If the statute regarding “stop lamp” was from a period when cars only had one “lamp”, I don’t think this decision was incorrect.
The driver was stupid to consent to a search.
true, but then the officer should not have the authority to ask to do so in the first place.
Here’s how cops get consent:
“Now I can get search warrant. We’ll both be sitting here an extra hour and be in the same boat. And five other officers and a police dog will rip your car up. You consenting or not?”
On that we absolutely agree. However since the pretext for the stop was not legal, anything arising from it was tainted. The court seems to be unaware of the term "testilying".
OK, so, "Profiling".
This guy fit a profile (I dunno what, I'm not a cop), so the cop found a reason to pull the car over. Asked the occupants a few questions, determined that he was right about his assumption, asked to search the car (the owner consented - dumb), and poof, a Cocaine bust.
Defendant sounds like a whitebread college prof. Wonder what the other guy in the car looked like. I'll go out on a limb and guess, "Definitively Not".
If this happened on I-85 in NC, that's a massive drug pipeline. That's a missing piece, right there.
Lessons learned? Don't traffic cocaine. Don't give police permission to search your vehicle.
Fred Reed wrote an interesting piece on this.