Smith v. U.S. 1949 ... what is probable cause?
112712
Probable Cause: Referencing the 1st link below (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)\nThe 2nd link details the Fourth Amendment, which is where your rights against unlawful searches and seizures of your person/property/etc are explained.\n\nMR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe case was Brinegar v. United States, where Mr. Brinegar was arrested for liquor running in Oklahoma. The link below details the case, including the subsequent appeals and relation to another case, Carroll v. United States. Both of which revolve around search and seizure rules as relating to  vehicles.
1181074
Probable cause is\nA reasonable belief that a person committed a crime.\nAppeals court requires facts & circumstances are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe suspect commited the crime.
100354
Honestly, where do you some of you people get the ideas you get?\n\nTo the asker:  assuming everything you said here is 100% factual, and assuming you didn't leave anything out, and assuming you have *all* the facts in the first place, then no, it doesn't sound like there was any probable cause to pull you over.  \n\nHowever, here's what I suspect, because I have done this very thing:\n\nI'm the cop you and your friend drove past when he/she yelled whatever they yelled.  Evidently, your friend wanted to come to the attention of the police, so I'm generally happy to oblige.  You don't say (and probably don't know) if it was the same cop who pulled you over, but it doesn't matter...we've got radios, ya' know?  \n\nSo anyway, back to your friend who wants to be a policeman's project:\n\nWhether I take off after you or I radio to one of my partners, one of us catches up to you.  You don't signal where you should, you have a taillight out, your registration is expired, etc., etc., and that provides me probable cause to stop you.  It's quite possible, especially if you developed an attitude problem, that I will tell you the only reason you're being stopped is because of your friend, the loudmouth.\n\nThe liberal among us will not like this, I know.  However, probable cause in this state is probable cause, and the motivation behind my use of probable cause is irrelevant to your guilt or innocence.  \n\nSo if you're right, the cop was wrong and you certainly do want to talk to an attorney.\n\nIf I'm right, you got pulled over because your idiot friend brought your car to the attention of the police, and it sounds like you paid a price for that.  Choose your friends better next time you're drinking and driving.\n\nAnd no, yelling out of your car is not disorderly conduct in California.  It's a rude and stupid exercise of your right to free speech.\n\nShouting something at the police is not an indication that you're not a reasonable person, and being an unreasonable person does not provide the police with reasonable cause to pull you over.  Holy cow, if this were true I could pull people over a hundred times a day.  \n\nBeing disrespectful to the police does not qualify as disorderly conduct.  It qualifies as stupid, but stupid does not equate to probable cause to effect a detention or make an arrest.  Don't I wish.\n\nYeah, we're always making things up just to pull you over.  I routinely risk being convicted of perjury and jailed for civil rights violations just to see if you've got big hooters, are drunk, or have a little weed in your car.  Please.\n\nYou're welcome to have just about any bumper sticker you want on your car and not have to worry about getting a ticket.  First of all, like I said, we do live in the land of free speech so you can have anything you want on your bumper.  If it says "I'm plotting to kill the President," you might end up with a visit from the Secret Service, but you can't get a ticket for displaying even an obscene bumper sticker.  \n\nHanging out the window is a good indication that you're not wearing your seat belt, but I'm not sure I'm familiar with a crime called "reckless endangerment."  \n\nI'm glad showing poor judgement doesn't really qualify as cause for the police to investigate.  If it did, I would literally spend my entire day talking to people with extraordinarily poor judgement who weren't committing a crime.  I do enough of that now.\n\nAnyway, I hope the cops had a really wonderful reason for pulling you over, once your friend decided you needed to stopped.  I hope their reason is enough to get you into court and convicted, if you really were driving in violation of the drunk driving laws in this state.  Your decision to do so put a huge number of people at risk...all of whom, except yourself, would have been innocent victims of your profoundly poor
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
803526
I'm in the UK but the basic principles are much the same. \n\nDouble Jeopardy means that you cannot be tried for exactly the same crime twice - particularly murder. For crimes such as this, a person must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (this is known as the "burden of proof").\n\nFor wrongful death, the burden of proof is lower because a wrongful death suit is a civil action (rather than a criminal prosecution). For civil actions the burden of proof merely requires that they be found guilty "on the balance of probabilities" - in other words an element of reasonable doubt is permitted.\n\nWrongful death actions often occur after a criminal murder trial has failed through lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt even though there is a strong suspicion that the accused person is responsible for the death.\n\nIncidentally, here in the UK there has recently been the first conviction under Double Jeopardy. The law was recently changed allowing a person to be tried a second time after having been found not guilty at their first trial. A second trial is now permitted if significant new evidence is brought forward which brings into question the verdict at the first trial. This is basically in response to advances in DNA and forensic science.
