Automobile Searches
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 03. 2017
- Criminal Procedure video lecture, describing the variety of legal doctrines available to validate police searches of a properly stopped vehicle; doctrines include warrant exception, weapons search, search incident to arrest, and inventory searches.
People like first amendment auditors are the true heros who put their safety on the line to help protect the rights we have.
Good explanation of some tragically sloppy laws we still have.
I found this very interesting and informative, definitely clarified some points of law concerning police searches. It was interesting to view the class of law students during the lecture, where I saw only one young lady actually taking notes with a pen in a manner in which I would have typically done when I was in college. I guess things are much different nowadays in the classroom with computers, phones and the ubiquitous internet.
Thank you for addressing this topic. I am curious about the legality of police arbitrarily running a license plate. It seems to me that traffic stops account for the majority of the interactions between citizens and the justice system that's the wrong time to make so many negative interactions. No body likes to be stopped but if you didn't commit a traffic infraction in that moment it makes for an unnecessary negative encounter. Furthermore, it allows a police bias, intentionally or unintentionally, to target the same demographic. Frankly, that makes for bad police-community relations.
as far as a terry frisk goes for a vehicle. if the officer tells me to get out of the vehicle and I get out and shut the door and lock the doors, is the vehicle still liable to a terry frisk?
What if the person was arrested outside the car before they search the car 3 blocks away do the Carroll exception or search incident to arrest apply
I have a college degree, but not in law. . .But the more I listen to lectures like this the less respect I have for our legal system. All of the convoluted laws and "theories", that in the end are subject to the interpretations of various judges, make me feel that the ordinary citizen really does NOT have the rights they think they have. There are enough ways to "interpret" the laws and previous cases relating to any situation to favor the state that it makes me feel that our "rights" are in reality nothing more than window dressing. Very disheartening indeed. The ridiculous variations on the myriad "theories" and exceptions to the "theories", and variations in different state laws, and the interpretations of all of that by various judges throughout the system does not give me confidence in justice being served. And the way that judges and lawyers are looked upon as so much more intelligent than someone like myself drives me crazy. They really have just learned how to play the legal "game", and that does NOT impress me. Sorry, but this lecture made me both a little mad, and very sad. Thanks for informing me that I should just pretty much give up on my "rights". The land of the free, and the home of the "Government that is probably going to win". So that's "justice", huh?
👏👏👏👏👏
👍
Excellent statement!
Mao Tse Tung a famous socialist dictator said, "True Power comes through the barrel of a gun".
Sounds like your pissed at what you don't agree with. As a college grad you should know there will be things in life you won't agree with, so put your grownup panties on and get over it.
howard hahhahahaha hey idk you but I've got my big girl panties on and I still call bullshit on all of this fuckery!!!
I love my country and proud to be an American. I'm grateful for our military and law enforcement of all stripes!!
However, at 48 years of age and a junior in college for A Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice, I've come to the conclusion that our judicial system is a big fat money hungry racket ball club and I'm not in it!!! Rip George Carlin.
I'm trying to figure out how to get a drug possession dismissed for my boyfriend whose house was raided with a search warrant 4th of July. His roommate was the focus of the search warrant and the police found everything they were looking for and the roommate is in jail, rightfully so!!!
But my bf was no where on the search warrant and his bedroom was torn apart as was the roommates room was trashed unbelievably bad. If I wanted to file a motion for dismissal of charges and utilize the exclusionary rule bc whatever miniscule amount of drugs found in my bfs bedroom is going to have a horrible impact on our livelihood bc if he becomes a convicted felon I can't start my business bc I can't allow felons around my business!!!
I'm furious that these police didn't even know that the property they were raiding didn't belong to the drug dealer they were targeting,(the roommate) but my bfs name is on the mortgage and deed. Can he not apply exclusionary rule to the evidence found in his bedroom??
In retrospect my bf wishes he'd kicked his roommate out way before this bullshit but he's known the guy for 30 years and honestly didn't think he was dealing drugs to the extent he was. And the roommate was never there and there was no traffic at the house. Or my bf would've put a stop to it immediately!! He doesn't want to jeopardize his house or our plans to start this lucrative legal business!!!! Please help!! My life is over if he accepts this 3rd degree felony.!!!! Plus he is handicapped and has a prosthetic leg from a motorcycle accident at 18 yrs old. He's on disability and fixed income and can't afford drug court and probation fees. He's no longer on opiates for pain, but he enjoys drinking Budlight for the pain management instead which is good in my opinion. Drug court isn't going to allow him to drink alcohol!! This is a complete nightmare and this shit wouldn't even be occurring if it wasn't for the stupid roommate and reliving his 20's chasing 19 and 20 year old pussy all the time!!!! He should've been paying attention and protecting the house not fucking around with his head up his ass!!!
