It has begun . . .

[asmo]

It wouldn't matter, your car is still your property. Like I said, my school backpack can't be searched for no reason and that has nothing to do with homes.

You should learn the definition of Exigent Circumstances...

The police can, and will, search your shit anytime they want for whatever reason they want.. SCOTUS has fucked over the 4th.. it is utterly meaningless, in the legal sense, now.

[Fmedges]

You should learn the definition of Exigent Circumstances...

The police can, and will, search your shit anytime they want for whatever reason they want.. SCOTUS has fucked over the 4th.. it is utterly meaningless, in the legal sense, now.

Explain

[asmo]

Explain

I'll leave it to you to do some research.. But start with United States v. Rengifo where the courts said that “[e]xigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm"

More fun: Kentucky v. King, SCOTUS has said that police are allowed to create exigent circumstances with impunity and that the results of such searches are admissible. Thats right - the police themselves can cause the problem that needs to be resolved immediately to preserve evidence or secure an arrest...

Here is an over the top example (that comes straight out of the real world):

If the cops want to see whats in your backpack, they could for example, light it on fire. They would have just created an exigent circumstance in which they can search your backpack 'to preserve evidence'. Its totally legal.

[SuperiorDG]

I'll leave it to you to do some research.. But start with United States v. Rengifo where the courts said that “[e]xigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm"

More fun: Kentucky v. King, SCOTUS has said that police are allowed to create exigent circumstances with impunity and that the results of such searches are admissible. Thats right - the police themselves can cause the problem that needs to be resolved immediately to preserve evidence or secure an arrest...

Here is an over the top example (that comes straight out of the real world):

If the cops want to see whats in your backpack, they could for example, light it on fire. They would have just created an exigent circumstance in which they can search your backpack 'to preserve evidence'. Its totally legal.

Is lighting someone's backpack on fire arson?

[asmo]

Is lighting someone's backpack on fire arson?

Heheh.. I see where your going with this.

But no.. Its not an occupied building or structure.

[Ronin13]

Is lighting someone's backpack on fire arson?

Yeah- or assault. I don't think any cop would do that- unless they really wanted to see what life was like on the other side of the bars.