|
Author
|
Topic: pissed!. got pulled over for some!.
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
 
 
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Yes they can make u pop ur hood on the spot.
No, absolutely not!! Not just because they WANT to.
In this case, the officer had no reason to look under the car. His probable cause was based on a search of something that wasn't in plaine view. He got pulled over for headlights, last time I checked, this had nothing to do with the motor.
Make him display his probable cause and get it on tape!!
Lolz. The state gives officers the legal right to kill. U think he can't pop ur hood?
I think u also have probable cause and reasonable suspicion confused.
Probable cause is what u need to arrest someone or to substantiate a warrant/warrantless search the interior/trunk of someones vehicle. All the officer needs to show is reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is determined by the toatality of the circumstances and the officers knowledge/experience. All he has to do is articulate that based on the vehicles sound or apperance it was likely to have illegal modifications. The vehicle already had illegally modified lights and I'm guessing a louder than stock exhaust. There is your reasonable suspicion.
He still needs to show probable cause to search the vehicle. Under the hood and underneath the car are not in plain sight.
You are right, the officer is going to base his suspicion or probable cause on his experience/knowledge. That's why you have a tape recorder. The purpose of "challenging" the officer to pop the hood is to build a case for a profiled stop and have the citations that result from the stop thrown out in court.
I am NOT saying you DON'T have to pop your hood whatsoever. What I am saying is IF you are asked to pop your hood, you HAVE to right to decline IF he has no reason to search. IF he does have some sort of probable cause or suspicion, I want him to DISPLAY it. Then, in court, battle the case by making the officer prove what exact experience he has had that made his probable cause/suspicion justified.
There are certainly officers that are versed in vehicle knowledge. However, most of them aren't. And because of that fact, I build my case.
When I get pulled over, you best be damn sure I challenge the officer if he tells me to pop my hood.
My whole-point is, don't just roll-over because it's "easy". Stand-up for your rights and fight the tickets you shouldn't be getting.
[ September 03, 2009, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Tha91SiCkNeSs ]
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Blue92:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Yes they can make u pop ur hood on the spot.
No, absolutely not!! Not just because they WANT to.
In this case, the officer had no reason to look under the car. His probable cause was based on a search of something that wasn't in plaine view. He got pulled over for headlights, last time I checked, this had nothing to do with the motor.
Make him display his probable cause and get it on tape!!
I would actually like an officer's point of view from this board on this issue. Any here?
The closest thing I can produce is my step-father's opinion on this.
He is a deputy DA here in Sac County.
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
Not an officer, but I have real close officer friends and basically 50 is right on the probable cause and reasonable suspicion. And it is often up to the officers interpretation of the situation at the time. So the moral of the story is pop ya hood.
It up to the officers "interpretation". Now, that interpretation might be flawed if the officer has no vehicle knowledge.
The problem with your statement is that, until we have proved he has legitimate knowledge, his interpretation is just as good as any Joe Schmoe
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke87GT:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Yes they can make u pop ur hood on the spot.
No, absolutely not!! Not just because they WANT to.
In this case, the officer had no reason to look under the car. His probable cause was based on a search of something that wasn't in plaine view. He got pulled over for headlights, last time I checked, this had nothing to do with the motor.
Make him display his probable cause and get it on tape!!
Lolz. The state gives officers the legal right to kill. U think he can't pop ur hood?
so true...
this whole "challenge the cop and make him do this and that" is NOT going to get anyone ahead.
You will lose. Your best bet is to be polite, act like you are not familiar with anything lol
You will NOT lose if you can build your case. The problem is that most people don't because it's not as "easy".
I have fought my way out of several tickets as well as engine bay searches using my approach. But to each his own I guess.
Every situation is different. If you feel like the cop might let you off, just be polite.
But, if he is already a dick, why not challenge him? You are already getting cited anyways. If you get everything on tape, you might even get him on grounds of retaliation.
You have rights!
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Yes they can make u pop ur hood on the spot.
No, absolutely not!! Not just because they WANT to.
In this case, the officer had no reason to look under the car. His probable cause was based on a search of something that wasn't in plaine view. He got pulled over for headlights, last time I checked, this had nothing to do with the motor.
Make him display his probable cause and get it on tape!!
Lolz. The state gives officers the legal right to kill. U think he can't pop ur hood?
I think u also have probable cause and reasonable suspicion confused.
