• 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.

Pulled over but ?? legality of some of it?

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

sirtikalot

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OHIO


Hello,


Now don't get me wrong, I do not claim to understand law what-so-ever, but i do have general grasp on some things that a police officer can and cannot do when they pull you over. Also, i have questions about some of the things the police officer said while i was cooperating with him.

Here is my account of what happened.

Occured on Monday, July 13th


background: Driving home from work at approximately 12:30-35 (i work 3-12) - in a hot factory and tend to look pretty rough by the time I get off work. I live approx 40 minutes from work.

No legal history in past except (speeding ticket + wreck) other than that clean slate.

After work, a fellow worker and I smoked some pot in my car in the 5 minute ride to drop him off.

I dropped him off and opened the windows to my vehicle, in which I proceeded to smoke (2) cigarettes. After I was finished smoking, I opened the front two windows to let the car air out.

Approx. 10 minutes later I was driving down a road that connected my town to another town. Getting out of town I set my cruise control for 58-60mph range. While driving I went through a series of hills in which my cruise control fluctuated slightly as most cars do. (I do not believe i went above 63mph -at max) and remember thinking to make sure I was doing a decent speed because a car was coming down the road in the opposite direction, and I thought that there was a possibility of it being a police officer.)

I check speed and remember thinking, I was okay because my speed was pretty dang good. I see the lights to the car as it gets nearer and notice the cruisers top lights just as i pass.

I change cruise to 55-56mph and continue down the road. At this time I saw the cruiser go for approx 200yds and then slow to make the u-turn. I am sort of stressing out because I had (a small <1g?) bag of pot on me. Along with some blueberry rolling papers.

(these items were in a pencil bag, inside my backpack, under clothes)

I continue with the officer behind me for approx. 1/2mile? at which point the officer initiates his lights and I pull over accordingly.

After I see the lights and pull over, I took out my I.D. knowing he would ask for it. I drop my wallet and look to see where it went.

He comes up to my passenger door and opens it - before I am even aware of him being along side of my car already.

(used to them sitting in their car for a while before coming to talk)

At this point the officer had come around to the right side of my car, and asked me where i was coming from. I replied "i just got off of work - in troy"

He asks me if I have been smoking marijuana tonight?

me: no...

he asks: any marijuana in the car that your aware of?

me: no..not that i know of...

he says: well then whys it smell like marijuana in here?

I reply: Its a family vehicle that gets used by everyone occasionally.

He walks over to my side of the car and says something along the lines of: If you cooperate you won't be going to jail tonight.

first thought that pops into my head is that I'm going to be arrested for??

So he asks me again...is there any marijuana in the vehicle?

I reply: Yes

he says: yes, just a little bag or something?

I reply: yes

he asks me to go get the bag, being flustered I didn't even know where I had put the bag in the car. I look around but fail to find it after a few seconds

he has me come to the rear of the car in which he pats me down and finds nothing.

at that point he walks me to the cruiser and has me go to the back seat and sit.

(tells me something about me not actually being arrested for it)

(with the door open) he has me take off my shoes and hit them to show theres nothing in there etc

At this point he puts me in the cruiser with the door locked and searches my vehicle.

He finds the rolling papers and small bag - ALSO he finds a pipe (i had lost in the past) that I had NOOOO idea was in the car and confinscates that also.

As I sat in the back of the cruiser, I respectfully cooperated with him, even though I was thinking bad thoughts. I noticed that he had a few digital readouts on a device (that i've been shown in the past) the radar gun. Seeing this I look closer at what it is actually reading. In red was 63 and in green was 58.

When I watched him fill out the speeding ticket he served. He had written 64 miles per hour, when the digital readout only said 63.

(my question is, why is he altering what the gun locked on? / and is this to make his stop seem more ligitamet?)

I asked him about this because, I had read that 1MPH can be the difference between getting points on a license and not.

He replied I put here that you were doing 64, because by the time the gun locked on it was 63.

Following that he said "at this time of night (12:30?) - (they) have to pull over anyone doing that speed because most of the time its a drunk or a case like yourself,"

My question is - what'd he do wrong because I can seem to see alot of flaws?

I'm not trying to dodge responsibility for the actions I have chosen. I just don't like to see peoples rights seem to be trampled over.

Is that profiling, because the Police Officer stated, at this time of night? meaning someone who worked during the day would not have been pulled over? why should i be more subseptable to being pulled over than any other individual?

How likely is it that he smelled pot after two cigarettes and the grade of the marijuana was far from being very stinky. (deffinitly wasn't a hydro or chronic - that just smells unbelievably)

Also, would the officer lose credibility in this case because he had already altered and entered into his report, a clearly different speed. Now one may argue that its only 1mph, but if its JUST one MPH, why would he go through the hassle of putting something other than what it said, unless he believed it would somehow justify the credibility and reasonable cause he was seeming to exert?

Also, I was wondering about the way he approached me and my vehicle? many people said that doesn't sound right?

How likely is it that he actually smelled pot?

Since the vehicle is shared does that have any leway?

I don't remember actually giving him consent to enter or search the car?

Anyway to supress this evidence under the 4th amendment or Ohio's statutes?

