N.J. Supreme Court expands police authority - warrants are no longer needed for searching vehicles - Polidicks

[quote]The state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned its own 2009 decision on warrantless car searches, broadening police authority to search vehicles based on probable cause. The 5-2 decision, stemming from the case of a Salem County man who was charged with illegal handgun possession following an unrelated motor vehicle stop, was praised by the state Attorney General as a fix that helps law enforcement. Civil rights advocates, however, decried it as a rollback of civil liberties in the state. William L. Witt was pulled over on Route 48 in Carneys Point in December 2012 after he approached a police officer with his high beams on and "failed to dim" as he passed. After speaking with Witt, the officer concluded he was intoxicated, performed a field sobriety test and placed him under arrest. While searching the car for evidence of open container alcohol consumption, the officer found a handgun in the center console. Witt sought at trial to suppress the gun on the ground that police performed an unreasonable search in violation of the the state constitution, and a state appeals court panel found in May of last year the officer did not meet the "exigent circumstances" standard for warrantless searches spelled out in a 2009 decision by the Supreme Court.[/quote] [url]http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/nj_supreme_court_expands_police_discretion_in_warr.html[/url]

What next, "Warrants no longer needed for deep cavity searches"? Probable cause no longer needed for boots to stamp on your face forever.

This can only end badly.

[quote]William L. Witt was pulled over on Route 48 in Carneys Point in December 2012 after he approached a police officer with his high beams on and "failed to dim" as he passed.[/quote] could they come up with a better reason other than "he looked at me funny", i mean if hes driving drunk, shouldn't you focus on the behaviors of him driving drunk instead of "his light was on and it hurt my eye" [editline]27th September 2015[/editline] this is for the state of NJ btw, but still not a good example, though the officer was probably right to search the car for any open containers after the sobriety test determined he was intoxicated

Glad I will never voluntarily move to New Jersey.

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48774295]Glad I will never voluntarily move to New Jersey.[/QUOTE] as chris christy said "if you think its bad now, you should have seen it before i got here"

[QUOTE=Sableye;48774335]as chris christy said "if you think its bad now, you should have seen it before i got here"[/QUOTE] Jokes on them, it's still just as bad here.

Fucking facists.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48774563]Fucking facists.[/QUOTE] That's a tad extreme

In Sweden the police can already do this and I think it's a good thing. Why would a policeman search your car if you have done nothing wrong and isn't acting suspicious? That's a waste of time for both parties involved.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48774563]Fucking facists.[/QUOTE] What? Dude, he was driving drunk so they were searching the car for open alcohol containers. Don't want to be caught breaking the law? Don't break the fucking law.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;48774687]In Sweden the police can already do this and I think it's a good thing. Why would a policeman search your car if you have done nothing wrong and isn't acting suspicious? That's a waste of time for both parties involved.[/QUOTE] Well for one, "acting suspicious" is completely subjective. For another, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is completely beside the point.

Obviously none of you even know the laws and constitution... Federal Law (constitution) rules over state law, even if state law would allow warrant-less vehicle searches, federal law would prevent this from happening. Nothing to worry about, also read more about exigent circumstances, as it is said in OP the officer had exigent circumstances, no need for warrants at that time as the constitution says so.

[QUOTE=meatwad253;48774743]Obviously none of you even know the laws and constitution... Federal Law (constitution) rules over state law, even if state law would allow warrant-less vehicle searches, federal law would prevent this from happening. Nothing to worry about, also read more about exigent circumstances, as it is said in OP the officer had exigent circumstances, no need for warrants at that time as the constitution says so.[/QUOTE] It still has to go up to the US Supreme Court before it's repealed. Until then, NJ will be conducting vehicle searches.

New Jersey still reigning supreme as shittiest state on the East Coast.

