Warrantless search - Rogers County

[El Pablo]

And that, really, is all I am insisting: that the deputies of Rogers County uphold the oath they swore "to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States" in their interactions with the people they meet. That's all! It is interesting to see such a frenzy of opposition, in a Second-Amendment focused discussion group no less, over such a simple proposition!

Can we all at least agree that deputies of Rogers County, like all state officials in all states according to Article VI, paragraph 3, must support, obey, and defend the Consitution of the United States

Nope “must support, obey, and defend the Consitution [sic] of the United States” the word must made your argument logically flawed. Police don’t face legal or moral consequences for violating the forth amendment. The results of the an illegal search would just be tossed. Hence good luck on a remedy.

 

[El Pablo]

just a couple posts to go

I’m trying!

 

[tweetr]

Where was I rude? Oklahoma became a state 49 years after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Go waste your money trying to litigate this.

Here:

 

[tweetr]

Nope “must support, obey, and defend the Consitution [sic] of the United States” the word must made your argument logically flawed. Police don’t face legal or moral consequences for violating the forth amendment. The results of the an illegal search would just be tossed. Hence good luck on a remedy.

Nope. That also is not entirely true. Continuing in Section XV:
SECTION XV-2 Administration and filing of oath - Refusal to take - False swearing.
. . . any person refusing to take said oath, or affirmation, shall forfeit his office, and any person who shall have been convicted of having sworn or affirmed falsely, or having violated said oath, or affirmation, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall be disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit within the State.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I think you win. Where do we send the cash?

 

[El Pablo]

Here:
View attachment 344709

Look up mental masturbation, then go reread your arguments. I can’t think of a more appropriate term.

“Thought processes that only serve to satisfy oneself.”

 

[Rez Exelon]

 

[ef9turbo]

Not at all. Legality of the search (before the 14th Amendment) would depend on state law and the state constitution. Most state constitutions incorporate their own bills of rights. In our case you are without argument. Oklahoma Constitution, Article II, is titled Bill of Rights. For your reference here is:
SECTION II-30
Unreasonable searches or seizures - Warrants, issuance of.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

Does that look familiar?
(Why be rude about it?)

Nope. Inadvertent double.
(Why is that garbage? It's just the legal requirement to serve.)

“Unreasonable searches or seizures-WARRANTS, ISSUANCE OF.“

That’s your issue there. Vehicles don’t have the same expectation of privacy and warrantless searches can be done if it is reasonably contemporaneous with the stop. All that is needed is PC. The stop was conducted with PC per your own words. 10 minutes is reasonable. It was contemporaneous with the stop as the free air sniff occurred DURING the stop, which would in turn reasonably extend the duration of the said traffic stop to conduct a warrantless search.

So to answer your questions:

Did the deputies in this instance:
1) Violate his right as a person to be secure in his person, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure? NO, because it was contemporaneous with the stop, which was legal.
To answer that it is necessary to check off the requirements:
Did they:
2) Search persuant to a warrant? (No.) No, because a warrant was not needed.
3) Issued upon probable cause? (Partially. They established probable cause to search a third brake light, but not the rest of the car with a dog.) No, again because a warrant was not needed.
4) Supported by oath or affirmation? (No.) Yes, but in this instance you’re referring to a “warrant” search, so again, no warrant was needed.
5) Particularly describing the place to be searched? (No.) No, because describing a place is only needed in detail for a search warrant, not a warrantless search.
6) Particularly describing the persons or things to be seized? (No.) No, again, describing particular persons or things to be seized is only required while completing a search warrant

Again, I get you’re upset, but you continuously refer your sons stop to the requirements for a search warrant. The expectation of privacy of a vehicle has been beat to death and vehicles fall under the exceptions for a warrantless search.

The complaints you give wouldn’t work with your explanations, and a lawyer would tell you that. It’s a lost cause for you, but you could give it a shot. Any legit, competent lawyer will tell you that you won’t win. Goodluck though! Tell us how it goes.

 

[JEVapa]

pp 50

 

[Rod Carter]

Rod,



Do you believe "Joe Citizen" would have had the same results in an identical situation without whatever clout and recognition you had?

They should ask before any search,
A little common sense goes a long ways , decoys. Hunting clothes, camo shotgun ,

We sure weren't a couple of back robbers