Pulled over for weaving..

[dave33]

chrisjardine12, This will be a learning experience for you. The police report will include several solid reasons for searching the car. The report will also be nothing like the story you told. Although they may have broken more laws than you, you will most likely take a plea deal to end this and pay a fine.

 

[CdwJava]

so, none of the charges were for arrestable offenses? How does cop justify the search?

The odor of alcohol, perhaps? The odor of alcohol in the car and the exigency presented by the vehicle likely gave the officer all the probable cause he needed to support the search.

 

[chrisjardine12]

ROTFLMBO!!

Come up with a better "story".

If you don't have any advice for a post, move on to the next because you're adding nothing to this conversation but negativity. You weren't there, you don't know what happened.

chrisjardine12, This will be a learning experience for you. The police report will include several solid reasons for searching the car. The report will also be nothing like the story you told. Although they may have broken more laws than you, you will most likely take a plea deal to end this and pay a fine.

I'm hoping they will go with the fine and be done with it, I have no problem with that.

The odor of alcohol, perhaps? The odor of alcohol in the car and the exigency presented by the vehicle likely gave the officer all the probable cause he needed to support the search.

So you're saying people who drink should always designate a driver but it automatically gives a cop probable cause to search your car? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[CdwJava]

If you don't have any advice for a post, move on to the next because you're adding nothing to this conversation but negativity. You weren't there, you don't know what happened.

And we also don't have the officer's perspective. Any 4th Amendment evaluation requires an evaluation of the objective facts as known or believed by the officer as well as the law.

So you're saying people who drink should always designate a driver but it automatically gives a cop probable cause to search your car? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I don't care if it makes any sense to you or not. The odor of alcohol coupled with the vehicle CAN (not WILL) be part of the articulable cause that justifies a search. If you don't like it, don't stash open containers of alcohol in the car where people have been drinking and it won't be an issue.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Contrary to you taking BlueMeanies advice as useless, it factually states how your story will be perceived. You are a player. You are in a game. You are the pawn. Use the information you learned wisely and rephrase your presentation for the court.

 

[Ohiogal]

The search will be good due to the fact that the individuals were in the back seat and moving around after the lights came on -- maybe stashing something under the seat. And the fact that he turned his LEDs off -- where were the controls at for those -- lower to where the police officer couldn't see his hands and even his whole head so it could have looked like he was stashing something? There have been quite a few police shootings in Ohio this year (either the police were being shot or were shooting or both) and therefore the police are on high alert during traffic stops which explains the other cars on scene. There was suspicious behavior seen by the police officer and he wanted to make sure there no safety issues -- hence removing EVERYONE from the car.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

You are certainly free to file a motion to suppress the evidence based on an illegal search, accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of your motion to suppress. I doubt the court will suppress the evidence sua sponte.

Since the fine for the open bottle is $100, you'll need to find a really cheap lawyer to make it worth it if you don't want to do the research and writing yourself.

 

[justalayman]

The odor of alcohol, perhaps? The odor of alcohol in the car and the exigency presented by the vehicle likely gave the officer all the probable cause he needed to support the search.

I cannot find anything supporting the odor giving PC for a search. Can't actually find anything defeating it either. Got anything handy? Everything I find is too muddled with other issues that give PC for a search

 

[CdwJava]

I cannot find anything supporting the odor giving PC for a search. Can't actually find anything defeating it either. Got anything handy? Everything I find is too muddled with other issues that give PC for a search

The only court cases I have immediately available are CA specific. There are some few states that seem to discount odor a "plain smell" but if you cannot find such an exception for the OP's state, it might be that it is acceptable.

This is the closest that I have found:

Rule: "If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance, this Court has never held such a basis insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant. Indeed, it might very well be found to be evidence of most persuasive character." (Johnson v. United States (1948) 333 U.S. 10, 13 [92 L.Ed. 436, 440].)

This, however, does not relieve the officer of the necessity of obtaining a search warrant before looking for, and seizing, the source of the odor, absent exigent circumstances excusing the lack of a warrant. (Id. at p. 14 [92 L.Ed. at pp. 440-441].)​

 

[Shannongiles16]

My moms got pulled over for weaving and we were both sober as priests. I didn't see her move so much as 4 inches to one side or the other the whole time. We just happened to be driving past a party that got busted at the same time and the dumb cop picked the wrong pony. I then assumed any accusations of weaving from then on were complete and utter b.s.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

My moms got pulled over for weaving and we were both sober as priests. I didn't see her move so much as 4 inches to one side or the other the whole time. We just happened to be driving past a party that got busted at the same time and the dumb cop picked the wrong pony. I then assumed any accusations of weaving from then on were complete and utter b.s.

Mom hasn't had a sex change with 8" below her robe, does she?

 

[chrisjardine12]

Hahaha.

So, I seem to have misread something and it appears that the maximum imprisonment of 30 days only applies if you are caught drinking alcohol in a vehicle along with a $250 fine; the open container alone is just a $150 fine and a learning experience, so now I'm not as worried!
Thanks for your input everyone, I appreciate it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Good Luck man.

 

[RedemptionMan]

all the officer needs is a reasonable suspicion that you were breaking the law (weaving) which led to probable cause for the stop. If I was you then I would try to get summary judgement whereby you do a years of misdemeanor probation and get into no more trouble then it does not go on your record for insurance purposes. If you face only one violation then you could probably ask for civil penalty but did they give you three separate tickets or just one? A lawyer can keep it off your record but you have to decide if you want to spend 500-750 + the fines probably 1000-1500 total for a lawyer to get it plead down to something that will not go on your record or pay it yourself and get probation for just the fines probably in the 300 range. Good Luck with it but you need to figure it out fast before your first court date.

 

[quincy]

RedemptionMan, one problem with posting to an older thread is that there is a good chance chrisjardine12 has already had his first court appearance. Other than that, I agree with the gist of what you said.

An open container conviction is a minor misdemeanor in Ohio, so it would have been wise for chris to consult with an Ohio attorney prior to court, or to plead not guilty at his first appearance so he could locate an attorney before the subsequent hearing.

In these posts, he seems to be concentrating more on the amount of the fine and on the possibility of jail time with his ticketed offenses, but these factors can be the least of the problems that come with his charges.

If he pays the relatively small fine, he will wind up with a misdemeanor on his record - and it is this misdemeanor that will potentially cost him far more than the $150 (in higher interest rates, denied loans, employers not interested in hiring him, school applications being passed over, travel restrictions. . .).

If he did not already pay the fine to end the matter, he should hire an attorney. The costs of an attorney now can help him save a lot of money in the long run - with the attorney possibly getting evidence suppressed, working out a plea deal, keeping the misdemeanor from being entered.