• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Here's my situation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

eip

Junior Member
I'm in Wilmington, NC. A friend of mine recently violated his probation by having firearms in his room. Consequently a warrant was issued for his arrest. Since him and his brother both were being harrased by the police I volunteered to drive them to a resturaunt to get something to eat. Shortly after leaving their driveway, an undercover officer pulled us over. In the car was myself, my friend with the warrant and his brother. Firstly they asked the guys brother who had no warrants to exit the vehicle and they then searched his person and found nothing. Secondly my friend with the warrant wa asked to exit the vehicle, he too was searched only to find nothing, then handcuffed and placed into the police cruiser. I was then asked to exit my vehicle, I was then searched and once again nothing was found. The officer then said to me "is there anything in this car I should know about?" I simply said "no". He then began searching my vehicle along with his newly arrived fellow officer. They found in the glovebox a grinder with an unweighable amount of marijuana pollen stuck to the inside. I was given a ticket for paraphenalia, and possesion of less than 1/2 an ounce of marijuana. All I really want to know is, does the fact that one of my passengers had a warrant for his arrest give them the right to search my vehicle and my person? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 


seniorjudge

Senior Member
Search you, yes, for the safety of the officer.

But the glove box search looks to me like it exceeded the scope of a search incident to a traffic stop.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
eip said:
Since him and his brother both were being harrased by the police I volunteered to drive them to a resturaunt to get something to eat.
"Harassed?" So ... when someone has a warrant and the police are looking for them based upon a signed order by a judge, THAT is harassment? :rolleyes:

Go figure - a wanted probationer being "harassed" by the police!

And how does your driving them protect them in any way?

I was given a ticket for paraphenalia, and possesion of less than 1/2 an ounce of marijuana. All I really want to know is, does the fact that one of my passengers had a warrant for his arrest give them the right to search my vehicle and my person?
As SJ mentioned, searching your person is likely good as the officers have a right to see to their own safety. With a wanted probationer in the car who had previously been found with a firearm, there was sufficient reasonable cause to justify a search for weapons.

The search of the vehicle will be fact specific. For instance, if the probationer was seated in front of the glove box, it could arguably be subject to search. There are a number of possibilities that would justify a search of the interior of the car. Your attorney can obtain copies of the police reports and see i there was sufficient articulable cause. if he feels the cause was weak he can move to have the evidence suppressed. Who knows, the DA may find the search week as well. On the other hand, dependin on what the officers saw or believed, the search might be good.

- Carl
 

eip

Junior Member
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. Thankyou senior judge for your reply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eip

Junior Member
Futhermore the person with the warrant was sitting the the rear passenger area of the vehicle, far from the glove box.
 

cepe10

Member
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.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
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...
I'm so embarassed, did we miss your law school graduation? (When did you graduate from giving bad traffic law advice to bad criminal law advice?) And to think, I didn't even get you a gift. So sorry.
 

eip

Junior Member
I asked a simple question expecting a simple answer, I'm kind of in a bind here and I need any helpful advice anyone can give me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gawm

Senior Member
They were being harrased nearly a week and a half before the warrant had been issued.
You didn't mention that in your first post did you? Besides, the police have better things to do than to harass your friends. Tell them to lay off the dope, that stuff makes you paranoid.
I figured that by driving my car we would be less likely to be pulled over and harrased
you figured wrong
,
we had no knowledge of the warrant before the arrest,
Then why were they riding in your car again? Oh...the harassment, that's right.:rolleyes:
I don't know why his probation officer didn't notify him of the warrant,
They don't want him to hide
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CdwJava

Senior Member
Well, if the search was bad then your attorney will succeed in getting it suppressed.

As I said, this will be FACT SPECIFIC. It will depend on what the officers knew or believed at the time of the search. None of us can pretent to know what they thought and why they thought it. It might have been good ... it might have been bad.

Why people insist on keeping dope and associated supplies in vehicles is beyond me. :confused:

- Carl
 

garrula lingua

Senior Member
eip & creep

Carl is probably the nicest and the most neutral & informative poster.

Unlike both of you losers.

Cepe you cited the WRONG case. You, obviously have too much time, and too little brains to have typed in gibberish which doesn't apply to this situation.

eip, have fun in court. I won't help you. Why don't you cite creepe's case to the Judge ?

Your attitude will get you far in life, eip.
Enjoy court & consequences.
 

cepe10

Member
eip & creep

Carl is probably the nicest and the most neutral & informative poster.

Unlike both of you losers.

Cepe you cited the WRONG case. You, obviously have too much time, and too little brains to have typed in gibberish which doesn't apply to this situation.

eip, have fun in court. I won't help you. Why don't you cite creepe's case to the Judge ?

Your attitude will get you far in life, eip.
Enjoy court & consequences.
Seems to be you are a little defensive.. you obviously can't even read case law or statutes and have no clue of constitutional law of the US... No one is asking "advice" from you anyway so go back to your judge judy.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
No one is asking "advice" from you anyway so go back to your judge judy.
They are asking advice from anyone who dares to answer the question. Again, you forgot:
FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding.
This includes the information provided by you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top