)
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 5:31:20 PM EDT
It causes one to ponder how the different states can pass such different laws, and still call themselves "United". California is the kid you wish would stop coming to the family dinner. I predict the dissolution of the Union within 4 presidential administrations.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 5:50:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By grimshaw: I predict the dissolution of the Union within 4 presidential administrations.
View Quote
Nope, not correct. We don't have that long. 2009 will mark the first time the racial balance in the country will reverse itself. After that happens, all bets for the long term viabilty of this nation are OFF. [IMG]http://www.freakygamers.com/smilies/s2/contrib/aahmed/sad.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:33:39 PM EDT
Do not consent to a search. Do not sign permission to search. Now, repeat after me: Officer, if you want to search, get a warrant. Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:47:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Free_Man: Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?
View Quote
"You are being lawfully detained until it can be determined that no crime has been committed."
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 6:55:08 PM EDT
There are already a number of warrentless search exceptions to the 4th. This isn't the first one by any means. As for ID, we can take you to the station and ID you if need be. I'm not aware of the case you cite about the Black Rastafarian; I would suspect that if they ruled against LE, it would have been covered in some way in in-service training or in one of the many LE publications I read. Not a peep, though, that I can recall. I run into a lot of drivers who forget to carry their ID; I can usually run them on my Mobile Data Terminal to get the info I need for a simple infraction ticket. Anything more serious can be addressed by the station trip I mentioned.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 7:27:17 PM EDT
Intro to Criminal Justice 101: Cars are mobile so when an officer has reasonable suspision a car can be search without a warrant. This is how it is in all of the US, not just California. If someone refused to give their name, ID, and car registration I would sure call that reasonable suspision. Kyle
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 7:58:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wiggins: Intro to Criminal Justice 101: Cars are mobile so when an officer has reasonable suspision a car can be search without a warrant. This is how it is in all of the US, not just California. If someone refused to give their name, ID, and car registration I would sure call that reasonable suspision. Kyle
View Quote
[b]Remedial Criminal Justice 085:[/b] Lesson #1) It's spelled "suspicion". Lesson #2) [i]"I would sure call that reasonable suspision".[/i] Reasonable suspicion of what? What crime is being investigated by the search? Lesson #3) If you are right, why was this even brought before the CA Supreme Court? And then, why was it a 4-3 decision? Never try to defend the indefensible.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 8:08:58 PM EDT
"You are being lawfully detained until it can be determined that no crime has been committed."
View Quote
As posted by The_Macallan What does that mean? Unless I or my car meet a description of involvement in a crime, I'm free to go. Or else you need a warrant. If I'm unfortunate enough not to have ID on me, then I guess I'll have to wait. As far as going down to the police station, what for? They aren't getting any finger prints. Only a computer search.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 8:23:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BigZ:
"You are being lawfully detained until it can be determined that no crime has been committed."
View Quote
As posted by The_Macallan What does that mean? Unless I or my car meet a description of involvement in a crime, I'm free to go. Or else you need a warrant. If I'm unfortunate enough not to have ID on me, then I guess I'll have to wait. As far as going down to the police station, what for? They aren't getting any finger prints. Only a computer search.
View Quote
Hey, I'm just quoting "da Man". Happens every day.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 8:37:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: [soapbox] C'MON GUYS, AREN'T WE BEING JUST A LITTLE EXTREME HERE? You have nothing to fear if you have your "papers". A good she..,, er citizen always carries papers so police will know they aren't criminals or terrorists. If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear! What are you, a bunch of libertarian anarchists??? (where,s raf when ya want him)
View Quote
YES. [pissed]
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 8:41:34 PM EDT
Who was it on this site that just recently said that unlike owning firearms, driving was a privilege and not a right. Anyone here? In order to exercise that *privilege* you agree to get and keep a valid DL with you when driving. No? What's wrong with that? If you don't have it with you, all this decision seems to say is that the officer can search your car to find it or find vehicle registration in order to satisfy himself that who are who you say you are, or that the car belongs to who you say it belongs to. If you happen to have some crack, heroin, or other illegal items where he is allowed to search, you're SOL. Otherwise, these busts get thrown out on technicalities, and how many times have you all bitched about that? I'm not sure exactly which constitutional rights are being trampled here?
