Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you wanna be kept safe or not?
Bwahahahaha.
Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.
But if you've lost safety you have no liberty...;o)
Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.
that's not correct.
terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.
reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...
seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.
it's been a while, but that's my recollection.
Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.
that's not correct.
terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.
reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...
seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.
it's been a while, but that's my recollection.
Dear God.
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing - North Carolina Attorney Resources - North Carolina Laws
North Carolina Probable Cause
A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they felt like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable. Police officers may be suspicious -- frankly, it may be fair to say they are generally always suspicious of criminal activity thats their job. Yet, in order to pull you over, that suspicion must be reasonable and based on facts consistent with illegal activity. The suspicion is that criminal activity is afoot. Thats a complicated way of saying there is a reasonable likelihood that the law is being broken.
North Carolina Probable Cause
This is a recent case in North Carolina that the defendant appealed his case because he said the arresting officer did not have Probable Cause
Defendants sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by denying his motion to suppress. Defendant renews his
contention from his motion to suppress that police lacked
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the stop. After
review of the record, briefs, and contentions of the parties, we
affirm.
The trial court further found that, after stopping defendants
vehicle, Officer Bracey observed defendant drop marijuana between
the center console of the vehicle and the drivers seat, and
smelled the odor of marijuana on defendants person after defendant
exited the vehicle. The court thus concluded that police had
probable cause to search defendants vehicle. Based on the
evidence presented and the trial courts findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause to search
defendants vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090733-1.pdf
North Carolina Probable Cause
North Carolina Probable Cause
In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Based on the evidence presented and the trial courts findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause
that's not correct.
terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.
reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...
seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.
it's been a while, but that's my recollection.
Dear God.
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing - North Carolina Attorney Resources - North Carolina Laws
North Carolina Probable Cause
A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they felt like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable. Police officers may be suspicious -- frankly, it may be fair to say they are generally always suspicious of criminal activity thats their job. Yet, in order to pull you over, that suspicion must be reasonable and based on facts consistent with illegal activity. The suspicion is that criminal activity is afoot. Thats a complicated way of saying there is a reasonable likelihood that the law is being broken.
North Carolina Probable Cause
This is a recent case in North Carolina that the defendant appealed his case because he said the arresting officer did not have Probable Cause
Defendants sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by denying his motion to suppress. Defendant renews his
contention from his motion to suppress that police lacked
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the stop. After
review of the record, briefs, and contentions of the parties, we
affirm.
The trial court further found that, after stopping defendants
vehicle, Officer Bracey observed defendant drop marijuana between
the center console of the vehicle and the drivers seat, and
smelled the odor of marijuana on defendants person after defendant
exited the vehicle. The court thus concluded that police had
probable cause to search defendants vehicle. Based on the
evidence presented and the trial courts findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause to search
defendants vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090733-1.pdf
North Carolina Probable Cause
North Carolina Probable Cause
from your link:
In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
the standard varies dependent upon the invasiveness of the search.
from the case you posted:
Based on the evidence presented and the trial courts findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause
i think the point everyone was making was that it doesn't take much to allow the stop. as was pointed out, if the officer says your 'taillight is out' that's sufficient. prove him a liar after he 'taps' the light and it *works* again.
once the bare minimum of reasonable suspicion is met on the stop, if the officer *oberserves* something leading to further search, he has every right to execute the search.
from your link:
i think the point everyone was making was that it doesn't take much to allow the stop. as was pointed out, if the officer says your 'taillight is out' that's sufficient. prove him a liar after he 'taps' the light and it *works* again.
I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.
In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause
I also highlited a portion of one of my links.
A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.
a) Whenever a vehicle with a valid registration plate or registration is towed....
I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.
In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause
you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.
I also highlited a portion of one of my links.
A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they felt like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.
you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.
the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.
as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.
I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.
In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause
you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.
I also highlited a portion of one of my links.
A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they felt like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.
you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.
the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.
as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.
Have you ever completeda traffic stop? Have you ever issued a traffic citation?
you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.
you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.
the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.
as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.
Have you ever completeda traffic stop? Have you ever issued a traffic citation?
which has what to do with what the law is? i'm curious. there is a constitutional standard. your state, like every other, meets that standard.
Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.
that's not correct.
terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.
reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...
seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.
it's been a while, but that's my recollection.
aren't you one of the people who tells others to shut up because they don't live here?
just sayin'
and i'm kind of looking forward to hearing what our fomer NZ cop has to say on this subject. i'm thinking it's more bogus histeria.