7 Exceptions to the search warrant rule

Sarge48

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 25, 2011
9
1
As for the case in Indiana...The LEO stopped the driver under the impression that he performed an illegal maneuver by turning into the right lane of a 4 lane road on a left turn. The LEO believed the driver was required to turn into the left of the two lanes in his direction. Also, his LTC was expired. The reason the courts threw out the drug charge is because the stop wasn't legal in the first place. :dunno:
 

fireblade

Sharpshooter
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Oct 30, 2011
837
18
Earth
Didn't see it mention , police or any agencys do not need a warrant to look thru or take items into evidence from your trash you leave out on the road for pick-up........:cool::twocents:
 

HCRMPD1

Plinker
Rating - 97.8%
45   1   0
Jan 4, 2012
77
8
Indiana
As it appears that I am entering this forum a tad bit on the late side I the following to offer.

First, let me thank you as a citizen and a fellow Marine back in "82" from the stumps, for your service to God, Corps, and Country.

Second, as a police officer I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States not the orders of the Commander and Chief or any other single individual and defend it again all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Just my thoughts on your observation.

"Semper Fi"
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
26,171
113
HCRMPD1: It is indeed a shame that so few seem to realize this. Most in my observation are more concerned with expanding their own positions in the world rather than being motivated to do the right thing. I commend you for your excellent application of the oath!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 29, 2012
14
1
In a 1981 case (New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454)10, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer arrests a person in a vehicle, the officer may search the vehicle’s passenger compartment, including any open or closed containers, but not the trunk.

THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS KEEP MY GUNS AND STUFF IN THE TRUNK
... even though I have a carry permit
In 1999, the court ruled in Maryland v. Dyson (527 U.S. 465)11 that a warrantless search of a vehicle may be justified if an officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, controlled substances or criminal evidence. The court reiterated that although the search is limited to areas where the officer has probable cause to believe an item may be located, the search extends to any container found that might contain the item.

of course there is also a supreme court case which upheld taking a soccer mom to jail over a seat belt violation whose max penalty was a fifty dollar fine ... also if they choose to impound your car when they arrest you then they do an inventory search of the whole thing "for your protection of personal items" ... though this is quite a lot of trouble and jumping through hoops on the part of the cops ... somebody correct me if I misquote the law but basically you only have any decently strong constitutional protections remaining in your own home
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CountryBoy1981

Marksman
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sep 12, 2011
446
18
New York v. Belton is no longer the rule. Under Belton, the police could search the interior of a vehicle so long as the person arrested was recently an occupant of the vehicle. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), overturned this rule. Under Gant, the police officer may search the interior of an automobile after arresting the occupant if: (1) the arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the vehicle; or (2) the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle.
 

Hoosierkav

Expert
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Dec 1, 2012
1,013
22
South of Indianapolis
The police are hunting for a bad guy (think Boston Marathon). Do exigent circumstances prevail and I cannot deny entry?

If an officer is detaining a person, and does an officer safety patdown (?), if contraband is found, does that count? (IMO, a patdown should be for hard objects, not for squishy sandwich bags with squishy substances therein).
 

gamecrimez

Plinker
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Jun 23, 2016
59
6
Lafayette
A lot of great info here. Only thing I hate is when the cops lie. My girlfriend was pulled over before for a minor traffic violation. The cop ran her license & registration (which is registered to me) he said the vehicle didn't have insurance & had it impounded, my car did indeed have insurance as I pay it for a year every year I get my tax check. He then proceeded to search the vehicle. There was nothing found & I had to show proof of insurance & pay to get my car out of impound plus pay her ticket. It was total bs & costed me hundreds of dollars in tow fees impound fees as I couldn't get the money immediately all because the cop lied. It was about 5 blocks from the house & I tried walking up their when she got dropped off from taxi to show proof of insurance I printed from online as the 1 in the car im not sure what happened to it & im sure he could of also called the insurance place to get proof as well. Well by the time I got their the tow truck was leaving as well as the officer.
 

