Legal Search?

[Mason]

Wear your seatbelt in New Jersey!

I was pulled over by a cop for not wearing my seatbelt. The passenger in my car was a coworker, Steve, who I was taking to the job site. Steve also wasn't wearing his seatbelt, so he was getting a ticket as well. He didn't have identification on him, so the cop asked a series of questions to better confirm the name when he would run it through the system.

After running the name through the system, the cop gave me my seatbelt ticket and asked me to step away from the car. A crowd of cops had arrived by that point, one of which had brought a dog. Steve was asked to step from the car, and he was promptly cuffed and taken to one of the cruisers. He had a handful of warrants for outstanding fines.

Standard proceedure so far, I would guess. The next step was a surprise to me as they brought the dog to my car and began crawling through the car searching it. None of the cops asked my permission, though they did repeatedly ask me if there was anything illegal in the car. Knowing that nothing was in the car, I kept answering "Nope, the car is clean", but I never agreed to the search or gave my permission.

Here is my problem with the situation. As I understand the law, police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity of a crime scene or an arrest scene to find evidence of the crime. In this case, the crime was not wearing a seatbelt and not paying certain court fines. The way I see it, there was no cause for the search, as there would not reasonably be further evidence of the crimes hidden within the car.

As it turns out, the dog sniffed out a positive on the passenger side of the car, in the little compartment on the door. A pack of cigarettes was found and a roach was found in the pack. It was obvious to all the police who the pack belonged to, so they simply confronted Steve and he admitted to owning it.

The cops were all in agreement that I had no knowledge of the weed, and there was no need to involve me further in the matter, though they did continue to comb through my car.

So, I'm searching the web for specific laws regarding the legal searching process. Mostly academic, of course, since I'm not being prosecuted for anything, but Steve is now facing two drug charges for posession when the evidence may have been found illegally.

The way I see it (and I could be wrong) is that the search was conducted without cause (since no evidence could possibly be found for the crimes committed), and therefore any evidence found through that search would be illegal.

So, anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

Oh, if you're driving in New Jersey, wear your seatbelt.

 

[crimresearch]

1> Don't waste time getting legal adice from the Internet.
2> When you DO talk to a practicing criminal defense attorney in that jurisdiction, just tell them everything that happened, don't try to create a narrative that supports any particualr point of view.

Based on what you've said above, it would be easy enough to agree that this was an illegal search and violates recent Supreme Court rulings...trouble is, its the things that you *didn't* say, which are going to come out in court.

 

[KelvinG]

I'm glad to see police in New Jersey are cracking down on society's new terror, non-seatbelt wearing ruffians.

I can only imagine the countless number of ways they could have been spending their time more productively.

 

[Mason]

Based on what you've said above, it would be easy enough to agree that this was an illegal search and violates recent Supreme Court rulings...

That's pretty much what I'm looking for. Before shelling out cash for a lawyer, I'd like to find recent rulings that support one side of the case or the other. I can find sites listing laws, but actual court cases are more telling as to how those laws are interpreted. Basically, I'm looking to see if it would be worth pursuing before paying a lawyer to tell me it isn't worth pursuing.

 

[Tmy]

I think the police can legally do a seach after an arrest.

 

[crimresearch]

"Here is my problem with the situation. As I understand the law, police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity of a crime scene or an arrest scene to find evidence of the crime. In this case, the crime was not wearing a seatbelt and not paying certain court fines. The way I see it, there was no cause for the search, as there would not reasonably be further evidence of the crimes hidden within the car.

As it turns out, the dog sniffed out a positive on the passenger side of the car, in the little compartment on the door. A pack of cigarettes was found and a roach was found in the pack. It was obvious to all the police who the pack belonged to, so they simply confronted Steve and he admitted to owning it."

I'm literally heading out the door, and don't have the USSC cite about not piggybacking searches onto traffic tickets without independent PC, in front of me, but using the dog which was on the scene seems OK...putting the dog *inside* the vehicle appears to violate one important aspect of the 'plain smell' doctrine, namely that the police or their 'agents' have a right to be where they were when they discovered the evidence...if the dog alerted from outside the car, this would appear to be a textbook good bust.
But after giving you a ticket, they shouldn't have been able to go inside the vehicle without probable cause of a new and different crime.

 

[Tony]

If this was really the land of the free, those cops would already be in prison.

 

[Tmy]

The seat belt pullover laws are just pretext so cops can stop and harrass people wh/o any real cause.