Please help me with my limited knowledge.

thanks alot!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
My question is - what'd he do wrong because I can seem to see alot of flaws?
I don't see any flaws nor rights violations.
Is that profiling, because the Police Officer stated, at this time of night?
meaning someone who worked during the day would not have been pulled over? why should i be more subseptable to being pulled over than any other individual?
It's profiling but it's legal profiling. They're allowed to concentrate enforcement during high crime areas and times of the day. You were breaking the law by speeding, the fact you might have gotten away with it at another time is immaterial.
How likely is it that he smelled pot after two cigarettes and the grade of the marijuana was far from being very stinky. (deffinitly wasn't a hydro or chronic - that just smells unbelievably)
Extremely likely. Between all your pot smoking and cigarette smoking you're pretty desensitized. Pot's pretty distinctive smell and it lingers. I guarantee that even one joint would be detectable in this situation.
Also, would the officer lose credibility in this case because he had already altered and entered into his report, a clearly different speed. Now one may argue that its only 1mph, but if its JUST one MPH, why would he go through the hassle of putting something other than what it said, unless he believed it would somehow justify the credibility and reasonable cause he was seeming to exert?
What credibility? First off the report is by and large meaningless. Second, he's allowed to estimate your speed. If he, in his trained observation, see you going faster and slow down before the radar locks, he can write you for the faster speed.
Also, I was wondering about the way he approached me and my vehicle? many people said that doesn't sound right?
What about it doesn't sound right. Cops often, for their own safety, approach from the passenger side. Gives them protection from traffic and a chance to size up the situation. THe fact that you suddenly ducked out of sight probably gave him probable cause to open the door.
How likely is it that he actually smelled pot?
It's a given.
Since the vehicle is shared does that have any leway?
For what? For speeding? For being in possession of drugs? For forgetting you lost paraphernalia in the car?
I don't remember actually giving him consent to enter or search the car?
You were most likely already under arrest at this point. You admitted to having drugs.
Anyway to supress this evidence under the 4th amendment or Ohio's statutes?
Not to my knowledge.
 
You were speeding - so the pull over was good.
You admitted to having pot and it smelled like pot. = good Probable cause for a search

That is not to say you, with legal advice, cannot challenge the search... but it would hold up. To my recollection Ohio is a little idiotic about their MJ laws and sometimes the point of a legal challenge is different than to actually get the evidence suppressed so you would still want to consult an attorney.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
approaching the car quickly:

You are lucky he didn't have his gun drawn or you were ordered out of the car at gunpoint and splayed on the ground. You said you dropped your wallet and reached down looking for it. Reaching under the seat for a gun looks exactly the same from the officers point of view. I suspect his intent was to get close to you while you were still distracted looking for your wallet.


Not a darn thing with anything the officer did. You were speeding. ALthough his radar was locked on 63, that doesn't mean he didn't first clock you at 64. Officers often will take another reading so they don't pull over people that were over the limit for an instant or two. They take a second, or even third reading to confirm that you were consistently speeding.

Not familiar with the radar used but I suspect it was able to be set at a particular speed and anything over that shows up in red. If so, he probably set the speed to begin alerting as 58 so anything above that, the radar will alert and lock.

How likely is it that he actually smelled pot?
very likely

Since the vehicle is shared does that have any leway?
Nope. You were driving; it's your car and you are responsible for anything in your car.

I don't remember actually giving him consent to enter or search the car?
He didn't need it. You said there was pot in the car; he now has probable cause to search.

Anyway to supress this evidence under the 4th amendment or Ohio's statutes?
nope

Please help me with my limited knowledge.
Not only do I not see anything wrong, this guy was textbook perfect. He did everything right. No step was missed.
 
Last edited:
Did you miss the part where he ADMITTED having pot? ;)
It is very odd that you actually quote my post in which I stated:

"You admitted to having pot and it smelled like pot. = good Probable cause for a search"

Then ask me if I forgot he admitted to having pot. You might be smoking to much pot.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It is very odd that you quote my stating he admitted to having pot then ask me if I forgot he admitted to having pot. You might be smoking to much pot.
The smell wasn't required - there was no reason for you to even mention it.

But, have at it :rolleyes:
 
The smell wasn't required - there was no reason for you to even mention it.

But, have at it :rolleyes:
As you are just an ignorant harpy, I try not to engage you too often - but just FYI, the smell created the reasoning for the questioning extending the officers scope of investigation beyond that of the original crime: speeding... ie it wasnt just a mere fishing expedition.

I would almost think as long and as much as you troll this site you might accidently learn something about the law, but you defy the odds.

Please dont tell me you are a vetted attorney.. lordie..
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
As you are just an ignorant harpy, I try not to engage you too often - but just FYI, the smell created the reasoning for the questioning extending the officers scope of investigation beyond that of the original crime: speeding... ie it wasnt just a mere fishing expedition.

I would almost think as long and as much as you troll this site you might accidently learn something about the law, but you defy the odds.

Please dont tell me you are a vetted attorney.. lordie..
From the admitted illegal drug advocate...I'll keep your comments (and platform) in mind :rolleyes:
 

justalayman

Senior Member
On the other side, the admission wasn't required. The smell alone is sufficient probable cause, so there's no reason to mention the admission.
but the admission removes a possible defense to lack of PC. Although the smell might (don't know about OP's state) give PC, that is a rebuttable claim; admission of possession is not.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
From the admitted illegal drug advocate...I'll keep your comments (and platform) in mind
I don't ever recall him advocating the use of any drug, legal or illegal. I also don't ever recall him advocating the breaking of any drug law. The only thing I've seen is advocating the changing of the law on the matter.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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