Please any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance ✌💋
@@tax905972 people like you are the reason this is a problem
No rights in a police state.
No police in a rights state! The pendulum is about to swing hard as fuck back in their tyrant faces, and when it does, they will be hiding in little holes with the rats like Saddam Hussein, and then when we drag them out, they will swing like him too!
Australian Law, somewhat different, but I’m curious about towed or 5th Wheel Trailers or Caravans Searches (as opposed to Motorhomes being as for a Car) as an extension of Vehicle Searches.
Where would these Vehicles sit for other than Inventory Searches?
Nice supplemental material to my courses, some of my professors aren't very good at explaining this stuff.
It certainly appears that we lose all of our "Constitutional" rights as soon as we leave our domicile. It is "reasonable" to believe that our Founders would not agree with these infringements of our freedoms.
nope
They would have been blowing shit up and stringing up nooses over a century ago! 😡 We have failed them and they would be in tears if they saw what has become of the great nation they worked so hard to build... 😥
What if you wasn’t in the car and it was park legally do the Carroll theory apply
Inventory searches are never for anything other than evidence gathering. If you can reasonably seal a crime scene using items like tape them you can reasonably seal a car's doors and trunk with the same that will show if the car has been tampered with.
How does this apply to such state crimes without subject matter jurisdiction???
Cops fishing. Policing for profit. Courts the same, prosecution for profit.
"All a part of the game" Omar from The Wire
Is he teaching students that or going to be cops
So far in my experience one of the main problems is not so much with these laws and decisions but with police culture. Some of the good cops are look down upon as not being aggressive enough and not doing their job because they don't push harder to get that evidence and arrest. That culture and competition among them becomes institutionalized and it is ingrained into their personal egos. The real problem with police culture in America is that by and large policing has become institutionalized as profit based and ego-driven.
Hit the nail right on the head
At the beginning of this lecture,the professor stated that "government is probably going to win" and began to speak from the police/state's point of view. Where are the tips for the future criminal defense lawyers? The government doesn't always win during vehicle searches. Although Carroll vs USA allows warrant less searches, cops still must be able to articulate probable cause or reasonable suspicion before the search. Usually they can't. If a driver continues to use and insist upon his 4th amendment right by not consenting to the search and his 5th to shut up, the government CAN'T win. This should have been taught to the future criminal defense lawyers. No mention of K9 units nor Rodriguez vs USA either???
Cops in CA searched my car even though i said i do t consent. Made up some bs about pupil dilation and saying I was prob on drugs lol. Untrue oc but expected cop-behavior nowadays.
Carolina in Fort Worth, I've got a story for you.....
.... Thoughtful Aquarius in Fort Worth.
😇
If I refuse my consent and an officer coerces my consent under duress or force without a true probable cause, It's like I'm being raped. Once an officer at a checkpoint said if I didn't give my consent then that IS probable cause. Man he was horney! I was sober and had nothing. Afterward I was shaken and scared. I'm sure he had a smile and cigarette afterward.
YOU DRIVE YOU AGREE TO GIVE UP SOME OF YOUR RIGHTS.
howard bootlicker
What if your car is on your property in The driveway!
They can’t search it without warrant cause it’s in your property
Sooo... You basically seem to be saying that we have no rights. As you said, and I quote "The Government is probably going to win". Why even go to law school, then?
$
I watched 16 minutes to hear you finally tell them the truth. In your presentation I wasn't sure if you are speaking to attorneys or people in general. I would update the video starting with: many cops are highly trained to search your car and bust you.
They know and practice what to look for and what questions to ask that satisfy the judges. They act as your friend to feel you out and they can lie all day long. They ask pointless stupid questions to confuse you. They berate you and keep pestering you if you don't want to answer. They are watching your hands for shaking, nervousness, stuttering, confusion and sweating. All of these are suspicion of a crime so they will ask to search your car.
They know the majority of people are breaking some law. Having prescription drugs without the prescription is a potential felony. Smelling pot or seeing some pipe or rolling papers constitutes "probable cause" and will get your car searched and your phones and computers seized. Don't tell a cop your moving because then he gets to search your house because it is in your car or truck. You can sit in the patrol car for hours until he has enough to arrest you.
Don' forget about the three stages of police contact. The "camaraderie" stage where you are just having a friendly chat. The "investigative detention" stage where you are confined while they write you a warning for some infraction. Be careful here, they are trained to switch between these two stages by saying certain key words. Finally the "arrest" stage where they can do groin searches for weapons. This is also where they can steal any cash they find because there is no proof and even if you tell them before they take you to jail they don't have to get it for you. It's gone.
