"Your Car Is An Extension of Your Home": What does this mean?

[Jackrabbit]

Never consent to a search without a warrant, never talk without a lawyer.
BTW, cops can and will lie to you to get you to do either or both. There's no law that says a cop has to be honest with you. Trust them at your peril.

[Waywardson174]

It's very valuable legal advice, just like "cops can't lie if you ask if they are cops".

Thats sarcasm.

Your car enjoys a limited expectation of privacy. Th OP IDs the most common exceptions to warranted search, however, if the policeman has PC for a search then he has it for any and all containers which could possibly contain the subject matter of the search. The locked box with consent is an issue I've never heard of before, but I wouldn't rely on it being protected.

The reasonable suspicion bit is for stops. It is a lower standard and allows them to use the information gained from the stop to try to obtain PC.


JMDB, your buddy probably heard "open carry" was illegal some places. There is no limitation to carrying your gun in your car on the seat, but like other posts mentioned, not advisable.

[longbow]

Hell, four more years of Obamanomics and my car is gonna be my home!

[JMBD2112]

Hell, four more years of Obamanomics and my car is gonna be my home!

^^^^

[JMBD2112]

Well I did have one instance where two dick park rangers in Tellico, TN gave me a breathalyzer 6 times and they were very disappointed that I passed.

[Bailey Guns]

It's not likely that an officer will apply for a warrant for a vehicle search unless there are some really unusual circumstances. There are much easier ways to get into the car legally. Here's an example of a stop I did:

I stopped a car in the middle of the night (about 0230) for a minor traffic violation...don't recall what. Talked to the driver and asked for DL, registration and proof of insurance. The guy gave me his DL and then opened the glove box to look for the other stuff. When he opened the glove box I saw a stack of cash about 4" thick with a $100 bill on top, wrapped tightly in a zip-lock bag. He couldn't find his insurance card. His address was in the metro area, about an hour from where I stopped him. I mentioned that was a lot of cash he had...didn't ask why he had it. The guy said he was going to look at an appt in a nearby community. That seemed pretty odd because it was 0230 in the morning. I asked where was this appt and why was he going at 0230. I think he realized he'd opened a can of worms and tried to evade my question...so I asked again where he was going. He couldn't give me a location. I asked if he was going to meet someone and he said he was but couldn't give me a name or location of who he was meeting or where.

The more I asked questions, the more evasive he became. I got him out and and gave him a pat-down. I asked for consent to search his car. He refused. I then arrested him for NPOI. I told him I was going to impound the car and, since he had such a large amount of cash, I was going to conduct an inventory search. Then he told me I could go ahead and search and he signed the consent form. In the trunk I found a lot of burglary tools and other misc property items. Turns out he was a fairly prolific burglar and the arrest cleared over 30 burgs in the area and nearby communities.

The point is, it's pretty unusual to arrest someone for NPOI. But, in this case, it was an easy way to get into the car and there really wasn't anything he could do about it. His lawyer tried to suppress the search as coercive during the prelim but the judge ruled it was perfectly legal.

[Teufelhund]

It's not likely that an officer will apply for a warrant for a vehicle search unless there are some really unusual circumstances. There are much easier ways to get into the car legally. Here's an example of a stop I did:

I stopped a car in the middle of the night (about 0230) for a minor traffic violation...don't recall what. Talked to the driver and asked for DL, registration and proof of insurance. The guy gave me his DL and then opened the glove box to look for the other stuff. When he opened the glove box I saw a stack of cash about 4" thick with a $100 bill on top, wrapped tightly in a zip-lock bag. He couldn't find his insurance card. His address was in the metro area, about an hour from where I stopped him. I mentioned that was a lot of cash he had...didn't ask why he had it. The guy said he was going to look at an appt in a nearby community. That seemed pretty odd because it was 0230 in the morning. I asked where was this appt and why was he going at 0230. I think he realized he'd opened a can of worms and tried to evade my question...so I asked again where he was going. He couldn't give me a location. I asked if he was going to meet someone and he said he was but couldn't give me a name or location of who he was meeting or where.

The more I asked questions, the more evasive he became. I got him out and and gave him a pat-down. I asked for consent to search his car. He refused. I then arrested him for NPOI. I told him I was going to impound the car and, since he had such a large amount of cash, I was going to conduct an inventory search. Then he told me I could go ahead and search and he signed the consent form. In the trunk I found a lot of burglary tools and other misc property items. Turns out he was a fairly prolific burglar and the arrest cleared over 30 burgs in the area and nearby communities.

The point is, it's pretty unusual to arrest someone for NPOI. But, in this case, it was an easy way to get into the car and there really wasn't anything he could do about it. His lawyer tried to suppress the search as coercive during the prelim but the judge ruled it was perfectly legal.

