Can the polics search my car just because i locked my keys in my car?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by justalayman

carl

would not your argument be discounted due to the fact that there was proper cause for a warrant (dog sniff) and that would have allowed the eventual discovery of the drugs?

Inevitable discovery might be argued, but it is not usually made when there is a knowingly bad search as this one would seem to be. If they did NOT "know" the warrantless search was bad, they probably should have. I know I would not want to argue an exigency here.

If "inevitable discovery" was freely applied when a lawful method was available, then there would be no reason to ever obtain a warrant.

The police could effectively sit on the car and if the owner attempted to drive it away while they warrant was being sought then could search due to the fact the exigency was then present again, yes?

If they had left it at the scene and watched it drive away after a drug sniff, perhaps they could have. But, the defense would argue that they allowed him to do that in order to circumvent the warrant requirement and many judges do not like the cops playing fast and loose.

- Carl

[justalayman]

makes sense and actually is good to hear.

thanks.

[Joshuaace2]

I post a general comment about Signs at tow yards and I get attacked without provocation. Civility around here seems like it is at a premium or something. I shouldn't even address this, but I'm going to.

Originally Posted by JETX

.

And what business do you think I'm in?

With your ability to KNOW what sign exists somewhere you have never been or seen....

lol, Amazing what one can say in one sentence. You facetiously implied I had psychic ability, and demonstrated your own psychic ability in one sentence. (LMAO) When I read this I had tears of laughter streaming down my face. Damn near had a bladder malfunction.

Just how do you propose to KNOW where I've been and what I've seen.

and your ability to KNOW that the tow yard didn't authorize police access.....

TS's OP, he stated "The owner of the tow yard said that he didnt give them permission to enter his property". May or may not be the truth, IDK, I'm not prepared to call him a liar though, are you?

you really should be in a carnival or maybe picking lottery numbers

.


And maybe you should be answering the phone for Miss Cleo. It's an amazing ability you have.


BTW, EAM Cars (Rays' to the locals) also has a fence around the tow yard and another sign that says "BEWARE OF THE DOG" (Duke). If you are ever over that way; tell Ray that Ace said "hey". Oh, and don't try to feed Duke, like some members here if you try and feed him some B.S. he might bite you.

[CdwJava]

Keep in mind that the owner/manager not giving the police permission to be in the lot is not the same as denying them entry or claiming that the police had no lawful right to make entry into the tow yard. If the yard and the property were generally open to the public at the time of contact, an argument can easily be made for access. There are other possibilities, too.

But, it is the warrantless entry that I believe is going to be the hinge pin to this case.

- Carl

[HappyWanderer]

If the police can search and get evidence in under this "inevitable discovery" rule if they have enough for a search warrant, why would they EVER actually go through the motions of getting a warrant?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by HappyWanderer

If the police can search and get evidence in under this "inevitable discovery" rule if they have enough for a search warrant, why would they EVER actually go through the motions of getting a warrant?

Which is why the application of inevitable discovery is very rare and used largely in those instances where a good faith search occurred, but there was a foul up of some kind that resulted in the suppression of the evidence. It is not meant to do an end run around the 4th otherwise, as you say, there would be no need for a warrant once probable cause existed.

- Carl

[KSBadboy30]

My attorney is preparing the Motion To Surpress right now. Since the search appears to be illegal. But the Judge on this case is not Law Trained Judge he's a former sheriff or highway patrol but my lawyer is pretty sure that with cited cases he can get it thrown out without have to appeal to district court. Its a city case.

But i had a nice run in with a drug sniffing dog last nite after i got stopped for my neon lights under my car. They decided to bring in there dog and run it around my car. But no luck for them I'm drug free now But what can i expect being out on bond for weed charge in a town where ever cop knows about it. Some mistakes are hard ones to live down.

[Joshuaace2]

Badboy, keep us posted. I'm sure there is more than one person here curious to know how that suppression hearing turns out. I know I am. Is your Attorney attacking the authority of the police to walk the dog on posted private property? Or the warrantless search without exigent circumstances? Or both?

[Peyton16]

ok I just skimmed this thread but 1) no pc to search per Gant; 2) not justified as an inventory search; and 3) positive dog sniff alone is not enough to search, recent SCOTUS, no? not Caballes or the other one, but I swear they just said this, plus as someone said, there was no exigency and with the vehicle not going anywhere there should be no warrant exception

[KSBadboy30]

My attorney called me this morning and said the DA sent over to him this morning a Journal Entry dismissing the charge against me.

We didn't even get a chance to have a hearing on the Supression Motion but i works for me. I've learned my lesson leave my pot at home.

Thanks for everyone's comments concerning this case.

[dave33]

Thanks for the update. It certainly goes to show who's on point and who thinks they are. Congratulations!!!!! Dave

[Joshuaace2]

Originally Posted by dave33

Thanks for the update. It certainly goes to show who's on point and who thinks they are. Congratulations!!!!! Dave

My thoughts exactly.

[Indiana Filer]

Wow. The OG factor strikes again.