illegal stop and search?

[tyrist]

First your car and everything you did screams suspect. Second you committed a moving violation by using your hazards and then admitted it by not having an emergency. Then without any valid ID you are now arrested for the infraction and your person can be search and your vehicle impounded. You were also carrying contraband without any supporting documentation? Honestly.....nothing illegal here you just messed up.

[Cokebottle]

First your car and everything you did screams suspect. Second you committed a moving violation by using your hazards and then admitted it by not having an emergency. Then without any valid ID you are now arrested for the infraction and your person can be search and your vehicle impounded. You were also carrying contraband without any supporting documentation? Honestly.....nothing illegal here you just messed up.

Excellent summary.


And most here know that I will be one of the first to play the "cops overstepped their legal authority" card, if it appears to be a factor.
Not in this case. This cop was no "Barney Fife". He did his job properly.

[domeshotjuan2]

First your car and everything you did screams suspect. Second you committed a moving violation by using your hazards and then admitted it by not having an emergency. Then without any valid ID you are now arrested for the infraction and your person can be search and your vehicle impounded. You were also carrying contraband without any supporting documentation? Honestly.....nothing illegal here you just messed up.

ive never heard of your hazards being a moving violation. i thought you use them when your car breaks down and/or if your moving to the side of the road. im happy i know this now.

the way my car looks unless it looks like its been in a recent accident or shot up i would assume would be of no relevence. except that where i live is full of "nice" cars. and mine seem out of place. could i use profiling as term?

if i was arrested i could see that but i was never placed under arrest. i guess he missed some steps. im thankful for that. but im pretty sure we have procedures set for a reason. if i were arrested i could see why i was searched but since i wasnt then those rights i have are still there i would assume.

and as for the marijuana again without being placed under arrest i think the search wich was done before an arrest and without consent or probable cause would be invalid. he may have had reasonable suspicion but thats no warrent to throw procedures out the window.

AGAIN I WAS IN THE WRONG FOR NOT HAVING MY DOCUMENTATION

but the steps that were taking by the officer were a bit backwards in my opinion. you cant say "i know something was stolen because he had it when i strip searched him" or "i know he was holding someone hostage because i saw it when i kicked down his door" without probable cause or warrant these would be all inadmissable in court. and we see cases thrown out everyday because of these technicalities. does it make what i did right. probably not. does it mean because i did something wrong then the officer has the right to do the same. NO two lefts dont make a right. IM NOT TRYING TO MAKE WHAT I DID SEEM RIGHT. WHAT I DO WANT IS FOR PEOPLE TO ADMITT THERE MISTAKES WHEN THEIR WRONG LIKE I DID AND LIKE IT OR NOT I HAVE RIGHTS TOO.

[Cokebottle]

Different states have different laws on the use of the 4-ways.

In California, the 4-ways are only to be used when stopped due to a breakdown or other emergency.
Some states want the 4-ways on when a vehicle is moving slowly, perhaps up a grade while loaded.

The turn signal is to be used to indicate that you are pulling over/merging/turning. The 4-ways don't come on until you have reached a complete stop.

[domeshotjuan2]

WHENEVER IM PULLED OVER I ALWAYS THROW ON MY HAZARDS SO THEIR AWARE I KNOW WHATS GOING ON AND IM COOPERATING. IS THIS WRONG? HOW SHOULD I APPROACH A STOP NEXT?

DISREGARD MESSAGE COKEBOTTLE ANSWERED IT FOR ME.

[domeshotjuan2]

ive never heard of your hazards being a moving violation. i thought you use them when your car breaks down and/or if your moving to the side of the road. im happy i know this now.

the way my car looks unless it looks like its been in a recent accident or shot up i would assume would be of no relevence. except that where i live is full of "nice" cars. and mine seem out of place. could i use profiling as term?

if i was arrested i could see that but i was never placed under arrest. i guess he missed some steps. im thankful for that. but im pretty sure we have procedures set for a reason. if i were arrested i could see why i was searched but since i wasnt then those rights i have are still there i would assume.

and as for the marijuana again without being placed under arrest i think the search wich was done before an arrest and without consent or probable cause would be invalid. he may have had reasonable suspicion but thats no warrent to throw procedures out the window.

AGAIN I WAS IN THE WRONG FOR NOT HAVING MY DOCUMENTATION

but the steps that were taking by the officer were a bit backwards in my opinion. you cant say "i know something was stolen because he had it when i strip searched him" or "i know he was holding someone hostage because i saw it when i kicked down his door" without probable cause or warrant these would be all inadmissable in court. and we see cases thrown out everyday because of these technicalities. does it make what i did right. probably not. does it mean because i did something wrong then the officer has the right to do the same. NO two lefts dont make a right. IM NOT TRYING TO MAKE WHAT I DID SEEM RIGHT. WHAT I DO WANT IS FOR PEOPLE TO ADMITT THERE MISTAKES WHEN THEIR WRONG LIKE I DID AND LIKE IT OR NOT I HAVE RIGHTS TOO.

AM I WRONG ON THIS OR.....

[antonio]

WOW u got cited for the marijuana LOL............ in Sacramento they would have thrown it away or let u keep it........ what a waste of time especially that amount

[Cokebottle]

WHENEVER IM PULLED OVER I ALWAYS THROW ON MY HAZARDS SO THEIR AWARE I KNOW WHATS GOING ON AND IM COOPERATING. IS THIS WRONG? HOW SHOULD I APPROACH A STOP NEXT?

DISREGARD MESSAGE COKEBOTTLE ANSWERED IT FOR ME.

