Ok can someone please explain the good faith clause to me. I remember back in high school being taught something about that, isnt it like the police can search if they in good faith have proof....  My fiance's brothers got into some trouble with some weed and the cops came and admitted that they were looking in through the closed blinds and I guess saw some weed sitting on the table. But they asked to come in and then they started searching without permission. And the cops even said that the search wasnt legal. But Im afraid that its going to be the cops word against their words... Can anyone help and give me some information?
119447
the good faith clause comes into play if, you acted in "good faith" against the law. meaning if you believe in good faith that it was legal, then you have a defense. example...i am going to unlock a car door for someone, and i run the plate and it comes back to the guys sister, mother, father, etc. then later that comes back stolen...then in "good faith" i proceeded safly. due to available info it was ok. if cops saw pot on table through window, then it is called plain site. and yes cops can search without permission.
535526
An officer has the right to clear a path of people that obstruct a crime scene, or pose a potential threat to him and could argue you  failed to comply with his lawful order to remove yourself from his proximity\nwhich is why he would resort to using non lethal force if all else failed.  And depending on the situation, hed probably win his arguement.\nBut this is more an argueable hypothetical, for in real life, people know when they might be a threat to an officers duty.\n\nBest illustration I could use, is when my nephew purchased a  used vehicle from someone.  We drove behind him on the freeway because there was no license plate and w tried to cover the fact.\nWell police stopped him anyways\n\nWe pulled over some way past them, and walked back to try to help explain, while the officer conducted his checks on the vehicle and my nephew.\nWhen the officer saw us walking towards him, his hand reached for his weapon, and he ordered us to keep away -- for his own safety.  which makes sense nowadays, because people are killing police officers in the streets when theyre being pulled over for silly reasons\n\nHad we decided tostay and present a 'potential' threat to him, he would have been justified in tazing us, or drawing his weapon at us.  Not shooting us, because we kept distance and showed no weapons.  But use of non lethal force would be justified, and no one could really argue that.\n\nI hope that illustration helps some.
108218
I really like estrella's answer.\n\nBut...you said you're working on a hypothetical:\n\nIn your hypothetical situation, where a psychic has a 99% success rate, I'd say you've got your search warrant and you've got your drugs and you've got your conviction.\n\n99% is mighty high.  The standard for an affidavit for search warrant is (if you want to put it in numbers), 51%...in other words, what you want to seize is more than likely where you say it is (more than likely = 51%...though I would never want to go to a judge with only 51%).  \n\nSo in your hypothetical situation, where your psychic is proven to be 99% correct, I think a judge would jump at the chance to sign that warrant...it's better odds than a LOT of warrants that are issued.  \n\nBut estrella's right; it's junk science.  And so I just can't imagine you can get a psychic to *be* 99% correct, but you did say hypothetical.\n\nCase law?  I doubt it.  For all the reasons estrella cites.\n\nWriting a book?  Sounds interesting...maybe even make a good movie.
125949
In CA , if the police officer can develop probable cause, he can search your car. This was put in place due to the mobility of vehicles. They can simply drive away before you can get a search warrant.\n\nThe simplest example is the smell of pot. If the officer smells it, he can search anywhere in the car where the pot might be. Anywhere. \n\nAnother example is the plain sight rule. If the officer sees contraband in plain sight he can seize it and search your car for more. Anything else reasonably found during the search is also legally obtained.\n\nI don't know where the other posters got their information, but whether or not you are a minor has no bearing.\n\nAs for the cocaine issue, what crime did the driver get charged with? What are you talking about? If a passenger has drugs on them, it is possible that the driver could be charged for transportation of drugs. As for claiming they didn't know about the drugs, would it surprise you to know that people lie to the police??
87601
you really need to talk somebody who knows Illinois state law. That is what they're going to get you under, and a good lawyer. There is a case Arizona v. somebody I can't remember right now. The summary is that they police can stop you for cause. They thought this man was a suspect in a nearby robbery so they stopped him and patted him down. No Gun nor stolen goods. however they did find a pack or MJ in his pocket. It was deemed inadmissible by the courts eventually upon appeal because the police can make up a probable cause that is unrelated to what they were looking for.\n\nHowever you are probably in trouble because the courts will most likely find that alcohol in the backseat is enough cause. Find a good criminal defense attorney or plea. Doesn't matter that it wasn't your beer. You were driving the car.
491845
There are plenty of errors on here.  Cops do not have to have a warrant to arrest you nor do they have to read you your rights if they are only arresting you.  More importantly, the biggest error is the failure of people asking legal questions to include the jurisdiction they are in.  Apparently many people on here believe that law is universal and exactly the same in all places which it is not.  It drives me nuts when people don't put the jurisidiction in the question.  Thanks for giving me a place to vent!
