Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Deferred Disposition Vs. Valid Search?

[tredapoet]

Driver is driving on vacation with his girlfriend. He is speeding and he gets stopped.Police officer asks for credentials, and says "what im going to do is right you a warning and ill be right back". Comes back asks driver to step out vehicle and askes him about an a Paraphanelia Ticket, which to drivers knowledge was dismissed. BEfore driver has the oppurtunity to tell them about it, he askes to search vehicle! (STOP)



Question #1: is asking for a search valid, if no reasonble suspicion arose from the vehicle at all?

Question #2: Is the apparently dismissed(deferred disposition) ticket reasonble suspicion or probable cause for a valid search?

Question# 3: Do i have the right to refuse?



Driver tells him No, and that iit is his girlfriends vehicle. The officer replies with, if you dont let me search, we will bring K9 out and tear up vehicle. Driver replies. "you gotta ask her".

Officer walk to vehicle to talk to passenger(girlfriend).

officer: is this your car

passenger: yeah, i just got it.

Officer: can i search it

passenger:why do you feel the need to search?

officer: driver has a prior ticket for paraphenalia(remember deferred disposition).

passenger: well do i have a choice

officer: no! either i will search it or i bring the dog to tear it up



BIG QUESTION #4: Why does the past ticket even matter if driver had the ticket Ajudicated, for what ever reason it may be?

BIG QUESTION #5: if officer had no suspcion between time he walk up to car and before he checked TExas ID, why did he still feel the need to violate persons in car?

\

Some of this might seem redundant but i need as much help as possible. If you can send me book references and law references?



THIS CASE IS REAL! MY MAIN FOCUS IS: CAN THIS CASE BE DROPPED DUE TO AN INVALID SEARCH

 

[army judge]

tredapoet wrote:
Driver is driving on vacation with his girlfriend. He is speeding and he gets stopped.Police officer asks for credentials, and says "what im going to do is right you a warning and ill be right back". Comes back asks driver to step out vehicle and askes him about an a Paraphanelia Ticket, which to drivers knowledge was dismissed. BEfore driver has the oppurtunity to tell them about it, he askes to search vehicle! (STOP)



Question #1: is asking for a search valid, if no reasonble suspicion arose from the vehicle at all?

Yes, the police can ask most any question they wish, and their departmental policy permits!

Question #2: Is the apparently dismissed(deferred disposition) ticket reasonble suspicion or probable cause for a valid search?

RED HERRING, irrelevant question. The police can ask you to search because they are bored, or looking for contraband. They don't need a reason to go fishing, they are cops, after all! They seek out evil doers daily.

Question# 3: Do i have the right to refuse?

Beautiful, you are catching on quickly. Yes, you can refuse, and you would be smart to refuse, especially if you were holding.

Driver tells him No, and that iit is his girlfriends vehicle. The officer replies with, if you dont let me search, we will bring K9 out and tear up vehicle. Driver replies. "you gotta ask her".

Officer walk to vehicle to talk to passenger(girlfriend).

officer: is this your car

passenger: yeah, i just got it.

Officer: can i search it

passenger:why do you feel the need to search?

officer: driver has a prior ticket for paraphenalia(remember deferred disposition).

passenger: well do i have a choice

officer: no! either i will search it or i bring the dog to tear it up



BIG QUESTION #4: Why does the past ticket even matter if driver had the ticket Ajudicated, for what ever reason it may be?


Again, RED HERRING, irrelevant. The police don't need a reason to ask your permission to search, but the dog could be another matter.

BIG QUESTION #5: if officer had no suspcion between time he walk up to car and before he checked TExas ID, why did he still feel the need to violate persons in car?

I am a great lawyer, but I am unable to read the thoughts of others. I would also advise against characterizing what the officer did, did not do, or intended to do.

Some of this might seem redundant but i need as much help as possible. If you can send me book references and law references?

You can Google all of this on the 'net. If you were ticketed or arrested, after SHE gave him permission to search, it was NOT an illegal search. Yes, it is NOT illegal for the police to lie, intimidate, or even bully someone into doing what they want. HINT, that includes getting girlfriends to "say YES to the search".


