Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

JOEinPHX · 04-04-2011, 02:50 PM

Call me selfish and small-minded, but any time I hear about a twenty-something guy needing Viagra, it warms my 58-year-old heart (and other essential parts).

Unless, of course, he's not using it for erectile dysfunction. He might be using it to get his pit bulls jacked up just before he throws them into the fight - I'll bet that's a part of the Mike Vick saga you haven't heard.

mdrake34 · 04-04-2011, 02:55 PM

This is a case from the 9th circuit so I'm not sure what the law in the 11th circuit is, but this plainly states refusal alone doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fuentes
"United States v. Fuentes was a 1997 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause." The case involved a Terry stop at an airport of a suspected drug smuggler, and his subsequent flight attempt from Drug Enforcement Administration agents that, along with other suspicious factors, did give the officers probable cause to arrest him.[1]"

Sporkdevil · 04-04-2011, 03:30 PM

(04-04-2011 02:55 PM)mdrake34 Wrote: This is a case from the 9th circuit so I'm not sure what the law in the 11th circuit is, but this plainly states refusal alone doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fuentes
"United States v. Fuentes was a 1997 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause." The case involved a Terry stop at an airport of a suspected drug smuggler, and his subsequent flight attempt from Drug Enforcement Administration agents that, along with other suspicious factors, did give the officers probable cause to arrest him.[1]"

I forgot you were a law student, mdrake. lol. And I just came in here to snicker at the guy.

As a rule of thumb, if a cop asks to search your anything, means he doesn't have probable cause to search it. He could care less what your opinion is on the matter. Here's what I would do:

Q: What's in the car?
A: Personal property.
Q: Can I search through, just to make sure there's nothing illegal.
A: No, I don't like strangers going through my personal property.

It's really that easy, but they will try to make you consent.

mdrake34 · 04-04-2011, 03:51 PM

(04-04-2011 03:30 PM)Sporkdevil Wrote: I forgot you were a law student, mdrake. lol. And I just came in here to snicker at the guy.

As a rule of thumb, if a cop asks to search your anything, means he doesn't have probable cause to search it. He could care less what your opinion is on the matter. Here's what I would do:

Q: What's in the car?
A: Personal property.
Q: Can I search through, just to make sure there's nothing illegal.
A: No, I don't like strangers going through my personal property.

It's really that easy, but they will try to make you consent.

Yeah, and I must admit I've allowed the police to search my truck, but it was before I took crim pro I and realized I could say no. I didn't have anything illegal though, so I had nothing to gain by saying no in that situation, I didn't want to push my luck since he was already writing me a speeding ticket for 16 mph over.

The Falcon Jedi · 04-04-2011, 03:54 PM

My question is: If he is actually found Guilty in this case, will the NFL reprimand him for it? Just doesnt seem right in this situation.

mdrake34 · 04-04-2011, 03:57 PM

(04-04-2011 03:54 PM)The Falcon Jedi Wrote: My question is: If he is actually found Guilty in this case, will the NFL reprimand him for it? Just doesnt seem right in this situation.

I dunno, part of the memo to the players was that during the lockout all drug testing and substance abuse programs run by the league are on hold. I'm sure Herr Fuhrer Gooddell will see fit to remember this incident once the new CBA is reached though.

UCSBDirtyBird · 04-04-2011, 04:31 PM

(04-04-2011 02:41 PM)ChrisD Wrote: They can say no, but I'll tell you right now, it won't matter. What does no give me (As a police officer) that will allow me to search your car if I call into headquarters? It will give me probable cause. And with permission from my highers, I'll just search your car anyway. Basically, I'd rather let them search my car and possibly find something and be lenient about it, than say no and them not be lenient because I wasn't cooperative.

Not only that, he probably didn't realize that what he had was "illegal" and he maybe even forgot it was in there!

Man, I can't wait until I'm a cop Lol.

I have gotten a good amount of evidence tossed out because of police officers who thought that way too. Officers often use the same language in their police reports to try to establish probable cause, but ever since the decision in Arizona v. Gant, courts have reacted with more skepticism of of vehicle searches.

Once this case I am working on now goes to verdict, I will have an interesting story to share, but until then...

Oh, and I am not a lawyer (yet), just a third year law student and future public defender.

**papachaz** · 04-04-2011, 04:54 PM

(04-04-2011 01:47 PM)The Falcon Jedi Wrote: I think this is really stupid to arrest someone for Viagra. Of all the narcotics and drug dealing out there they lock up a guy because of possessing something used to treat erectile dysfunction? Come on man...

he was arrested for possessing a prescription drug without being able to provide a prescription. what the drug is doesn't even matter, with the drug laws now a days, this is a way to grab people who have any kind of drugs if they don't have a prescription. the dumber part of this is if he had just pulled over, they would have said, hey, turn down your stereo.
but no, he had to turn punk and think because who HE thinks he is, he could just disregard a police officer doing his job. I have the same consideration for police officers as i do for our military, they are out there putting their lives on the line every day, and some 'thug' wants to punk out on him? yeah, i'd arrest his ass for the littlest thing i could find, bet your ass i would

Sporkdevil · 04-04-2011, 05:06 PM

(04-04-2011 03:51 PM)mdrake34 Wrote: Yeah, and I must admit I've allowed the police to search my truck, but it was before I took crim pro I and realized I could say no. I didn't have anything illegal though, so I had nothing to gain by saying no in that situation, I didn't want to push my luck since he was already writing me a speeding ticket for 16 mph over.

I let them search my car in high school. It's kind of funny, the past few months I have been both illegally stopped, and got off of a speeding tickets because I got government plates (school car). So far... no tickets, so that is something.

Sporkdevil · 04-04-2011, 05:08 PM

(04-04-2011 04:31 PM)UCSBDirtyBird Wrote: I have gotten a good amount of evidence tossed out because of police officers who thought that way too. Officers often use the same language in their police reports to try to establish probable cause, but ever since the decision in Arizona v. Gant, courts have reacted with more skepticism of of vehicle searches.

Once this case I am working on now goes to verdict, I will have an interesting story to share, but until then...

Oh, and I am not a lawyer (yet), just a third year law student and future public defender.

We have another law student? I'm a certified 2L, and got my first case a few weeks ago.