Probable cause is what u need to arrest someone or to substantiate a warrant/warrantless search the interior/trunk of someones vehicle. All the officer needs to show is reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is determined by the toatality of the circumstances and the officers knowledge/experience. All he has to do is articulate that based on the vehicles sound or apperance it was likely to have illegal modifications. The vehicle already had illegally modified lights and I'm guessing a louder than stock exhaust. There is your reasonable suspicion.
Also, your description is contradictory. If he needs probable cause to search the interior and trunk regions, how does that differ from the engine bay?
There is no difference. The engine-bay is hidden just like the trunk is.
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
gercolla1
¯
Member # 3068
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by essasin:
It's the modified tail lights/headlights, tints, and loud exhaust systems that get you. But in general, take all that off and spend it on a slight drop, nice wheels, engine mods, and watch the cops compliment you instead of pulling you over.
x100 ![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif) once a cop started to talk about my 5.0 n his 4eye he forgot about the ticket n told me to burn rubber so he could hear it open up
[ September 03, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: gercolla1 ]
--------------------
Sf Bay Area
Posts: 2171 | From: Sampan San Francisco | Registered: Jul 2003
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
Not an officer, but I have real close officer friends and basically 50 is right on the probable cause and reasonable suspicion. And it is often up to the officers interpretation of the situation at the time. So the moral of the story is pop ya hood.
It up to the officers "interpretation". Now, that interpretation might be flawed if the officer has no vehicle knowledge.
The problem with your statement is that, until we have proved he has legitimate knowledge, his interpretation is just as good as any Joe Schmoe
No your wrong about the legitimate knowledge portion to a certain degree. Obnoxiously loud exhaust, cowl hood are among the things that would be a dead give away and raise the appropriate suspicion level. Also the drivers response to questions can also raise the suspicion level. What the stop was for can also raise the suspicion level. There are mitigating factors that are purely based on the observation by the officer that can raise suspicion and are not directly linked to a specialty in vehicular code enforcement.
BTW -
The above was typed by a friend that is Sac PD I happen to be having lunch with.
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
50 Deep
Jockin 03 Cobras
Member # 6216
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Yes they can make u pop ur hood on the spot.
No, absolutely not!! Not just because they WANT to.
In this case, the officer had no reason to look under the car. His probable cause was based on a search of something that wasn't in plaine view. He got pulled over for headlights, last time I checked, this had nothing to do with the motor.
Make him display his probable cause and get it on tape!!
Lolz. The state gives officers the legal right to kill. U think he can't pop ur hood?
I think u also have probable cause and reasonable suspicion confused.
Probable cause is what u need to arrest someone or to substantiate a warrant/warrantless search the interior/trunk of someones vehicle. All the officer needs to show is reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is determined by the toatality of the circumstances and the officers knowledge/experience. All he has to do is articulate that based on the vehicles sound or apperance it was likely to have illegal modifications. The vehicle already had illegally modified lights and I'm guessing a louder than stock exhaust. There is your reasonable suspicion.
Also, your description is contradictory. If he needs probable cause to search the interior and trunk regions, how does that differ from the engine bay?
There is no difference. The engine-bay is hidden just like the trunk is.
The difference is the supreme court has never ruled on a case stating the engine bay is only searchable with a warrant or incident to arrest the same way the passenger compartment or trunk is. Find me a supreme court case that states so and I will retract my statement.
Searching the engine bay was also done in furtherance of the officers suspicion of illegal modifications. Relevant to the "crime". Now the officer probably couldn't justify a search of the interior or trunk because its not relevant to the "crime" attempting to be proved. Motor vehicles are also highly mobile and if the officer didn't search it at the time it was likely the suspect could remove any illegal parts before a warrant could be obtained to search it. Which is why the engine bay is searchable and he would likely lose in court given he already had illegal modifications on the car.
--------------------
Signature Wheel Ford Representative
Email: Terrance@Signaturewheel.com
Instagram: @Signature_Wheel_Mustang
Web: www.SignatureWheel.com
Posts: 6043 | From: sacramento | Registered: Nov 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
Not an officer, but I have real close officer friends and basically 50 is right on the probable cause and reasonable suspicion. And it is often up to the officers interpretation of the situation at the time. So the moral of the story is pop ya hood.
It up to the officers "interpretation". Now, that interpretation might be flawed if the officer has no vehicle knowledge.