This is all from current reading of Wyoming Supreme Court decisions from motions to suppress evidence in a search. Why do the attorneys even bother to file them?
This reminds me of the movie 'Back to School' when Rodney Dangerfield asks the economics professor, _"Where this business you're talking about, Fantasyland? Who's gonna pay off the mob, who's gonna pay off the unions, who's gonna pay off the city inspectors?"_
This law professor seems equally naive and more than a little removed from real world searches.
What do you say when a police officer says, "Your invocation of Constitutional rights and refusal to consent to a search gives me [the police officer] sufficient probable cause to search your car."
Or, when the police officer knowingly chuckles at your refusal of a search and gets the drug detection dog to walk around your car and says, _"Welp, surprise surprise, the dog alerted us to drugs, so we get to search your car."_
Everybody knows those drug dogs couldn't sniff out Juan Valdez in a sandbox. If fact, they're actually less reliable than a coin flip, but SCOTUS, being just as ignorant to reality as this law professor, still has unflagging faith in the drug detection dogs.
Seems that everything this guy said is unreasonable searches. BTW having a weapon on my person or nearby in the car is a daily norm and is legal by state statute and a constitutionality protected right (2nd amendment).
Yet they still stole stuff from my car. Even my house that they claim “nothing was taken”
More than half of the stuff they took from my home and vehicle all disappeared “into thin air” it’s truly bull****
You don't lose your rights it just that you have to know the other cases which give you back the rights to question government over-reach, the government have a right to keep peace and order, but do not have a right to enter your life.
Who is government?? the government will win??? in other words the US Constitution is just a list of suggestions
our parents, after signing the birth certificate unknowingly gave away our first right. bringing yourself to being a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN is this the best way to reestablishing your constitutional rights?
Can a police officer have you empty your belongings into your car with cell phone and tell you to lock it up (after you called them to Report a home burglary while you'd been at parents Wake. I owned the car as a gift 1 month before Mothers Stroke and Fall. Title and Registration transferred to me. Arrested on 1 year old warrant. After arrested officer asked to search car. I told him 3 different times to get a warrant. I had a Ounce of Weed in bottom of Closed Center counsel. He actually said he wanted to see in trunk. Told him I'd open trunk. He said if I'll open the trunk THEN I should give him my keys to search the front. At which time I told him to get a warrant. He said my Brother is the Executive of Mom's stuff. He gave permission. They now say I interfered with a investigation. A felony. Cause I refused a search. And after searching the car. Had it Towed but no holds on it. Didn't need a release. This all happened on 11-17-2016. So statue of limitations in Illinois is 3 years. Gotta be in court again in February. What can I do.
i did not concent in a vehical nor peorson search, so they get the k-9 dog to run the whole time the dog was trying to pull away the officer kept pointing and saying here, he put dog up and told me their is your fucking warrant, then searched myself my car and my purse also searched my 2 passangers without concent. i was cuffed put in cruiser and ask if i would work for them , i was detained in cuffs in cruiser for 45 min setting on site of stop mean while they asl me 3 more time if i wanted to work out a dealnever did the officer or k=9 cop read me my miranda rights/. then a under cover pulls up i was ask if id talk to him i said ill talk to everyone, i stated to undercover i dont do drugs, buy drugs, nior sell drugs i can not help you, the under cover read me the miranda then 5 min later i hear 9 christy sargent an officer opens door uncuffs me gives me a citation and sent me walking, they towed my car 10n min fter stop and sent my two passangers walking at same time
is any of this legal, i feel my right were violated along with my passangers, i feel my property was seized unlawfuly, and i feel i was detained in cuff on traffic stop site unlawfuly, the cop tried to bully me into being an informant
i have no drug history i raised 7 kids and have 9 grandkids cops had no reason to belive i was on drugs or commiting a crime a bogus reason for the stop was implied
on citation it stated ins verify stop same 2 cops puklled me over april 4th and seen ins card, reg, and license
i had a van that was registered as a house car,.....got stopped one night , had guns pulled on me , van was searched,...nothing found ,...police tossed my wallet on ground and took off........duh
Consensual, or NOT, anytime a law enforcement officer has access to your vehicle, there is a very good chance that they WILL plant 'evidence' in the vehicle.
Worg people in jail !!!
Wow, so many students pecking away on their devices. Are we to assume they are diligently taking notes of the lecture...??
Arresting someone for suspended license is unconstitutional because it's a civil infraction... Right?
Against read the prohibition of states that when creating a court of law read ohio constitution and Florida about the courts
The girl typing is hot
probable cause we have no rights in a police state does this guy work for the d.a.
It's clear your to damn slow to understand what he's saying. You criminal lawyer understands what he's saying, because he had to learn it, to pass law school. THIS IS PART OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT AND CASE LAWS, WHICH GIVES EXCEPTIONS TO GETTING A WARRANT !! LISTEN AND LEARN.
@@tax905972 boot licker
Reasonable articulatable suspicion of what? Ras is an incomplete idea at law
Ras that a crime is was or will be comitted by me in an officers view or presence. (Texas)
27 state legislatures have given their citizens a absolute right to carry a pistol on their person concealed or open. Therefore the terry language burden can not be met.
I.e..armed and dangerous, for in over half the states being armed is lawful.
Therefore a patdown can only turn on being dangerous. And that is a specific type of crime.
Crime is the nexus of interaction..
The condition of 1965 ohio have forever changed. Time to get into the present with present day conditions and theory that stems fro the same.
Not your mothers legal precidents fron 58 years ago.
I don't have any kind of degree , but as soon as you conveyed to those students that the government will win because there are a lot of different theories they can use to explain it away, I would want my money back. You realize that you are teaching them that the action of invading one's privacy is okay, and that is unacceptable. The lecture sure sounds like there is a certain bias as to how you teach your class, and what does that say to justice?
You say you won't discuss seizures, but if the original seizure is bogus, then nothing during the stop is legitimate.
I am more and more disappointed beyond description, that attorneys, and those who are now teaching law, have just decided that our inalienable rights are not even something in the equation, or just an inconvenience as to the wanting of police to get into, or take property from the ones that they took an oath to protect. I will go look at your other videos, but maybe, we need to teach just where the police and all these politicians' authority and positions are derived from in the first place, which is only from the CONSENT of the people they are to govern over.
I live where the local police are known for being brutal, more so recently. Very public executions of unarmed people, hands up, begging the police not to kill them, yet still very much dead. And the shooting of people in the back, where is the danger there- i was so scared for my life that , when i knew i couldn't catch him, i shot him in the back?
sorry, got on a rant.n As a teacher, the people should be able to trust that , especially law, is being taught according to our Constitution, and not starting from a very biased premise that the police are always correct as a default stance. And this is always left out when discussing traffic stops and searches, is that the probable cause requirement, is really, probable cause of a "crime" . Not code, policy, or statute. Law. And to even stop one's locomotion, the have to personally witness someone damage property, hurt another person, have a warrant, or have a witness that has given credible info prior to that time. And isn't the community caretaking doctrine the goto for everything that is not related to criminal activity now?
I truly hope my first impression about all this is wrong. If I find it to be after seeing more videos, i will be happy to state that, and retract this opinion with an apology. thank you.
👏👏👏👏👏
Excellent statement! 👍
I am sorry we do not give up our Constitution wright ,so a court can not give way our right protected by constitution, if you do you have given up you judicial power outlined in such document and you are still talking about Comercial use,not private property ,house hold goods,and you keep talking probable cause and they never do and then make something up
This is junk law.
This is constitutional law.
Using words like ''car'' and ''automobile'' as defined, exposes your bullshit. Car derived from ''carriage'', see Arthur v Morgan. An automobile is not a motor vehicle and both are non-commercial. Is your foreign registration up to date?
I beat city hall and beat cases in court as often as I can, by their invitation. All police operate under color of law. My TOWN, a corporation, can't prove me one of its citizens and more recently neither could the COUNTY or the STATE.
What does the Constitution say??????
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” -
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
You are full of shit. At no time does the color of law trump the common law or Constitutional law. Just because the legislature votes something in doesn't mean it's law, a positive law. There are no courts in the uS they're all administrative courts operating outside the judges oath. Theories, nor assumptions/presumptions are evidence. I won a right to travel case last year, no DL, registration, insurance plus 3 more. I'd beat it before pleading too, second appearance.
By accepting that color of law supersedes Constitutional law has me believing you are an attorney indoctrinator and not a lawyer. See Uniform Bonding Code Section 5.1 where the Code defines ''Lawyer''.
I live in Keyes, Oklahoma and not KEYES OKLAHOMA (TOWN OF KEYES OKLAHOMA), and I live in Cimarron County Oklahoma and not CIMARRON COUNTY OKLAHOMA, and I live in the State of Oklahoma and not STATE OF OKLAHOMA, and having no valid contract exchanging a right for a corporate benefit has put all 3 corporations in a situation they can't prove I'm one of their corporate citizens to be sanctioned in ANY way and now instead of the local sheriff's dept harassing me they wave.
Is your foreign agent registration up to date because you teach treason is excusable.
Please stand still.....stop dancing. I value your lecture but your movements are so distracting that I have to listen and not watch.