 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / April 2007Can a Policeman search your RV if you are using it as your home ?
Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? Thanks. > Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for > speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious > of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? > Thanks. Like you home or car it takes a search warrant. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” ---- Hillary Clinton  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over > for speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is > suspicious of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue > please ? Thanks. When it's going down the road it's transportation. It may be your home when it's legally parked someplace. My guess is, if you protested, the officer would just wait for a superior officer to show up. Then you would REALLY get searched!! Tom J who remembers those LA I-10 post >> Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over >> for speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Tom J >who remembers those LA I-10 post I would ask the officer to get a valid search warrant and tell him I will gladly wait until he has it. Unless he can articulate a good reason for checking me out. If he says a 2001 Itasca Suncruiser was involve in a bank robbery, I would let him search. Dean >Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for >speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious >of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? >Thanks. Just like a car or house you can demand a warrant because if you let them without a fuss you are setting yourself up if they find something even if you really did not know about it. It may tick them off if you say no but it is your call. (plus if they do find something without your permission or a warrant it can likely be thrown out in court) While I have nothing to hide I think police is some areas are getting a bit out of control. It is a matter of principles. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com depends on the state. in Indianayou must submit to a vehicle search if the officer has probable cause, no warrent is needed. >>Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for >>speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com >depends on the state. in Indianayou must submit to a vehicle search if the >officer has probable cause, no warrent is needed. How can he show probable cause unless he can articulate it IN ADVANCE to a Judicial Officer? >>depends on the state. in Indianayou must submit to a vehicle search if the >>officer has probable cause, no warrent is needed. > > How can he show probable cause unless he can articulate it IN ADVANCE > to a Judicial Officer? During a stop, an officer doesn't have to SHOW probable cause to search the vehicle. He just has to HAVE it from what he has observed. He may or may not be courteous enough to explain it to you at the time. He may just cuff you and throw you in the back of the cruiser. Later, if the case goes that far, and the validity of the search is disputed, THEN, the officer must EXPLAIN to a judge what probable cause he HAD to search the vehicle. Emphasis on past tense HAD. Then the judge rules on the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence. If it was a bad stop and search, the person has cause of action for illegal search and seizure. All at $300 per hour. But by then, you've been through jail for a bit, your RV is in car jail, and the inside is probably ripped up from the search. Now, do you understand? If not, next time you're stopped, just jump out of the RV and DEMAND proof of probable cause. Don't forget to call him PIG! and JACKBOOTED THUG! Ask for his badge number. Tell him you pay his salary. They like that. Steve >During a stop, an officer doesn't have to SHOW probable cause to search the >vehicle. He just has to HAVE it from what he has observed. He may or may >not be courteous enough to explain it to you at the time. He may just cuff >you and throw you in the back of the cruiser. It kinda sounds like they are running a bit wild in Ind. It allows cop to make up his story as he goes if need be and kinda all the more reason to object to a the search on the record. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com I agree, that would never fly around here. SignatureSteve Barker > It kinda sounds like they are running a bit wild in Ind. It allows cop > to make up his story as he goes if need be and kinda all the more > reason to object to a the search on the record. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com >I agree, that would never fly around here. Please go out and try it and get back to us. I'll personally bring you some cookies and KY Jelly in jail. The KY is for when you run out of cookies. Steve >Please go out and try it and get back to us. I'll personally bring you some >cookies and KY Jelly in jail. The KY is for when you run out of cookies. I fail to see the humor here in standing up for your rights and not beeing steam rollered. You know recently here in Ohio a "ranaway" cop ticked my daughter claming she was going 55 MPH around a turn on to a side road working with the mentality that she was a young female and he was the "law". Well it took a few month of court filings but we finally got it thrown out (without a lawyer) when she pressed the issue home. The point is if you do not stand up sometimes for your rights, you will loose them and become a lamb being lead to slaughter. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Please go out and try it and get back to us. I'll personally bring you >>some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com You fail to see my argument. That argument is not who will ULTIMATELY win, but how the process goes down step by step. And understanding how the process works will help determine how the process goes down step by step. Yes, people DO win in the end, challenging all manner of things from the reason of probable cause of the stop in the first place, to the admissibility of evidence confiscated during an illegal search, to the final disposition of the case. That's not a lot of consolation when you're sitting in jail that first night with Ben Dover, and you're RV is in car jail, and you aren't sure what's going to happen next except a lot of pillow biting. It is only my contention that if people were more cognizant of the steps, they would cease being their own worst adversary in the process, and come off a lot better in the end, both judiciously and financially. The argument seems not to be who wins in the end, but how the process proceeds in all the kicking and screaming along the way. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, how much of the kicking and screaming could have been avoided by being informed and not acting like Perry Mason when dealing with Barney Fife. HTH Steve >That argument is not who will ULTIMATELY win, but how the process goes down >step by step. Yes but how you confront the process also defines if you are going to be a easy "kill" or not. They like lamb willing to be lead to slaughter because it makes their life easier but think twice sometimes if you are more of a fox. I have no tolerance for police with egos. BTW I have no colorfull record either nor do i want to have one. They can get a few notches on then gun at someone elses expense and not mine. I am to old to play those games. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>That argument is not who will ULTIMATELY win, but how the process goes >>down [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Yes. Uninformed people make better lambs. Steve > >>That argument is not who will ULTIMATELY win, but how the process goes > >>down [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not up on the law in this matter, or many more either. But In my mindset the best thing is not to speed or transport anything taht would make u say no with the search. yes it may be your home at the time but its on the roads that the police need to keep safe. Easyest way to not have a problem is to not make one for yourself and pissing off cops over princible is inviting a self made problem. > Not up on the law in this matter, or many more either. But In my > mindset the best thing is not to speed or transport anything taht > would make u say no with the search. yes it may be your home at the > time but its on the roads that the police need to keep safe. Easyest > way to not have a problem is to not make one for yourself and pissing > off cops over princible is inviting a self made problem. Makes as much sense as pissing off the cook, or insulting the barber before a haircut, don't it? Steve >I agree, that would never fly around here. It doesn't fly anywhere. He is blowing smoke. i hear ya SignatureSteve Barker >>I agree, that would never fly around here. > > It doesn't fly anywhere. He is blowing smoke. >>During a stop, an officer doesn't have to SHOW probable cause to search >>the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com And, in case you haven't noticed, the policy has been in place for a long time in a lot of states. And that is the point I was trying and trying to make. A cop can make it up as he goes along. It can be overruled by the judge. But by then, a lot of time and money has passed. The best thing to do when in that situation is have a good attitude. If you don't have anything to hide, you'll be okay. It's still a pisser when they toss (police terms for search) the inside of your MH. But the mess is exponential if you have an attitude. And, really, look at it from the cop's perspective. Does he want to take two hours to look through your private stuff without a good reason? One can find some pretty skanky things inside a RVer's house. The bottom line is: police can do a lot of things, and NEVER have to answer for them. What they do gets reviewed to see if evidence seized is admissible, and people can sue for redress. But there's a mountain of understanding on the side of the police as to how to walk the line, and never get your shoe even dusty. On the other hand, the general public goes by what's "right" and "fair" and what they read in the Newsgroups. Steve >And, in case you haven't noticed, the policy has been in place for a long >time in a lot of states. And that is the point I was trying and trying to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Steve We had a jerk cop in Mesa, AZ He loved to wait outside bars and stop people leaving, hoping to catch a sniff of "odor of alcohol" on a guy's/gal's breath. Well, D'oh, whaddaya expect from someone leaving a bar. He was/is 5'11", ramrod straight, blond flattop haircut, nice looking and an attitude from the Inquisition. His PC for stops kept getting sillier and sillier. He once accused a client of mine of doing 80MPH a short block from the bar. The schmuck was driving a 1970's Datsun 300. There is no way in hell that car could have accelerated from stop to 80 in