" Your vehicle is an extension of your home ..."

[jmcrawf1]

" Your vehicle is an extension of your home ..."

So I guess my real world experience is negated by your Internet searching skills.

Ok. My bad. Carry on.

Wanna compare real world experiences? Tell me how they taught you about probable cause in diesel tech school.

 

[whitsend]

There are some instances where LEO can search your vehicle without a warrant.

1. Reasonable suspicion that you may have a weapon and then your "wingspan" is searched for officer safety

I will readily admit that I don't know everything and may be wrong on this, but I'm gonna call you on this one.

I have read some on the automobile exception and the case mentioned above, and I don't see any where an exception for when an officer thinks a weapon may be in "wingspan" as a reason for a warrantless search. It definitely is a reason to have the driver get out of the vehicle, but the exception is probable cause to believe contraband, i.e. bootlegged liquor, may be in the vehicle.

If you have statutory or case law that indicates otherwise I will readily admit my ignorance.

 

[geoney]

I will readily admit that I don't know everything and may be wrong on this, but I'm gonna call you on this one.

I have read some on the automobile exception and the case mentioned above, and I don't see any where an exception for when an officer thinks a weapon may be in "wingspan" as a reason for a warrantless search. It definitely is a reason to have the driver get out of the vehicle, but the exception is probable cause to believe contraband, i.e. bootlegged liquor, may be in the vehicle.

If you have statutory or case law that indicates otherwise I will readily admit my ignorance.

Ariziona vs. Grant is the predominant case law for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

Maryland vs. Buie is the one that applies to the same practice inside of a home
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Buie

Obviously there is other case law, but these are the predominant ones that set the case initially for protective sweeps and/or "wingspan" in relation to a vehicle.

Here is a little more information about the logic of the practice.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9... laW FOR SEARCHING WINGSPAN louisiana&f=false

Here is a Louisiana case that came up quickly:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1580558.html




It really is no different than a "Terry Stop" (terry vs ohio" whereas an officer can "frisk for weapons" when detaining someone for reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being, been, or about to be committed.

 

[allen1911]

Here is a quick video from the guy that I took my concealed handgun course from. He gives great information in his class.

 

[Gator 45/70]

Here is a quick video from the guy that I took my concealed handgun course from. He gives great information in his class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqULxn5T9LI

You do know whom this is?

 

[Saintsfan6]

You do know whom this is?

This is going to be good....

 

[DAVE_M]

So I guess my real world experience is negated by your Internet searching skills.

Ok. My bad. Carry on.

Wanna compare real world experiences? Tell me how they taught you about probable cause in diesel tech school.

You do know whom this is?

 

[charlie12]

You do know whom this is?

I do. And it's a good video.

 

[323MAR]

Brannon is a good man. I served in the same unit as him in the Marines. To say that I trust him would be an understatement.

 

[whitsend]

There are some instances where LEO can search your vehicle without a warrant.

1. Reasonable suspicion that you may have a weapon and then your "wingspan" is searched for officer safety

I will readily admit that I don't know everything and may be wrong on this, but I'm gonna call you on this one.

I have read some on the automobile exception and the case mentioned above, and I don't see any where an exception for when an officer thinks a weapon may be in "wingspan" as a reason for a warrantless search. It definitely is a reason to have the driver get out of the vehicle, but the exception is probable cause to believe contraband, i.e. bootlegged liquor, may be in the vehicle.

If you have statutory or case law that indicates otherwise I will readily admit my ignorance.

Ariziona vs. Grant is the predominant case law for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

Maryland vs. Buie is the one that applies to the same practice inside of a home
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Buie

Obviously there is other case law, but these are the predominant ones that set the case initially for protective sweeps and/or "wingspan" in relation to a vehicle.

Here is a little more information about the logic of the practice.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9... laW FOR SEARCHING WINGSPAN louisiana&f=false

Here is a Louisiana case that came up quickly:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1580558.html




It really is no different than a "Terry Stop" (terry vs ohio" whereas an officer can "frisk for weapons" when detaining someone for reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being, been, or about to be committed.

