If it wasn't for the war on drugs, I don't think we would be having this conversation. Why are we even talking about whether one person can give permission to search somebody else? .
All that time in law school and on the bench and those judges finally figured out what most reasonable people would have concluded on their first examination of the case.
I've been laughed at for having dozens of small luggage locks that fit into the holes of zipper tabs, and I use them on occasion for backpacks or similar effects. These tiny locks do nothing to deter actual theft, but they do constitute an expectation of privacy when dealing with LEOs. I believe the same is true with briefcase locks and something as simple as the lock on a diary or journal.
@@dizzywow "locked" is *NOT* "in plain sight* , legally speaking. If you *consent* to a search, locked items are also fair game. (including trunk, glovebox, locked backpack, etc), as long as the OWNER/CONTROLLER of the backpack is the one that gave consent. That was the whole issue here, the cop had consent to search, but exceeded the scope of the authority of the person that gave the consent.
I wonder how many law enforcement officers would be so willing to infringe on the public's constitutional rights if doing so would put themselves in legal jeopardy.
Several years ago my girl friend and it was stopped by police. He asked her for consent to search the car and she gave according to the officer. He came over to asked me to step out and I complied. He asked me if he could search the car. I said I don't know it's not my car and I wasn't driving. It's her car and she was driving it's up to her. He said she had consented and I said well ok then. He then grabbed me spun me around slammed me into the car with my chicken winged behind my back and then put his hand in all my pockets. Not just a Terry pat. When he let me go after not finding anything. I was absolutely livid. I asked what the f do you think you're doing I didn't give you consent to touch me. He said well I had consent to search the car. I said I ain't a Fng car and if you touch me again you damn well better be ready to fight. A back up officer arrived and they finished the search of the car and let us go. That was 23 years ago and still makes me angry.
I hope you made a complaint. Yeah, it would probably have come to nothing but if cops like this get complaints every time they flagrantly break the law, maybe some of their bosses will tell them to knock it off.
I don’t understand why higher courts when they make rulings, that especially give police powers or authorities. That they don’t make those rulings as specific as possible. Because when they’re even a little bit vague they use those new powers to do things that they were never intended for
I can see why the cop would tell him to leave the back pack in the car in fear he could pull out a weapon. However I don't think they had the right to search the backpack.
Omg, it's SO nice to hear a few things here. Its nice to hear ppl's rights upheld, that a state Supreme Court reversed itself, and that a police officer told the truth. This made my day. Thank you. :)
Definitely knows it's his que to LIE. There's no rules for officers to tell the truth. They can't say anything that would uphold the Constitution or a defense for a defendant. Furthermore, on Judgment Day God will not respect them being law officers or by being a pope.
@@HellNoMoreBiden They can legally lie to someone during an investigation. They CANNOT legally lie to the court. Whether or not they *follow* the law is an entirely different thing. I think that cops' memory, testimony, and punishment for breaking the law should be upheld to a higher standard than the average citizen, and there seems to be a lot of others in agreement to that, but it rarely gets codified into the law. (there are examples, but it's pretty uncommon, especially at the police officer level - it tends to be more common at the higher levels like judges, and in particular, lawyers)
@@virt1one I do know a officer will not say anything to help a defendant. He does lie if he's not telling the truth by not saying anything. It's how people are convicted. Officers are not angels.
Just watched this. Great podcast. This was my case. I have to say, Mr. Mead was out before the opinion was released. In fact, he was out in time to attend oral argument.
Steve, great work in establishing why “LEGAL WRITING” is so important and so critical in any documents sent to the courts,because meanings of words can and do change across the land. I am not an attorney, but in the many agreements, contracts, lease agreements, etc., all parties must understand completely. Thanks so much, my friend. Dave in Phoenix.
They do the best they can, to push the limits of the constitution. Be as authoritarian as possible, without triggering lawsuits. Respecting rights is a bother, a hindrance to their fishing expeditions. Their opinion basically, seems to be violating innocent people’s rights don’t matter, if they eventually catch a lawbreaker.
Robert McGee...There are Zero consequences to the Police Officer for violating your Constitutional Rights... It's more like; We can't get away with 'That' anymore, so let's tweak the procedure and circumvent the Constitution ANOTHER way... If we get caught, we lose nothing,, and try again.
Completely agree with SCOM on this case. That being said, I find it troubling they had to reverse themselves in the first place. The Lubell (spelling) case was poorly decided from the start. As a generality I find it alarming courts across the nation at all levels giving more and more authority and leverage to police. This ruling was an exception....and good to hear. Thanks Steve.
I'm inclined to take their word that what they wrote in that decision wasn't what they meant. It happens quite often with laws that text doesn't match intent.
This case also seems to violate Georgia v. Randolph, in which you can't separate two people in order to gain consent from one person over the objection of the other.
I hope the one who spent 2 years in jail got just compensation for illegal detainment, loss of income, and punitive damages. I also hope the appellate judges who ruled in the first case have to pay him $100,000 for each year out of their own pockets as part of the settlement. Justice is what it is.
In CA, in the 60s, cops couldn't ask for IDs from passengers, since they were not the reason for the stop. It changed later, but I don't know what court found that cops could search/ID passengers. I have no problem showing my ID, but unless I was part the reason for being pulled over, it's seems unconstitutional.
Talked to my daughter (27 year old) about this video...and was too late! She said she allowed her purse to be searched (AZ) as a passenger in a friends vehicle. She said she was asked, and she agreed. I told her why she should never allow that to happen. Her opinion; she had nothing to hide. I think I got through to her; that it has nothing to do with that; but it has more to do with relinquishing rights; and when enough people do that, it becomes the norm. I've had a couple well controlled conversations with Boarder Patrol; including one in which (1am in the AM at the TX/NM border) I was asked what State I was born in. Well, at 1am, I was in no way going to let a kid with the attitude (tone of voice) off so easy. After some back and forth, he threatened to search my vehicle. I said "fine; for the record, without my permission". He then relented and said, "Why are you making it tough tonight", I said "OK, Buffalo NY"...he waved me on and as I rolled up the window I said "How do you know that's true".and drove off. My favorite was a border stop (at least 50 miles north of the border going to Carlsbad (Caverns) in NM...officer asked were I was going; I said "North". I laughed (he did too), and then said Carlsbad (only because my wife and one daughter with with me; and he had laughed also). My wife did not share my sense of humor.
Border Patrol internal checkpoints, where a U.S. citizen can legally decline to answer questions; the Border Patrol itself agrees, in writing, that agents do not have the authority to continue to detain just because someone declines to answer, Yet it happens nevertheless.
Here's the thing, though: Police have their ways of bypassing the Constitution(and thus, your rights). Had he refused to allow the cop to search his backpack, "Officer Friendly" would have summoned his buddy "Captain K-9", who would have triggered a "hit" on the backpack(despite PD's denials that the dogs aren't trained to "hit on cue", I believe they are), thus invoking "probable cause" to search it anyway. I watch a lot of TH-cam videos, and I enjoy watching "Live PD" every weekend. I've seen the dog "hit" on vehicles, purses, etc... and 8 times out of 10 the cop finds something illegal. It's very, very rare that the dog DOESN'T "hit" on whatever they are searching. I find it amusing, and I call it out to my wife... "Look, honey, that dog has been around that vehicle THREE times already, and didn't "hit"... watch... " and BOOM. Right on cue, the dog "hits". Shred that 4th Amendment... or rather, let the dog chew it up and pee on it. Remember, no other public servants "go looking" for somewhere to do their job. Electric companies don't have trucks rolling around the streets looking for downed wires, fire departments don't go patrolling their neighborhoods looking for something on fire... Paramedics don't go driving around looking for someone who is injured and in need of medical attention... "Public Works" don't go around seeking out clogged storm drains, or potholes to fill... Then again, no one ever wrote a song called "F*** the fire department!" either...