one block, or one mile. The judge (a good guy), when presented with the facts, asked the cop to step outside. The charges were dismissed (he was guilty of DUI). Shortly after, the cop was on desk duty and is now a PIO for the Department. In fact, one woman Def Atty, during a DUI trial, called him a little prick. And got away with it. She let it be known she was going to get him canned. We all helped. >>>depends on the state. in Indianayou must submit to a vehicle search if the >>>officer has probable cause, no warrent is needed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >not be courteous enough to explain it to you at the time. He may just cuff >you and throw you in the back of the cruiser. That is true but he damn well better provide me a good, articulable basis. I have held a number of Prelim hearings and when a cop is jerking off the court, the results are funny. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. >Later, if the case goes that far, and the validity of the search is >disputed, THEN, the officer must EXPLAIN to a judge what probable cause he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Now, do you understand? Oh, Steve, I understand far better than you. As a former criminal defense attorney (retired), we NEVER charged $300/hour. In addition, if anyone is stupid enough to do as you suggest below, he deserves to be run in. I have seen it but in over 2000 cases, only 2-3 times. All druggies. >If not, next time you're stopped, just jump out of the RV and DEMAND proof >of probable cause. Don't forget to call him PIG! and JACKBOOTED THUG! Ask >for his badge number. Tell him you pay his salary. > >They like that. All of this is speculative since I would bet the number of INNOCENT RVers subjected to the treatment you describe is less than 10 over history. >Steve >>>>depends on the state. in Indianayou must submit to a vehicle search if >>>>the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >>Steve Well, good. Finally, I have found one in the conversation who knows WTF they are talking about. Then, you must agree with me that the attitude and behavior of the person being stopped has a lot to do with the outcome. And if you DO want to stand up and scream for your rights, there are times when it is free, and there are times when it costs you handsomely. Attitude and discretion go a long way in those situations. Steve >Well, good. Finally, I have found one in the conversation who knows WTF >they are talking about. Then, you must agree with me that the attitude and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Steve For sure. I have been stopped for various infractions (speeding, following to close) 5-6 times in the last 45 years. Not one citation. Three warning tickets but NO Cites. And for the last 3, I was known by the cop to be a defense attorney. I greet the officer (and that I how I address them) with my hands securely on the dash (so they know I have a weapon in the car) and tell them so. I then voluntarily provide my DL, Registration and POI. Dean >>Well, good. Finally, I have found one in the conversation who knows WTF >>they are talking about. Then, you must agree with me that the attitude [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > tell them so. I then voluntarily provide my DL, Registration and POI. > Dean Mine go a little different. I carry concealed a lot of the time. Never go anywhere without pepper spray. So I grip the wheel 11 and 1 o'clock, and tell him if I'm packing, and wait for instructions. When I provide ID and POI, I always include a business card of my daughter's or SIL's and ask (by their unit numbers) if they know them. I have license plate rings that secretly identify me as a Metro family member, so I haven't been stopped or ticketed in about eight years now. That time, I ran into a guy in my blind spot while driving my motorhome, and there was no getting out of it. Me and the cycle cop were jabbering away, and the guy I ran into was really pissed like he should have been beating me. I also do volunteer work with the PD, school presentations, and have been an investigator with the coroner. (A thoroughly depressing job that was part time and didn't last long.) The last sheriff's mother used to work for my wife, and catered our wedding. I always seem to be able to strike up an amicable conversation within 60 seconds, but, still that first few sentences does a lot to swing the next few. Steve > How can he show probable cause unless he can articulate it IN ADVANCE > to a Judicial Officer? Say you get pulled over for a tail light out. The officer notices a few bags of what looks like drugs in the back seat. The car and trailer is going to get searched without a warrant based on probable cause. >Say you get pulled over for a tail light out. The officer notices a few >bags of what looks like drugs in the back seat. The car and trailer is >going to get searched without a warrant based on probable cause. Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- or anything that looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back seat of a car is just plain stupid, even if all their taillights are working. GB in NC >>Say you get pulled over for a tail light out. The officer notices a few >>bags of what looks like drugs in the back seat. The car and trailer is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > GB in NC Every old ex sixties hippie warrior knows at least that much. Right GB? <g> >> Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- or anything that >> looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back seat of a car is >> just plain stupid, even if all their taillights are working. >> >> GB in NC >Every old ex sixties hippie warrior knows at least that much. Right GB? ><g> Just tellin' what I heard, man. That's all.... GB in NC GBinNC wrote:... Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- or anything that looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back seat of a car is just plain stupid, even if all their taillights are working. Every once in a while they get a nitwit driving up from NYC on the Thruway. He will have a Kilo or two in the car. He will be going 80 MPH, and have a tail light out. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:51:12 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote: >GBinNC wrote:... Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- or >anything that looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back seat of >a car is just plain stupid, even if all their taillights are working. >Every once in a while they get a nitwit driving up from NYC on the Thruway. >He will have a Kilo or two in the car. >He will be going 80 MPH, and have a tail light out. I have long said that people who haul drugs ought to know better than to look and act like the kind of people who would haul drugs -- at least while they're actually hauling drugs. GB in NC > Every once in a while they get a nitwit driving up from NYC on the Thruway. > He will have a Kilo or two in the car. > He will be going 80 MPH, and have a tail light out. You really believe that ???? And that he gets stopped by 3 or 4 marked cars who just happened to be there when the posts are at least 20 miles apart ( don't remember ).. I had a good buddy who spent over 20 years there and I can promise that any stop like that was well coordinated before hand. Also what is said in court and what actually happened may be vastly different. SignatureJim Also what is said in court and what actually > happened may be vastly different. Nah. That doesn't happen. Right? Steve ;-) > GBinNC wrote:... Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- > or anything that looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He will have a Kilo or two in the car. > He will be going 80 MPH, and have a tail light out. And if it ain't out, that's what nightsticks were invented for ............ Steve > Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- or anything that > looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back seat of a car is > just plain stupid, even if all their taillights are working. Thats true but there are a lot of stupid people around as it happens quite often. >> Anybody who drives around with "a few bags" of drugs -- or anything that >> looks even remotely like drugs -- visible on the back seat of a car is >> just plain stupid, even if all their taillights are working. >Thats true but there are a lot of stupid people around as it happens >quite often. I totally agree. Never did I imply that it is unusual. They're still just plain stupid, regardless of how many there are. GB in NC >> How can he show probable cause unless he can articulate it IN ADVANCE >> to a Judicial Officer? > >Say you get pulled over for a tail light out. The officer notices a few >bags of what looks like drugs in the back seat. The car and trailer is >going to get searched without a warrant based on probable cause. What if? What if? What if? People that stupid deserve what they get. Did it happen to you? Depends on the state ... in Wa, your vehicle can be seached incident to arrest w/o a warrant. Just to search - need probable cause and a search warrant .... short answer. > Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for > speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious > of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? > Thanks. they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them to. SignatureSteve Barker > Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for > speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious > of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? > Thanks. > they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them to. They can if they can prove probable cause. >> they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them to. > > They can if they can prove probable cause. Probable cause is not something that you prove. It is something that IS. Probable cause exists when a prudent and reasonable man has reason to believe or evidence exists that a crime has been or is about to be committed. I believe that's pretty close to what policemen are taught. Probable cause can be as simple as a smell, a whiff of marijuana. How would a policeman later PROVE that he smelled marijuana? It can also be something he/she sees or is told. Steve >>> they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them to. >> >> They can if they can prove probable cause. > > Probable cause is not something that you prove. It has to be proven to the judge. There are different precedents for different sources of probable cause, but they still have to be proven. It's not as strict as proof beyond a reasonable doubt and it's not the jury that decides probable cause. > It is something that IS. What does that mean? > Probable cause exists when a prudent and reasonable man has reason to > believe or evidence exists that a crime has been or is about to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Probable cause can be as simple as a smell, a whiff of marijuana. How > would a policeman later PROVE that he smelled marijuana? Cop says he caught a wiff, 3 lbs unwrapped pot found under passenger's seat. Cops know what pot smells like. Proven. Cop says he caught a wiff, 3 joints found in a ziplock baggie, in a duffle bag, closed up in the trunk. Not believable. Judge ain't buying it. It can also be something > he/she sees or is told. Sure, but it depends on the source. Hearsey would have to pass a test to be accepted as probable cause. How did the informant get the info? What's his interest? What's his record on telling the truth? > Steve >>>> they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them to. