look at the ramifications.
GW gave us the DHS, Obama now uses it to rule over us.
Look to the greater extent and stop looking at the small window.
You all fail to look at it from the standpoint that the police do not need reasonable cause anymore.
Lets say they outlaw all plastic bags in the year 2025, OK, Just for this purpose.
All they have to do is tell the judge, I thought a crime had been committed. When I went into their home I shot the dog because the homeowner was trying to hide his stash of plastic shopping bags which the EPA outlawed last year.
So the crime was committed just not the one we thought. The police do not need proof you committed a crime to enter your house, but once inside, none of us know if we have committed a crime with more than 40,000 new laws being passed every year just in the states alone.
We can what if a whole lot of scenarios. The fact is the driver allowed a search. Even today, if a police officer walks up to you and asks to search you and you agree ... the consequences of that search are still legal.
If an individual does not assert their rights, the the police can and will use that against you. It is really very easy to say “I do not consent to any searches of myself or my property.”
Close... but, again, you do not have to afford a cop a warrantless search. Trust us. Your dog will thank you. BTW plastic bags are already illegal in parts of Caliphornia.
I’m sorry, again, none of your theories fit the case. The homeowner in your hypothetical example would have to consent to the search of their home, and the end crime would have to be utterly unrelated to the initial stop. I would also hope that no one would consent to their home being searched without securing their animals.
So, how would you have ruled? The initial stop was done for a broken taillight. Up until the time the appeals court ruled that since that ONE line in the vehicle code said ‘light’ instead of ‘lights’ like all other lines, it only required ONE working taillight. They threw out the stop, and then went further, and claimed that the consent to search the vehicle and the resulting evidence of a drug crime was also to be thrown out, as the initial stop was suddenly invalid.
I think the appeals court felt generous, but I don’t agree that the resulting search that was consented to should be thrown out as well. It wasn’t just a good faith mistake, it was the way the law was enforced up until that point. I think SCOTUS ruled correctly; fortune telling isn’t something officers are expected to perform as part of their duties. All state literature and officer training was that all lights must function. The lack of an (s) at the end of a line of code shouldn’t undo the stop and consented search.