Question with getting pulled over ticket/weed possession

[lovehatehero]

Ok if they had you in the back of the car (which means you were cuffed as well) i'm suspecting your leaving something out. Now if it's in plain view (on the floor, open ashtray, etc) your fucked anyways as search laws won't protect you for leaving something in the open. Once that's done, they now have probable cause to search the rest of your car with or without your consent.

Nope not cuffed I was just sitting in the back as he did his thing writing the ticket and such. His partner was the one who searched and found my pipe in my center console so.

[Cream Soda]

Always lock your doors when you stpe out of your car in the future.

[Haiko]

Always lock your doors when you stpe out of your car in the future.

lol? I don't think that matters at all haha

[Demosthenes11]

yea, cops can't enter your home if your doors are unlocked...

[aurik]

Nope not cuffed I was just sitting in the back as he did his thing writing the ticket and such. His partner was the one who searched and found my pipe in my center console so.

Get a lawyer.

Also why are you carrying drug paraphernalia / drugs in your car, that's incredibly stupid.

[archibaldcrane]

lol? I don't think that matters at all haha

It makes it abundantly clear whether you consent to the search or not - they have to ask for your keys, an overt act. As it stands now, the cop could say "Oh he said I could search" whether he did or not.

[Demosthenes11]

Get a lawyer.

Also why are you carrying drug paraphernalia / drugs in your car, that's incredibly stupid.

how 2 get that from point A to B without a car?

[NiggaFromHarlem]

Nope not cuffed I was just sitting in the back as he did his thing writing the ticket and such. His partner was the one who searched and found my pipe in my center console so.

Explain exactly the process of going from getting a ticket to sitting in the back of a cop car. Usually getting a ticket doesn't work that way, and it seems the validity of the search probably rests on how that occurred.

Usually when a cop searches a car it's because:

1) it's a search pursuant to an arrest

2) the cop intimidates someone into "consenting"

Another possibility is that they see something illegal in plain view, which they can obviously use as evidence against you.


With THAT said, you should know that the courts have traditionally not given much priority to the privacy of "conveyances," (e.g., your car). You should also know that cops have been known to lie about how they find evidence. While your weed may have been in a compartment, a cop may try to claim that it was in plain view so that it doesn't look like he performed a bad search.

All in all, given the sketchiness of the search, it would definitely be a wise decision to hire an experienced criminal attorney to take a look into the situation for you. Besides the few constitutional points I pointed out above, rules of evidence vary greatly from state to state.

tldr; based on what you've written, it sounds worthwhile to actually hire an attorney

edit:

Always lock your doors when you stpe out of your car in the future.

It makes it abundantly clear whether you consent to the search or not - they have to ask for your keys, an overt act. As it stands now, the cop could say "Oh he said I could search" whether he did or not.

This is actually the advice I've always heard from cops about avoiding a search. The idea is to always make a search require as many steps as possible, so the cops can't try to pull any shit (which is a part of the job for most of them).

ITT: Minorities who have suspiciously excessive knowledge about rules of evidence and the criminal justice system in America.

[Atreides]

you are lucky, in new jersey there's a separate law for possession of drugs in a motor vehicle (which you get in addition to the possession charge) that carries a mandatory 2 year loss of driving privileges

(oh it might be 6 months, I forget now)

(yea it's 2 years)

[Bregor]

I guess it's too late to say it was salvia?

Get a lawyer.

[Nephlite]

So they ran your license and it was suspended? Usually driving on a suspended license is an arrest. Sometimes they can citation it out depending on the jurisdiction but as it's an arrestable offense, he can argue "search incident to arrest" on the grounds that he was going to arrest you anyways and inevitably, he discovered the contraband.

Not telling you that you're fucked or anything; there's always two sides to the story no matter what but without going in to the nitty gritty of your particular incident, I feel you may have been able to beat the charges if only (and only) you can argue that a clerical error forced the mix-up which if the officer may have investigated further, would have discovered the error and didn't. Lawyer up and don't leave any detail out when you do. Small loopholes are what attorneys use the most.