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It has to be proven to the judge. You're getting out of sequence here. The OP was asking about search at the time of stop. Probable cause only has to exist in the officer's mind AT THE TIME OF THE STOP. Next, the probable cause has to be proven to the judge for the evidence seized in the search to be allowed in court. That is why so many claim illegal search and seizure. Unless there is probable cause, even if they do find fifty pounds of coke, they can't allow that evidence to be used in court. They've found trunkloads just from searches based on profiling, and they had to let the perps go. We're talking about what a cop can and cannot do AT TIME OF SEARCH. All of which can and may be overturned in court, but it takes a lot of time and money to go from point of stop to case dismissed. The original question is what can they do at time of stop. A lot. The discussion then turned into would it stand up in court, and that's where it's at now. There's a sequence. Stop. Probable cause in officer's mind. Search based on probable cause. Arrest or release. Court hearings on the legality of the probable cause that obtained the evidence. Dismiss or proceed. Trial. Goes to jury, who can and cannot consider various evidence based on previous probable cause rulings. Verdict. Anywhere along the way, the defendant can exit the process with a favorable ruling, plea it down, have it dismissed on reasonable grounds, have it dismissed on a technicality, but all along the way from red lights to GAME OVER, the lawyer's getting $300 to $800 an hour. Yes, it may be a bogus stop. Yes, it might get thrown out of court. The only thing really sure is that defendant will have large hole in his pocket. And many of those large holes can be attributed to someone who thinks they know the law, and practicing it along with a bad attitude on some rural Barney Fife. Steve > Anywhere along the way, the defendant can exit the process with a favorable > ruling, plea it down, have it dismissed on reasonable grounds, have it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, it may be a bogus stop. Yes, it might get thrown out of court. The > only thing really sure is that defendant will have large hole in his pocket. Very good points. Now for my question: I have a right to keep a loaded gun in my home, but what about my MH? Do I have to unload it when it is in travel? Are the laws dependant on the state in which you are in? Hank <~~~~don't carry or conceal drugs >Now for my question: I have a right to keep a loaded gun in my home, >but what about my MH? Do I have to unload it when it is in travel? Are >the laws dependant on the state in which you are in? Most states do not allow you to have access to a loaded gun in a motor vehicle. To play it safe have it unloaded and it and ammo storded seperately when in motion. In Ohio the can get picky about hand guns in vehicles and when every I would carry them in hunting season during transport to hunting place I would usually carry it in plain sight unloaded. I have been stopped a few times for spot checks over the years on roads in state forests and parks and they have always checked to see if guns were loaded. WHen they confirmed they were empty they would wish me luck and move on. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Now for my question: I have a right to keep a loaded gun in my home, >>but what about my MH? Do I have to unload it when it is in travel? Are >>the laws dependant on the state in which you are in? It goes something like this: The law changes about every fifty feet. Each state, county, municipality, etc. has its own law that supercedes the other one. It is impossible to know all of them while you travel. Steve >Now for my question: I have a right to keep a loaded gun in my home, >but what about my MH? Do I have to unload it when it is in travel? Are >the laws dependant on the state in which you are in? >Hank <~~~~don't carry or conceal drugs Packing.org is an excellent site to answer your questions. Much better answers than you'll find here. www.packing.org Look at the peaceable journey laws for the states you're interested in. >>>>> they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them >>>>> to. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You're getting out of sequence here. No, I only answered your statements. If anyone's getting out of sequence it's you. The OP was asking about search at the > time of stop. Steve Barker's statement was that the cop can't search without a warrant or permission. I said he can with probable cause. It would have to be proven later to a judge for it to be legal, which of course the cop knows and is a factor at the time of the stop. I didn't say he had to prove it to anyone at the time of the stop. You said probable cause is not something to prove and you're wrong. As for the OPs question "can an Officer who pulls you over for speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious of something? No he can't; suspicion is not probable cause. I think the OP might not realize that a cop that is suspicious is going to try real hard to find probable cause. A cop good at his job will finAnd if he's dirty, he may fabricate it. The best practice is not to arouse suspicion in the first place. <snip> > We're talking about what a cop can and cannot do AT TIME OF SEARCH. All > of which can and may be overturned in court, but it takes a lot of time > and money to go from point of stop to case dismissed. Not necessarily. The judge can dismiss it at a Preliminary Hearing or Probable Cause Hearing, which must be held shortly after someone is arrested without a warrant. > The original question is what can they do at time of stop. A lot. The > discussion then turned into would it stand up in court, and that's where > it's at now. Well, you turned it there. You asked: >> Probable cause can be as simple as a smell, a whiff of marijuana. How >> would a policeman later PROVE that he smelled marijuana? And I replied: >Cop says he caught a wiff, 3 lbs unwrapped pot found under passenger's >seat. Cops know what pot smells like. Proven. >Cop says he caught a wiff, 3 joints found in a ziplock baggie, in a duffle >bag, closed up in the trunk. Not believable. Judge ain't buying it. < snip> > And many of those large holes can be attributed to someone who thinks they > know the law, and practicing it along with a bad attitude on some rural > Barney Fife. The best practice is not to arouse suspicion in the first place. Bad attitude is another thing. You're off on another tangent. SNIP for brevity > The best practice is not to arouse suspicion in the first place. Bad > attitude is another thing. You're off on another tangent. If my rememberer is working I remember reading recently that if you are in your motorhome with some kind of curtain between driving area and living area he can only search the driving area. A full wet bar in the living area does not constitute open container under the no open container laws. I will do a little research when I get home from work but it's a real recent memory so it had to be on one of the groups or rv2.net. Look into and report back. SignatureMatt Delete nospam for email "Where did you say we are going again, Dear?" >>> they can't search anything without a warrant if you don't want them to. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Steve It must be articulated IN ADVANCE to a Judge. > It must be articulated IN ADVANCE to a Judge. That simply isn't true in many states. In such states the officer follows rules outlining what constitutes probable cause and can search a vehicle without a warrant. > Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for > speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious > of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? > Thanks. IF they want to search mine and they have. It is going to take more than one, and I want a tamper proof video camera with audio. There are some trustworthy Law officers and not so trust worthy. Hard to tell which ones you can trust. If one officer has a problem. I will wait. Michelle >> Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for >> speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Michelle Yeah. Stand up and insist on your rights. Make them take as long as you want them to wait. Get them in a real good mood BEFORE you let them in your RV. Tell them you think that half of them are crooked, and that you will be taping and recording the whole thing. Let us know how it goes. Steve > Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for > speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious > of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? > Thanks. Some time in the mid 90's Good Sam's Magazine "Highways" had an article about this. IIRC, Louisiana was stopping and searching RVs on a regular basis and that prompted their article. Here is what I recall as the gist of the article: A motorhome is a motor vehicle while it is being operated on the highway. Motor vehicle laws will apply. In most jurisdictions, all the nice officer needs to have is "probable cause" I've heard of RVers being cited for having an open container of alcohol in a cabinet in the motorhome, though I imagine it could be fought successfully. A trailer is a different animal. It is not a motor vehicle, just personal property rolling behind your motor vehicle. The article stated that, if the trailer was your home, you could demand a search warrant. In all of our years of travel in both motorized and non-motorized RV set ups, we were never stopped, so I have no personal experience. Of course when you come to an agricultural station or a border crossing into another country, all bets are off. You can be searched. No options. SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >A motorhome is a motor vehicle while it is being operated on the >highway. Motor vehicle laws will apply. In most jurisdictions, all the >nice officer needs to have is "probable cause" I've heard of RVers being >cited for having an open container of alcohol in a cabinet in the >motorhome, though I imagine it could be fought successfully. Janet, You may have heard of it but I don't know of a jurisdiction which makes it illegal to carry an open in a cabinet. I suspect that is the same as the 180MPG carburetor. Dean >> A motorhome