You can make a dog hit on command it is very easy to tell when that happens so always video tape when a dog is involved. That way if it happens a laywer can point that out to a jury.
@@JimmysTractor True, you would have to basically be under arrest before they do the search for them to have hand cuffed you. I recommend being very cooperative unto that point so they don't have any reason to hand cuff you. Being polite and not obvious lying has gotten me out of more speeding tickets than I care to admit.
Depending on state there are limits on doing that, ie you can't detain while the people while K9 "Bark" tries to make it to your location in time, especially when the officer himself admitted he didn't have anything on either of them (other than the traffic violations by the driver).
bradman Swag Nonsense. It’s SOP to handcuff someone being detained “for your safety and mine”(cops words). I see it every week on Live PD. If they remove you from the car, expect to be cuffed. “You’re not under arrest, you’re just being detained.”
Rule 1: Invoke 5th Rule 2: invoke 4th Rule 3: demand lawyer Rule 4: Do not sign anything but the ticket to agree to appear in court. Rule 5: KEEP MOUTH SHUT
@@bcubed72 The problem is that the jails are full of people who gave up their rights, and when they went to court.. their attorney has little to work with because THEY GAVE CONSENT. That includes people who honestly thought that they were "innocent and had nothing to hide", not realizing that their friend, or child, left something illegal in their vehicle. Cops are trained to take innocent things, and turn them into violations of the law. The fact is that there is so many laws on the books today, that the average American breaks a dozen of them every week and do not even realize it. The 4th Amendment is your friend.. but you have to invoke it.
@@bcubed72 Of course.. she got lucky. 99% of people do not get so lucky with the police. What if it was her bag in the back seat? She would had been the one taking the ride in silver bracelets and her attorney would had had a much harder time getting her conviction overturned.. because SHE CONSENTED! He ultimately won his case, because HE DID NOT CONSENT!
@@andiward7068 My point.. is that an innocent thing, can be turned against an otherwise law abiding citizen.. who is not thinking that they are a criminal, while the cop is thinking that EVERYONE IS! Cops arrest innocent people all the time, along with the guilty.
Officers have broad authority to give "reasonable orders" to protect the safety of themselves and others, as well as to block interference with their duties or investigations. Seeing as the officer was about to frisk the person to check for weapons, allowing them to keep a backpack (that could not be searched) that could have easily contained a weapon and been very fast to access, would have rendered the frisk pointless. So the officer could probably make a very good case for requiring you to distance yourself from it. "If I'm allowed to frisk to protect myself against concealed weapons, then I'm also allowed to order you to leave unsearchable containers out of your reach during my investigation." Demanding it be left IN the car would probably be considered unreasonable. If that had been me, I would have tossed it up on the grass across the sidewalk, which would have satisfied officer security without placing it in a private area subject to consensual search. That may have pissed off the cop, but would have cleared up the notion that searching the car = searching the backpack. The only argument left for the officer them would be to try to claim you "abandoned" it. But since he asked you to put it down, that probably wouldn't withstand legal challenge.
I can see that search being valid if the possession of the backpack was in question i.e. neither party admitting to ownership but since the officer acknowledged the bag was in the defendants possession at the time ownership was established and therefore would nullify any consent given by driver for search of vehicle.
He will probably get out of jail-----------after he signs a paper stating that he will not sue for improper incarceration. Don't sign, don't get out. It would be interesting to see you do an article about this subject We often hear on the news that so and so was improperly convicted but in order to be released he or she must waive their rights to sue.
Unless the cop is standing there holding a gun telling you to leave it because they knew they had "consent" to search the car and everything in it. You can tell that was the plan the whole time the way the cop pulled the girl away so nobody could hear to get consent to search.
Not being a lawyer and not understanding the procedures, does the case get updated based on this ruling from the previous LaBelle case so it can't be used inappropriately in the future? Steve, I also wanted to let you know, that I discuss some of these videos with my 13 year old son. The video about the US Supreme Court saying the police were not obligated to enforce the restraining order that resulted in a horrible outcome for the mother was one I brought up to him. Yesterday in school for English class, he had to write about a rule or law he felt was unfair or unjust. He wrote about it and even commented that during his 5 minute writing window, he normally struggles to have enough to fill that time. On this subject however, he ran out of time. I was proud he listened during the discussion and chose to write about it. I haven't heard the teachers reaction yet, but I'm sure it will be interesting. Thanks for making these videos and I'm also grateful to Sam Crac for turning me onto your channel.
Lesson here is to never ever consent to a search. If they bring out the dog after that, the gap between refusal of search and the dog sniffing can be argued as unlawful detainment. Any evidence obtained from the dog can be thrown out in court. God bless America.
Think how this effects UBR or other type of self taxi drivers. As a passenger of of one those Vehicles if the uber driver gets pulled over and the cop wants to search the vehicle you have every right to remove all of your belonging out of the vehicle and leave. and not consent to a unwarranted search on your property.
I drive a commercial vehicle for a company. If I am stopped in Michigan and the officer gets permission from the company to search my tractor can they search my backpack? What about locked compartments built into the vehicle?
Only if you have given the right of search of personal property to the company. Ie in your employment contract you stipulate they can search the entirety, including personal effects. Having a weapon(s) changes things a bit as well. (legal or not)
I agree with 95% with what is said. The court got it right, a third party shouldn't have the authority to give permission to search my property. But, I don't know if sad is how I would describe the defendants time in jail. The guy had the drugs and is habitual offender.
"Clutching" is a value judgment. And in a dispute where 1) the defendant says "the officer told me..." and 2) the officer says "I don't remember..." and 3) there is no *recording of the event* , I think the defendant should be believed. It's interesting that the courts keep *assuming* and asserting that the police, *as a group* , are "reasonable". Because until this case, if a Michigan police officer pulled over a ride-share driver and received permission to search the car *ANY* officer would have included the passenger's effects in the search. Because that IS reasonable to the police. (Since the Labelle case has been referenced in other circuits too, probably any LEO in the US would have assumed that the passenger's effects were included in the searchable area.)
Humm, it take a normal human 10 seconds to come to the same conclusion that someone else can't give consent to search another's property. Lawyers get it wrong the first time and take 22 years to figure it out!
Regarding a search you mentioned locked versus unlocked areas as allowable in a search of a car. Please explain the locked versus unlocked areas of a car as searchable.