I'm torn on this one. While on one hand it's great that you nabbed a known criminal, the way you went about it was shady. Why was it any of your business how much cash he had on him or where he was going (which is exactly what I would have told you if I had been the driver)? Nailing a serial burglar should require investigative work related to the crime, not some bullshit you stumbled onto by chance. What if he had just been some small business owner who works late and doesn't like to leave his cash in the bank? NPOI aside, you abused your authority and it just happened to work out in your favor.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm torn on this one. While on one hand it's great that you nabbed a known criminal, the way you went about it was shady. Why was it any of your business how much cash he had on him or where he was going (which is exactly what I would have told you if I had been the driver)? Nailing a serial burglar should require investigative work related to the crime, not some bullshit you stumbled onto by chance. What if he had just been some small business owner who works late and doesn't like to leave his cash in the bank? NPOI aside, you abused your authority and it just happened to work out in your favor.

Be "torn" about it all you want. He wasn't a "known criminal"...at least to me. That's kinda the point, isn't it? In case you missed it, I didn't arrest the guy because he had a large amount of cash and was averse to keeping his money in a bank. As a matter of fact, I simply stated he had a lot of cash. I never asked why. He offered why he had it and his explanation obviously didn't make sense. I arrested him because he didn't have proof the car he was driving was insured. That's a misdemeanor in this state despite the fact you think it's "shady" or an "abuse" of authority. I then developed a case based on what I observed and found in his car. Then I articulated my findings in a report and a warrantless arrest affidavit. A judge reviewed and approved the warrantless arrest, investigators followed up and filed the case with the DA, the DA thought it was a solid case and charged the guy, a judge found reason to hold him for trial and a jury convicted him. Neither the investigators that filed the case, the DA, the judge or the jury ever said anything I did was "shady". The only person who had a problem with it, besides you, was the guy's lawyer. Go figure. It wasn't some "bullshit" as you so eloquently state. And how is a valid arrest an abuse of authority?

Oh,yeah. None of the burglary victims thought what I did was shady or an abuse of my authority, either. As a matter of fact, they were really happy to get at least some of their stuff back...including the cash that turned out to have been stolen from the home of an elderly man.

Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure if he had been a small business owner he could've easily said so and wouldn't have had a problem explaining why he had the cash. I'm guessing if he'd been some small business owner he wouldn't have to make up some ridiculous story about going to rent an appt at 0230 in the morning. That may be common behavior in your world, it's not in mine. Or maybe reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

Since you're such a goddamned authority on investigative techniques why don't you explain what, exactly, was shady or abusive and how you would've handled the situation?

[KevDen2005]

Be "torn" about it all you want. He wasn't a "known criminal"...at least to me. That's kinda the point, isn't it? In case you missed it, I didn't arrest the guy because he had a large amount of cash and was averse to keeping his money in a bank. As a matter of fact, I simply stated he had a lot of cash. I never asked why. He offered why he had it and his explanation obviously didn't make sense. I arrested him because he didn't have proof the car he was driving was insured. That's a misdemeanor in this state despite the fact you think it's "shady" or an "abuse" of authority. I then developed a case based on what I observed and found in his car. Then I articulated my findings in a report and a warrantless arrest affidavit. A judge reviewed and approved the warrantless arrest, investigators followed up and filed the case with the DA, the DA thought it was a solid case and charged the guy, a judge found reason to hold him for trial and a jury convicted him. Neither the investigators that filed the case, the DA, the judge or the jury ever said anything I did was "shady". The only person who had a problem with it, besides you, was the guy's lawyer. Go figure. It wasn't some "bullshit" as you so eloquently state. And how is a valid arrest an abuse of authority?

Oh,yeah. None of the burglary victims thought what I did was shady or an abuse of my authority, either. As a matter of fact, they were really happy to get at least some of their stuff back...including the cash that turned out to have been stolen from the home of an elderly man.

Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure if he had been a small business owner he could've easily said so and wouldn't have had a problem explaining why he had the cash. I'm guessing if he'd been some small business owner he wouldn't have to make up some ridiculous story about going to rent an appt at 0230 in the morning. That may be common behavior in your world, it's not in mine. Or maybe reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

Since you're such a goddamned authority on investigative techniques why don't you explain what, exactly, was shady or abusive and how you would've handled the situation?

Good stop, good investigation work, good arrest. Let the cop bashing begin.

[Ah Pook]

Good stop, good investigation work, good arrest. Let the cop bashing begin.

Surprised there hasn't been more. Sounds like BG has put out some good info but some just don't get it.


As far as carrying during hunting, hunter friends who have had contact with game wardens have been reminded about the details of open v.s. concealed carry.