Once the cop lights you up, I don't see a problem with hitting the 4-ways (and that's what I've always done)... but hitting them before he lights you up is, as someone mentioned above, grounds for at least a "welfare check".
He doesn't know if you just happened to break down while he was following or not.

[domeshotjuan2]

Once the cop lights you up, I don't see a problem with hitting the 4-ways (and that's what I've always done)... but hitting them before he lights you up is, as someone mentioned above, grounds for at least a "welfare check".
He doesn't know if you just happened to break down while he was following or not.

that makes total sense, gotta stay away from doing it the way i did for sure.

what about the rest of my statement am i being ignorant or am i confused. i didnt mean to come off so strong but... maybe thats my problem i cant express myself proplerly and then get frustrated when people dont seem to understand me. SORRY GUYS IM WORKIN ON IT. NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE OR ANYTHING JUST TRYING TO GET MY POINT ACROSS

[Cokebottle]

that makes total sense, gotta stay away from doing it the way i did for sure.

what about the rest of my statement am i being ignorant or am i confused. i didnt mean to come off so strong but... maybe thats my problem i cant express myself proplerly and then get frustrated when people dont seem to understand me. SORRY GUYS IM WORKIN ON IT. NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE OR ANYTHING JUST TRYING TO GET MY POINT ACROSS

Basically, you did everything wrong.
You voluntarily pulled over before he lit you up.
You consented to a search of your vehicle.

During the search of the vehicle, he would have been within his rights to search you and place you in the B&W for his safety.
If he had been riding with a partner, or had backup on scene, then he may have searched the car with you simply sitting on the curb being watched by his backup without a personal search.


However... even had you not consented to search, he may have suspected that you were intoxicated due to your pulling over before he indicated for you to do so.... so your consent to search may or may not have made a difference in the outcome. Your first mistake was the worst... followed by not having your current paperwork with you.

[domeshotjuan2]

Basically, you did everything wrong.
You voluntarily pulled over before he lit you up.
You consented to a search of your vehicle.

During the search of the vehicle, he would have been within his rights to search you and place you in the B&W for his safety.
If he had been riding with a partner, or had backup on scene, then he may have searched the car with you simply sitting on the curb being watched by his backup without a personal search.


However... even had you not consented to search, he may have suspected that you were intoxicated due to your pulling over before he indicated for you to do so.... so your consent to search may or may not have made a difference in the outcome. Your first mistake was the worst... followed by not having your current paperwork with you.

so what if there was a second officer that showed up before the search. i guess i should have stated that but... i didnt think it made a difference. but now that you mention it does it make a difference. if i have no weapons what would a search conclude about weapons that a pat down wouldnt. if you could read the long one on page 6 and get back to me ide appreciate it. i think im past the where I went wrong phase. i acknowledge MY mistakes.

[Cokebottle]

so what if there was a second officer that showed up before the search. i guess i should have stated that but... i didnt think it made a difference. but now that you mention it does it make a difference. if i have no weapons what would a search conclude about weapons that a pat down wouldnt. if you could read the long one on page 6 and get back to me ide appreciate it. i think im past the where I went wrong phase. i acknowledge MY mistakes.

I believe he has the right to a full search prior to placing you into his car, in part to prevent you from dumping contraband.

[domeshotjuan2]

again no arrest. what contraband i have on me is irrelavent without cause and as you stated if he had concerns he could have sat me on the curb and had the other officer watch me. and if they found something in my car he then could have searched me. i explained i was not able to be in the B&W cause of my condition. why is it that murderers rights are more looked after at a more careful look then someone with a victimless crime. am i wrong here. do i have less rights because they think i wont fight the technicalities and my rights. all im saying is if i was arrested i could see that but i was never placed under arrest. i guess he missed some steps. im thankful for that. but im pretty sure we have procedures set for a reason. if i were arrested i could see why i was searched but since i wasnt then those rights i have are still there i would assume.

and as for the marijuana again without being placed under arrest i think the search wich was done before an arrest and without consent or probable cause would be invalid. he may have had reasonable suspicion but thats no warrent to throw procedures out the window.

AGAIN I WAS IN THE WRONG FOR NOT HAVING MY DOCUMENTATION

but the steps that were taking by the officer were a bit backwards in my opinion. you cant say "i know something was stolen because he had it when i strip searched him" or "i know he was holding someone hostage because i saw it when i kicked down his door" without probable cause or warrant these would be all inadmissable in court. and we see cases thrown out everyday because of these technicalities. does it make what i did right. probably not. does it mean because i did something wrong then the officer has the right to do the same. NO two lefts dont make a right. IM NOT TRYING TO MAKE WHAT I DID SEEM RIGHT. WHAT I DO WANT IS FOR PEOPLE TO ADMITT THERE MISTAKES WHEN THEIR WRONG LIKE I DID AND LIKE IT OR NOT I HAVE RIGHTS TOO.

or is this false

[Seesm]

You should have a copy of your license and registration on you anytime your in your car... You did not have that a "teaker tag" in your back window and you pull over... All bad in the eye's of LEO. Oh wait I forget to mention the weed. Again all bad. But GL on this.

[SoCalDep]

OK...Not to be a pill or anything, but the OP is approaching this whole situation with a complete lack of legal knowledge...That's not an insult as that's why we have lawyers.

You are caught up in the concept of a pat-down search, but from your description of events, the search wasn't a pat-down and was completely legal. As I said before, you are facing an uphill battle if you wish to gain an acquittal. If you choose to represent yourself I can see no outcome but negative for you. You need an attorney. Nothing you hear in this thread besides "GET AN ATTORNEY" will give you any help at all.