376846
Hi Amy, not sure what the previous post was about, but it was clearly uncalled for.\n\nAs a lawyer who has seen the movie (albeit a while back) I am sure there are many issues you could raise.  This is all just sort of stream of consciousness off the top of my head, so I apologize if it's not too organized, but here are a few thoughts.\n\n1)  It seems to me that much of the protagonist's (I've forgotten his name) actions are designed at misleading others.  If he does this for his own material gain he may be comitting fraud (for example, doesn't he mislead the former Marlboro man into accepting a cash settlement of some sort-?--that could be a fraudulent inducement into a contract).\n2)You also might want to look into whether or not there are any applicable lobbying laws he violates.\n3)  Are there laws against "pushing"cigarettes to minors (I'm thinking of the little classroom lecture he gives) or something similar.\n\nThe best way to do legal research for applicable cases or statutes is using lexis nexis or Westlaw.  To the unitiated these databases can be daunting, but if you are at a large university you may be able to get access at the law library.  Failing that, you might want to go to a local law library and ask the librarian for help (call ahead and explain the situation to clear access ahead of time).  Yet another option is to check out www.findlaw.com, which generally provides access to cases and articles free of charge, but is no where near as sophisticated as Lexis or Westlaw.  Finally, you might call your state bar association's relevant sub group or a Washington Lobbying or ethics organization (I do not know but suspect there are several) and see if they have any suggestions.  Research is about getting your hands dirty and hitting dead ends until something clicks into place.  Good luck!
301075
I'm confused, first you say it was found on the person, then you say under the seat, then you say he went in the house, then you say???? Which is it?\n\nTo my knowledge, they need a search warrant to go into your house. They cannot say "oops, I meant the gun was here instead of there...", that should get it throw out of court.\n\nYou need to seek some good legal help and possibly and interpreter too, your English is a bit difficult. You want to make sure you fully understand what takes place in court.
132446
When was the warrant issued?  If it wasn't issued till the 27th then of course it was an illegal search on the 26th.  If it was signed off by a judge but not entered into the system till the 27th then it would be a legal search.  If it was signed off on the 26th or before but the date is entered incorrectly into the system then that won't cause a problem as long as it was correct when the judge signed it.  If it was issued in a manner which specficed that it could only be done on the 27th (not common, but can occur) then the search on the 26th was illegal.  Without a bit more information to know what each date truly is that's the best I can provide.  Also what date was the search actually executed? If it's marked as the 26th but it was truly the 27th then they have to amend the complaint form, but once that's done there's no problem.
26517
You're correct. \n\nThe Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is \n"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."
117368
It's in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:\n\n"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."\n\nIf a person is found guilty of a crime, but later evidence shows up to prove he is innocent, he can request a new trial. In so doing, he would basically be waiving this portion of his 5th Amendment right. \n\nIf a person is found innocent, but later evidence shows up to prove he is guilty, the governmetn cannot violate his 5th Amendment right and re-try him for the same crime. But there is a loop-hole. He could be charged for a different crime. The 4 cops tried for beating Rodney King were found innocent, but then later re-tried for violating his civil rights. Same crime, different charges.
439560
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 is still good law.  Recklessness was only one limb of it. The first limb remains the deliberate damaging of property belonging to another and recklessness is the alternative to cover cases where a defendant could argue that he didn't commit the damage deliberately, never having applied his mind to the consequences (being, for example, drunk or drugged. \n\nR v Caldwell applied a highly subjective test to the whole notion of recklessness, the judge having directed the jury to look at the situation not from the point of view of the reasonable man (an adult), but from the point of view of a reasonable child, the defendants in the case being children.  The House of Lords disapproved the ratio of R v.Caldwell in  the 2003 case of R v. G and another.\n\nThe test of recklessness now is: “A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to - (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.” \n\nWhich of the many cases known as R v D are you referring to here?  I'm afraid I was unable to trace anything relevant.
604352
My husband is a deputy sheriff in a Florida county and this is what he said:  The person who is in possession of the drugs will be the one arrested.  However if the person that has possession of the drugs denies it being his and if "you" are the registered owner of the vehicle then both of you will be arrested.  At that point it would be up to the courts to sort out.  He says it happens quite a bit.  Usually one cops to it after they are both arrested.  He said that police aren't inclined to believe either one.  So if no one admits..They both go!
17786
The problem here is that he lives in your place. It dont matter if it is in your name or not he lives there. When i was served with a warrant at my sisters house it did not matter that i wasnt on the lease what mattered was what was in the house. All 4 of us went to jail even tho my sister and brother in law knew nothing about what was there. Im not sure if this helps you but I thought I would share my experiance. I think you gave yourself the best advice, "get an attorney A.S.A.P."
21663
Your question is a little vague.  What state did this happen in?  Are you (or are any of the occupants) of the vehicle on probation or parole?  Did you give permission for your vehicle to be searched?  Do you know why it was searched?  Were alcohol or drugs in the vehicle (or was there any indication that alcohol or drugs were in the vehicle?) When you say it was seized, are you referring to the police actually taking it away from you, or are you just saying it was seized while they searched it?  You ask what to do...depends on what happened.  Were you cited?  Arrested?  Was contraband of some kind found?  The issue of probable cause to search anything can often hinge on very small details...I'll suggest that you're going to have a difficult time finding cases that will assist you in getting an education.  You can try searching through FindLaw.Com and see where that gets you.  If nothing came of the search (nobody was arrested or cited or anything), then perhaps you want to consider complaining about the officer's action to his department.  If something came of it, and you're going to court, then you need to speak with an attorney.  I may be able to help you sort some of this out if you'd like, but we'd probably need to do that in email.  Post an address if you'd like...
354313
The Wikipedia article on the 4th Amendment may help:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution\n\nThe Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable seachers and seizures and requires probable cause for a search warrant before the government or police can search and seize.  However, the police can search your car during a traffic stop (called a "Terry," stop) if they have a "reasonable suspicion."\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
177995
I had a gf that smoked at one time, I gave her the option of me or the weed???  Keeping in mind that it is illegal and if you get pulled over or police come over and find it.  Even though it is his you are going down with him and going to Jail.  Might be hard give him the option but will show alot of character on his part.