In all the cases you listed, the vehicle search was incident to an arrest, which was your #2 point. I agree with a search of a vehicle with out a warrant being legal incident to an arrest.

The point I took issue with was your #1 point, that an officer can search a vehicle without a warrant just based on "1. Reasonable suspicion that you may have a weapon and then your "wingspan" is searched for officer safety". Just because an officer believes an occupant of a vehicle has a legal weapon does not give them the right to search a vehicle without a warrant.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[whitsend]

It really is no different than a "Terry Stop" (terry vs ohio" whereas an officer can "frisk for weapons" when detaining someone for reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being, been, or about to be committed.

Arizona v. Johnson noted that a traffic stop is a "Terry Stop" and the driver and occupants and be removed from the vehicle and patted down. I still haven't found where they can search the vehicle based on reasonable suspicion that you have a weapon in the vehicle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Johnson
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/323/

(a) Terry established that, in an investigatory stop based on reasonably grounded suspicion of criminal activity, the police must be positioned to act instantly if they have reasonable cause to suspect that the persons temporarily detained are armed and dangerous. 392 U. S., at 24. Because a limited search of outer clothing for weapons serves to protect both the officer and the public, a patdown is constitutional. Id., at 23–24, 27, 30–31. Traffic stops, which *resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry,* Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439, n. 29, are *especially fraught with danger to police officers,* Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1047, who may minimize the risk of harm by exercising * ‘unquestioned command of the situation,’ * Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 414. Three decisions cumulatively portray Terry’s application in a traffic-stop setting. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (per curiam), the Court held that *once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment,* id., at 111, n. 6, because the government’s *legitimate and weighty* interest in officer safety outweighs the *de minimis* additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle, id., at 110–111. Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might be armed and dangerous. 434 U. S., at 112. Wilson, 519 U. S., at 413, held that the Mimms rule applies to passengers as well as drivers, based on *the same weighty interest in officer safety.* Brendlin, 551 U. S., at 263, held that a passenger is seized, just as the driver is, *from the moment [a car stopped by the police comes] to a halt on the side of the road.* A passenger’s motivation to use violence during the stop to prevent apprehension for a crime more grave than a traffic violation is just as great as that of the driver. 519 U. S., at 414. And as *the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle,* id., at 413–414, *the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,* id., at 415. Pp. 5–7.

I did notice that Brannon agreed with you in the video above but haven't seen any case law that agrees. Still looking.

 

[Danny Abear]

When you exit your vehicle, lock the doors; End of problem.

 

[DAVE_M]

When you exit your vehicle, lock the doors; End of problem.

what

 

[Saintsfan6]

When you exit your vehicle, lock the doors; End of problem.

 

[jmcrawf1]

When you exit your vehicle, lock the doors; End of problem.

Again...LULZ

You guys watch too much YouTube.

 

[whitsend]

When you exit your vehicle, lock the doors; End of problem.

Not sure if that is relevant if they can legally search you vehicle.

See Ariziona vs. Grant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

Grant was arrested after exiting the vehicle and it was parked. The search incident to the arrest was ruled legal.
If there is probable cause that contraband or evidence of a crime is present, you are arrested, the contraband is in plain site, or the vehicle is towed, I don't think a locked door would prevent the search.
Other than these exceptions*, without consent or a warrant the search would not be legal.

*or other exception that I may not be aware of.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Whitsend, Arizona v gant has limited vehicle searches eliminating the carte Blanche wingspan search. An officer can search incidental to arrest the wingspan area only if he has PC that evidence of the crime that person was arrested for is in the vehicle. Gant is the most recent ruling and the one LE must go by.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

Whitsend, Arizona v gant has limited vehicle searches eliminating the carte Blanche wingspan search. An officer can search incidental to arrest the wingspan area only if he has PC that evidence of the crime that person was arrested for is in the vehicle. Gant is the most recent ruling and the one LE must go by.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha.

Thanks for all the info.
I have learned a lot of information that I will probably never need, but I enjoy learning.

 

[charlie12]

What if you're on a motorcycle?

 

[DAVE_M]

What if you're on a motorcycle?