If the driver has permission for cops to search then it should be her charge... or ....its not hers so she cant give permission. It's not even her friend. It's a stranger
That’s a good one Steve, I am an Uber driver in Ohio, 1 AM one evening driving from Cleveland into Parma Ohio, I won’t comment about Parma ha ha, I’m driving a Chrysler minivan heavily used for smash and grab‘s, Parma loves to pull people over on the road I’m on a major entry point into their city. I have a temporary tag Ugh oh, I have a young man as my passenger. Now I have been stopped about while we don’t have adding machines for that, we passed the Parma police as we enter the city on this large main road, he goes by and I just had the feeling of course it’s 1 AM he’s going to pull me over because I have a temporary tag and I’m in a Chrysler minivan. He turns around pulls us over questions me about the license plate which is a bit messed up from a storm we just had, he goes you just can’t drive with that I go it just got torn up in the storm the other night we discuss argue this I hold my ground, his buddy shows up of course they go back and talk to each other. When the first officer left my window the kid asked me can they ask for my ID or whatever he said to me and I said no, they pulled me over they have no suspicion of you doing anything, I am hauling you as a passenger you are under suspicion of nothing you don’t need to offer them anything. They now come over to his side of the car and slide open the back door remember it’s a Chrysler minivan, and ask him for his ID he politely looks up at them and says no thank you. They push the issue multiple times fairly gently then they back away. They have their standard 15 feet away from the car powwow they come back try again to get him to give his ID he does not they give up. The first officer comes back to me and says well here’s your ticket for Improper tag or whatever he gave me for and I said fine it’ll get thrown out in court which it did and I don’t mind going to occasionally because it’s a interesting experience usually. As soon as we were done I quickly dispatch the young man at his location and I got out of there hopefully so the local gendarmes could not see where I dropped my fair because I don’t care what he was up to and he definitely didn’t seem to know where he was going because as he got out some girl came up and met him and I drove off. One win for the good guys
shockingguy: Interesting story. It's never one cop writing u a ticket anymore is it! Out of curiosity, why are they coming around to the pass side and opening the sliding door?
One thing I never understood. If you're doing illicit stuff, why would you be driving around in an unregistered vehicle or generally doing something to solicit attention from the police?
Steve, you was talking about searching a locked container and i believe a backpack should be considered locked and heres why, when an officer goes to a house and nocks and there is no answer if he just opens the door it would be considered breaking and entering and so should anything that the officer can move around in the car without forcing open.he would have to unzip the bag just like he would have to turn a doors handle, so in this case he should have to ask to search the bag as well because it is another entity from the car (if there was a safe in the car he would have to ask if he could open and search that as well)
Hi Steve Could you explain "The Bar" what they do and who has oversight regarding judges who don't either know the law or ignore the law. A couple of years ago there was a supreme crt. Judge who used foreign law to decide a case. Increasingly it seams we are hearing stories of gross overreach from judges. Can't these people be disbarred? Grady
In Michigan, judges are overseen by the Judicial Tenure Commission. They can ask the Supreme Court to remove a bad judge - and the Supreme Court oversees the lower courts.
This fight we fight for our rights & freedoms may not be a short one, but we will endure. And, as it was said before is the same needed today! ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen Citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms but Citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." Speach By (John F. Kennedy). ------------------------------------------------------------------ He was a great man, our President, and before his time. Our leader that will be remembered for ever!
I’m curious - assuming that the LaBelle (sp?) case was still within the statute of limitations would that case be eligible for retrial based on the Supreme Court’s change of law? Or would LaBelle be covered under double jeopardy?
Ironically, if Mead hadn’t acted so squirrelly about his backpack, the cop probably would have ignored it, never searched the car, and the old ruling would still stand.
An officer had given me a ticket once and I have to say to him Paul you're the one that gave me the ticket. He claimed he couldn't have given me a ticket because he remembers everyone that he gives a ticket to. Obviously not
I know this video is old, but I was hoping you, or anybody with solid knowledge of the subject, can opine on the legality of a hotel employee unlocking a door for police to go in when the occupant won't answer the door. Sounds like they had an expectation of privacy in that room that the hotel staff couldn't consent to invade.
My right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not a technicality. It's one of the many reasons that I took multiple oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States over the course of 20 years.
Arinerm we would all like to believe that our government cares about each and everyone of us but the sad truth is that they don’t. Our own government has done experiments on our military without their knowledge/consent during WW2. They also refused to pay for cancer victims from the Korean War due to Agent Orange for years.
This is not universally bad news for the police. If a cop stops a car and has a reason to search the car and before informing them of this he then asks all passengers to get out and take their personal property with them. If one of them has drugs if he takes his bag out, then he has confirmed ownership (if they have a good reason to search or arrest him) and he is not stuck with the drug charges also. If he tries to pretend it is not his and leaves it in car then a reason or approval to search the car would include the drug bag.
How can we consent to anyone that has the power to kill us, jail us, or let us go at their pleasure? As soon as you say no, they call a dog and claim it said something. How can courts still believe we have a choice?
Who would he sue? The cop probably isn't liable, especially since the case law at the time supported him, but was only overruled afterward. The lower courts also made their decisions based on the precedent given by the Michigan supreme court which again was only overruled afterward.
When I visited my State Library in the early 1970’s, people leaving were required to open any briefcase or similar container to make sure no reference materials were there.
Not a lawyer, but always like studying and reading law since I was a kid. I've subscribed to Washington state and the 9th circuit appeals, as well as Cornell's offer of law syllabi opinions in my email. It's been funny that I've stumbled on supreme court opinions for cases on people I know or knew in the past. It's fascinating to see such differing opinions. It seems by memory, my state, Washington has had changes in passenger rights during stops over 4 times in my life. The latest being what you brought up. In fact, if memory serves, I believe they cannot demand ID either without cause. Showing ID without cause can't be demanded, but I think I may read up on that again. The thing about law is it changes every day. Most people haven't a clue about law except maybe some traffic infractions they got and it taught them a lesson on that piece of legislation, and it's sad that police get less training than a Hair dresser/cosmetologist.
So Michigan has a Concealed Pistol License law, which requires that individuals who are stopped MUST disclose that they're carrying. 1) Does this implicate the 4th amendment (Is it a search?), even if it's an implied consent law? 2) If so, is it implied consent, or is this a search incident to a stop (Or is it neither? 3) Presumably, the passenger of a vehicle is stopped, right? But there is no Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion of their stop, so if it's a search, and not implied consent, under what authority can they mandate that a passenger of a vehicle disclose? Or can't they? In the 9th circuit, there was a recent case that tried to touch on this same topic: US v Landeros - searching a passenger based on RAS of the driver or other occupants. I wonder how these topics might intersect.
When it comes to CPL's, CCW's, whatever your state calls them, when you sign all your paperwork, they tell you it's a stipulation to notify an officer therefore it's a condition of issuing the permit. It's just like we agree when we sign to get our drivers license that we must have it on us when driving. Edit: When I went through the training course to get my CCW, we were told to go ahead and notify the officer when he asks for your ID because if you're LEGALLY in possession of the weapon, theres no need to make the officer think you're hiding something. We people that have gone through the fingerprinting, background checks, and training to get permits are the ones the officers should be happy to see because they know we've been vetted out. By being upfront with the officer, you're still showing good faith and the responsibility of a licensed person.
@@bobm9509 they arent "asserting" anything. It's in the document. You can read so look at it and comprehend. If you are wanting the license, those are the conditions. Theres no duress involved. It's the law. Just because you say it doesnt apply to you doesnt make it so.
@@bobm9509 you can operate your vehicle without a license on your own property. If you wish to operate it on public property or state roads you need a license for that privilege.