The problem with your statement is that, until we have proved he has legitimate knowledge, his interpretation is just as good as any Joe Schmoe
No your wrong about the legitimate knowledge portion to a certain degree. Obnoxiously loud exhaust, cowl hood are among the things that would be a dead give away and raise the appropriate suspicion level. Also the drivers response to questions can also raise the suspicion level. What the stop was for can also raise the suspicion level. There are mitigating factors that are purely based on the observation by the officer that can raise suspicion and are not directly linked to a specialty in vehicular code enforcement.
BTW -
The above was typed by a friend that is Sac PD I happen to be having lunch with.
Absolutely but the stop in question was for headlights.
Since I am talking to Sac PD, I will quote the DA,
"Prove to me that the headlights and cowl hood signify a modified motor."
Both you and I know what a cowl hood is for. But if you don't have the knowledge to substantiate that, then the attorney's arguement is simply that a hood functions the same as a door. It covers an area from the elements.
So, by your logic, you should be searching the passenger compartment area because your door has a lump in it.
Second, you have to display that the said cowl hood supports your suspicion. For example, if a cowl hood is in fact a "dead giveaway", I want to see you pulling over a BRAND NEW SS Camaro. Because they have cowl hoods, stock. Then, make sure you search his engine bay.
My point is, even though you think they are dead-giveaways, the fact of being a dead-giveaway is contingent upon your knowledge..
Just because you, are ONE officer in Sac PD, does not mean every officer shares the same knowledge. I'm positive there are Sac PD who have no idea what a cowl hood even is.
And for the officers that have no idea what a cowl hood is, but consider searching the engine because the hood has a lump in it, should be doing it to EVERY car they pull over that has a cowl hood. Stock or not. The minute it doesn't happen, we turn this into a profiled stop case and my argument becomes synonymous with my previous quote.
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
Your fishing now....But its cool. You and I both know that the person with the cowl hood and obnoxious exhaust would lose that battle. So your only grounds is to bring in the ticketing officer and prove him to not be BF Goodrich? Really shaky defense IMO.
But alas, I try to stay away from that stuff on my cars so...
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Yes they can make u pop ur hood on the spot.
No, absolutely not!! Not just because they WANT to.
In this case, the officer had no reason to look under the car. His probable cause was based on a search of something that wasn't in plaine view. He got pulled over for headlights, last time I checked, this had nothing to do with the motor.
Make him display his probable cause and get it on tape!!
Lolz. The state gives officers the legal right to kill. U think he can't pop ur hood?
I think u also have probable cause and reasonable suspicion confused.
Probable cause is what u need to arrest someone or to substantiate a warrant/warrantless search the interior/trunk of someones vehicle. All the officer needs to show is reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is determined by the toatality of the circumstances and the officers knowledge/experience. All he has to do is articulate that based on the vehicles sound or apperance it was likely to have illegal modifications. The vehicle already had illegally modified lights and I'm guessing a louder than stock exhaust. There is your reasonable suspicion.
Also, your description is contradictory. If he needs probable cause to search the interior and trunk regions, how does that differ from the engine bay?
There is no difference. The engine-bay is hidden just like the trunk is.
The difference is the supreme court has never ruled on a case stating the engine bay is only searchable with a warrant or incident to arrest the same way the passenger compartment or trunk is. Find me a supreme court case that states so and I will retract my statement.
Searching the engine bay was also done in furtherance of the officers suspicion of illegal modifications. Relevant to the "crime". Now the officer probably couldn't justify a search of the interior or trunk because its not relevant to the "crime" attempting to be proved. Motor vehicles are also highly mobile and if the officer didn't search it at the time it was likely the suspect could remove any illegal parts before a warrant could be obtained to search it. Which is why the engine bay is searchable and he would likely lose in court given he already had illegal modifications on the car.
Just because the supreme court hasn't ruled on this case does not mean it does not stand as law.
Your logic argues against the fact that you need probable cause for a trunk and passenger compartment search as opposed to an engine-bay search.
Then, show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that you need one for the trunk and cabin?? Your argument is still contradictory.
Bottom line is: This is my 4th Amendment right. Because it is in our Constitution, it IS the law of the land.
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
TR1
98COBRA.COM
Member # 296
|
posted
Here ya go....
2804 VC. A member of the California Highway Patrol upon reasonable belief that any vehicle is being operated in violation of any provisions of this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit to an inspection of the vehicle , and its equipment, license plates, and registration card.
He does not have to give you a ticket for what you got stopped for.
--------------------
Yep.
Posts: 1381 | From: Bay Area, CA. | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
Your fishing now....But its cool. You and I both know that the person with the cowl hood and obnoxious exhaust would lose that battle. So your only grounds is to bring in the ticketing officer and prove him to not be BF Goodrich? Really shaky defense IMO.