is a motor vehicle while it is being operated on the >> highway. Motor vehicle laws will apply. In most jurisdictions, all the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > makes it illegal to carry an open in a cabinet. I suspect that is the > same as the 180MPG carburetor. Dean, One never knows what goes on out there. I know 2 RVers who were stopped for tail light-type infractions and were cited when the nice officer decided he had "probable cause" to search their RVs. One doesn't fight with local law enforcement officers if one has any smarts. You let them do their thing, then take it to the next higher authority when you are in a safer situation. There are good people and there are bad people. There are good LEOs and there are bad LEOs. Such is life. I have a good friend who drove truck. He was driving through Pennsylvania where there is a no open container law. He had an opened bottle of 7-UP in the cab. He was cited for it. Apparently, the law did not specify that the fluid in the container had to be alcohol. He had to pay the ticket. I have entered Canada with more than the "legal" amount of alcohol if one totaled all the fluid in the open bottles in my cabinet. I've had border officials search that cabinet and ask how much alcohol was there and I responded that I really didn't know as we lived in the fifth wheel and that was just for personal consumption. I offered to get rid of what was not legal if they required it, but they never did. SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >Dean, >One never knows what goes on out there. I know 2 RVers who were stopped [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >and that was just for personal consumption. I offered to get rid of what >was not legal if they required it, but they never did. For sure. If I were to ever be stopped by a cop and he decided he had PC to search, I would surely let him. I would NOT give him cause to drop drugs or a weapon (most cops carry the necessary to do so). I greet LEO's with a smile and a howdy. Let it flow from there. In my 52 years of driving, I have yet to have a problem. I did get a DUI charge in 1972. I got a lawyer (before my Mid-life career change to law) and the charges were reduced to reckless driving. The cop (AZ DPS) was known to be a jerk and liked to entrap people. In any event, there was a local barfly named Stretch. He was a ferrier (horseshoer for those in Rio Linda or bike riders). Needless to say, his work schedule, even in Arizona, wasn't extensive, so he had a lot of time to drink and close bars. Which he did most every night. One night after a few 'toots at the trough' he got in his car to drive home. About a block from the bar he realized his state of sobriety and opted to pull over and sleep it off, About 2 hours later, this very same DPS officer spotted the car and rapped on the window. When Stretch failed to respond in a timely manner said cop opened the car door and rousted Stretch from a sound sleep. Well, Stretch responded as most any red blooded ferrier would and proceded to beat the living sh.t out of the cop. Busted ribs, broken jaw, eyes swollen shut, and all the other niceties that accompany a whoopin'. Needless to say he was charged with a bunch of real bad things including 'assault on an officer' and being 'nasty'! The judge threw the case out because the cop didn't get a warrant to search the car! The DPS cop was transferred to I40 near Winslow. Ahhhhh, the wild west. Dave, If you are interested this may answer your question. This text was from my 2006 book called "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States." Although you didn't mention anything about a fire arm this still would apply to any search: Traffic Stops Any traveler carrying firearms should be aware of the proper way to handle a routine traffic stop. One involved in frequent travel will eventually be pulled over for a speeding violation or some other minor infraction. A motorist should avoid any erratic physical movements during a traffic stop. Both hands should remain on the steering wheel while the driver remains seated in the vehicle waiting for the officer to approach. At this point, the investigating officer has the right to ask questions of the motorist concerning his operation of the vehicle. Questions which may elicit self-incriminating information from the traveler may be refuted by simply informing the officer that the traveler would prefer to be represented by proper counsel before answering the posed question. Some officers may wish to go beyond mere questioning and conduct a search of the vehicle for contraband that could include firearms in some states. For an officer to conduct a legitimate search of a vehicle, he must have "probable cause." Most traffic stops do not provide the officer with enough probable cause for a search. Therefore, the officer will often politely ask the motorist for voluntary consent. Many citizens, fearing they will look guilty upon refusal, willingly sign the consent form the officer provides them. This is not a recommended course of action. Voluntary consent effectively gives the officer a free reign to do what he likes and nullifies any subsequent legal challenge to the search. If asked to consent to a vehicle search, politely refuse and inform the officer that he will have to search on his own. Most officers who are unable to establish probable cause will not search without a consent form. Travelers should note that a police officer might conduct a "protective search" of your