I got pulled over on I 94, the officer said I didn't use a turn signal to change lanes, but I clearly remember doing so because I saw him behind. I am sure it was an illegal stopping of a vehicle by police. I wonder if there is anything I can do about that.
besides having other vehicles and perhaps a helicopter following you proving you did nothing wrong? all I can say is congratulations, you drive on a highway that is used to transport illicit drugs to and from distribution centers and market areas throughout the country, therefore the police will stop anyone on the highway that might fit the profile of a drug trafficker for any reason possible including offences that did not take place. after all not only do they want to find drugs and MONEY to seize, they also want to extort money from the people to support their budgets with tickets for traffic offences. I believe the supreme court has even ruled an officer can lie to a person without getting into trouble. The first thing or one of the first things they ask when they have pulled you over is "Do you know why i pulled you over?" or "Do you know how fast you were going?" they are doing an investigation at that point and without informing you that anything you say can and will be used in a court of law... will put what you say in their report. They will question you about other things a lot of the time looking for evidence of any other crime you may have committed. Police are not your friends and the best answer to their questions is.. "i am sorry officer, I do not answer questions". many times at this point they will try to intimidate you into answering questions and bend to their will. if they can make their case for what they have stopped you for before it even goes to court they have a good chance at winning in court. "defendant stated to me he was going 70mph, I clocked him with my radar doing 80mph in a 65mph zone". you have already admitted to speeding at this point, the judge would likely believe the cop as he has evidence you committed an infraction. maybe this will shed some light on part of it. www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?.f33fbee6d771
I have 2 questions. (1) Are locked "containers" (backpacks, cases, boxes, etc) immune from the opening/searching of? (2) Is anyone willing to take bets on how long the passenger, who has already spent 2 years in prison, goes before being arrested AGAIN for possession of Meth, if he's released from prison?
So one simple solution is to put a small luggage lock on the zippered part you do not want searched. Bit of a pain having to unlock it all the time, but you now show an expectation of privacy.
What constitutes the 'totality of circumstances' and can you argue it to a police officer effectively? Would his protection be different if he was well known to the driver? Would he have had different outcome if he removed the backpack when he left the vehicle? If the officer called a drug sniffing officer, would the outcome have been different?
Everything you said totally makes sense. So the problem here is the Fact that the Police Officer did not ask the passenger for consent to search his backpack. Had the officer done this, then this case would have never happened. Now lets suppose the Officer DID ask the passenger for consent and the passenger said 'No'. What happens next?? I myself tend to believe that the officer would call in for a K-9 to come by and check out the backpack. The Dog would smell the drugs and alert the Cops to it, and that would be that for this passenger. Somehow Dogs can overrule the 4th amendment ??
Some States don't allow you to be detained for K-9 without other reason. If the K-9 unit is pulling you over & the dog "hits" it is considered probable cause for searching.
I have a hard time believing detaining someone so a k-9 could come sniff them would hold up in court as probable cause and especially if searching the car didn't turn up anything as in this case. The police aren't allowed to continue fishing until they find something. By that logic they could hold you there until they could get a potable x-ray, bomb sniffer, or whatever to try to ffind something illegal on you. Without probable cause to detain you they couldn't make you wait indefinitely to be search by different technologies.Not saying a cop would do this but it wouldn't hold up in court.
Interesting, can that ownership - right to exclude concept extend to the those folks who legitimately own the property they, moments earlier, purchased in a store? Do the folks who refuse the receipt checkers have that right, based on they simple fact that they own it and thus can control the access to it by others?
If you don't want to show a receipt then you don't have to shop at the establishment. That is a right you most certainly can exercise. No need to make life difficult for those doing what their employer requires them to do.
![ว้าว!ลุงบีมแบกทองมารับขวัญหลานกันยกบ้าน [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.49 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Osihq1OAs-4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 76 | คู่เอก "ผึ้งหลวง vs สมิงดำ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9SBshmGQOIM/mqdefault.jpg)
Refreshing when the constitution is upheld, renews my hope for the future.
You know damn well the officer told him, "LEAVE THE BACK PACK", as he was getting out of the car.
@@jamesrudd8705Look up the Family Circus - 'I don't know' character and insert the officer's pic.
No question.
If it wasn't for the war on drugs, I don't think we would be having this conversation.
Why are we even talking about whether one person can give permission to search somebody else?
.
If the officer believed the back pack belonged to the owner of the car then why was she not charged with possession of the drugs?
Now they'll have to make their dog bark at the backpack if they want to search it.
All that time in law school and on the bench and those judges finally figured out what most reasonable people would have concluded on their first examination of the case.
It always amazes me when ANY court rules that Person A can grant permission for police to search Person B, when both are full adults.
At least now a precedent has been set to help preserve Constitutionally enumerated rights.
I've been laughed at for having dozens of small luggage locks that fit into the holes of zipper tabs, and I use them on occasion for backpacks or similar effects. These tiny locks do nothing to deter actual theft, but they do constitute an expectation of privacy when dealing with LEOs. I believe the same is true with briefcase locks and something as simple as the lock on a diary or journal.
Locks don't help. If it's not in plain sight, it's a search. Period.
@@dizzywow "locked" is *NOT* "in plain sight* , legally speaking. If you *consent* to a search, locked items are also fair game. (including trunk, glovebox, locked backpack, etc), as long as the OWNER/CONTROLLER of the backpack is the one that gave consent. That was the whole issue here, the cop had consent to search, but exceeded the scope of the authority of the person that gave the consent.
Hi Steve, I just have to say a big thank you, for taking the time to explain so well the law as you see it, you rock, Thanks.
Good stuff. Glad to see that some courts nowadays are properly upholding our constitutional rights in the manner intended by our founding fathers.
I wonder how many law enforcement officers would be so willing to infringe on the public's constitutional rights if doing so would put themselves in legal jeopardy.
Joe C Happens all the time.....
Guiseppe Imbriago-What happened, if anything , to the officer in question?
Sometimes the officer is sanctioned administratively. Other times the cop is charged with a crime. Other times, not s damn fucking thing.
legal jeopardy? how about mortal?
Several years ago my girl friend and it was stopped by police. He asked her for consent to search the car and she gave according to the officer. He came over to asked me to step out and I complied. He asked me if he could search the car. I said I don't know it's not my car and I wasn't driving. It's her car and she was driving it's up to her. He said she had consented and I said well ok then. He then grabbed me spun me around slammed me into the car with my chicken winged behind my back and then put his hand in all my pockets. Not just a Terry pat. When he let me go after not finding anything. I was absolutely livid. I asked what the f do you think you're doing I didn't give you consent to touch me. He said well I had consent to search the car. I said I ain't a Fng car and if you touch me again you damn well better be ready to fight. A back up officer arrived and they finished the search of the car and let us go. That was 23 years ago and still makes me angry.
I hope you made a complaint. Yeah, it would probably have come to nothing but if cops like this get complaints every time they flagrantly break the law, maybe some of their bosses will tell them to knock it off.
I hope that cop caught a bullet or three.
I don’t understand why higher courts when they make rulings, that especially give police powers or authorities. That they don’t make those rulings as specific as possible. Because when they’re even a little bit vague they use those new powers to do things that they were never intended for
I can see why the cop would tell him to leave the back pack in the car in fear he could pull out a weapon. However I don't think they had the right to search the backpack.
