| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Gaming | VB Image Host | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Hot Products! | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| L.E.O. in Good Standing ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,432
Grams: 5,323.22 Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 6 Posts
| FYI......... A few months ago, Californian courts decided that police could search a vehicle for a persons license and registration if they couldn't produce the documents. Of course, most anything found in the process was considered in "plain view" and admissible in court. Now, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the police can physically arrest violators of the state vehicle code if they fail to produce ID. That means handcuff and search them. But you say, "Who cares Niteshift, I don't drive"................... don't forget that traffic offenses while on a bicycle and pedestrian offenses fall under the vehicle code. In fact, the case that brought this decision about was a bicycle case. The suspect was riding a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street. When he was stopped, he couldn't produce ID and was arrested. Subsequent to his arrest, he was search and meth was found in his pocket. Also, don't forget that if you are arrested from in your car, the search incident to the arrest includes the areas you had access to in the car. And for those thinking "Who cares Niteshift, I don't live in California", this decision was in line with the US Supreme Court decision on the Texas case where a woman was physically arrested for a seatbelt violation.
__________________ A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash. |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |||
| | |||