Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
I found this example in a book that Ed suggested I get:
"A policeman, patrolling a high crime area where narcotics offenses are
particularly troublesome, observes two men exchange money on a street
and then go to a nearby car to retrieve a package from the trunk. One
of the men sticks his finger in the bag, puts his finger in his mouth to
taste something, stuffs the bag in his pocket and walks away. This
routine occurs several times. The owner of the vehicle is known to the
officer as a drug dealer. The policeman has *probable cause* to obtain
a warrant to search the vehicle and any person who receives a package
from the trunk."
So I gather that what it really means is the element of a valid search
and seizure would have to consist of the police knowing facts and the
circumstances surrounding them at the time, to know that a crime has
been or is being committed. IOW knowledge and common sense. :)
Looks to me like a cop should be a lawyer too though. :(
Sue
>
> Sue - thanks for posting this advance notice; Ed probably knows a good
> deal sbout this, but its always fascinated me, what is required for
> probable' cause or reasonable suspicion' for police to search a car. I
> guess they can always seize what's in 'plain sight or wing-span', or on
> reasonable suspicion that someone or someplace suggests a crime in which
> the person or place is involved, or open a car trunk with a leg sticking
> out! (on the above reasoning), but apparently the states are split on
> this blanket search deal. I always thought it was against the 4th
> amendment, but what do uu think? Again thanks for the post, its a good
> test case don't u think? C U soon, :) LDMF. (PS: the word 'reasonable'
> used above is a toughie to define!)
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