*THE PASSENGER(s) SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF THE TRAFFIC STOP...THE PASSENGERS WERE NOT DRIVING*
(Not that drugs are anything good)
Problem #1: never consent.
Omg, it's SO nice to hear a few things here. Its nice to hear ppl's rights upheld, that a state Supreme Court reversed itself, and that a police officer told the truth. This made my day. Thank you. :)
If the officer says he "doesn't recall" telling him to leave the backpack in the car, he definitely told him that.
Definitely knows it's his que to LIE.
There's no rules for officers to tell the truth. They can't say anything that would uphold the Constitution or a defense for a defendant. Furthermore, on Judgment Day God will not respect them being law officers or by being a pope.
@@HellNoMoreBiden They can legally lie to someone during an investigation. They CANNOT legally lie to the court. Whether or not they *follow* the law is an entirely different thing. I think that cops' memory, testimony, and punishment for breaking the law should be upheld to a higher standard than the average citizen, and there seems to be a lot of others in agreement to that, but it rarely gets codified into the law. (there are examples, but it's pretty uncommon, especially at the police officer level - it tends to be more common at the higher levels like judges, and in particular, lawyers)
@@virt1one I do know a officer will not say anything to help a defendant. He does lie if he's not telling the truth by not saying anything. It's how people are convicted. Officers are not angels.
Just watched this. Great podcast. This was my case. I have to say, Mr. Mead was out before the opinion was released. In fact, he was out in time to attend oral argument.
Steve, great work in establishing why “LEGAL WRITING” is so important and so critical in any documents sent to the courts,because meanings of words can and do change across the land. I am not an attorney, but in the many agreements, contracts, lease agreements, etc., all parties must understand completely. Thanks so much, my friend. Dave in Phoenix.
They do the best they can, to push the limits of the constitution. Be as authoritarian as possible, without triggering lawsuits. Respecting rights is a bother, a hindrance to their fishing expeditions. Their opinion basically, seems to be violating innocent people’s rights don’t matter, if they eventually catch a lawbreaker.
Robert McGee...There are Zero consequences to the Police Officer for violating your Constitutional Rights... It's more like; We can't get away with 'That' anymore, so let's tweak the procedure and circumvent the Constitution ANOTHER way... If we get caught, we lose nothing,, and try again.
I consent to a search of the 27 viewers who gave this "thumbs down."
Go deep to the elbow
Another great teaching video....👍👍👍
Gary Belcher. Oh yes I agree. I found this very interesting.
Common sense would tell me that only I have authority to consent to search of MY property
Completely agree with SCOM on this case. That being said, I find it troubling they had to reverse themselves in the first place. The Lubell (spelling) case was poorly decided from the start. As a generality I find it alarming courts across the nation at all levels giving more and more authority and leverage to police. This ruling was an exception....and good to hear. Thanks Steve.
I'm inclined to take their word that what they wrote in that decision wasn't what they meant. It happens quite often with laws that text doesn't match intent.
This case also seems to violate Georgia v. Randolph, in which you can't separate two people in order to gain consent from one person over the objection of the other.
Randolph* but otherwise interesting, thanks for the case to review.
Spellchecker f'd me.
As in State of Georgia v Randolph? That'd be a different jurisdiction and wouldn't automatically apply.
That was a US Supreme Court case so it applies to everyone.
I hope the one who spent 2 years in jail got just compensation for illegal detainment, loss of income, and punitive damages. I also hope the appellate judges who ruled in the first case have to pay him $100,000 for each year out of their own pockets as part of the settlement. Justice is what it is.
This was one of your best presentations yet.
Well done and I concur.
In CA, in the 60s, cops couldn't ask for IDs from passengers, since they were not the reason for the stop. It changed later, but I don't know what court found that cops could search/ID passengers. I have no problem showing my ID, but unless I was part the reason for being pulled over, it's seems unconstitutional.
I'd argue this situation is significantly worse than that - 'let me search that guy's stuff or I'll nail you with 10k in tickets'
Talked to my daughter (27 year old) about this video...and was too late! She said she allowed her purse to be searched (AZ) as a passenger in a friends vehicle. She said she was asked, and she agreed. I told her why she should never allow that to happen. Her opinion; she had nothing to hide. I think I got through to her; that it has nothing to do with that; but it has more to do with relinquishing rights; and when enough people do that, it becomes the norm. I've had a couple well controlled conversations with Boarder Patrol; including one in which (1am in the AM at the TX/NM border) I was asked what State I was born in. Well, at 1am, I was in no way going to let a kid with the attitude (tone of voice) off so easy. After some back and forth, he threatened to search my vehicle. I said "fine; for the record, without my permission". He then relented and said, "Why are you making it tough tonight", I said "OK, Buffalo NY"...he waved me on and as I rolled up the window I said "How do you know that's true".and drove off. My favorite was a border stop (at least 50 miles north of the border going to Carlsbad (Caverns) in NM...officer asked were I was going; I said "North". I laughed (he did too), and then said Carlsbad (only because my wife and one daughter with with me; and he had laughed also). My wife did not share my sense of humor.
Border Patrol internal checkpoints, where a U.S. citizen can legally decline to answer questions; the Border Patrol itself agrees, in writing, that agents do not have the authority to continue to detain just because someone declines to answer,
Yet it happens nevertheless.
Here's the thing, though: Police have their ways of bypassing the Constitution(and thus, your rights). Had he refused to allow the cop to search his backpack, "Officer Friendly" would have summoned his buddy "Captain K-9", who would have triggered a "hit" on the backpack(despite PD's denials that the dogs aren't trained to "hit on cue", I believe they are), thus invoking "probable cause" to search it anyway.
I watch a lot of TH-cam videos, and I enjoy watching "Live PD" every weekend. I've seen the dog "hit" on vehicles, purses, etc... and 8 times out of 10 the cop finds something illegal. It's very, very rare that the dog DOESN'T "hit" on whatever they are searching. I find it amusing, and I call it out to my wife... "Look, honey, that dog has been around that vehicle THREE times already, and didn't "hit"... watch... " and BOOM. Right on cue, the dog "hits". Shred that 4th Amendment... or rather, let the dog chew it up and pee on it.
Remember, no other public servants "go looking" for somewhere to do their job. Electric companies don't have trucks rolling around the streets looking for downed wires, fire departments don't go patrolling their neighborhoods looking for something on fire... Paramedics don't go driving around looking for someone who is injured and in need of medical attention... "Public Works" don't go around seeking out clogged storm drains, or potholes to fill...
Then again, no one ever wrote a song called "F*** the fire department!" either...
You can make a dog hit on command it is very easy to tell when that happens so always video tape when a dog is involved. That way if it happens a laywer can point that out to a jury.
@@Bshwag hard to video when they handcuff you or make you stand behind their car while they search.
@@JimmysTractor True, you would have to basically be under arrest before they do the search for them to have hand cuffed you. I recommend being very cooperative unto that point so they don't have any reason to hand cuff you. Being polite and not obvious lying has gotten me out of more speeding tickets than I care to admit.
Depending on state there are limits on doing that, ie you can't detain while the people while K9 "Bark" tries to make it to your location in time, especially when the officer himself admitted he didn't have anything on either of them (other than the traffic violations by the driver).
bradman Swag Nonsense. It’s SOP to handcuff someone being detained “for your safety and mine”(cops words).