We were already a police state and they basically did this, just with half-assed pretext. Nothing changes :v:

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;48774896]The police are there to protect you, if they feel something is suspicious they should be free to act upon their feelings and do the right things to ensure the safety of persons or properties. For your second point, could you please indicate why this is a bad thing? So far nobody in this thread has posted an argument as to why this would be a problem for non-criminals. I can imagine it has something to do with bald eagles though.[/QUOTE] No offense but you don't even deal with American police But no, police are not an elite class of citizen that can arbitrarily dispense justice as they see fit. I don't even want to imagine an American cop with that much power

I don't mind it, but I guess I'm not in any position to say anything since this wouldn't apply to me anyway. Although, I think I'd probably still not worry were that not the case.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48774715]Well for one, "acting suspicious" is completely subjective. For another, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is completely beside the point.[/QUOTE] Yes it's subjective but what are the consequences of having your car searched in vain except it being annoying? This decision gives the police a very valuable weapon for fighting crime. I'm not saying it's fair but I don't think the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is beside the point at all in this particular case. -halfsnip- didn't read the article properly.

Another reason for me to be more eager to gtfo of this shithole when I'm making enough money. Edit: If they allow warrant-less searching of vehicles due to probable cause, what would stop them from allowing the same searching of homes due to probable cause? You give up one right and that let's the authority think 'Say, why don't we take it a step further?'

Love (hate) this state

My brother got his car searched for "illegally modified exhaust" (it wasnt), the cop claimed a dry leaf in his car was marijuana so he searched the car, and found a bottle of alcohol my brother was bringing to a friend and the copper gave my brother a DUI which has drastically increased the price of his insurance.

Jay-Z has to modify his lyrics then.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;48775098]My brother got his car searched for "illegally modified exhaust" (it wasnt), the cop claimed a dry leaf in his car was marijuana so he searched the car, and found a bottle of alcohol my brother was bringing to a friend and the copper gave my brother a DUI which has drastically increased the price of his insurance.[/QUOTE] Thought they could only get you like that is if the alcohol is open i.e. open container law

Well in the particular instance the whole thing makes sense from a legal standpoint. The guy was already arrested for DUI, so there's probable cause. Now where this becomes and issue is if someone pleads the 5th and their silence is considered probable cause. That should not be considered as such, and so long as there's no other evidence that could give probable cause then they should not be able to search a vehicle.

[QUOTE=zerglingv2;48774791]New Jersey still reigning supreme as shittiest state on the East Coast.[/QUOTE] No, I'm pretty sure that's still Florida.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48774206]could they come up with a better reason other than "he looked at me funny", i mean if hes driving drunk, shouldn't you focus on the behaviors of him driving drunk instead of "his light was on and it hurt my eye" [editline]27th September 2015[/editline] this is for the state of NJ btw, but still not a good example, though the officer was probably right to search the car for any open containers after the sobriety test determined he was intoxicated[/QUOTE] It's quite illegal in NJ to drive with your high beams on and not dim them for other vehicles. It takes like 30 seconds to readjust to the dark after being fucking blinded [editline]27th September 2015[/editline] This isn't right yeah yeah yeah but it's only a problem for people transporting illegal things

[QUOTE=Killer900;48775256]Thought they could only get you like that is if the alcohol is open i.e. open container law[/QUOTE] Yeah it was due to Open Container Law The thing is the DUI is permanently on his record now(he wasn't even driving under the influence, the cop refused to give a breathalizer)

Hahahaha oh my holy dogshit people in this topic actually advocate "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Please be black in America for a year and report back, you'll either have a newfound respect for how actively malicious United States police forces are, be incarcerated and unable to access a computer, or be dead. When a cop in the United States searches your vehicle and finds nothing they can either plant what they need to for a possession charge or find something unrelated to arrest you for, but it's damn sure not ending in "I guess I was wrong in suspecting you of a crime".

Unless its within probable cause, as in the case of someone driving drunk or high, then its not breaking the 4th amendment. Though this will probably get shot down with it goes to the Federal Supreme Court