Warrantless search - Rogers County

[Glocktogo]

It's times like this...talking about botched **** jobs...that make me thankful the forum has standards on the type of pictures that can be posted. It's scary to think where this might go otherwise...

Shhh, don’t give RickN any ideas!

 

[El Pablo]

Shhh, don’t give RickN any ideas!

Rick had a botched **** job? I think I don’t want to see that…

 

[tweetr]

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.

I'd be interested to read those. Please provide citations.

Having reviewed Carroll v. United States and State v. Roberson, those cases actually refute the legality of this search.
To be clear, I am not referring to the stop for an inoperative third brake light, but to the subsequent search with dog and inquiry into matters not pertaining to the original reason for the stop. Read Paragraph 7 of Roberson.

 

[tweetr]

Why continue to waste bandwidth on this unreasonable knucklehead?

Why continue to be unaccountably rude? If you don't like the way the discussion is going, just go elsewhere and go on about your day. No one forces you to read a thread you don't like.

And why on earth do you care, anyway?

 

[tweetr]

Is that your airplane?

One of 'em!

 

[tweetr]

The frenzied, irrational opposition in this thread is interesting. In thumbnail, the conversation goes something like this:

Me: You have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

You: No I don't! How dare you suggest such a thing!

Why do you want, emotionally want, angrily want not to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure?

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Rick had a botched **** job? I think I don’t want to see that…

I don’t think any of us want to see his successful **** job either…., but it might improve this thread..maybe that was the original reason for the “stop”.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Why continue to be unaccountably rude? If you don't like the way the discussion is going, just go elsewhere and go on about your day. No one forces you to read a thread you don't like.

And why on earth do you care, anyway?

Oh, the irony. If you don't like what I post, don't read it. I'm actually in awe that you can be as ridiculously unwilling to grasp such a simple concept that's been explained to you with facts, over and over again. It's actually quite fascinating watching you struggle to argue your case when you have nothing but an unrealistic worldview to support what you say.

You can't wish something into existence in the real world. You might as well stop trying.

 

[THAT Gurl]

Do you have a lawyer yet??

 

[Snattlerake]

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.

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?

I pointed the exigent circumstances out a long time ago in post 236.