I see it every week on Live PD. If they remove you from the car, expect to be cuffed. “You’re not under arrest, you’re just being detained.”
Rule #1. Drivers: Do Not Consent to Searches!
Rule 1: Invoke 5th
Rule 2: invoke 4th
Rule 3: demand lawyer
Rule 4: Do not sign anything but the ticket to agree to appear in court.
Rule 5: KEEP MOUTH SHUT
@@bcubed72 The problem is that the jails are full of people who gave up their rights, and when they went to court.. their attorney has little to work with because THEY GAVE CONSENT. That includes people who honestly thought that they were "innocent and had nothing to hide", not realizing that their friend, or child, left something illegal in their vehicle. Cops are trained to take innocent things, and turn them into violations of the law. The fact is that there is so many laws on the books today, that the average American breaks a dozen of them every week and do not even realize it. The 4th Amendment is your friend.. but you have to invoke it.
@@bcubed72 Of course.. she got lucky. 99% of people do not get so lucky with the police. What if it was her bag in the back seat? She would had been the one taking the ride in silver bracelets and her attorney would had had a much harder time getting her conviction overturned.. because SHE CONSENTED! He ultimately won his case, because HE DID NOT CONSENT!
IF you have evidence of a crime DON'T consent, otherwise get it over with and enjoy your day.
@@andiward7068 My point.. is that an innocent thing, can be turned against an otherwise law abiding citizen.. who is not thinking that they are a criminal, while the cop is thinking that EVERYONE IS! Cops arrest innocent people all the time, along with the guilty.
Could the passenger legally refuse to leave the bag in the car? Can he say it's my property and if I'm required to exit the car it exits with me?
Officers have broad authority to give "reasonable orders" to protect the safety of themselves and others, as well as to block interference with their duties or investigations. Seeing as the officer was about to frisk the person to check for weapons, allowing them to keep a backpack (that could not be searched) that could have easily contained a weapon and been very fast to access, would have rendered the frisk pointless.
So the officer could probably make a very good case for requiring you to distance yourself from it. "If I'm allowed to frisk to protect myself against concealed weapons, then I'm also allowed to order you to leave unsearchable containers out of your reach during my investigation."
Demanding it be left IN the car would probably be considered unreasonable. If that had been me, I would have tossed it up on the grass across the sidewalk, which would have satisfied officer security without placing it in a private area subject to consensual search. That may have pissed off the cop, but would have cleared up the notion that searching the car = searching the backpack. The only argument left for the officer them would be to try to claim you "abandoned" it. But since he asked you to put it down, that probably wouldn't withstand legal challenge.
No passengers in a car are required to show id unless there is a suspension of a crime
Suspicion ^^^
But there are a handful of state that some bs ID law
In my opinion that’s against the constitution
Stop and is laws require reasonable suspicion. They’re no “show me your papers.”
What the hell is suspension of a crime?
Wow I like these these technical case studies.
I can see that search being valid if the possession of the backpack was in question i.e. neither party admitting to ownership but since the officer acknowledged the bag was in the defendants possession at the time ownership was established and therefore would nullify any consent given by driver for search of vehicle.
Very well explained. Thanks for the explanation.
He will probably get out of jail-----------after he signs a paper stating that he will not sue for improper incarceration. Don't sign, don't get out. It would be interesting to see you do an article about this subject We often hear on the news that so and so was improperly convicted but in order to be released he or she must waive their rights to sue.
Just sign "Obtained by threat of violence", after crossing out any "NOT" or "AGREES". You are free to modify a contract before signing.
If the cop say " He doesn't remember." Then he's lying.
If he got out of the car and brought the backpack with him ,the cop couldn't search it without his consent
Unless the cop is standing there holding a gun telling you to leave it because they knew they had "consent" to search the car and everything in it. You can tell that was the plan the whole time the way the cop pulled the girl away so nobody could hear to get consent to search.
Turns out, he didn't have the consent this way either. He just thought he had found a loophole.
Not being a lawyer and not understanding the procedures, does the case get updated based on this ruling from the previous LaBelle case so it can't be used inappropriately in the future?
Steve, I also wanted to let you know, that I discuss some of these videos with my 13 year old son. The video about the US Supreme Court saying the police were not obligated to enforce the restraining order that resulted in a horrible outcome for the mother was one I brought up to him. Yesterday in school for English class, he had to write about a rule or law he felt was unfair or unjust. He wrote about it and even commented that during his 5 minute writing window, he normally struggles to have enough to fill that time. On this subject however, he ran out of time. I was proud he listened during the discussion and chose to write about it. I haven't heard the teachers reaction yet, but I'm sure it will be interesting. Thanks for making these videos and I'm also grateful to Sam Crac for turning me onto your channel.
Awesome decision...finally a law written for the people.
Excellent reasoning. I feel smarter because I thought that way before you read the Justice's opinion.
Judge: ''Was your govt- issued 'Body Cam' turned on?'' Cop: ''Dunno''?
OK now they are just going to bring a drug sniffing dog when they want to check backpacks
Lesson here is to never ever consent to a search. If they bring out the dog after that, the gap between refusal of search and the dog sniffing can be argued as unlawful detainment. Any evidence obtained from the dog can be thrown out in court. God bless America.
What about holding a person on the side of the road until a Warrant can be obtained.
Meanwhile the person is being kept for a couple of hours or so, and the warrant is not issued.
Think how this effects UBR or other type of self taxi drivers. As a passenger of of one those Vehicles if the uber driver gets pulled over and the cop wants to search the vehicle you have every right to remove all of your belonging out of the vehicle and leave. and not consent to a unwarranted search on your property.
I drive a commercial vehicle for a company. If I am stopped in Michigan and the officer gets permission from the company to search my tractor can they search my backpack? What about locked compartments built into the vehicle?
Only if you have given the right of search of personal property to the company. Ie in your employment contract you stipulate they can search the entirety, including personal effects. Having a weapon(s) changes things a bit as well. (legal or not)
I agree with 95% with what is said. The court got it right, a third party shouldn't have the authority to give permission to search my property. But, I don't know if sad is how I would describe the defendants time in jail. The guy had the drugs and is habitual offender.
Mr Lehto said they found a scale in addition to the drugs. Wouldn't that raise it to intent to distribute? @@joshglover2370
Very informative. Thank you.
I agree with the decision of the court.
"Clutching" is a value judgment. And in a dispute where 1) the defendant says "the officer told me..." and 2) the officer says "I don't remember..." and 3) there is no *recording of the event* , I think the defendant should be believed.
It's interesting that the courts keep *assuming* and asserting that the police, *as a group* , are "reasonable". Because until this case, if a Michigan police officer pulled over a ride-share driver and received permission to search the car *ANY* officer would have included the passenger's effects in the search. Because that IS reasonable to the police. (Since the Labelle case has been referenced in other circuits too, probably any LEO in the US would have assumed that the passenger's effects were included in the searchable area.)
Humm, it take a normal human 10 seconds to come to the same conclusion that someone else can't give consent to search another's property.
Lawyers get it wrong the first time and take 22 years to figure it out!
Lawyers?
I think you mean judges
@@adubeauify agree.
