Since the men and women who serve as judges attended law school, the question must be asked what these law schools are teaching. Or perhaps a better question would be, “with what are these law schools indoctrinating their students?” Far too often we learn of judicial decisions that make no sense, and we’re not talking only of the bizarre decisions federal judges have made regarding President Trump’s travel ban.
The courts have power because the people respect them and the executive branches enforce their decisions. Take these away, and the courts just turn into editorial departments. Sometimes it seems like that is the direction they wish to take.
More on page two.
Is what you’re saying “The Officer’s Instinct and experience” incidentally caused him to Search a Vehicle that actually concealed Drugs, but it should be thrown out since there was no prior Case Law in support? BS, Legislating from the Bench is a problem. The average person on the street knows a very small ZipLock Baggie or a tied off Baggie with a hole torn in it is 10 times as likely to have belonged to a “user” than someone eating from the Baggie.
I tend to side with the CONSTITUTION that says you cannot search without a warrant.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2017/20170310/110439.pdf
Y’all might want to read the undisputed facts of the case, which involve a bit more than just a reclined seat and a torn plastic bag (my respect for Truth and Action just dropped a bit due to the way it presented this case). The officer initiated a traffic stop for an observed traffic violation. In the short time between the officer observing the defendant and the officer approaching the stopped vehicle, the passenger reclined her seat in an apparent attempt to conceal something. In other words, if she’d been reclined all along, the reclined seat would be meaningless. It was her act of reclining the seat that contributed to there being probable cause. Further, the “torn plastic bag” wasn’t just some beat up, leftover sandwich bag with crumbs and such. It had the corner torn out, which is the characteristic result of a common practice of securing ones drugs (particularly pot) in the corner of the bag, twisting it up and tearing that corner off, a practice with which this particular officer was familiar (this practice is news to me, but, again, this is an uncontested fact… and apparently also actually true since they admitted that’s what they were doing with the bag).
All three of those circumstances (the reclining after the officer engages, the bag with a specific tear pattern that’s characteristic of drug storage, and the officer’s experience with such bags) provide probable cause that some crime is being committed (specifically, that contraband is in the vehicle). Since the suspected contraband is in a vehicle, the exigent circumstances requirement for warrantless searches is satisfied.
It’s interesting to note, the court didn’t reach the inevitable discovery issue, since that seems like it would be the simpler way of disposing of the case (same result; evidence admissible). Both the driver and the passenger had arrest warrants out on them, which was discovered during the stop, meaning the vehicle would be impounded and an inventory search would have been done, discovering the firearm at issue.
Key takeaways from this case for anyone who doesn’t want their vehicle searched would be 1) don’t break traffic laws, 2) if you’re being pulled over, don’t do anything that makes it look like you’re hiding something, 3) don’t have items that are very specific to drug usage in the vehicle in plain site, and 4) don’t have arrest warrants out for you.
So by extension; in making a ruling like this, that is bound to be overturned, these judges have proven that they shouldn’t be on the bench!
The officer found a legally purchased AK-47 and no evidence of drugs in the vehicle or evidence of the vehicle occupants being under the influence.
There is a lot not being told in this article. It isn’t a torn plastic bag, it’s a plastic bag corner, a very specific type of bag wadded in a specific way that was cause for concern. I however do feel there needs to be recourse for warrantless searches being conducted with flimsy bases that turn up nothing.
Crickets!!!!!!
So I can’t kick back and nap while my wife drives for a while? Outrageous.
David Kent You, sir, are the voice of common sense; One thing everyone should realize is that most people taking an oath to protect and defend our Constitution have never completely read the document, much less studied it in depth. Getting the study of it back into the classroom, without political bias (in either direction) would be a major step in correcting the problem…thisold man will never live to see that happen.
If you think cops and prison guards make “lots of money” you need to do some research.
Read the article. Good stop and bad court decision
What next? Picking your nose can possibly be considered destroying evidence,….. LOL