Vehicle Search Pursuant to Traffic Stop

[dishnetworkremote]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: OHIO

Need help with this fact pattern: police officer sees vehicle driven by suspected drug dealer. Officer notices expired tags and hoping to find evidence of illegal activity, pulls vehicle over. Driver unable to produce license and registration. States vehicle is his mothers. No warrants on driver. Car not reported stolen. Officer asks for and gets consent to search vehicle. Finds drivers wallet and small amount of marijuana in glove box. finds bag of marijuana under drivers seat.

Question: the expired tags seems to be a legal issue to pull a vehicle over, but when the officer stated his intent was to find evidence of drugs and that's why he pulled the driver over, does that make a difference?

Question: not understanding how an expired registration leads to a warrantless vehicle search. Was it because he was unable to produce a license and registration?

Question: can you give consent to search a third-party's vehicle? It was his mothers and not his.

Question: if the search isn't valid, are the drugs fruit of the poisonous tree?

[jk]

Question: the expired tags seems to be a legal issue to pull a vehicle over, but when the officer stated his intent was to find evidence of drugs and that's why he pulled the driver over, does that make a difference?

no

Question: not understanding how an expired registration leads to a warrantless vehicle search. Was it because he was unable to produce a license and registration?

search was by permission. Nothing else is relevant.

Question: can you give consent to search a third-party's vehicle? It was his mothers and not his.

for practical purposes, it was his vehicle. He was in control of it so that makes it his for the purposes discussed.

Question: if the search isn't valid, are the drugs fruit of the poisonous tree?

the search is valid because it was by permission

[cdwjava]

Question: the expired tags seems to be a legal issue to pull a vehicle over, but when the officer stated his intent was to find evidence of drugs and that's why he pulled the driver over, does that make a difference?

Nope. His subjective intent is irrelevant so long as there is a lawful reason to stop the vehicle and the underlying reasons is not for some unlawful purpose (such as to harass, get a phone number, or some other reason unrelated to law enforcement).

Question: not understanding how an expired registration leads to a warrantless vehicle search. Was it because he was unable to produce a license and registration?

No, it was because he asked for consent and received it.

Question: can you give consent to search a third-party's vehicle? It was his mothers and not his.

Yes, the driver can grant consent to search the vehicle he is driving.

Question: if the search isn't valid, are the drugs fruit of the poisonous tree?

If the search was not valid, sure. So far, it appears to be good.

Now, if this is homework, you can look up the relevant cases to support these positions.

[dishnetworkremote]

Thanks for the help. You would all really enjoy the rest of the fact pattern. Ridiculous story. I'll share if asked.

[David K]

Question: the expired tags seems to be a legal issue to pull a vehicle over, but when the officer stated his intent was to find evidence of drugs and that's why he pulled the driver over, does that make a difference?

No. Did he "state" his intent was to find evidence of contraband? His intent was to issue a summons for an expired tag for all he knows.

Question: not understanding how an expired registration leads to a warrantless vehicle search. Was it because he was unable to produce a license and registration?

An expired registration does NOT constitute reasonable grounds for a warrantless search. The officer MUST HAVE a warrant to search your vehicle in the absence of PC. But he didn't need a warrant in your case, since you gave him permission to search your car. Your permission overrides the legal necessity for a warrant.

Question: can you give consent to search a third-party's vehicle? It was his mothers and not his.

Yes and no. If his mother was in the vehicle, it would be his mother's decision. If you were the driver and his mother was not around, it is the driver's prerogative.

Question: if the search isn't valid, are the drugs fruit of the poisonous tree?

I don't understand the question. But yes, the search was valid - the driver gave the police permission, and permission is all that is needed.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

It doesn't matter if you have a thousand kilos of coke in the car, a dead body in the trunk, the stolen Mona Lisa, or a stash of AK47s and and an RPG ...

IF YOU KEEP IT OUT OF PLAIN SIGHT, DENY EVERYTHING, AND REFUSE TO A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT ... YOU'LL GET AWAY. And if they search your car anyways and find all of the above, it's a waste of the officer's time because it will be suppressed and thrown out of court as the contraband was illegally discovered and secured.

NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT. Unless of course, you're stupid enough to leave said contraband in plain sight which becomes a matter of exigency and thus the sufficiency of probable cause.

Hope you or your friend have learned a lesson.

[cdwjava]

And if they search your car anyways and find all of the above, it's a waste of the officer's time because it will be suppressed and thrown out of court as the contraband was illegally discovered and secured.

Unless, of course, the vehicle was subject to impound and searched prior to the impound, or (depending on state law) subject to search based on probable cause or some other lawful exception. Just because consent is not granted does not mean that a search WILL result in suppression of evidence.

[David K]

Unless, of course, the vehicle was subject to impound and searched prior to the impound, or (depending on state law) subject to search based on probable cause or some other lawful exception. Just because consent is not granted does not mean that a search WILL result in suppression of evidence.

Good point.

Under seizure by impound, I would find it reasonable to search the vehicle for security and safety purposes as the car will be kept in a government facility.

That's true. Probable cause is quite arbitrary and has a wide spectrum of circumstances that effectuate it's prerogatives. Just because contraband isn't in plain sight, does not mean it does not have a scent, or sound. Thus, don't smoke pot in your car.

[cdwjava]

Good point.

Under seizure by impound, I would find it reasonable to search the vehicle for security and safety purposes as the car will be kept in a government facility.

That's true. Probable cause is quite arbitrary and has a wide spectrum of circumstances that effectuate it's prerogatives. Just because contraband isn't in plain sight, does not mean it does not have a scent, or sound. Thus, don't smoke pot in your car.

And, in my state (and I suspect many others) if the driver is unable or unwilling to produce required documents (license, registration, insurance) then the police can make a limited search to those areas where these documents might be found. So, there could be a number of reasons why a search might be conducted. Though, it would be incumbent upon the state to properly articulate those circumstances.