@@jcadult101 damn people screwed this up. After all, they're all people!
Regarding a search you mentioned locked versus unlocked areas as allowable in a search of a car. Please explain the locked versus unlocked areas of a car as searchable.
Steve, Thanks for doing these videos they really helps the time pass at work.
If the driver has permission for cops to search then it should be her charge... or ....its not hers so she cant give permission. It's not even her friend. It's a stranger
If you don't mind the officer planting contraband, why would you not consent to a search? It's just that simple, boys and girls.
That’s a good one Steve, I am an Uber driver in Ohio, 1 AM one evening driving from Cleveland into Parma Ohio, I won’t comment about Parma ha ha, I’m driving a Chrysler minivan heavily used for smash and grab‘s, Parma loves to pull people over on the road I’m on a major entry point into their city. I have a temporary tag Ugh oh, I have a young man as my passenger. Now I have been stopped about while we don’t have adding machines for that, we passed the Parma police as we enter the city on this large main road, he goes by and I just had the feeling of course it’s 1 AM he’s going to pull me over because I have a temporary tag and I’m in a Chrysler minivan.
He turns around pulls us over questions me about the license plate which is a bit messed up from a storm we just had, he goes you just can’t drive with that I go it just got torn up in the storm the other night we discuss argue this I hold my ground, his buddy shows up of course they go back and talk to each other. When the first officer left my window the kid asked me can they ask for my ID or whatever he said to me and I said no, they pulled me over they have no suspicion of you doing anything, I am hauling you as a passenger you are under suspicion of nothing you don’t need to offer them anything.
They now come over to his side of the car and slide open the back door remember it’s a Chrysler minivan, and ask him for his ID he politely looks up at them and says no thank you. They push the issue multiple times fairly gently then they back away. They have their standard 15 feet away from the car powwow they come back try again to get him to give his ID he does not they give up. The first officer comes back to me and says well here’s your ticket for Improper tag or whatever he gave me for and I said fine it’ll get thrown out in court which it did and I don’t mind going to occasionally because it’s a interesting experience usually. As soon as we were done I quickly dispatch the young man at his location and I got out of there hopefully so the local gendarmes could not see where I dropped my fair because I don’t care what he was up to and he definitely didn’t seem to know where he was going because as he got out some girl came up and met him and I drove off.
One win for the good guys
shockingguy: Interesting story. It's never one cop writing u a ticket anymore is it! Out of curiosity, why are they coming around to the pass side and opening the sliding door?
Holy Hanna, 2 yrs from conviction to decision on appeal? In NY you would be at this point for 4-5 years
One thing I never understood. If you're doing illicit stuff, why would you be driving around in an unregistered vehicle or generally doing something to solicit attention from the police?
You mean how Timothy McVeigh was fleeing Oklahoma City in a car with no license plates? (He didn't believe in them since he was a sovereign).
@@stevelehto Oh hell I forgot about that, that didn't work out too well for him it seems.
Because most of the people that do stuff like that aren't particularly bright.
Might be a trap...
Hundo on the right side of the first shelf, along side the upright of the cabinet. 384.
Steve, you was talking about searching a locked container and i believe a backpack should be considered locked and heres why, when an officer goes to a house and nocks and there is no answer if he just opens the door it would be considered breaking and entering and so should anything that the officer can move around in the car without forcing open.he would have to unzip the bag just like he would have to turn a doors handle, so in this case he should have to ask to search the bag as well because it is another entity from the car (if there was a safe in the car he would have to ask if he could open and search that as well)
My head hurts after this explanation.
Hi Steve
Could you explain "The Bar" what they do and who has oversight regarding judges who don't either know the law or ignore the law. A couple of years ago there was a supreme crt. Judge who used foreign law to decide a case. Increasingly it seams we are hearing stories of gross overreach from judges. Can't these people be disbarred?
Grady
In Michigan, judges are overseen by the Judicial Tenure Commission. They can ask the Supreme Court to remove a bad judge - and the Supreme Court oversees the lower courts.
This fight we fight for our rights & freedoms may not be a short one, but we will endure. And, as it was said before is the same needed today!
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen Citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms but Citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." Speach By (John F. Kennedy).
------------------------------------------------------------------
He was a great man, our President, and before his time. Our leader that will be remembered for ever!
Wow. All that and common sense would say the search was illegal. I guess I look at it as right and wrong.
The public will thank you one day . I thank you today .
I’m curious - assuming that the LaBelle (sp?) case was still within the statute of limitations would that case be eligible for retrial based on the Supreme Court’s change of law? Or would LaBelle be covered under double jeopardy?
Ironically, if Mead hadn’t acted so squirrelly about his backpack, the cop probably would have ignored it, never searched the car, and the old ruling would still stand.
hope someone can pay this guy for the time spent incarcerated
An officer had given me a ticket once and I have to say to him Paul you're the one that gave me the ticket. He claimed he couldn't have given me a ticket because he remembers everyone that he gives a ticket to. Obviously not
I know this video is old, but I was hoping you, or anybody with solid knowledge of the subject, can opine on the legality of a hotel employee unlocking a door for police to go in when the occupant won't answer the door. Sounds like they had an expectation of privacy in that room that the hotel staff couldn't consent to invade.
In reality the guy was breaking the law. He got lucky with a technicality. At least he spent two years in jail.
My right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not a technicality. It's one of the many reasons that I took multiple oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States over the course of 20 years.
Arinerm I agree with you about unreasonable searches and seizures but what I don’t feel bad about is that a repeat offender went to jail.
Arinerm we would all like to believe that our government cares about each and everyone of us but the sad truth is that they don’t. Our own government has done experiments on our military without their knowledge/consent during WW2. They also refused to pay for cancer victims from the Korean War due to Agent Orange for years.
Cops gotta pay!
This is not universally bad news for the police.
If a cop stops a car and has a reason to search the car and before informing them of this he then asks all passengers to get out and take their personal property with them.
If one of them has drugs if he takes his bag out, then he has confirmed ownership (if they have a good reason to search or arrest him) and he is not stuck with the drug charges also.
If he tries to pretend it is not his and leaves it in car then a reason or approval to search the car would include the drug bag.
How can we consent to anyone that has the power to kill us, jail us, or let us go at their pleasure? As soon as you say no, they call a dog and claim it said something.
How can courts still believe we have a choice?
searching without consent can make results get dismissed later like this case :)
Hope he sues for big bucks!
Who would he sue? The cop probably isn't liable, especially since the case law at the time supported him, but was only overruled afterward. The lower courts also made their decisions based on the precedent given by the Michigan supreme court which again was only overruled afterward.
When I visited my State Library in the early 1970’s, people leaving were required to open any briefcase or similar container to make sure no reference materials were there.
Anyone can ask. If they were actually forcing people, that would be illegal searches.
What part of "great video, thanks for making it available so quickly and concisely" do you not understand?
Confusing but REALLY good job and great info!
Not a lawyer, but always like studying and reading law since I was a kid. I've subscribed to Washington state and the 9th circuit appeals, as well as Cornell's offer of law syllabi opinions in my email. It's been funny that I've stumbled on supreme court opinions for cases on people I know or knew in the past. It's fascinating to see such differing opinions. It seems by memory, my state, Washington has had changes in passenger rights during stops over 4 times in my life. The latest being what you brought up. In fact, if memory serves, I believe they cannot demand ID either without cause. Showing ID without cause can't be demanded, but I think I may read up on that again. The thing about law is it changes every day. Most people haven't a clue about law except maybe some traffic infractions they got and it taught them a lesson on that piece of legislation, and it's sad that police get less training than a Hair dresser/cosmetologist.