But alas, I try to stay away from that stuff on my cars so...
No, I don't know. Because I have won that battle on 2 occasions. Granted, I have the DA on my side, but the arguements were the same.
I got pulled over in my 03 Cobra and since the stock hood has a "cowl" in it, he wanted to search my engine-bay. I declined, on the basis of not having any probable cause.
He threatened to tow, I had the DA come out. We eventually agreed to have him search. Then, he wanted to send me to a ref because I have a K&N FIPK along with giving me a speeding ticket.
Both were thrown out.
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
Your fishing now....But its cool. You and I both know that the person with the cowl hood and obnoxious exhaust would lose that battle. So your only grounds is to bring in the ticketing officer and prove him to not be BF Goodrich? Really shaky defense IMO.
But alas, I try to stay away from that stuff on my cars so...
No, I don't know. Because I have won that battle on 2 occasions. Granted, I have the DA on my side, but the arguements were the same.
I got pulled over in my 03 Cobra and since the stock hood has a "cowl" in it, he wanted to search my engine-bay. I declined, on the basis of not having any probable cause.
He threatened to tow, I had the DA come out. We eventually agreed to have him search. Then, he wanted to send me to a ref because I have a K&N FIPK along with giving me a speeding ticket.
Both were thrown out.
Well I for one fly the ![[BS flag]](graemlins/bs_flag.gif)
But that is neither here nor there. And I would not test your theory nor prescribe anyone do the same. Seems it causes more grief than it solves. I can relate to standing up for your rights and such. But when you are wrong you are wrong.
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
Your fishing now....But its cool. You and I both know that the person with the cowl hood and obnoxious exhaust would lose that battle. So your only grounds is to bring in the ticketing officer and prove him to not be BF Goodrich? Really shaky defense IMO.
But alas, I try to stay away from that stuff on my cars so...
No, I don't know. Because I have won that battle on 2 occasions. Granted, I have the DA on my side, but the arguements were the same.
I got pulled over in my 03 Cobra and since the stock hood has a "cowl" in it, he wanted to search my engine-bay. I declined, on the basis of not having any probable cause.
He threatened to tow, I had the DA come out. We eventually agreed to have him search. Then, he wanted to send me to a ref because I have a K&N FIPK along with giving me a speeding ticket.
Both were thrown out.
Well I for one fly the
But that is neither here nor there. And I would not test your theory nor prescribe anyone do the same. Seems it causes more grief than it solves. I can relate to standing up for your rights and such. But when you are wrong you are wrong.
Thats fine. I'm not going to force anything on you.
There are countless threads on this and other forums complaining about ref tickets or supposed fix it tickets the turned out to be not fixable and now carry a large fine.
My whole point is that if any of these tickets were not justified, you CAN and should fight it. Whether you want to or not, that's your choice.
Even if you fight it/challenge the officer, what's the worst that can happen? I'm not rude or disrespectful to any officers. It's not like we yell at each other when I'm pulled over.
EDIT: The whole debate within this thread is based off of the majority saying, "Cops can pop your hood and you can do nothing about it".
I'm just saying, "Cops CAN pop your hood, but even then, you still have rights. If you think the forthcoming citation isn't justified, build a case and stand-up for your rights."
I don't have any malicious or questionable theories or practices in my reasoning.
[ September 03, 2009, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Tha91SiCkNeSs ]
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
50 Deep
Jockin 03 Cobras
Member # 6216
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
The difference is the supreme court has never ruled on a case stating the engine bay is only searchable with a warrant or incident to arrest the same way the passenger compartment or trunk is. Find me a supreme court case that states so and I will retract my statement.
Searching the engine bay was also done in furtherance of the officers suspicion of illegal modifications. Relevant to the "crime". Now the officer probably couldn't justify a search of the interior or trunk because its not relevant to the "crime" attempting to be proved. Motor vehicles are also highly mobile and if the officer didn't search it at the time it was likely the suspect could remove any illegal parts before a warrant could be obtained to search it. Which is why the engine bay is searchable and he would likely lose in court given he already had illegal modifications on the car.
Just because the supreme court hasn't ruled on this case does not mean it does not stand as law.
Your logic argues against the fact that you need probable cause for a trunk and passenger compartment search as opposed to an engine-bay search.
Then, show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that you need one for the trunk and cabin?? Your argument is still contradictory.
