NEW Welcome Ad





No announcement yet.

Lets address the 4th Amendment for free


300x250 Mobile

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lets address the 4th Amendment for free

    No top secrect squirrel stuff that you like to do to, to get into a house with out a warrant or a car with out a warrant, just normal everyday applications. Its strange to me that people actually try to make money teaching Cops about the 4th Amendment and how it applies to nearly everything we Police types do.

    A quick refresher:

    The 4th amendment says simply this:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    There is a lot of case law regarding the 4th Amendment as it relates to Police work.

    Mapp v. Ohio (The 4th amendment applies to teh States by way of due process covered in the 14th)
    Terry v. Ohio (Stop and Frisk)
    Katz v. United States (Reasonable expectation of privacy)

    There are many more related to the seizure of a human beings arse during an arrest and the application of froce to do so.. These are all 4th amendment police issues.

    So, pick your favorite, expound on it, teach me and others something about it and drop 300 buck in my pay pal account.. Or dont.

    Again, refrain from telling your personal secrets... We all have them, some work better than others, but none are a great as mine.
    It takes a Wolf.......

  • #2
    Honey. With all due respect 'cause I do like you...WTH are you talking about?

    I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.


    • #3

      All Gave Some - Some Gave All



      • #4
        Using my tarot cards and crystal ball I believe he is talking about our use of "gab" to get a consensual search and what methods we use to obtain one. Like my favorite; "can I search your car? Yes, ok thanks" lol That will be 25.00 dollars.
        "I do not fear the man who yells, I fear the man who doesn't"


        • #5
          Lets not forget fourth amendment waivers.


          • #6
            "I'm concerned about large amounts of herion being transported on this particular highway, do you have any large amounts of herion in this vehicle? No? Do you mind if I take a look inside your vehicle? Thanks."

            Passenger thinks, I'm good, he's only worried about huge amounts of herion....

            Scenario 2 - "If I were to check inside of this vehicle, would I find any narcotics or weapons? May I look?"

            Schlecloth v. Bustemonte (major spelling error I'm sure..) "Does the trunk open?"
            Last edited by headonstraight; 04-22-2011, 07:50 PM.


            • #7
              Originally posted by jswwjw View Post
              Using my tarot cards and crystal ball I believe he is talking about our use of "gab" to get a consensual search and what methods we use to obtain one. Like my favorite; "can I search your car? Yes, ok thanks" lol That will be 25.00 dollars.
              Yes, but don't forget the suspect must be FREE TO LEAVE in order to obtain valid consent. I see that one screwed up all the time.


              • #8
                Custody (arrest, de facto arrest, investigatory detention, etc) does not always equal coercion. Prosecutors' preferences are a different story.

                Voluntariness and the absence of coercion are what you shoot for.

                Of course, YMMV with your state laws.

                US v. Watson
                There was no overt act or threat of force against Watson proved or claimed. There were no promises made to him and no indication of more subtle forms of coercion that might flaw his judgment. He had been arrested and was in custody, but his consent was given while on a public street, not in the confines of the police station. Moreover, the fact of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced confession or consent to search. Similarly, under Schneckloth, the absence of proof that Watson knew he could withhold his consent, though it may be a factor in the overall judgment, is not to be given controlling significance.
                Last edited by Resq14; 04-23-2011, 04:47 PM.
                All Gave Some - Some Gave All



                • #9
                  Alas, one of the only great things about New Jersey is that a person does not have to be free to leave in order to get consent. We only have to advise them that they can stop the search at anytime and that it is voluntary. I have asked for consent many a time of a party who is already in custody in the course of an investigation.

                  Do not forget the Community Caretaking warrantless search exemption as well as abandoned property as two excellent means of getting into structures, vehicles, etc...
                  " The Beatings will continue until Morale Improves "


                  MR300x250 Tablet


                  What's Going On


                  There are currently 2826 users online. 126 members and 2700 guests.

                  Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                  Welcome Ad