Home     Law Advice     Insurance Advice     Community    
Arrests, Searches, Warrants & Procedure : Includes Right to Counsel, Fifth Amendment Rights, Right to Trial by Jury, etc.
Go Back   FreeAdvice Legal Forum > CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE > Arrests, Searches, Warrants & Procedure

Powered by Attorney Pages


  Find An Attorney In Your Area    
 

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2003, 11:19 AM
ricksterps
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Search of cup or bag


What is the name of your state? va

I have a question regarding the legality of a search of a cup or bag. The park I go to has cracked down on alcohol in the park. As a result the park ranger wants to look in my cup, which has a lid, and my bag. I have told him no in the past but he says he can get a police officer to make me open the lid and my bag and will do so in the future. Is this correct? I know this is sorta' silly but I just think any searches must have some merit. Thanks in advance.
  #2  
Old 04-23-2003, 01:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,075
Give the park ranger and police officer probable cause (not letting them look), you can be arrested and your possessions searched. It is up to you.
  #3  
Old 04-23-2003, 02:46 PM
ricksterps
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
They need probable cause to look, not letting them look is not probable cause.
  #4  
Old 04-23-2003, 03:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somnambulist University
Posts: 39,568
Rick, you are wrong.

The park clearly has a rule against alcohol in the area (from your post). The ranger is obligated to enforce this rule. In doing so, he asks to 'inspect' your containers. You can simply agree and go on your business, or be detained and be forced to submit to an inspection.

Really pretty simple..... and pretty petty.
__________________
There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution).

Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport!
  #5  
Old 04-23-2003, 03:21 PM
ricksterps
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
By that logic a police officer can search my bags anytime I walk down the street. Weapons, drugs and many other things are illegal to have in public and it's their job to enforce it so I looks like the same thing. There are no signs in the park that state your belongings can be searched.

While it may seem petty to you, I am a firm believer in civil liberties. I have never been in trouble with the law in my life but it doesn't mean I want to be searched every time I use a tax funded park. I would rather have a couple people get away with having a beer in the park than have every honest citizen searched in the name of due diligence.
  #6  
Old 04-23-2003, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somnambulist University
Posts: 39,568
I have no 'dog in this fight', so go ahead. Make your stand for independence. Don't let them search.

Then, when you get a ticket or are arrested, remember back to this thread..... and the advice received.
__________________
There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution).

Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport!
  #7  
Old 04-23-2003, 04:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Catatonic State
Posts: 75,781
The writer has pretzel logic.
  #8  
Old 04-23-2003, 05:46 PM
nowpastdue
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I am NOT an attorney.

Virginia statute 4.1-128 gives local governments the authority to pass local ordinances concerning possession of alcoholic beverages in parks.

Apparently the park you frequent is covered by such an ordinance.

What surprises me is that the park ranger would have to call the police. Most localities empower city marshals, constables, park rangers,etc with minimal police powers. Such would include the power to arrest persons suspected of violating specific laws on the grounds they patrol.

Once you are under arrest, your person is subject to a patdown and your bag is subject to search.

With an ordinance there doesn't have to be a sign, although it is a good idea. Ignorance of the law is no defense, a sign takes even the excuse away.

Containers, backpacks, coolers, etc are routinely searched now at sporting events, concerts, political events, etc. If you want to enter such an area (an I am including the park) by entering the area you are giving tacit approval for a search. If you don't want to be searched, the easiest thing to do in don't step foot in the park, etc.
  #9  
Old 04-23-2003, 06:06 PM
Mike101
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If telling the Park Ranger they can't look is PC, that is a scary thought. Where would it end?
Would sort of kill an important part of the constitution.
  #10  
Old 04-23-2003, 07:48 PM
hmmbrdzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Saying no the first time is not "probable cause". It will be the totality of circumstances surrounding your behavior in a park where alcohol is not allowed (repeatedly refusing to let a ranger see and/or smell what's in your cup) that's going to be the "probable cause" that will get the police involved next time. Why would you even press this issue ?


hmmbrdzz
  #11  
Old 04-23-2003, 07:53 PM
Mike101
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The person is holding a cup, there is a strong odor of alcohol about the person, there is an empty bottle on the ground. That is totality. The same question over and over isn't going to cut it. That would be totality of circumstance, not circumstances.
  #12  
Old 04-23-2003, 09:50 PM
hmmbrdzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike101
The person is holding a cup, there is a strong odor of alcohol about the person, there is an empty bottle on the ground. That is totality. The same question over and over isn't going to cut it. That would be totality of circumstance, not circumstances.
Did you mean to say "the same answer over and over" (instead of the "same question over and over")? The writer says this park has "cracked down" on alcohol. In an area that is "cracking down" (and to keep saying "no, you cannot smell what's in my cup" to the Park Ranger) is the "totality of circumstances".


hmmbrdzz
  #13  
Old 04-24-2003, 06:45 AM
Mike101
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Same question or same answer over and over, that is the same thing in this case.
So Highway Patrol is going to crack down on vehicles that transport 'crack'. During a license check they ask if they can search your car, you say no, they ask again, you say no, they ask one more time and you again say no. Your telling me that they have a legal right to search your vehicle?? Just on that they wouldn't be able to get a search warrant, let alone search.
  #14  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:02 AM
GKris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have to agree with Mike, a simple refusal to allow a search which is what looking into the cup would be in that circumstance, will never be enough for PC. If the ordiance states that use of the park automatically allows coolers, cups, vehicles ect to be searched upon request then Yes, the writer has to allow the search and a cop may be needed for enforcement. If its simply a city park open for no fee to anyone's access, then simply having a no alchohol rule is not enough to demand a search. I dont understand the point of not letting Mr Ranger look in the cup, I would not let him sniff it at close range just because who knows what this guy might have, but thats me. I also dont allow the Walmart greeters to search my bags after I've left the checkout either. My one little stand against it "The Man"
  #15  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:50 AM
hmmbrdzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
This park visitor’s continued refusal to cooperate with the park ranger who is there to enforce the parks rules and regs for safety purposes gives a policeman reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search. This park ranger is not going to piss around with this guy and his cup any longer. His behavior is suspicious. For example, some beaches in NC prohibit alcohol, cups, and glass containers on the beach. The beach patrolman (like a park ranger) runs up and down the beach on his little 4 wheeler randomly visiting vacationers on their beach towels. Sometimes he asks “can I see what‘s in your cooler today“, and sometimes he just talks and says “have a good day“. Those vacationers who do not open their coolers are soon visited by the Town of **** Beach Police, driving the big SUV up to their big beach towel. Are you telling me these vacationers are going to leave the beach with just their new suntan? Here’s one step further: How about the wildlife officer waiting at the boat landing who says “what kind of luck did you have today? Mind if I take a look in your cooler”? Say no and see what happens.


hmmbrdzz
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.



IMPORTANT NOTICE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PAGE WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF OR ATTORNEYS AT FREEADVICE.COM. Thousands of professionally prepared and reviewed questions and answers in 130 legal categories are to be found at the Question and Answer pages at FreeAdvice.com.

F
reeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you. To locate an attorney visit AttorneyPages.com. Copyright since 1995 by Advice Company. All Rights Reserved.