588083
No, a search warrant can only be granted for felonies.  An exception to this would be a search-incident-to-arrest.  But, the police cannot obtain a search warrant to search for evidence of a misdemeanor.\n\nLet me qualify with the majority approach.\n\nProbable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that evidence subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched.\n\nEvidence subject to seizure is evidence of an offense.  \n\nOf course, the search warrant must be granted by a neutral magistrate after all of the other warrant requirements are met.  Whether a magistrate would grant a search warrant for a misdemeanor is another question.  It will depend on the jurisdiction.  But, as the other answers are indicating, the majority seems to be that any crime will satisfy the probable cause requirement of a warrant.
987110
Well, the first step is to identify where it happened. Was it a state case or federal? What state / district? Was it appealed? Do you have a formal citation for the case? Or even a year?\n\nThere are many legal database out there (findlaw.com being one of the more useful). But if you don't know what jurisdiction the case was, it's going to be impossible to find.
471973
The citation for United States vs Sharpe is 470 US 675 (1985).\n\n\nHere are the facts of the case:\nArgued November 27, 1984 \nDecided March 20, 1985 \n\n\n\nA Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, while patrolling a highway in an area under surveillance for suspected drug trafficking, noticed an apparently overloaded pickup truck with an attached camper traveling in tandem with a Pontiac. Respondent Savage was driving the truck, and respondent Sharpe was driving the Pontiac. After following the two vehicles for about 20 miles, the agent decided to make an "investigative stop" and radioed the South Carolina State Highway Patrol for assistance. An officer responded, and he and the DEA agent continued to follow the two vehicles. When they attempted to stop the vehicles, the Pontiac pulled over to the side of the road, but the truck continued on, pursued by the state officer. After identifying himself and obtaining identification from Sharpe, the DEA agent attempted to radio the State Highway Patrol officer. The DEA agent was unable to contact the state officer to see if he had stopped the truck, so he radioed the local police for help. In the meantime, the state officer had stopped the truck, questioned Savage, and told him that he would be held until the DEA agent arrived. The agent, who had left the local police with the Pontiac, arrived at the scene approximately 15 minutes after the truck had been stopped. After confirming his suspicion that the truck was overloaded and upon smelling marihuana, the agent opened the rear of the camper without Savage's permission and observed a number of burlap-wrapped bales resembling bales of marihuana that the agent had seen in previous investigations. The agent then placed Savage under arrest and, returning to the Pontiac, also arrested Sharpe. Chemical tests later showed that the bales contained marihuana. Respondents were charged with federal drug offenses, and, after the District Court denied their motion to suppress the contraband, were convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the investigative stops failed to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of brevity governing detentions on less than probable cause, the marihuana should have been suppressed as the fruit of unlawful seizures.
679932
A mistrial, you mean?\n\nYou may get your case appealed if you have reasonable proof that the trial or the proceedings before the trial were unlawful.
