Score 1 for the Constitution

[UtahApocalypse]

Looks like some courts still do understand our rights:


http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11363002

Police need cause to search motorists' cars

excerpt: "Police cannot stop or search people based on a hunch or intuition," he said.

If an officer sees an illegal item in plain view, such as marijuana or an open container of liquor in the passenger compartment, the officer can seize the item, Barnard said. But absent some illegal conduct or circumstances, that would not justify a search of the entire vehicle without a warrant, he said.

[nodope0695]

Looks like some courts still do understand our rights:

Wow, I guess in some places our "reasonable expectation of privacy" still holds. Too bad that's not the case with the internet, or even the library anymore.

[Ex Post Facto]

Looks like some courts still do understand our rights:

Good for the constitution. Police can only search a vehicle when a felony was committed, or when an item in plain view, leads an officer to be able articulate, that there could have been other items hidden from view.

Example: A copy pulls you over and sees an empty beer can on the floor of your back seat. The officer has every right to test you for being intoxicated and to check the cab area of the vehicle for any other alcohol present. However, the officer really couldn't go into your trunk without your permission as having alcohol in the trunk isn't against the law. Most cops though try to ask your permission in a slick way.
"What do you have in your trunk?" The correct response is "nothing." When they ask to see in the trunk you tell them they have no authority to search it otherwise they wouldn't be asking. If they persist, tell them "I'm not giving you permission; however, if you feel you have authority to search it then thats a decision they need to make based on the laws." Most cops of done this with decided to end the line of questioning.

[RATM99]

Looks like some courts still do understand our rights:



This hasn't gone to court yet. So the judge could still rule against her.

Same thing happened to me. I was driving home from work with my co-worker. We got pulled over by a 3 car caravan of State troopers. They pulled us over because my tag was dirty. It was a little dirty because earlier in the day we were loading drywall. And some drywall dust got on the tag. In the end it was a total bullshit excuse. The police officer ask to search my truck before even asking for my registration and insurance. Of course I told him no. He then told me that refusing the search gave him probable cause to search my truck. Of course I laughed at him and told him to read the Constitution because he was full of it. He didn't like that and then started to search my truck anyways with two other police officers. They searched the truck along with myself and my co-worker. They didn't find anything at all. And when they were done harrassing us. The cop wrote me a 100 dollar ticket for my tag being dirty. Which I cleaned when the officer first pointed it out. He wrote the ticket clearly out of spite because they found nothing.
And probably because I was laughing and joking at him the whole time. :)

I didn't pay the ticket. And I took the ticket to court. Because I wanted my case of illegal search to be heard. Of course the douchebag didn't show up so my ticket was thrown out. I still requested to speak to the judge. I told the judge what happened to me. And how I was illegaly search after I didn't give consent. The judge then told me the truth which I thank him for. He said that the constitution doesn't matter anymore. That all the police have to do is get a dog to come up to your car and bark. And that alone would give them probable cause. And that's it. So the constitution is null and void because of a dog. All they have to do is get the dog to bark. Which is the easiest trick to teach a dog. And your constitutional rights gets thrown out the window.