Thanks for trying to be a smartass, it's exactly the kind of help I was looking for. They were being harrased nearly a week and a half before the warrant had been issued. I figured that by driving my car we would be less likely to be pulled over and harrased, we had no knowledge of the warrant before the arrest, I don't know why his probation officer didn't notify him of the warrant, the police said they didn't have a copy of it yet, said they were waiting on it to be faxed for 8 days. SO keep your smartass comments to yourself, they don't help me or anyone else. Thankyou senior judge for your reply.
Don't worry to much there are a number of "senior members" here hwo just use this as a place to ridicule those asking questions. Carl is no where near the worst of them -at least mixed in with his mocking and scolding is a bit of the truth. In reality that is a unlawful search unless you gave consent to the search or the officer had probable cause. In no way does it sound like they can come close to probable cause....
Example:
State v. Johnson, 627 S.E.2d 488 (N.C.App. 04/04/2006)
even with consent search was unlawful...
Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search of his motor vehicle. Defendant argues, inter alia, the search was unconstitutional because it exceeded the reasonable scope of any valid consent and therefore constituted a warrantless search without probable cause. We agree.
Here, however, the trial court's findings do not address, nor does the testimony of Lovin reveal, the presence of probable cause necessary to extend the scope of the instant search beyond the limitation of reasonableness. The trial court simply found that, "upon inspection of the van, glue was found on one side of thepanels which the officer determined was inappropriate or out of place." Lovin's testimony indicated defendant was cooperative and that his appearance seemed normal. Save for the search itself, no evidence nor any finding of fact suggested Lovin suspected the van contained contraband or that defendant was involved in any criminal conduct. Taking the presence of "inappropriate" or "out of place" glue as the "totality of the circumstances," see Poczontek, 90 N.C. App. at 457, 368 S.E.2d at 661, presented herein, we believe that solitary factor, standing alone, to be wholly inadequate and insufficient to establish probable cause justifying search beyond the reasonable scope of defendant's consent. See Orrego-Fernandez, 78 F.3d at 1504-05 ("Alterations to vehicles do not automatically create reasonable suspicion. The alterations to the vehicle must be such that a trooper may reasonably believe a crime is being committed. The trooper must go beyond the inarticulable hunch that all customized vehicles contain hidden compartments and point to specific factors which justify the objectively reasonable conclusion that particular alterations indicate a hidden compartment which may contain contraband."). Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted.