Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Generally, a warrant is required to search your property. However, there are exceptions for automobiles. The main rationale for the exceptions is that since cars are mobile, they will be gone before an officer can get a warrant to search from a judge. A secondary rationale is that since cars are on public streets, drivers should have a reduced expectation of privacy compared to their homes.
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement has two parts:
1. If the police have probable cause that the car contains something illegal like a prohibited weapon or drugs, then they may search the car. Or if the police have probable cause that the car contains the tools used to commit a crime or the proceeds or evidence of a crime, then they may search the car.
Under this part of the exception, the officer can only search the part of the car where what he is looking for may be found.
So if a police officer pulls a driver over for speeding and smells marijuana, he may search the entire car for the drug, including any containers like cups or purses. But if he has probable cause to believe that you have an assault rifle in the car, he could only search where the gun could be hidden and not, say, in a thermos.
2. If an officer makes a lawful arrest of the driver of the car, he may make a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of the car. This search includes the glove compartment but not the trunk.
Note: an officer may always search your car without a warrant if you consent to the search. Sometimes police will pose the question with the implication that you do not have the legal right to refuse. However, you can refuse to consent.
And sometimes a police officer will search your car and then say that you consented when you did not. In a trial, your lawyer can move to suppress whatever the officer found that was illegal, and it will be your word versus the officer's about whether you consented to the search
Roberttx...We're not supposed to have to prove we're NOT guilty. The way it's supposed to work is that the state has to prove someone IS guilty.
Joke...Ever hear of the Fourth Amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Yes I do. You have to think like a doper. You want to make the police think you have nothing to hide, so why not let them search. They let them search because they think "Oh man this dope/Money is hidden so well they will never find it". Little do they know that when the Troopers around here search, THEY SEARCH (obviously for good reasons because they are getting alot). And like I said u have to take in the totallity of the circumstances. Im sure they dont ask everyone they stop to search that would take too much time. And you dont need probable cause to search, you need reasonable suspicion that a crime did, is about to, or has taken place. FYI you might wanna look up the laws before getting too deep into that subject.
the money is given back after proof of income
urajoke...Do you really believe that all those seizures of both dope and money result from the drivers telling the cop, "Sure, officer, go ahead and search my vehicle." I find it hard to believe that even dopers are that stupid. If they don't have probable cause to search, they can't without a warrant. Surely the bad guys know this. Besides, if the search is done pursuant to a warrant being issued, there can be no problem later with the doper saying the cop conducted an illegal search and maybe the court tossing the evidence. Take a lesson from Nancy Reagan and just say no when asked if they can search. Now, if you're detained until a sniffer dog shows up, you're gonna be busted, but at least you gave yourself a chance.
Why don't u people give it a rest. GOP was obviously being a little sarcastic, making a joke. Gees peeps lighten up a little bit. Frankly I kinda chuckled at his statement. Get ur panties outta that wad, and see the humor in it.
Okay let me start off by saying NO it is not illegal to carry that much cash. How many people carry a large sum of money in a hiddien spot within the vehicle? Come on folks you need to take in the totality of the circumstances here. Would u carry 169k in cash at all, let alone "The money, in 18 bundles and wrapped in plastic wrap and black duct tape, was found in an engine compartment" . Im sure it depends if they have ever been arrested for drugs or money laundering before too. And when they get interviewed im sure they end up admitting that its illegally obtained money or else they woulda been let go. All I am trying to say is instead of finding a reason to disagree with the article and the State Troopers that do a good job (thewaywardwind, ur really bad), how about we congradulate and pat all involved on the back and tell em good job and keep doing what ur doing.
How much cash you can have on your person before the LEOs consider you a drug runner sorta depends on which side of the bed the cop gets up on this morning. I've got some in my pocket this moring that plainly states, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE." Since that's the case, why is it illegal to carry it?
Thanks DPS for a job well done, keeping Victoria is safe means alot to my family!!!
To the Vic Ad...... How much cash can I have on me without it being taken from me as drug money?
It's against the law to carry money in the United States?