Charged Despite Improper Search

In court for the case I just lost the judge said that proving the violation that initiated the pullover as being false or without merit would not invalidate the other citations that were only discovered during the pull over. I seem to remember a case where someone was pulled over for a traffic violation that was proved false and dismissed and at the same time the drug possession charge was tossed because if the pullover did not happen and now legally it had not then no knowledge of the other charge could or would have been known.

Am I remembering wrong? or did the judge in my case just thought it could get rid of me and be done with it by saying this?
FYI it is not a drug charge but having a video playback device in the front seat.



If this is in the wrong forum because I cannot remember the case details that I was thinking of though I do seem to think it was a Supreme Court decision then by all means move it to the proper forums if you are an administrator. TY.

The case you cite about drugs concerns the "exclusionary rule", where evidence obtained from an UNconstitutional search or seizure is most generally not admissable against the defendant.


Oh let me add, this would not mean you would not a valid civil rights complaint as a civil remedy.

As a matter of fact I just came from the law library and copied a case where a man had standing to sue for embarassment and humiliation because he was "patted down" in violation of Terry v. Ohio.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

In court for the case I just lost the judge said that proving the violation that initiated the pullover as being false or without merit would not invalidate the other citations that were only discovered during the pull over. I seem to remember a case where someone was pulled over for a traffic violation that was proved false and dismissed and at the same time the drug possession charge was tossed because if the pullover did not happen and now legally it had not then no knowledge of the other charge could or would have been known.

Am I remembering wrong? or did the judge in my case just thought it could get rid of me and be done with it by saying this?
FYI it is not a drug charge but having a video playback device in the front seat.

If this is in the wrong forum because I cannot remember the case details that I was thinking of though I do seem to think it was a Supreme Court decision then by all means move it to the proper forums if you are an administrator. TY.

---

What was the stated reason for the stop?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

As a matter of fact I just came from the law library and copied a case where a man had standing to sue for embarassment and humiliation because he was "patted down" in violation of Terry v. Ohio.

---

Having "standing" does not mean he will prevail. Unless the circumstances were pretty egregious, I can't imagine anyone would prevail in such a suit anyway.

As the saying goes, "Anyone can sue anyone else for anything ..." It is winning that can be tough.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting Billy Mack

---

What was the stated reason for the stop?

---

Failure to stop at a stop light however the judge found that the officer did not have an unobstructed view and therefore was unable to see me stopping at the stop line, and that he had in fact was only able to see me proceeding into a right turn.

my point would be if stopped for anything that was false or found to be incorrect by the officer which then leads to something that could have only been found during the pull over such has a video device, no insurance, or what not, then wouldn’t the found charge have to be dismissed?

Oh one follow up: when something is let's say taken to the Supreme Court is it appealing a decision all the way or the result of a law suit?

Like Miranda v. Arizona?

Was it appealing or a civil lawsuit? or can it be both?

And in Appealing which asks for legal arguments and case law is there still no right to an attorney?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Having "standing" does not mean he will prevail. Unless the circumstances were pretty egregious, I can't imagine anyone would prevail in such a suit anyway.

As the saying goes, "Anyone can sue anyone else for anything ..." It is winning that can be tough.

- Carl

---

He DID win, I should have stated that at the outset. This was from the 6th Circuit. As I remember the facts, persons were riding in a car, when stopped the driver was arrested, etc. The passenger was frisked without cause and sued. I can't remember if the District court finding was for or against, I think for, but the 6th ruled for, citing a SC case, humiliation and embrassment are compensable in proper 1983 actions.


I could have sworn I copied it, but can't find it now. Next time I go to the law library I will get it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

Oh one follow up: when something is let's say taken to the Supreme Court is it appealing a decision all the way or the result of a law suit?

Like Miranda v. Arizona?

Was it appealing or a civil lawsuit? or can it be both?

And in Appealing which asks for legal arguments and case law is there still no right to an attorney?

---

Cases the SC agree to hear, called a grant of Certiorari, can be both civil or criminal in nature.

The Anna Nicole Smith civil case went to the SC, they ruled in her favor. This was a RARE case. The federal courts are not generally entwined with state probate laws.

As a right of 1st appeal from a criminal conviction, I do believe the SC has ruled a paid attorney is a right.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

He DID win, I should have stated that at the outset.

---

Then I can only imagine that the surrounding circumstances were egregious and that the officers could not articulate good cause to support a pat-down search. Law enforcement is not required to conduct their business in such a manner that avoids embarrassment. If this person won a suit it would have to have been because they lacked articulated grounds to make the pat-down at all.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

Failure to stop at a stop light however the judge found that the officer did not have an unobstructed view and therefore was unable to see me stopping at the stop line, and that he had in fact was only able to see me proceeding into a right turn.

my point would be if stopped for anything that was false or found to be incorrect by the officer which then leads to something that could have only been found during the pull over such has a video device, no insurance, or what not, then wouldn’t the found charge have to be dismissed?

---

Not necessarily. The officer only needs reasonable suspicion to make a stop, as opposed to a proof beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. The initial reason for the stop may not be enough to convict on that charge but be enough to support a lawful stop.

So if the officer couldn't see well enough for the judge to believe that he could convict on running a stop sign there may have been enough for him to feel like there was RS or PC to make a stop. Say for instance if the officer could see that you were going at a higher than normal speed when you were going through an intersection without actually seeing you go past the stop line.

For another example, in one of our courts, the judge will not convict for a stop sign violation if the driver testifies that he did come to a stop without unless the officer has video or the driver was impaired.

Did the judge actually rule that there was no legal grounds for the stop? If not, then the stop would appear to stand. And if the stop stands (is good) then the resulting discoveries are likely good as well.

- Carl

Oh fyi I don’t seem to remember this title now being the one I had used when posting? Weird?

I think this is the problem so far especially in traffic law. Too much leeway is given to the police for the sake of money.


I have been pondering taking action for various things for various reasons but am still unsure of teh best course of action.

Here is an example and maybe I am wrong in the belief that the Officer perjured himself what do you think?

So a case 3 before mine is one where a Cycle Cop said someone did an improper unsafe lane change.

His exact testimony was, "I witnessed the vehicle change lanes and the brake lights came on from stopping to prevent hitting the vehicle in front."

More testimony; Then the defendant asked her questions. then.....

Later the judge asked what your location when observing this lane change was?"

"West as the defendant came toward me.", said the officer

The judge then asked, "So how did you see the brake lights?"

Officer, "Oh your right I saw the car lean forward from the hard stop"

When I heard this I thought booya this cop is screwed. but guess what? Not only did the judge not say anything he still found the defendant responsible.

I mean come on?!?!?!? What BS.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Then I can only imagine that the surrounding circumstances were egregious and that the officers could not articulate good cause to support a pat-down search. Law enforcement is not required to conduct their business in such a manner that avoids embarrassment. If this person won a suit it would have to have been because they lacked articulated grounds to make the pat-down at all.

- Carl

---

I found the citation at least, I thought I had written it down.

Cobb v. City of Columbus 205 F.Supp 2nd 827 (SD) Ohio 2001.

I think it was from an appeal form the District court to the 6th circuit.

My side note I wrote; $500.00 damages for unlawful patdown.

1983 damages were permitted for embarassment and humiliation of being touched unlawfully.

I think there was some type of non disputed facts the officer lacked any suspicion he was armed, yes.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I think there was some type of non disputed facts the officer lacked any suspicion he was armed, yes.

---

Well, there ya go.

- Carl