My question involves police conduct in the State of: California. A friend of mine was visiting his brother in California. On his way home He was driving on the highway and was pulled over by California Hwy Patrol for allegedly following to close. (A witness said that there wasnt even any traffic and didnt see how that was possible.)
The driver had a valid drivers license, insurance and proper documentation for the vehicle. The officier initially, said that he was going to just give the driver a warning but was now claiming that the passenger and the driver stories, after being questioned, did not give identical explainations of why, when, who or what they were doing, that he (the officier) then, was requesting, of the driver, consent to search the vehicle. The driver and the passenger had told the officier the same story with only minor differences in details.
MY QUESTION IS: Does that meet the requirement legally, for probable cause to search the vehicle?? Would that be enough to gain a warrent from a judge?? Can anyone tell me where I would go to research California State Law regarding search and siezure, proper cause and procedures for a routine traffic stop by California State Patrol.
The officier did not recover anything from the car....but if the officier had recovered anything, would the probable cause for the stop alone been proper, assuming he could prove that there was no traffic, and the following search had it resulted in anything illegal and an arrest taken place and charges filed. Would there be good defensable case??
My friend has no criminal history. Is well like in his community. He is a good person and this experience has been very disturbing to him.
Any input would be greatly appreciated......