Ozzy87 busted for speeding

[HensonLosesLots]

[ QUOTE ]
Gobbo, you are incredibly naive about police in general. I obviously don't think Ozzy should have consented to anything, but get one thing straight. They WERE going to search Ozzy's car regardless. They either had probable cause or would make up factors constituting probable cause. There is no doubt in my mind about this. There is the strict manner in which the Constitution and laws operate, and then there is the practical way they are essentially ignored or twisted every day.

Ozzy is learning a lesson many of us have to actually learn to fully understand. Something along the lines of "don't drive recklessly at 80 mph down side streets carrying marijuana paraphenelia and 50k in cash." The lesson here isn't "don't consent to searches" although that is something I agree with, it's "the government is incredibly powerful and often corrupt in one way or the other, and the best thing to do is stay the hell out of its way."

[/ QUOTE ]

From reading the news article, it appears to me that the cop was going about their routine questioning, asking for various details and finally the 'do you have anything incriminating, can we search' question. I've had this done to me about 2-4 times once as a driver and a couple times as a passenger. Everytime, we were smart enough to say no.

It's a routine police stop, but almost anyone that has been in trouble with the law know they have the absolute right to deny any searches that the cop may inquire upon.

Cops purposely ask many questions to give them permissions to do stuff they normally wouldn't be able to do (search the car). Now, if the passenger was holding a smoking bong or drinking a beer as the cop came up to the car, then of course they can search. But after reading the article, it appears Ozzy was intimitaded like a school girl and consented to whatever the cop asked. That's the worst thing you can do.

[supafrey]

lol another law thread where many, many people that haven't the slightest schooling/experience with the law speak up and give horrible, horrible advice.

"If you're honest with the white hick policeman about the gram of pot in your car, brown man, maybe they'll charge you with a lesser offence! Police are your reasonable, likable friends! Refusing searches don't matter because they might do it anyways! Here's some advice about breathalyzers even though the law varies from state to state! K9 units get called out every 10 minutes because people refuse car searches! I wish I had a convenient way to refer to all people of marginally similar skin colour, because I am too lazy to discern between dozens of different cultures and heritages! Yayyyy!"

[jman220]

Post deleted by jman220

[glimmertwin]

[ QUOTE ]
They either had probable cause or would make up factors constituting probable cause. There is no doubt in my mind about this. There is the strict manner in which the Constitution and laws operate, and then there is the practical way they are essentially ignored or twisted every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why we have lawyers. If they do make up probable cause, then at some later point, they're going to have to defend themselves under cross examination. There'll be witnesses on both sides. There'll be evidence that either supports or contradicts their account. Possibly a video camera in their car.

You should refuse consent to search even if you *don't* have anything incriminating in the car, but if you *do* have something incriminating, you've got nothing to gain whatsoever, and everything to lose by doing so.

I agree with your main point though, which is that the smart thing to do is not put yourself in such vulnerable positions to begin with, but we all make mistakes, and particularly so when we're young. When that happens, the idea is to try and avoid having those mistakes colour the rest of our lives.

[SlowHabit]

The year's '94 and my trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother [censored]' law
I got two choices y'all pull over the car or (hmmm)
Bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor
Now I ain't tryin' to see no highway chase with Jake.
Plus i got a few dollars i can fight the case
So I...pull over to the side of the road
I heard "Son do you know why I'm stoppin' you for?"
Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hats real low?
Do I look like a mind reader sir, I don't know
Am I under arrest or should I guess some mo'?
"Well you was doin fifty-five in a fifty-fo' "
"Liscense and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin' a weapon on you I know a lot of you are"
I ain't steppin out of [censored] all my paper's legit
"Well, do you mind if I look round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that
"Aren't you sharp as a tack, you some type of lawyer or something'?"
"Or somebody important or somethin'?"
Nah, I ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my [censored]
"We'll see how smart you are when the K9 come"
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one
Hit me



source: http://sing365.com

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
This is my first post, so bear with me, please. I must disagree with a statement in this thread. A number of fairly good lawyers will tell you to take any sobriety test offered, and then they would try and beat the test in Court. In the state I live in, (and I am a lawyer, but not a DUI attorney), a refusal to take a DUI test is an automatic license suspension, no questions asked and the appeal process is a bitch. Most DUI attorneys I know actually encourage sobriety tests and others because it usually provides them the best fodder for an acquittal.

And, to anyone saying that he(Ozzy) should have refused the search , that might have worked pre-Patriot act. However, the Constitutional guarantees regarding searches, seizures and invasions of privacy was swept out the window approximately 5 years and 11 months ago regardless of skin color.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bad Poster,
I probably practice in a different state than you, but I can't imagine its that different. Yes, refusal results in an automatic license suspension. But I, personally, have tried several DWI's. And it is without question that a DWI case without a reading is much much weaker than one with one. Juries are just not comfortable convicting someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" when all they have to rely on is the cops observations about a persons driving and his demeanor. They want a scientific test because they've watched too much damn CSI. I work with DWI defense attorneys on a daily basis, and I know of none that would advise their clients to take the test, unless the client knows that the reading is going to be low, or just over the legal limit (many prosecutor's offices plea bargain low readings, and defense attorneys know this).

Edit: Also, while many states have a rule that refusal to submit to a chemical test results in license suspension, many states also have a rule that if you take the test, and the reading comes back over .08, your license is also suspended.

[samsdmf]

[ QUOTE ]
They WERE going to search Ozzy's car regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001

[uclabruinz]

jman220, I'm not certain about this, as it's been 9 years since I studied Con Law and Crim Law, but I think a cop saying "I smelled marijuana" is probable cause to search a vehicle.

[NickyC]

OMG, 80 (EIGHTY) miles an hour. I love how they throw that in there like omg omg omg omg, what an INSANE rate of speed.

180, ok, fine. I do 80+ routinely on the HW in the morning on the way to work and get passed frequently. Gay.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
> consenting to the chemical test was fatal.

At least for this, I doubt he had a choice after the weed was found in the car. In many states, it's handled the same way as alcohol: if you are suspected of drinking and driving (i.e., under the influence), you are obligated to take a breathalyzer (you can refuse, but guilt is assumed by law when you do this).

[/ QUOTE ]

Many states have a rule that evidence that a defendnat refused to take a chemical test may be used by a jury to infer that the reason why he refused that test was that he was intoxicated. However, the case is a lot weaker without a chemical test when its presented to a jury. Especially when it is DUI drugs you're charged with (as opposed to alcohol), when the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were under the influence of a particular drug, but has no chemical test to pinpoint which one.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such rule however refusal of any testing will be presented in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,
If you don't know the law, please don't post it like you do. There is such a rule in many states. Here's an example from the Criminal Jury Instructions for driving while Intoxicated in New York State:

[ QUOTE ]
Under our law, if a person has been given a clear and unequivocal warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test and persists in refusing to submit to such test, and there is no innocent explanation for such refusal, then the jury may, but is not required to, infer that the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test because he or she feared that the test would disclose evidence of the presence of alcohol in violation of law. ]

[/ QUOTE ]