The new ruling just applies to search incident to arrest (say you were driving without a license and the cop locks you up, he can't just search the whole interior because he locked you up now. Before, he could and was standard practice). If the vehicle is being towed then he is allowed to do an inventory of the vehicle in accordance of his agency's standard operating procedures. Anything he finds during the inventory can and will be used against you in court. IF the officer searches your vehicle "for officer safety reasons" sure better have a damn good reason (ie. your a known gang member, in a know drug/high violent crime area, furtive movement by any passenger, etc). I dont care what anyone says, cops cannot just search a car because they feel like it.

_________________

As we all know, a good officer isn't going to search your car for no reason, but you know as well as I do that he will always use this clause to his advantage whether you think he "better have a damn good reason" to or not. The only moral of the story is don't go telling a cop that your car is your private property, and he better have a search warrant, because it may cost you. Especially if you're a gun toting, crack dealing G.

This is basic law here. If a seasoned cop has an intuition you're a criminal, he can pat you down. Their training(and it being their profession) is supposedly adequate enough to necessitate a shake down. This is no more/less than the equivalent of this. Even so, the "he better have a damn good reason" rule really doesn't apply to the search, but only to the subsequent possible conviction. If he didn't search, then there would be no attempted prosecution either.

"THIS

"# the officer reasonably believes that he must search the vehicle for his or her own protection.""

That sentence is full of holes. There would have to be more reason to do that, such as what DC described, but only if occupants of the vehicle are still free to move around. An officer can conduct a "protective frisk" of a vehicle if he has reasonable suspicion that a weapon may have been within reach of an occupant. This "frisk" based on Terry vs. Ohio, only covers the suspect's wingspan or area within reach, not the entire vehicle.

If the driver is handcuffed only for the purpose of an investigative detention, a frisk could still be necessary since that person may be placed back in the vehicle soon. If they are arrested that safety concern is eliminated, and the officer will have to develop probable cause or gain consent for a more thorough search, since the Gant ruling.

Even before Gant though, police have never been able to search a car simply based on their safety concerns.

Please bro, you're a cop(as far as I know). Have you never searched a car w/o exigency? NM, you probably won't want to answer that.

As for the frisk, I wasn't covering that point, but that it describes what probable cause is. If an officer feels you're a suspicious person, he can frisk you. The same way your car will be searched if the cop feels your a suspicious character. You know this is true. The funny part is the cop is wrong over 90% of the time, and that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of searches conducted, yet not reported.

This article sums it all up pretty good.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=17

You will always have officers that push the limits, even go too far. I'm sure that it is not as common as you are making it out to be. Officers walk a fine line between good and evil. The funny thing is, they don't know who is who. There are officers who were killed because they didn't "frisk" someone or search a vehicle when they really should have. I guarantee I could probably find a video or two on youtube.....

_________________

"Please bro"? I'm here talking about legalities, and now you're trying to tell me what cops really do? I'm not getting into an argument about how corrupt you think we are. I deal with enough crap like that at work, I'm not going to waste my time with that on the i-net. You know all about us anyway, so what good would it do?

Don't be like that, bro.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Please bro, don't taze me.

_________________

_________________

Man, when the hell are we gonna get a beer?

_________________

I don't, we definitely need too. I just recently changed positions at work and getting use to a new schedule.

_________________

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Corrupt>>???? It sometimes amazes me the leaps and bounds people make on these boards. Things like " I hate smurfs" becomes "why do you hate blue things". If you ever learn one thing about me it's that I don't(or try not to) group people. You can be the same affiliation with something and be polar opposites of someone who else who does/likes the same thing.

I'm a HUUGE fan of allowing police the right to selective enforcement. I don't like blanket DUI enforcement is all. Why should the guy who was going 80 and blowing a .22 get the same as the guy who had 3 at dinner? Obviously this topic is too touchy, so we'll just agree to let it go, ok?

hate to add fuel to the fire but Virginia just weighed in on this GPS debate and they agree with warrantless GPS tracking. Now I'm very interested with what the US Supreme Court will decided next year.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/092010/09082010/574043

_________________

Just install GPS in all our cars and track them by VIN. I don't do anything illegal, and I don't care if you track me.

Just don't write me a speeding ticket based on it

_________________

Wouldn't ALL property be considered "private property" unless it were a school, park or some sort of obvious governmental institution/land. Im pretty sure basic common sense tells me my neighbors yard is his own "private property."

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking

YEAY! My fnatasy hockey teams name:

Don't Toews Me Bro!

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking

It's not fuel on the fire at all.

Different courts at different levels are ruling in completely opposite ways on this issue. That's a prime scenario for it to head to the Supreme Court, and if they rule on it we can discuss the merits of that ruling .