Kansas Court rules reclined seats, clear bags justification for warrantless search

It doesn't exist anymore. See Obama: Change and Hope, baby.

quote:

---

It doesn't exist anymore. See Obama: Change and Hope, baby.

---

Uh, states don't get much "Redder" than Kansas.

Ziplock's to carry warning:

Use in car inviolates 4th Amendment

Reclined seats? Seriously?

BUT BUT BUT they found illegal stuff. They shouldn't have had it in the first place!!!!111one

You will see this point argued by the big statists throughout the duration of this thread. Which is a problem. That thought process is why courts and law enforcement agencies get away with this shite

Clear Bags?


like sammich bags?

quote:

---

HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay

---

Here is our first big statist

Welcome

quote:

---

Legal stop? Check. Officer made the stop after observing the driver cut through a parking lot to avoid a traffic light.

---

Sure, but not enough to justify the search.

quote:

---

Legal arrest? Check. Driver had an active warrant. So did the passenger.

---

Debatable, considering that the state that would have issued the warrant never did so (Missouri). This was Kansas being Kansas.

quote:

---

He was in full compliance with federal and state law to buy the weapon, but there was a complication. In 2006 Howard had pleaded guilty to burglary in Missouri. He never served time as the judge suspended his sentence as part of a diversion agreement that kept Howard from being considered a convicted felon -- in Missouri. Howard did not realize that Kansas does not accept this agreement.

---

quote:

---

On October 17, 2008, the Missouri court determined that Howard had successfully completed his probation and discharged him from the court's jurisdiction. It further ordered that the file be "a closed record to the extent provided by law," as prescribed by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.105.1.

---

quote:

---

Exigent circumstances to justify warrantless search? Check. Being in a moving vehicle alone fulfills this requirement to base a warrantless search solely on probable cause.

---

Here's the crux of the issue. It shouldn't - the 4th Amendment states:

quote:

---

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.

---

Declaring a moving vehicle as an exemption to this doesn't jive with what the Founding Fathers appear to have intended, as they didn't just say "houses".

The Supreme Court has even weighed in on this concept, and determined that a vehicle most CERTAINLY counts as an "effect" in United States v Jones, 2012

quote:

---

Probable cause? Check. Driver admitted the plastic baggie previously held marijuana. This helped establish probable cause, in addition to the passenger's behavior after the officer initiated a stop.

---

The baggie was identified AFTER the illegal search, which hardly justifies your statement.

quote:

---

After finding the firearm, Loughman Mirandized Howard. Loughman then asked Howard about the plastic baggie. Howard responded that the baggie had previously held marijuana.

---

Not to mention that the State tried to push a motion to withhold that the firearm was purchased legally.

quote:

---

Finally, the State filed a motion in limine requesting that the court preclude Howard from "introducing evidence that [Howard] legally purchased the firearm in the state of Missouri or any federal records pertaining [to] the purchase of the firearm."

---

Most of the quotes came from here, the Kansas Supreme Court Opinion - Stuff

Summary:
Legal Stop - Yes, ticket-able offense
Legal Arrest - For the cop, maybe. For the state of Kansas, no.
Justification of warrantless search? None yet.
Probable Cause? If it's after the act, it's not "cause".