Frank_N_Stein

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Nov 24, 2008
8,912
77
Beech Grove, IN
A lot of great info here. Only thing I hate is when the cops lie. My girlfriend was pulled over before for a minor traffic violation. The cop ran her license & registration (which is registered to me) he said the vehicle didn't have insurance & had it impounded, my car did indeed have insurance as I pay it for a year every year I get my tax check. He then proceeded to search the vehicle. There was nothing found & I had to show proof of insurance & pay to get my car out of impound plus pay her ticket. It was total bs & costed me hundreds of dollars in tow fees impound fees as I couldn't get the money immediately all because the cop lied. It was about 5 blocks from the house & I tried walking up their when she got dropped off from taxi to show proof of insurance I printed from online as the 1 in the car im not sure what happened to it & im sure he could of also called the insurance place to get proof as well. Well by the time I got their the tow truck was leaving as well as the officer.
Did you file a complaint on the officer? And what does that incident have to do with exceptions to the search warrant rule?
 

HoughMade

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 24, 2012
30,395
149
Valparaiso
....what does that incident have to do with exceptions to the search warrant rule?

I'll take a stab at this. Cops lie, so judges should issue search warrants based upon their affidavits.

You all lie. It seems like you, of all people, would know that all of you lie all the time.

It's not like the BMV records ever mistakenly show a lack of insurance or some other innocent mistake ever happens.

To reiterate. Cops lie.
 

gamecrimez

Plinker
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Jun 23, 2016
59
6
Lafayette
Did you file a complaint on the officer? And what does that incident have to do with exceptions to the search warrant rule?

Has nothing to do with the search warrant rule, I stated a lot of great info, then referred to a time an officer lied & had my car impounded just to justify a search as he was not giving permission but if they really want to search the vehicle they will find a way as they did in my girlfriends case. Note nothing illegal was found & had the cop done his job I wouldn't of been out a couple hundred dollars & a days work. I don't understand why the cops don't follow the law they are sworn to uphold. The search was illegal as the car was completely legal & just cause the registration couldn't be found or misplaced isn't a reason to search a vehicle I guess in my own opinion.

If you loan the car out, make sure the person has proof of insurance.

My girlfriend is on my insurance policy, I believe 1 of my kids got in the glove box to get something & either grabbed or dropped the proof. Although on my registration is the insurance info as well as im making payments thru a car place & its mandatory. Also officer was giving the number to call as well as I would of shown him the printed version but he could care less as I think he knew it was insured but that wasn't going to get him in to search.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,865
119
And what does that incident have to do with exceptions to the search warrant rule?

Well he said nothing, but possibly the Impounded Vehicle Inventory. From what I can find you are not required to carry proof of insurance in your vehicle, unless the officer has PC that the car isn't insured, they shouldn't be able to impound simply because they couldn't show proof at the scene. Here are two court cases regarding it. The one the car was impounded and wasn't insured. The driver said he thought it was insured by state farm and gave the owners name, the officer called and found out that the car had been insured through them but had lapsed due to non payment. The other the car was impounded and the person was arrested for failing to show proof of insurance, then later charged possession and other charges on what was found, the car did have insurance and the court threw out the evidence and stated this "Under the 1994 amendment, Indiana law no longer requires a motorist to prove financial responsibility for her vehicle. Thus, a failure to show proof of financial responsibility is not a chargeable offense, and Hammond's arrest on those grounds was unlawful".


I had the same thing happen to me, I was test driving my wife's car after doing work on it and was stopped for no seat belt. The car was impounded when I couldn't find the proof of insurance.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2199671/hammond-v-state/
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07201001nhv.pdf
 

Frank_N_Stein

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Nov 24, 2008
8,912
77
Beech Grove, IN
Has nothing to do with the search warrant rule, I stated a lot of great info, then referred to a time an officer lied & had my car impounded just to justify a search as he was not giving permission but if they really want to search the vehicle they will find a way as they did in my girlfriends case. Note nothing illegal was found & had the cop done his job I wouldn't of been out a couple hundred dollars & a days work. I don't understand why the cops don't follow the law they are sworn to uphold. The search was illegal as the car was completely legal & just cause the registration couldn't be found or misplaced isn't a reason to search a vehicle I guess in my own opinion.