I think the search is Ok cause your buddy was arrested on warrents. When soemone is arrested the cops have all sorts of searching leway.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Basically, I'm looking to see if it would be worth pursuing before paying a lawyer to tell me it isn't worth pursuing.

Um. Pursuing what? A claim for damages on the non-arrest?

 

[Suddenly]

Um. Pursuing what? A claim for damages on the non-arrest?

I think he wants the evidence suppressed in the case against his buddy. He may want to ask that same lawyer they get to explain the concept of "standing" to them as it relates to the supression of evidence in a criminal case, and how that standing issue has been ruled on is cases where the intitial stop was held legitimate and a passenger wants to object to a search...

 

[Hutch]

Not exactly the same thing, but this site gives some background and some info (BTW, the Supremes upheld the search as legal.)

But what about a car? Do Americans have the same right to privacy when they take to the nation's roads and highways?

Not even close, say legal experts.

"When you are in a car, you are fair game," says Tracey Maclin, a law professor and Fourth Amendment scholar at Boston University School of Law.

Food for thought...

 

[crimresearch]

"But what about a car? Do Americans have the same right to privacy when they take to the nation's roads and highways?

Not even close, say legal experts.

"When you are in a car, you are fair game," says Tracey Maclin, a law professor and Fourth Amendment scholar at Boston University School of Law."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact same rights as in their homes? No, but that doesn't support the notion that people have no rights in a car.

The principles behind car searches are based upon balancing individual rights and government responsibilities under the same Constitution as decisions regarding any other searches and siezure... and the requirements and elements of probable cause, plain view, exigency, officer safety, etc aren't thown out, they are given different credence relative to the difference between a car and a house.

The classic Carrol doctrine wasn't a case of the USSC saying 'Anything goes, hey its just a car'...it was a recognition that people weren't as likely to drive their house away and destroy evidence while the police sat around waiting for warrant, which in turn extended the notion of an exigent exception for vehicle searches.

Same notion for the distinction that stopping someone in a car isn't typically an arrest, but similar circumstaces inside a building *may* be an arrest..triggering Miranda in a police station interview situation, but not in a traffic stop.

And as vehicle search doctrines have been established, both police and perpetrators have attempted to 'stretch' certain aspects to their own advantage, causing the Court to revisit and refine the issues...
Such as the previously mentioned 'piggybacking' of traffic tickets and full blown search (struck down by the court), and the above case of defendants trying to distance themselves from the vehicle.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry to veer off topic but how does a roach justify an arrest? Please excuse my ignorance. I thought you had to have some minimum amount for an arrest that is more than a roach. Of course I'm in California so I'm probably confusing state law with federal or something. I have been making that mistake allot lately.

 

[crimresearch]

More ikely that the FTAs triggered the arrest, and the small amount of a controlled substance was just gravy.

 

[Mason]

Thanks everyone for the input.

The arrest was made because he had warrants for unpaid fines. Before the arrest was made, cops gathered on the scene and were more or less just hanging out in the vicinity. The k-9 officer was one of the cops hanging around (I knew him by the dog leash he was fidgiting with), but the dog was still in his vehicle when Steve was arrested. When his name came back over the computer as having warrants, he was taken from the car, cuffed, and put into the back of one of the cruisers.

Then, I was asked to step from the vehicle, at which point the dog was led to the vehicle. The police opened the doors and let the dog run around in my car. The dog found a positive on the passenger door, continued searching with no more positives, and then the cops began a more detailed search of the interior by hand.

The dog wasn't simply hanging out by the car scratching at the door in a surprising coincidence. He was leashed and brought to the car with the specific intention of a full search.

It would be one thing if the kid had drugs on him, and they were searching for more evidence of his crime. If they did have a reasonable suspicion that there would be evidence of his crime present, they would be justified in searching the immediate vicinity. But his crime was not wearing a seatbelt and not paying previous court fines. I can't see how a dog would sniff out evidence related to these crimes, which is what I'm looking into.

At this point it's mostly academic. I had hoped he would avoid jail time, but his previous unpaid fines will probably be enough to lock him up (losing me a decent worker, which is hard to find in the concrete business). My current agitation is simply with the legality of the whole situation.

Oh, and wear your seatbelt in New Jersey.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Do you happen to know what your friend's warrants were for?

I'm guessing they might have been contempt of court/failure to appear at mininum, but he could have had nearly any charge against him (incuding felonies) in addition to just unpaid fines.

Just curious.