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

[justalayman]

Easy now fellas. You are absolutely wrong about education and experience. 1st this is advice based on the thread posted, anyone could say "only after a full review of the facts only an attorney etc..." That pretty much goes without saying. Everything i posted is my "legal advice" and obviosly you have yours, but mine i completely believe based on education, but just as importantly experience. Also from my understanding and experience probable cause must be more than suspicion. A dog barking (in my state) is not enough for a search. Given the post do you see p.c. ? no, hence the statement he has a strong case. Also the police were not obligated in any way to inventory the contents! If you wanna talk about CRAP, than that inventory statement deserves a capital C.Now, to get back to ks badboy 30. If your court appointed lawyer quit than at the next court date the judge should arrange for another. The fact that he quit is unusual and will require him to withdraw, which the judge might not allow. I'm not sure how long ago this lawyer situation happened, but legally he may still be your lawyer.The fact you have a court appt. lawyer and not a p.d. would lead me to believe you had a conflict w3ith the p.d.'s office or they with you. If that is the case the judge won't want to go through another determination hearing with you.goodluck.

I don't know where you are from but in mu jurisdiction, a court appointed lawyer IS a public defender. A PD will not be APPOINTED until the courts determine the defendant is allowed to avail themselves of a PD.

and to PC, since the OP was not at the car when it was searched, he, nor we, have any knowledge of PC or lack of PC.

and to the inventory of the vehicle;

you might want to research that a bit before blowing it off. In some situations, it is quite allowable. In others, not. It would depend on the involvement of the police in the towing and the specific laws of the state.

 

[justalayman]

=KSBadboy30;2362885]The drug dog was brought in from Wichita which is 40 miles away from kingman because kingman doesn't have there own dog.

irrelevant since you were not detained while the dog was brought in. My statement was meant to apply only to a detention of the suspect.

Can they take a drug dog on private property such as a tow yard and check a car without the property owner's permission?

No unless there is some contractual rights to allow it. I would suggest since the tow was in response to your illegal parking, the tow operator is bound by some contractual agreement that would allow the police access to vehicles that are towed due to some police or courts action.

 

[CdwJava]

The impound inventory should have been done before the police released the vehicle to the tow company. If they had released it to the tow company, then an impound inventory ain't gonna cut it.

However, they CAN still bring a dope dog to the scene where the car is, and if the dog alerts that is generally sufficient probable cause to justify a search. At that point, the question becomes one of the status of such searches in KS. In general, because a car is highly mobile, it is a built in exigent situation and the police can make entry. In this instance, I would argue that because the vehicle was ostensibly secured and there was no real risk of the OP or anyone else getting the vehicle out of impound if the police wanted to hold it, they could have sought a search warrant.

So, unless there is KS law on point, I would argue that the police should have gotten a search warrant before making entry. But, if the status of search and seizure law in KS is such that probable cause is always sufficient for a warrantless search of a vehicle even in a controlled environment, then that may be a loser.

The impound inventory (search) seems to be out the window under the circumstances. And, then, there is the question of whether the police had the legal authority to enter the impound lot without authority. There are a number of angles to defeat that argument, but it would be an issue that would have to be considered by the state.

I'd say there is a good chance for this evidence to be tossed. But, we do not know what the cops say about the whole thing ... so, there may be different, articulable facts from the other side of the equation.

- Carl

 

[dave33]

Gotcha. In my juristication the p.d. is available to everyone charged with a criminal offense. They must be interviewed and be eligable to get one granted. Now, if there is a conflict of interest (people blaming each other etc..) that is one example of a conflict.If that conflict is present and would be a clear violation of the defendants rights than the judge will give them a court appointed lawyer.Court appointed lawyers are private firms that hire out there attorneys for a reduced rate to the court. Also although in some states it is allowable, i respestfully consider that different than "obligated". Though i don't want to split hairs. Also all these differences are legitimate. In my experience i have found that very rarely do officers leave such room for debate.Again, all this could be avoided simply by saying it was in plain view. I am not saying likely, i don't know, i wasn't there(2nd time) but anyone who has experience in criminal law and police conduct would be remiss not to include this as a possibility. There is a lot of room for discussion in a case like this.Also i completely go on the thread. That's all i can go on.

 

[JustAPal00]

actually, given the reason for the stop, unless the dog was in the car that stopped them or very close at hand, they could not have done it. They are not allowed to detain a subject merely to wait to allow a drug dog to be brought to the scene.

and actually, with the action that took place at the scene, the OP may have a claim against the police unless there is additional information not provided here.

The stop was probably not a good enough reason, but the OP detained himself long enough by locking himself out of his car. There would have been no problem in this case.

 

[justalayman]

The stop was probably not a good enough reason, but the OP detained himself long enough by locking himself out of his car. There would have been no problem in this case.

you actually haven't read any of this thread, have you?

the dog was brought to a place that had nothing to do with the stop. OP's car was towed and after the tow, the dog was brought in.

regardless, they still could not have detained the subject after giving him the RO. There was no business to conduct after that so they must allow him to go.