THIS CASE IS REAL! MY MAIN FOCUS IS: CAN THIS CASE BE DROPPED DUE TO AN INVALID SEARCH

Sure, your charges can be dropped, but not the case. Why, the police did not violate your constitutional protection by committing an illegal search. Your girlfriend gave permission, and I'll bet she even signed a form indicating the police could look in her car. Heck, she may have even told the officer where the drugs were secreted, rather than risk LOSING her car to IMPOUND when the dog arrived and alerted to the presence of illegal substances.



I suggest you do the following:
INVOKE your right to remain silent,
Plead NOT GUILTY,
Request a trial.
Request a court appointed lawyer (if you or the case qualifies you for one),
Or, hire your own lawyer,
Speak only to your lawyer,
Let the lawyer work his or her magic, (cut a deal)
And, this will be a bad memory sooner, rather than later.


One last word of caution.
I know Texas courts, I know Texas judges, and I darn sure know Texas justice.
Your case is a nothing case, unless YOU try to make it a SOMETHING case.
Don't outwit yourself, and make big problems for yourself.

I am hoping (for yoru sake) that if you were popped, it was for "weed".
I also hope, for your sake, that no more than 4 ounces was located.

If they found 2 ounces or less, its a Class B misdemeanor. It nets not more than 180 days in a county jail and/or a fine of not more than $2,000.

If they found more than 2 ounces, but less than 4 ounces, its a Class A misdemeanor. That could get someone not more than 1 year in a county jail and/or a fine of not more than $4,000.

Trust me, friend, they want money, lots of YOUR money. Money walks, talk gets you got.

You can also get your drivers license suspended for up to six months following a conviction violating ANY part of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, including marijuana possession. Texas is tough on crime, especially drug possession. It always has been, it will always remain so.

You won't win this case, but there are many other options to make it seem like you won.

If you are accused of a first offense of possessing less then 2 ounces of marijuana, it is likely you can work out a deal or even get your case dismissed in exchange for agreeing to drug treatment programs, and/or some community service (plus giving the state LOTS of your money). If you stay out of trouble during a specific period of time, your case may be dismissed or continued indefinitely.

These programs are called diversion programs, and are meant to avoid harsh penalties for first time offenders. Some Texas counties also have drug courts, where the court intervenes with intensive monitoring of drug use, and other mandatory programs in exchange for dismissing the possession charge in the future.

If you feel you may have a marijuana (or drug) addiction problem, agreeing to drug treatment can be an excellent option as part of a plea agreement.

You did not hear this from me, but I am told some people just say they have an alcohol problem, thus qualifying them for drug treatment. Yes, they often beta the wrap, too. Go figure, huh?

The goal with using diversion in these matters is to avoid a permanent criminal record. You can, and should discuss exactly what your options are, and what kind of deal you want yoru lawyer to try and get for you. Of course, you do this after discussing your case, reviewing the evidence against you, and talking about your previous life as part of most lawyer's free consultation. If you get that court appointed lawyer, there will be no charge, but the same discussions should be held.

In Texas, possession of drug paraphernalia is a separate criminal charge under the law.

What is defined as illegal drug paraphernalia?
Any item that can be used as a drug processing, packaging, or consumption mechanism can be defined as paraphernalia under 481.002 (17) of the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Even common household items such as scales, spoons, bowls, envelopes or bags can land you an illegal possession of paraphernalia charge. The most common paraphernalia charges result from pipes, and bongs.

What is the Penalty for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in Texas?
Simple possession of drug paraphernalia is a Class C Misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of fines up to $500.

Distribution or possession with intent to distribute or sell drug paraphernalia is a Class A misdemeanor, which can result in up to a year in jail. Second offense penalties will result in mandatory jail time, or if you sell to someone under 18 years old.