My girlfriend is on my insurance policy, I believe 1 of my kids got in the glove box to get something & either grabbed or dropped the proof. Although on my registration is the insurance info as well as im making payments thru a car place & its mandatory. Also officer was giving the number to call as well as I would of shown him the printed version but he could care less as I think he knew it was insured but that wasn't going to get him in to search.

So did you file a complaint and sue the department to recoup your lost $?
 

Frank_N_Stein

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Nov 24, 2008
8,912
77
Beech Grove, IN
Well he said nothing, but possibly the Impounded Vehicle Inventory. From what I can find you are not required to carry proof of insurance in your vehicle, unless the officer has PC that the car isn't insured, they shouldn't be able to impound simply because they couldn't show proof at the scene. Here are two court cases regarding it. The one the car was impounded and wasn't insured. The driver said he thought it was insured by state farm and gave the owners name, the officer called and found out that the car had been insured through them but had lapsed due to non payment. The other the car was impounded and the person was arrested for failing to show proof of insurance, then later charged possession and other charges on what was found, the car did have insurance and the court threw out the evidence and stated this "Under the 1994 amendment, Indiana law no longer requires a motorist to prove financial responsibility for her vehicle. Thus, a failure to show proof of financial responsibility is not a chargeable offense, and Hammond's arrest on those grounds was unlawful".


I had the same thing happen to me, I was test driving my wife's car after doing work on it and was stopped for no seat belt. The car was impounded when I couldn't find the proof of insurance.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2199671/hammond-v-state/
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07201001nhv.pdf

Thats just assinine. I could care less about someone not having insurance and don't think it should be enforced by LE.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,865
119
Thats just assinine. I could care less about someone not having insurance and don't think it should be enforced by LE.

I can agree with almost all of that. I do care if people have insurance though. I have uninsured/under insured insurance but I don't like my insurance taking the hit for someone else fault.
 

Cameramonkey

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
30   0   0
May 12, 2013
19,312
77
Camby area
Well he said nothing, but possibly the Impounded Vehicle Inventory. From what I can find you are not required to carry proof of insurance in your vehicle, unless the officer has PC that the car isn't insured, they shouldn't be able to impound simply because they couldn't show proof at the scene. Here are two court cases regarding it. The one the car was impounded and wasn't insured. The driver said he thought it was insured by state farm and gave the owners name, the officer called and found out that the car had been insured through them but had lapsed due to non payment. The other the car was impounded and the person was arrested for failing to show proof of insurance, then later charged possession and other charges on what was found, the car did have insurance and the court threw out the evidence and stated this "Under the 1994 amendment, Indiana law no longer requires a motorist to prove financial responsibility for her vehicle. Thus, a failure to show proof of financial responsibility is not a chargeable offense, and Hammond's arrest on those grounds was unlawful".
I had the same thing as highlighted. At least I assume the officer from hell that held me for 30-45 minutes to verify the validity of my LTCH would have called my agent as well. He seemed hell bent on busting me for anything but the original excessive speed stop. (I was going normal posted speed in a technical* construction zone) I had 6 insurance cards in my glove box, but none of them were current. I was missing the ONE I needed. I had owned it for 3 1/2 years and my cards are semi-annual. We both laughed at the time about how my glove box was like a clown car for insurance cards.

*construction appeared complete, no workers or equipment present, barrels were pulled to the shoulder, no lane restrictions, etc. They just needed to collect the signs and barrels and they were done. (I wasnt paying attention to the signs and following the GPS posted speed limit since everything appeared to be normal)
I meant as far as enforcement, it shouldn't be a police matter.

I agree. Write a ticket if you must and let the judge invalidate it when proof is presented to the bench. Just like you do for an accident: Presumed innocent until the insurance agent wont sign off on the form for the accident. You shouldnt be calling for a tow simply for lack of insurance proof. ESPECIALLY if there is proof of prior coverage. Lack of drivers license? sure. But not insurance.
 
Top Bottom