 

[FlyingRon]

I don't know where you are from but in mu jurisdiction, a court appointed lawyer IS a public defender. A PD will not be APPOINTED until the courts determine the defendant is allowed to avail themselves of a PD.

Here Public Defenders are employees of the state. The court appointed lawyer is private counsel who gets reimbursed by the state to provide services to indigent defendants. It makes little difference however.

 

[justalayman]

Here Public Defenders are employees of the state. The court appointed lawyer is private counsel who gets reimbursed by the state to provide services to indigent defendants. It makes little difference however.

we have no PD's by name in my area. They are simply as your description of the court appointed attorney.

so, if you have both PD's and court appointed attorneys, what is a PD and what do they do? As I understand PD's they are attorneys that are provided per the constitution (right to counsel and all) when a person cannot afford an attorney.

why would there be both PD's and court appointed atty's?

 

[CdwJava]

Systems and names vary by state and county. In my state we have some large counties that have an actual Public Defender's office where the county pays attorneys to be on staff and work for the PD's office. In many other counties, they utilize contracted court appointed attorneys to act as Public Defenders, Court Appointed Attorneys, or for whatever title they want to give them.

I believe the contract method is the most common in the United States.

The name is not important as they all do the same function. It is just that one works for an office of the county dedicated to the defense of indigent defendants, the other is a private attorney who takes contract work to represent indigent defendants.

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

that is what I understood things to be. Maybe I was misunderstanding Ron. I took his post to imply that there were PD's and court appointed atty's in the same local.

 

[dave33]

They usually are in the same local. An example would be if 2 people got arrested for pot and they were in the same car. If they each pointed the finger at each other, than one would be represented by the p.d. and the other would get a court appointed attorney. Even though a conflict of interest is present, the state must still provide an attorney. Therefore, since these types of situations appear to be not unusual, most disticts,(all that i know of) have both. Sorry if my other post was confusing.

 

[CdwJava]

The two systems can and often do exist int he same jurisdiction. Sometimes the PDs office may have a conflict of interest with a particular defendant so a contract attorney would be obtained. Other times, the system may just be too overburdened and too under budgeted to fully staff a PDs office, so they supplement as needed with contractors.

But, they are all attorneys, and they all have little incentive to spend a huge amount of time on a bad case. Like all attorneys - private or public - you have good ones, and you have bad ones.

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

They usually are in the same local. An example would be if 2 people got arrested for pot and they were in the same car. If they each pointed the finger at each other, than one would be represented by the p.d. and the other would get a court appointed attorney. Even though a conflict of interest is present, the state must still provide an attorney. Therefore, since these types of situations appear to be not unusual, most disticts,(all that i know of) have both. Sorry if my other post was confusing.

wasn't really confusing, just not used to being in the big city where a they actually have a PD's office. Around here, it is simply contracted attorneys as public defenders.

Like all attorneys - private or public - you have good ones, and you have bad ones.

amen to that. We used to have a married couple that did most of the PD in our county (we are quite small here and 2 attorneys for the county was generally adequate). The wife was great and the husband was, well, he was less than great.

 

[JustAPal00]

you actually haven't read any of this thread, have you?

the dog was brought to a place that had nothing to do with the stop. OP's car was towed and after the tow, the dog was brought in.

regardless, they still could not have detained the subject after giving him the RO. There was no business to conduct after that so they must allow him to go.

Umm... actually I did! I was responding to your reply to my earlier post. Maybe you didn't understand. He locked his keys in the car and left it illegally parked right in front of the officers. They could have brought the dog there then. Instead they did it at another location. Now the OP stated that when he called the tow yard after finding out the car had been towed, it wasn't at the yard yet. He was also told it would be there in a half hour. twenty minutes later he was arrested. His car must have been searched prior to it arriving at the tow yard. None of this story adds up, I'm sure that's why the PD said it was a legal search and dropped the case when the OP wanted to fight.

 

[acmb05]

Umm... actually I did! I was responding to your reply to my earlier post. Maybe you didn't understand. He locked his keys in the car and left it illegally parked right in front of the officers. They could have brought the dog there then. Instead they did it at another location. Now the OP stated that when he called the tow yard after finding out the car had been towed, it wasn't at the yard yet. He was also told it would be there in a half hour. twenty minutes later he was arrested. His car must have been searched prior to it arriving at the tow yard. None of this story adds up, I'm sure that's why the PD said it was a legal search and dropped the case when the OP wanted to fight.

They would have had to do the search before the tow truck hooked up to the vehicle. Once it is hooked up the right to search it is over. They cannot tow a car to another location to perform a search(without a warrant) or to bring in a dog to sniff the car. Contact the owner of the home who had it towed and see if they will testify that the car was not searched before they towed it.