 

[tredapoet]

i thought legal searches "just becasue" was only for plain sight or view of the vehicle, not extensive searches. My girlfriend not omly refused agaisnt the search but also ask why he felt like it was necessary. He told her becasue of the ticket, so why....you say if i try to beat it, its worthless but we talking bout my life here so if you want to keep advising me to plea out of it, you got another thing coming....so i can be another young blakc kid the cops can harrass every time they see me driving a nice car....becasue those are the facts...young black kid on 22's driving through a small ass county and city to her parents....harrassed for a past citation that i actually spent time on probation and money to get dismissed....i believe all is irrelevant becasue he is the one who brought it up....why ask me to step out car if we wasnt planning to at all....im sure lot of people have records when they are stopped, so is everyperson suspect to a search? deal is we both refused the search and wanted to know why there was a need, if he was going to search he could have but again what happens to plain view, terry, mapp, exclusionary rule, fourth amendment......blah blah blah....thing is i was speeding....period...what does that have to do with drugs....not smoke in car....no smell of drugs in car....so wat was the valid reason you saying they dont need one,but isnt there a law to stop you from going in closed and locked spaces without valid warrant, if you didnt find anything in plain sight....talk to me hear cuz believed it or not i got some police history and im not talking about illegality

 

[army judge]

I suggest you consult an attorney in your area.
By the way, people that have been locked down know when to stop talking. See a lawyer, because you can't do correctly what you're trying to do.
Furthermore, no one cares, but you.

Texas boasts about "not messing with Texas", they take it seriously. You'll likely see a Justice of the Peace, most aren't lawyers, they're connected "good ole boys"!

The cop didn't care. The prosecutor won't care. And the judge has been told to find you guilty, no matter what the constitution says. The fix is in on this one cuz.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD

 

[mightymoose]

Question #1: is asking for a search valid, if no reasonble suspicion arose from the vehicle at all?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with police asking permission to search for any/no reason at all. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with refusing permission.

Question #2: Is the apparently dismissed(deferred disposition) ticket reasonble suspicion or probable cause for a valid search?

It is reasonable that the officer's interest would be aroused by the citation, but without permission, a warrant, or some other probable cause he can not search the vehicle. The citation alone is not grounds to search.

Question# 3: Do i have the right to refuse?

Always.

BIG QUESTION #4: Why does the past ticket even matter if driver had the ticket Ajudicated, for what ever reason it may be?

The past ticket is not relevant regardless of its outcome, other than the fact that it gave the officer reason to suspect that drugs/paraphernlia could be present again.

BIG QUESTION #5: if officer had no suspcion between time he walk up to car and before he checked TExas ID, why did he still feel the need to violate persons in car?

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause can arise at any time. The officer did not have reasonable suspicion until he discovered the previous citation. The officer did not have probable cause to search, which is why he asked permission. The officer did not violate any person's rights by asking permission to search.

If the officer did in fact tell you that you did not have the right to refuse then you might have an argument to make. However, it would have been much better if you had clearly refused permission with a "No" rather than playing 20 questions.

I am assuming that you consented to the search only after the officer told you that you could not refuse it. That is something you need to discuss with an attorney when the time comes. The officer is going to say that you consented to the search, or that you did not refuse, and is not going to say a word about telling you that you can't refuse.

 

[mightymoose]

i thought legal searches "just becasue" was only for plain sight or view of the vehicle, not extensive searches.

No. If permission is granted the police can search every crevice of the vehicle. The great thing is that once you grant permission you can retract it. If they continue to search after you tell them to stop (assuming they have not yet found anything) then the continued search is illegal. Best not to let them start in the first place. Nothing good will ever come of it.

My girlfriend not omly refused agaisnt the search but also ask why he felt like it was necessary.

The "why" isn't important. She either refused or she didn't. Apparently she allowed the search, but if she only did so after the officer told her she had no choice in the matter then that isn't really consent and may be argued later.

i believe all is irrelevant because he is the one who brought it up

It does not matter who brought it up. The officer's discovery of the past citation actually gave him a good reason to look closer. The only thing the officer may have done wrong in this scenario, as you describe it, is taint the consent to search.

why ask me to step out car if we wasnt planning to at all

He asked you to step out for a couple of good reasons. First, he was apparently intending to search if permission was granted. Second, he doesn't want you in a position to destroy evidence, access any weapons in the vehicle, or to attempt to flee in the vehicle.

im sure lot of people have records when they are stopped, so is everyperson suspect to a search?

You must understand that the search did not take place because of the past citation. The search took place because permission to search was granted. The citation only made the officer suspicious, and he apparently was right!

deal is we both refused the search and wanted to know why there was a need, if he was going to search he could have but again what happens to plain view, terry, mapp, exclusionary rule, fourth amendment......blah blah blah...

