The supreme court voted 5-3 the other day to trim police search powers so that both residents of a household have to give consent for a warantless search... just thought y'all would like to know.
yeah i was listening to that while i was working out. lol i would have to say i think i found my second wind right about then. knowing that brings other police powers to the question. and that makes me happy.
Yeah, now all the have to do is not let cops search your car when they pull you over and we'll be all set
Minor question: Does it require a "yes"/"yes"? or is "yes"/"--" sufficiant? I thought the case before the court was a "yes"/"no" situation.
That's funny cause a few days ago, Supreme Court had a 5-4 favor in allowing officers to break into a house without having to knock on the door or say who they are.
i think in this particular case ^, the police announced themselves, but didn't knock. from what i've read, the court didn't rule it legal for an officer to fail to announce his presence or knock, but they did rule that failure to comply with those requirements was not enough to allow the defendant to suppress evidence found during the subsequent search.
all you have to do is keep you weed in your glove compartment. they dont need a warrent to look through your car, but they DO need a warrent to search you glove compartment and trunk
^^^ The police are allowed to search within arms reach "for their own safety". This means anything you can reach for, so if it's in the trunk or locked in a glovebox then it's off-limits.
or they can just send in a k9 unit.... have the dog sweep the car and if the dog alerst of weed in the trunk or anywhere else... then they have all the reason to search your entire car... shit the police do it all the time in california...especially near the borders of mexico
Wow! That is a really cool sight! That Flex Your Rights website. It's a professional site. Its not some idiot on geocities that thinks he knows his shit.