person for weapons without probable cause. An officer may ask a motorist who appears suspicious to exit the vehicle so as to allow a frisk of the person's clothing for concealed weapons. The officer may also check the area of the vehicle under the motorist's immediate control for weapons before allowing him to reenter the vehicle. The courts allow this type of search only if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the motorist may have an illegal weapon. Such a protective search may not extend to other areas of the vehicle without probable cause of criminal activity. Hope that this helps, Mike >Whether full time, or, part time...can an Officer who pulls you over for >speeding , etc... search your RV without a warrant if he is suspicious >of something ? What are the ins and outs of this issue please ? >Thanks. > Dave, > If you are interested this may answer your question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > apply to any search: > Traffic Stops Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)" settle this question? They held that: " The warrantless search of respondent's motor home did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 390-395. (a) When a vehicle is being used on the highways or is capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes, the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play. First, the vehicle is readily mobile, and, second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on highways." In other words, If a motor home is on a highway and being used as a vehicle it can be treated the same as any other motor vehicle. Signature-Ernie- >> Dave, >> If you are interested this may answer your question. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >In other words, If a motor home is on a highway and being used as a >vehicle it can be treated the same as any other motor vehicle. Very good. Did you Shepherdize to make sure it is still good law. I suspect it is because it seems to be a well reasoned decision. Thanks for the info. >>> Dave, >>> If you are interested this may answer your question. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > suspect it is because it seems to be a well reasoned decision. Thanks > for the info. I've been out of the law office a long time. Can one Shepherdize now on-line? Does one need to pay for a subscription like Lexus? SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >> Very good. Did you Shepherdize to make sure it is still good law. I >> suspect it is because it seems to be a well reasoned decision. Thanks >> for the info. > >I've been out of the law office a long time. Can one Shepherdize now >on-line? Does one need to pay for a subscription like Lexus? I don't think so. I retired to the good life (RV) 3+ years ago. I will check. > Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)" > settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > In other words, If a motor home is on a highway and being used as a > vehicle it can be treated the same as any other motor vehicle. It also sounds like they can search your motorhome if it's parked overnight at a WalMart as a business parking lot is certainly not a place used for residential purposes as would be a campground. SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life > > Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)" > > settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > overnight at a WalMart as a business parking lot is certainly not a > place used for residential purposes as would be a campground. I should have posted a link to the decision, although it is easy to google for. Here is a link to the case on Findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=3 86 Signature-Ernie- >>> Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)" >>> settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=3 > 86 I clicked the link and it said: "no such case was found" SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >>>> Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 >>>> (1985)" settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > I clicked the link and it said: "no such case was found" The link got disrupted by line wrap, change the end of the link so it reads "invol=386" instead of "invol=3" and you will go to a case. Ron > >>> Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)" > >>> settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > I clicked the link and it said: "no such case was found" Looks like part of the link line wrapped. It should be 386 at the end of the link. "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol= 386" Signature-Ernie- >>>>> Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)" >>>>> settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol= > 386" Read it. Interesting case. Upsetting, I might imagine, for full-timers in a motor home. This, folks, is one of the reasons that I insisted in a fifth wheel as a full-timing living arrangement. It appears that I had justification to eschew a motor home as a home for a full-timer. SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >>>> Didn't "U.S. Supreme Court - CALIFORNIA v. CARNEY, 471 U.S. 386 >>>> (1985)" settle this question? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > I clicked the link and it said: "no such case was found" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=386 SignatureFrank Tabor Q: How many IBM 370's does it take to execute a job? A: Four, three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.