916617
1925-- Carroll vs. United States. Supreme Court allows searches of automobiles without a search warrant under some circumstances. \n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=267&invol=132
562800
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. \nThe 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. \n\nFifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property. \nNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. \n\nSixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused. \nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.\n\nSeventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. \nIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. \nEighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment. \nExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \n\nThese are all considered "criminal ammendments".\n\nRegards,\n\nArmus
453959
Probable cause. The officer sees, hears, or smells something suspicious. You have every right (or at least you used to) to refuse. Then they can arrest you for disobeying a police officer and search your vehicle anyway.\n\nsome legal examples:\n Law enforcement officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, and it is likely that, due to exigent circumstances, the vehicle will be unavailable for search by the time a warrant is obtained.  (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 )\n\nwarrantless searches of automobiles are justified only when two factors are present: probable cause to believe that the automobile contained contraband, and exigent circumstances associated with the automobile. (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 )\n\nIf consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use. (United States v Dewitt 946 F. 2d 1497)\n\nFor more info on roadblocks, see my link:
526713
It is the same as tendering and passing forged documents.\n\nFrom Smith v. State 13 Ga.App. 663, 79 S.E. 764\n(1913):\nBut it is manifest that this objection is without merit because the words "pass or tender" are synonymous with the words "utter and publish." If the accused uttered the forged instrument, he published it. If he passed it, he uttered and published it; and, if he uttered and published and passed it, he necessarily tendered it.
69153
Exclusionary Rule: "The Understanding, Based on Supreme Court precedent, that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional specifications of due process, or it will not be allowed as evidence in a crimianl trial.\nThe evidence seized in Week v. U.S. was excluded because the courts held it if it were allowed it would "defy the prohibitions of the Constitution that were intended to protect the people against such unauthorized actions. While the federal prohibition remained in effect, local police were still able to conduct searches and seizures according to the rules established by the individual states, since the Fourth Amendment applied only to the federal action for the next 35 years."\n\nFruit of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine: "What happens if law enforcement violates the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment? The most straighforward explanation of the Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine is that courts will not allow the "fruit" or evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search, to be used against the accused.\n\nIf any clause was applied to Weeks v. U.S., it would have been The Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.
602570
I read this question, chuckled a little, and kept on reading other questions.  \n\nThen I just had to come back.\n\nThe Patriot Act, for the fanatics out there, has absolutely nothing to do with this question or situation.  If the cop in this question legally searched the car, he did so based on law much, MUCH older than the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act does not give law enforcement "free reign in the search and seizure of private citizens' personal property at any time" though I know it's a lot more fun to believe that garbage and spread it around.\n\nAs for the actual question you're asking, it's not possible to give you an answer without knowing more details.  If the cop had probable cause to believe it was there (generally by smelling it, or maybe seeing a roach in the ashtray), or received consent from your friend (people give consent all the time when it's not in their best interest to do so), then the search is perfectly legal.\n\nA broken tail light, at least in California, might very well still work...but if white light is emitted, it's just as illegal as if it didn't work at all.  Evidently, it's the same in Texas.\n\nAnd if the search is determined by the court to be unlawful, then of course your friend can have the charge thrown out.\n\nCops can't search a vehicle just because they "think something is wrong"...we almost always have to have probable cause, and just "thinking" something isn't the same as having probable cause.\n\nFederal law (to my knowledge) does not require a search warrant to search a car, but the US Constitution provides that searches conducted without a warrant are presumptively unlawful.  However, Courts (to include the Supreme Court) routinely permit certain types of searches to be conducted without search warrants and have for dozens of years.\n\nYour friend certainly should seek the advice of an attorney, but I haven't ever heard the information about public defenders being top of their class....strikes me as a little hard to believe in some cases.
1060852
There is a doctrine called "assumption of the risk." If you have been told of the risk and you decide you know better that the authorities, and it turns out you made a stupid decision, why should the state be held liable?
525264
Technically, it isn't in the U.S. Constitution.  The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1960(?).  But it refers to the fifth amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent".