For the record in plain view here, this killer cite is Got a Warrant?: Breaking Bad and the Fourth Amendment by
Alafair S. Burk, Professor of Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University.
At the risk of repeating the type of request above and the subsequent skirmish on who’s being peevish, can you tell me the answer now?
I agree. And in my experience, the few officers that are willing to lie . . . everyone knows them. Judges cut them no slack; other officers don’t back them up (although admittedly they don’t call them out directly, either).
I’ve lost track of the back-and-forth discussion. Is there an issue still on the table?
(A) Illegal stop, dead body plainly visible when officer approaches car: suppressed, because the seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and the plain view doctrine does not apply.
(B) Legal stop, dead body plainly visible when officer approaches car: admitted, because the seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion and the plain view doctrine applies.
© Illegal stop, officer discovers warrant. Officer’s conduct was mistaken but not flagrant. Arrest permitted, because the warrant gives independent cause for arrest that is attenuated from any information derived from the stop. Search incident to arrest yields admissible evidence
Questions?
That is not the standard. Do you think an officer could get away with saying, “Gee, Judge, I didn’t know I couldn’t beat a confession out of a suspect”? The standard is not the subjective knowledge of the officer, but what a reasonably trained officer would know in light of case law.
It does not matter what the purpose was to be in the illegal position to view items. The officer must be in a place where he legally has the right to be. If an officer illegally pulls someone over, he has no right to be standing outside of the car he just forced to stop. You can’t game that by saying he has a right to stand on the side of the roadway. That part is true, but the fact that in front of his eyes on the side of the roadway is a car he forced to be there makes his observation illegal.
Does “discovers warrant” mean when the cop ran the guy’s license?
I didn’t say it was a standard of anything. I’m responding to your phrasing "“to bring an item into view.” That wasn’t part of your hypothetical, so it seemed to be a goal post move. It may make a difference. I’m not sure.
You said that already. This is past monotonous.
A reasonably trained officer may think that since his superior started a program instructing officers to pull over drivers for good driving, he’s acting in good faith doing so. I’m not sure that will fly, and my earlier cites do not rely on that, but it may have an impact.
No, it’s not silly; nor is there any evidence that a supervisor knows what the individual patrol officer is doing when it comes to specific minor details while on patrol.
In the first instance, he’s endangering township property by parking in the wrong place. He sits facing east to catch southbound traffic. A driver turning west might not see him, either because of the bushes he’s hiding behind, or perhaps an eastbound van/box truck sitting at the red light.
In the second case, he’s creating a life/safety hazard to other users of the road, all to enforce one of the most menial, BS laws there is* that would only cause harm to the person violating that law if they are in a bad accident.
The good faith thing only protects you just so far. An officer still needs to recognize an illegal order.
If one of my supes came out with a program of stopping cars on public roads to hand out gift cards or what not, I’d be having a long conversation with him. I’d want to know with who did the idea originate from and I’d advise that I was going directly to that person (going over your supes rank is a big no-no. Gotta have a very good reason). If the crafter of that stupid plan was not the Chief I would go directly to the Chief and see what he thinks about it. If he was all for it I would put out a memorandum as to why I did not agree with the program. I would also run it past the city attorney who I am certain would shit bricks over the idea of stopping cars with no violation.
All of that is risky stuff. Going over heads, publicly denouncing a program, getting a legal review. All that can get you up to your neck in shit and has to be done very delicately.
If they insisted we participate I’d file a grievance with the union.
I’m just wondering if there is something about these programs that they’re not telling us on the news blips. Like, did the people stopped sign up for something to allow this?
When I was a Deputy Sheriff we could volunteer unpaid hours to work a program that raised money for charity. At a mall there was a fake jail set up and a telephone. People had previously sent in their names on cards and we would go to their house and ask them if they still wanted to participate. If they said yes we would take them to the fake jail where they would call people on the phone looking for “bail” money which went to the charity. It raised a lot of money and was a lot of fun for the participants. People in the mall would watch and they too would participate and/or give money.
But that was nothing like pulling cars over on a public roadway with no RS or PC. Knocking on someones door asking them if they’d like to participate in a charity drive is not an illegal seizure, especially since they signed up by turning in those cards.
The Exclusionary Rule made applicable to the states by MAPP, is not absolute in nature, Michigan v. Hudson is a good example.