Bottom line is: This is my 4th Amendment right. Because it is in our Constitution, it IS the law of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._United_States
All 3 cases deal with motor vehicle searches and there exceptions for the compartment and trunk. Each situation has its own circumstances but NONE involve the engine compartment. You might be able to fight a search of an engine bay for drugs, but I doubt u will get far in court trying to fight one for the OP's situation. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm pretty sure if you tell the officer ur not popping ur hood that ur gonna be hitching a ride to work tomorrow. Either they search it on the spot or tow it until they can get a warrant to search it later.
So find me some codified or case law stating the legal boundaries for engine bay searches on a vehicle and we can pick this up again.
--------------------
Signature Wheel Ford Representative
Email: Terrance@Signaturewheel.com
Instagram: @Signature_Wheel_Mustang
Web: www.SignatureWheel.com
Posts: 6043 | From: sacramento | Registered: Nov 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tha91SiCkNeSs:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
The difference is the supreme court has never ruled on a case stating the engine bay is only searchable with a warrant or incident to arrest the same way the passenger compartment or trunk is. Find me a supreme court case that states so and I will retract my statement.
Searching the engine bay was also done in furtherance of the officers suspicion of illegal modifications. Relevant to the "crime". Now the officer probably couldn't justify a search of the interior or trunk because its not relevant to the "crime" attempting to be proved. Motor vehicles are also highly mobile and if the officer didn't search it at the time it was likely the suspect could remove any illegal parts before a warrant could be obtained to search it. Which is why the engine bay is searchable and he would likely lose in court given he already had illegal modifications on the car.
Just because the supreme court hasn't ruled on this case does not mean it does not stand as law.
Your logic argues against the fact that you need probable cause for a trunk and passenger compartment search as opposed to an engine-bay search.
Then, show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that you need one for the trunk and cabin?? Your argument is still contradictory.
Bottom line is: This is my 4th Amendment right. Because it is in our Constitution, it IS the law of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._United_States
All 3 cases deal with motor vehicle searches and there exceptions for the compartment and trunk. Each situation has its own circumstances but NONE involve the engine compartment. You might be able to fight a search of an engine bay for drugs, but I doubt u will get far in court trying to fight one for the OP's situation. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm pretty sure if you tell the officer ur not popping ur hood that ur gonna be hitching a ride to work tomorrow. Either they search it on the spot or tow it until they can get a warrant to search it later.
So find me some codified or case law stating the legal boundaries for engine bay searches on a vehicle and we can pick this up again.
The case of Carroll v United States does in-fact cover the engine bay. The reason is because of the Automobile Exception.
I believe the Automobile Exception came about because of the Carroll case.
I'm at work, so I can't do the necessary research but I believe the Automobile Exception shows that a warrantless search of the vehicle is justified in the case of probable cause. The reason for this is the mobility of the vehicle, which you stated before.
Note that the Automobile Exception states the Vehicle and not specifically the trunk or passenger compartment.
However, because I can't research it, IF the Automobile Exception does in fact state only the passenger compartment or trunk, then I stand corrected. But if not, then the Engine-Bay should be treated just as the passenger compartment and trunk.
EDIT: So basically, we just showed each other a case dealing with a supreme court ruling. lol
[ September 03, 2009, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Tha91SiCkNeSs ]
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
Tha91SiCkNeSs
¯
Member # 5790
|
posted
. Double-Post.
[ September 03, 2009, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Tha91SiCkNeSs ]
--------------------
2003 Cobra
Posts: 565 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
50 Deep
Jockin 03 Cobras
Member # 6216
|
posted
Now Charles don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of officers being able to arbitrarily pop someones hood and get up in their shit. And believe me, if I felt it was unwarranted I'm gonna contest it. But the bottom line is the cop can make u pop ur hood on site. You can fight it later in court and win but probably not on the side of the road. However I do know most officers call their superior to make sure they have standing before they tow a car. So its possible you can get away with it. But even with the DA on ur side u still had to let the cop look under ur girls skirt. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Signature Wheel Ford Representative
Email: Terrance@Signaturewheel.com
Instagram: @Signature_Wheel_Mustang
Web: www.SignatureWheel.com
Posts: 6043 | From: sacramento | Registered: Nov 2005
| :
|
|
welch93lx
¯
Member # 8748
|
posted
it will get dismisesd watch
--------------------
1991 LX HAtchback
R.I.P LUIS
Posts: 705 | From: modesto | Registered: Nov 2008
| :
|
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