With permission to search granted all those other things go out the window. If you want a way out of this talk with an attorney about the way that permission to search was obtained. If you can't get around that hurdle, you will be on the hook.

thing is i was speeding....period...what does that have to do with drugs....not smoke in car....no smell of drugs in car....

Speeding has nothing to do with drugs. That does not mean if the officer becomes suspicious of drugs that he can't investigate.

so wat was the valid reason you saying they dont need one,but isnt there a law to stop you from going in closed and locked spaces without valid warrant, if you didnt find anything in plain sight...

They said they don't need a warrant? They were correct. If permission to search is granted then a warrant is not required. Had everyone stuck to the a clear refusal to search then the search should not have occurred. In your first post above there is no clear refusal from the girlfriend. Since she was with you, you really did not have authority to grant permission since it was her vehicle. You told them to ask her. She asked questions but never said "No".

 

[tredapoet]

i didnt consent but the vehicle did belong to my girlfriend. but he threatened me with dogs...you got look at every fact i put down becasue all the matters. he threatened to tear my car up not sniff it out. when he asked my girl to search she why? he said cuz of the ticket. she asked him did she have a CHOICE. HE SAID NO!

 

[tredapoet]

Well, here it is...my scenario may have been a little rushed but ive said more than once...period...we both refused....my girlfriend asked why because she didnt even see a reason to ask....even after he stated why...the point is...he told her she didnt have choice....(so, how did she even have the right to refuse). I refused...i said no....she asked did she have a choice....she was either going to let him search or let a dog tear up our vehicle and he said it more than once...he said it to me and her.....so, can we explore entrapment again anyone?

 

[tredapoet]

Furthermore, no one cares, but you.

LOL...YOU RIGHT, BUT IM GLAD I CARE.....I BEEN CAREFUL WITH MY PERSONAL LIFE FOR 23 YRS SIR, AND I WONT BLOW ANY CHANCES I HAVE OVER A MISTAKE...AND IF ITS WORTH FIGHTING...THEN I WILL BUT MAIN POINT IS, DUDE ASKED BUT REALLY DIDNT GIVE US ANY CHOICE CUZ NOT ONLY THREATENED ME, HE THREATENED MY WOMAN....AINT NO DOG ALLOW UNLESS BY WARRANT EVEN IF I REFUSE....HE HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO USE DOG. ONLY REASONABLE SUSPICION TO ASK FOR A SEARCH...WE BOTH REFUSED BUT ALSO WERE TOLD EVEN IF WE DIDNT CONSENT THEY WOULD SEARCH ANYWAYS(AND SEARCH VIOLENTLY---->HE DID USE THE WORDS "TEAR UP YOUT VEHICLE") SO HOW IS THAT FOR AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.....

 

[tredapoet]

One last word of caution.
I know Texas courts, I know Texas judges, and I darn sure know Texas justice.
Your case is a nothing case, unless YOU try to make it a SOMETHING case.
Don't outwit yourself, and make big problems for yourself.

TRUST AND BELIEVE IM NOT OUTWITTING MYSELF....I PROBABLY KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK I DO SIR....AND I KNOW ONE THING NOT EVEN THE LAW CAN STOP SOMEONE FROM PROVING THE FACTS, BECAUSE I COP CANT MAKE YOU DO SOMETHING WITHOUT HIM VIOLATING THE LAW FIRST.....MY GIRLFRIEND NEVER TOLD THE COP HE COULD SEARCH....PEOPLE MAY THINK JUST TAKING THE HIT AND MOVING ON WORK, BUT IT DOESNT...IVE SEEN HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS ON BOTH SIDES VERY WELL...SO WITH THAT BEING SAID.....(OH YEAH AND I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU THINK "CUZ" MEAN, BUT NOTHING AROUND HERE SIR!

 

[mightymoose]

It is not anything close to entrapment. The less you talk like that the more seriously you might be taken.
Again, this all hinges on how consent was obtained. You need to discuss it with your attorney so it can be addressed properly in court.
You are putting too much emphasis on things that are totally irrelevant. Once you are working with an attorney you should understand more clearly.