I wasn’t, I’m simply answering questions and going based off the OP. Cause you know they weren’t there either.
Last edited:
Ah, there we go! In 52 pages this is the first reasoned disagreement. Lots of relevant points to discuss. I don't mind disagreement on the substance. There just is no point in rudeness, which has merely the opposite of its intended effect.“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.
Understand your fundamental argument:
Fundamentally you are saying that the Fourth Amendment in toto applies only if a warrant is issued. All the government has to do to evade the Fourth Amendment requirements is not issue a warrant. Then the person is not secure against unreasonable search and seizure, no warrant is needed, no probable cause is required, no oath or affirmation, no particularity of place, persons, or things.
In that case what does the Fourth Amendment do? Why do we have it? To what purpose? Just to have words on a page without force of law?
Can you define "unreasonable search and seizure" as it applies to the 4th Amendment? You cannot because the term 'unreasonable' is so subjective. What is unreasonable to one is not so, to another.
That isn't his "fundamental argument". You don't get to be completely unreasonable and then accuse others of being rude. You also don't get to mischaracterize other people's statements to continue tilting at windmills, which only exist in your mind.
Instead, why don't you try learning how to be a reasonable man?
Wow! It is simply amazing how many of you know my son! Without your input I would have no idea what he wants or does not want. Thanks for filling me in!Meanwhile his kid keeps pleading, 'Just drop it Dad!'
Oh, yes I can! That is the topic at hand.
I agree "unreasonable" is subjective - unless supported by further language. It is. Read all following the comma and "and".
It is exactly his fundamental argument. Merely to gainsay is not refutation. Show how I misstated his argument.
That’s not what I’m saying. I was simply replying to your questions and gave you facts in regards to what you asked. 4th is unreasonable search is seizure. Nothing about that stop was unreasonable and was lawful. Again, courts have made rulings that show a vehicle is an exception. An exception doesn’t take away the 4th, it just gives it more details in certain areas of the 4th. Your sons rights weren’t violated. He was searched and seized legally.
Go get you a lawyer instead of arguing on an online forum in what you feel is right based on your definitions of what you read. There’s a whole lot of case law that rebuttals your thoughts.
" Instead, why don't you try learning how to be a reasonable man? "
But, but . . . that just sound too reasonable
If "unreasonable search" is subjective, lets' talk about the "sniff test" exception. How many police officers have used the "smell of marijuana" or "smell of alcohol" to unleash destructive searches on the vehicles of innocent motorists? Just a thought.
Similar threads