The woman not being charged smells fishy.. was this some sort of sting ??
So the obvious next question would be does the defendant in this case have a right to sue them now for damages since he spent 2 years in jail?
So hand your drugs to the passenger- never get convicted
omg now well never catch all the damn potheads out there! what will we do??!
@@pain_weaver Wait. Are you insinuating that everyone who doesn't smoke weed is on welfare?
So Michigan has a Concealed Pistol License law, which requires that individuals who are stopped MUST disclose that they're carrying.
1) Does this implicate the 4th amendment (Is it a search?), even if it's an implied consent law?
2) If so, is it implied consent, or is this a search incident to a stop (Or is it neither?
3) Presumably, the passenger of a vehicle is stopped, right? But there is no Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion of their stop, so if it's a search, and not implied consent, under what authority can they mandate that a passenger of a vehicle disclose? Or can't they?
In the 9th circuit, there was a recent case that tried to touch on this same topic: US v Landeros - searching a passenger based on RAS of the driver or other occupants. I wonder how these topics might intersect.
When it comes to CPL's, CCW's, whatever your state calls them, when you sign all your paperwork, they tell you it's a stipulation to notify an officer therefore it's a condition of issuing the permit. It's just like we agree when we sign to get our drivers license that we must have it on us when driving.
Edit: When I went through the training course to get my CCW, we were told to go ahead and notify the officer when he asks for your ID because if you're LEGALLY in possession of the weapon, theres no need to make the officer think you're hiding something. We people that have gone through the fingerprinting, background checks, and training to get permits are the ones the officers should be happy to see because they know we've been vetted out. By being upfront with the officer, you're still showing good faith and the responsibility of a licensed person.
@@bobm9509 they arent "asserting" anything. It's in the document. You can read so look at it and comprehend. If you are wanting the license, those are the conditions. Theres no duress involved. It's the law. Just because you say it doesnt apply to you doesnt make it so.
@@bobm9509 driving is a privilege, not a right. Traveling is the right.
@@bobm9509 sorry..... where does the constitution mention driving?
@@bobm9509 you can operate your vehicle without a license on your own property. If you wish to operate it on public property or state roads you need a license for that privilege.
I got pulled over on I 94, the officer said I didn't use a turn signal to change lanes, but I clearly remember doing so because I saw him behind. I am sure it was an illegal stopping of a vehicle by police. I wonder if there is anything I can do about that.
It will come down to you saying "I remember using my signal" and the cop saying "He didn't signal"...guess who the judge is going to believe.
besides having other vehicles and perhaps a helicopter following you proving you did nothing wrong? all I can say is congratulations, you drive on a highway that is used to transport illicit drugs to and from distribution centers and market areas throughout the country, therefore the police will stop anyone on the highway that might fit the profile of a drug trafficker for any reason possible including offences that did not take place. after all not only do they want to find drugs and MONEY to seize, they also want to extort money from the people to support their budgets with tickets for traffic offences. I believe the supreme court has even ruled an officer can lie to a person without getting into trouble. The first thing or one of the first things they ask when they have pulled you over is "Do you know why i pulled you over?" or "Do you know how fast you were going?" they are doing an investigation at that point and without informing you that anything you say can and will be used in a court of law... will put what you say in their report. They will question you about other things a lot of the time looking for evidence of any other crime you may have committed. Police are not your friends and the best answer to their questions is.. "i am sorry officer, I do not answer questions". many times at this point they will try to intimidate you into answering questions and bend to their will. if they can make their case for what they have stopped you for before it even goes to court they have a good chance at winning in court. "defendant stated to me he was going 70mph, I clocked him with my radar doing 80mph in a 65mph zone". you have already admitted to speeding at this point, the judge would likely believe the cop as he has evidence you committed an infraction. maybe this will shed some light on part of it. www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?.f33fbee6d771
I wonder what happened to Labelle since his adverse decision was overturned.
I have 2 questions.
(1) Are locked "containers" (backpacks, cases, boxes, etc) immune from the opening/searching of?
(2) Is anyone willing to take bets on how long the passenger, who has already spent 2 years in prison, goes before being arrested AGAIN for possession of Meth, if he's released from prison?
Now given that he served time, and that it was rules unconstitutional will he be able to petition or sue for compensation for time served?
Could but I doubt a jury will give him any thing
Steve I have a question for you what is your take on the current news about the judge from Massachusetts being charged with a Obstruction .
So what happens to all the cases relying on the Lebell ruling?
They rulings can be challenged based on the new ruling.
2:49 - This is the part that blows my mind.
So one simple solution is to put a small luggage lock on the zippered part you do not want searched. Bit of a pain having to unlock it all the time, but you now show an expectation of privacy.
Blood,Sweat,and Gears
Zip ties would work too. Use as needed.
I thought this story was about the Doctor who was dragged off the plane.
What constitutes the 'totality of circumstances' and can you argue it to a police officer effectively? Would his protection be different if he was well known to the driver? Would he have had different outcome if he removed the backpack when he left the vehicle? If the officer called a drug sniffing officer, would the outcome have been different?
Steve, you're very handy (helpful to have about) and that handy stuff (those gesticulations) are also handy - carry on.
"Apparently a crime" I about choked on my diet dew. Thanks Steve, lol.
Everything you said totally makes sense. So the problem here is the Fact that the Police Officer did not ask the passenger for consent to search his backpack. Had the officer done this, then this case would have never happened. Now lets suppose the Officer DID ask the passenger for consent and the passenger said 'No'. What happens next?? I myself tend to believe that the officer would call in for a K-9 to come by and check out the backpack. The Dog would smell the drugs and alert the Cops to it, and that would be that for this passenger. Somehow Dogs can overrule the 4th amendment ??
Some States don't allow you to be detained for K-9 without other reason. If the K-9 unit is pulling you over & the dog "hits" it is considered probable cause for searching.
Theres an case in florida an k-9 dog dose not give the cop the rights to search
I have a hard time believing detaining someone so a k-9 could come sniff them would hold up in court as probable cause and especially if searching the car didn't turn up anything as in this case. The police aren't allowed to continue fishing until they find something. By that logic they could hold you there until they could get a potable x-ray, bomb sniffer, or whatever to try to ffind something illegal on you. Without probable cause to detain you they couldn't make you wait indefinitely to be search by different technologies.Not saying a cop would do this but it wouldn't hold up in court.
Denying a search, does not itself establish probable cause
Interesting, can that ownership - right to exclude concept extend to the those folks who legitimately own the property they, moments earlier, purchased in a store? Do the folks who refuse the receipt checkers have that right, based on they simple fact that they own it and thus can control the access to it by others?
The ownership of the receipt? Sure. Refuse to show it to them and hope they have no other reason to suspect that you stole something.
Of course they do. You're under no legal obligation to submit to a search by a random minimum wage employee.
If you don't want to show a receipt then you don't have to shop at the establishment. That is a right you most certainly can exercise. No need to make life difficult for those doing what their employer requires them to do.