[jmc]

Sooooooooooooooooooooo

Would ask more questions, but people have already asked them. I'll await OP's response to majority of these questions, as a general timeline would be extremely helpful.

I'm assuming your car got towed, for lack of registration/insurance at the time? If your car got towed, did officers mention anything towards you as "inventory" of the car being towed?

Was there anything in plain view of officers?


As for locking the doors.... it won't stop officers from searching your car, if you do have drugs in the car. It will just take them longer while they wait for a K-9 unit to arrive. However there are exceptions based on select state laws. Which are rare, but select locked areas of the car (locked glove box, locked trunk) require a search warrant even after reasonable doubt)

[Melchiah]

First off, I'm going to assume that if you're going to transport smoking gear, then you will make a conscious effort to keep it concealed and out of view. Second, when asked to step out of the vehicle, you should have immediately rolled up all your windows and locked your vehicle. If you are questioned on this point, simply reply that it's your car and politely ask to proceed with the interview.

Now, what I might have done is pull out my camera phone and record myself refusing the officer's incoming request for my keys to search my car. And he's gotta ask, because his partner can't just sneak in and start searching because we remembered to lock the doors and windows. That way, there's documentation of what happened. Documentation is your friend when dealing with cops. Their job is the collection of evidence, you'll need something of your own to bring to the fight.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't read all the posts, but it seems your case can be summed up by this simple rule:

Mistake of facts are acceptable, a mistake of law is not.

So, if the officer thinks it's against the law to drive a pink car, you're doing so and he finds drugs, but it's not against the law to drive a pink car, you're safe. If he stops you b/c he thinks you're tags are expired, see's drugs, and it turns out the tags aren't expired, you're fucked.

Edit: If I remember right, that's a SCOTUS ruling so it applies to all 50 states.

[archibaldcrane]

As for locking the doors.... it won't stop officers from searching your car, if you do have drugs in the car.

The point is to prevent them from just going "LOL I'LL JUST OPEN THIS DOOR HERE DESPITE NOT HAVING PROBABLE CAUSE AND THEN LIE LATER AND SAY I WAS GIVEN PERMISSION".

[Kellanved]

I didn't read all the posts, but it seems your case can be summed up by this simple rule:

Mistake of facts are acceptable, a mistake of law is not.

So, if the officer thinks it's against the law to drive a pink car, you're doing so and he finds drugs, but it's not against the law to drive a pink car, you're safe. If he stops you b/c he thinks you're tags are expired, see's drugs, and it turns out the tags aren't expired, you're fucked.

Edit: If I remember right, that's a SCOTUS ruling so it applies to all 50 states.

Reading the thread helps. The main issue is primarily concerned with the proper standard of search and seizure and suppression of evidence.

The term "Mistake of fact" is a defense available to a criminal defendant. Whereas mistake of law is not a recognized defense in that capacity.

[jmc]

The point is to prevent them from just going "LOL I'LL JUST OPEN THIS DOOR HERE DESPITE NOT HAVING PROBABLE CAUSE AND THEN LIE LATER AND SAY I WAS GIVEN PERMISSION".

Doesn't really matter, if they are gonna lie............ they are gonna lie.

If a officer will lie anyways, what good does locking your doors do.... if your in handcuffs, and they have your keys?

[archibaldcrane]

Doesn't really matter, if they are gonna lie............ they are gonna lie.

If a officer will lie anyways, what good does locking your doors do.... if your in handcuffs, and they have your keys?

Just makes it a riskier lie, more time-consuming, more opportunity for bystanders to witness things - and in this case he wasn't in handcuffs and would presumably have his keys in his pocket to start.

It just says through action "I know my rights" basically, reduces the chance of a cop going outside his authority.

[Melena]

Well the registration is moot. He was pulled over for not having a front plate. So the whole he was pulled over for an error won't hold.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm pretty sure he's screwed since he couldn't legally drive his vehicle anymore - I'm assuming it was towed after this incident, right?