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 9:13:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Who was it on this site that just recently said that unlike owning firearms, driving was a privilege and not a right. Anyone here? In order to exercise that *privilege* you agree to get and keep a valid DL with you when driving. No? What's wrong with that? If you don't have it with you, all this decision seems to say is that the officer can search your car to find it or find vehicle registration in order to satisfy himself that who are who you say you are, or that the car belongs to who you say it belongs to. If you happen to have some crack, heroin, or other illegal items where he is allowed to search, you're SOL. Otherwise, these busts get thrown out on technicalities, and how many times have you all bitched about that? I'm not sure exactly which constitutional rights are being trampled here?
View Quote
I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. How's this for you: [b]Where in the Constitution does it REQUIRE you to be holding proper documentation [u]in your hand[/u] in order to have ANY of your rights protected?? [/b] [b]DScott[/b], you are getting the "privilege" to drive mixed up with the "right" to be secure against unreasonable searches. [i]"...police may search a car without a warrant if the driver does not produce proper identification [b]or proof of ownership[/b]."[/i] Here ya' go Officer Johnny Bravo Tango, here's my ID - see, I'm clean with no record. But I can't seem to find the registration. Whoa, what are you and your drug sniffing dog doing under my car seat? Uh, yeah that's a .223 casing, I just went shooting today and I must have... Oh, that there in the backseat? That's the case I keep my Bushma... WHOA!! What's with the cuffs? It's a preban! Hey, that's MINE!! HEY!! You can't do this - I have RIGHTS!!
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 9:23:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: What are you, a bunch of libertarian anarchists???
View Quote
Yup, pretty much.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 9:43:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: the justices said Thursday that law enforcement officers could search "within a vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found."
View Quote
In other words if the driver claims to have no DL, Registration, or insurance you can check the glove box, center counsel, and above the visor for these documents. This is not new case law, they upheld existing case law.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 10:06:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By warlord: the justices said Thursday that law enforcement officers could search "within a vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found."
View Quote
In other words if the driver claims to have no DL, Registration, or insurance you can check the glove box, center counsel, and above the visor for these documents. This is not new case law, they upheld existing case law.
View Quote
Of course if you don't have a DL, reg, or insurance; don't put your illegals in such places as glove box, center counsel, and above the visor for these documents.
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 10:10:26 PM EDT
And where in the constitution does it say you can drive a car in public and refuse to identify yourself or provide required registration to a LE officer when stopped for a violation? Remember the state grants that privilege, and I'm sure somewhere in the process of getting a DL and registration you agree to provide that info. when requested. I assume that means you've *consented* to that "violation" of your 4th amendment right. It's just like when you agree to consent to breathalyzer or whatever if you want a DL. We can consent to relinquish certain rights in specified situations such as this, presumably for the "greater good" of the community. And besides, that's what the courts do isn't it? Court decisions and legislation help define when and where and how those rights are available and exercised. I'm no lawyer, YMMV, yada yada yada- but it makes some sense to me. And what about the question of scumbags getting off on technicalities? Ever said that? Well, here's an improvement in that regard.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 5:39:32 AM EDT
Get a copy of this book and MEMORIZE it: [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888766018/qid=1012055207/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_15_3/002-3655436-6070412[/url]
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 5:55:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 6:31:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 7:47:47 AM EDT
This is great. Now all non documented illigal aliens found without proper paper work will be deported on the spot right? Only now the challenge comes " the only reason they pulled me over was cause I am a minority " That's about how long that law will last. Oh, I forgot, miniorty is a bad word. The fog thickens.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 7:58:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By full-clip: This is great. Now all non documented illigal aliens found without proper paper work will be deported on the spot right? Only now the challenge comes " the only reason they pulled me over was cause I am a minority " That's about how long that law will last. Oh, I forgot, miniorty is a bad word. The fog thickens.
View Quote
Yes, "miniorty" IS a bad word. You could try the conventional spelling, "minority" to make it into a "good" word. [:)] Seriously, if all this does is just confirm the current law, how is that a bad thing?
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 8:41:27 AM EDT
I agree DScott, I can't spell "WAS" and I also agree that if used properly we could reap a benefit from this ruling.
Link Posted: 1/26/2002 9:17:08 AM EDT
Sorry, I couldn't resist about the spelling- no harm intended... I do agree that we have to put these findings into perspective, and haved some faith that most LE are not abusive or crooked.
Top Top