Pulled over tonight.

[jagee]

I'm late to the party, but I'm here...

 

[Sigblitz]

Pass the salt Jaygee.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Given the reason for the stop, I'm ok with everything right up until the search of the car.

Yes, that seems problematic.

 

[2A_Tom]

What would have happened had he Commanded, "Stop! I do not consent to a search of my car".

 

[Kutnupe14]

What would have happened had he Commanded, "Stop! I do not consent to a search of my car".

Who knows? Hopefully the officers would have remembered their criminal law class at the academy, and been like "Oh damn, sorry, don't sue me." I've had people tell me that they didn't consent to searches, and I explained to them exactly why I didn't need consent (i.e. odor/plain view/inventory)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The pics will remind them what caliber and what model the gun was. If they recover bullets that they can examine, they can compare the caliber and number of lands/grooves to see if it is a possible match. If it is, they could probably get a warrant to obtain the gun and test it.

Who does that, other than on TV crime shows? Ask a cop to dust for fingerprints when your house is broken into and see what the reaction is (besides uproarious laughter). Matching ballistics? Please...

 

[Doug B]

Who knows? Hopefully the officers would have remembered their criminal law class at the academy, and been like "Oh damn, sorry, don't sue me." I've had people tell me that they didn't consent to searches, and I explained to them exactly why I didn't need consent (i.e. odor/plain view/inventory)

Inventory?

 

[cobber]

Inventory?

When a vehicle is being impounded the contents of the car are inventoried in case something goes missing while the car is held in the impound yard. Inventories are supposed to be non-discretionary in certain cases and therefore not employed simply because there’s no PC or warrant.

 

[2A_Tom]

Given the reason for the stop, I'm ok with everything right up until the search of the car.

Yes, that seems problematic.

What would have happened had he Commanded, "Stop! I do not consent to a search of my car".

Who knows? Hopefully the officers would have remembered their criminal law class at the academy, and been like "Oh damn, sorry, don't sue me." I've had people tell me that they didn't consent to searches, and I explained to them exactly why I didn't need consent (i.e. odor/plain view/inventory)

Sir, are you taking both sides on purpose.

But none of those are operative according to the OP.

 

[Route 45]

What would have happened had he Commanded, "Stop! I do not consent to a search of my car".

"Commanded?" LOL

You ain't "commanding" anything during a traffic stop, especially after a shooting has taken place and the officers have a reasonable belief that you or the vehicle matches the description.

The side of the road ain't a courtroom.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sir, are you taking both sides on purpose.

But none of those are operative according to the OP.

No, 'm not, but I see where you get that the seems (in purple) was sarcastic, because there's nothing seemingly problematic about it. It IS a problem.

 

[MarkC]

When a vehicle is being impounded the contents of the car are inventoried in case something goes missing while the car is held in the impound yard. Inventories are supposed to be non-discretionary in certain cases and therefore not employed simply because there’s no PC or warrant.

Inventories, as noted above, must be a legitimate inventory and not what the Indiana Supreme Court has described as a "general rummaging for evidence." It is up to the police to demonstrate that an inventory was justified and that it was conducted in accordance with an established departmental policy. This is Indiana case law going back to 1993 (Fair v. State and its progeny). However, nothing here seems to justify anything near an inventory, and from the facts we're provided there doesn't seem to be probable cause that would have justified a warrantless search.

However, as noted, this involved a vehicle that apparently was similar to the suspect vehicle, in the same area, driving quickly, and with an armed occupant. Caution was definitely called for on the officers' behalf. Sitting here in my living room hours and miles away from the event I don't want to second guess the officers' conduct, but it does seem fortunate they did not find any evidence of a crime, for all the reasons noted upthread.

I'm kind of late to the thread, I can't believe I missed this.

 

[2A_Tom]

I seem (not purple) To think it is problematic because there was no smell, anything in plain view and he was not being arrested so there would be no inventory.

There was RAS to pull him over, but was there really RAS to search the vehicle?

It seems that both VUPD and you originally seemed to indicate that it was sketchy but then you came back with why you could preform a search w/o a warrant.

BTW I am well aware of those reasons.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I seem (not purple) To think it is problematic because there was no smell, anything in plain view and he was not being arrested so there would be no inventory.

There was RAS to pull him over, but was there really RAS to search the vehicle?

It seems that both VUPD and you originally seemed to indicate that it was sketchy but then you came back with why you could preform a search w/o a warrant.

BTW I am well aware of those reasons.

Neither of us agree with the search, full stop.

 

[2A_Tom]

OK, friend.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Inventories, as noted above, must be a legitimate inventory and not what the Indiana Supreme Court has described as a "general rummaging for evidence." It is up to the police to demonstrate that an inventory was justified and that it was conducted in accordance with an established departmental policy. This is Indiana case law going back to 1993 (Fair v. State and its progeny). However, nothing here seems to justify anything near an inventory, and from the facts we're provided there doesn't seem to be probable cause that would have justified a warrantless search.

However, as noted, this involved a vehicle that apparently was similar to the suspect vehicle, in the same area, driving quickly, and with an armed occupant. Caution was definitely called for on the officers' behalf. Sitting here in my living room hours and miles away from the event I don't want to second guess the officers' conduct, but it does seem fortunate they did not find any evidence of a crime, for all the reasons noted upthread.

I'm kind of late to the thread, I can't believe I missed this.

"Apparently similar" doesn't normally cut it. For instance if the suspect vehicle is a 4 door red car, you don't have free reign to stop and search every 4 door red car in the vicinity. At a bare minimum, you better have the make, model, and color. That can justify an investigative stop, but not a search.

 

[Trigger Time]

Call a lawyer. This is ehat they live for. If you have a case theyll take it.
I dont like the sound of this. Id be very pissed if i got pulled out of my car like that and there had better of been a reall ****ing shooting.
No im not gonna fight the police on the street, that's stupid and how you get killed or legit charges. But if i am wronged and have a legit case ill hire the best lawyer I can afford that's a bulldog and fight that way.

Just out of curiosity, did they even apologize to you?

 

[MarkC]

"Apparently similar" doesn't normally cut it. For instance if the suspect vehicle is a 4 door red car, you don't have free reign to stop and search every 4 door red car in the vicinity. At a bare minimum, you better have the make, model, and color. That can justify an investigative stop, but not a search.

You and I are in agreement here, I apologize if that wasn't clear from my wordy post.

That is why I said it was good their search did not find evidence of a crime.

 

[bwframe]

Whats a lawyer price tag gonna run for something like this? Just a ballpark...