Another State craps on the 4th

[osoab]

This is at least 3 including the supremes ruling on the kentucky case.

Louisiana Supreme Court Allows Vehicle Searches on a Hunch (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3517.asp)


Talking on a cell phone, and entering and exiting another car is sufficient justification for a warrantless search in Louisiana.

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday gave a green light to police officers looking to search automobiles without a warrant. The court ruled on an interim appeal in the ongoing trial of Derrick R. Kirton, 30, and Crystal N. Strate, 27, who were charged on February 23 with distribution and possession of heroin, respectively. A judge in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court had ruled that the police search of Kirton's vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on probable cause. The prosecution appealed.

Louisiana law allows for rulings on individual motions to be appealed without waiting for the end of the trial, and the state succeeded in convincing the high court to overturn the motion to suppress the evidence from the vehicle search. New Orleans Police Detective Roccoforte had seen Strate in parking lot of a fast food store using her cell phone and "looking about anxiously." Strate drove a short distance to pull up to Kirton's parked vehicle, remained in it for less than a minute, then returned to her car and drove away. Roccoforte followed and approached Strate after she had parked her car. He noted "furtive movement" of Strate's right hand and decided to perform a warrantless search of her car. The supreme court found this acceptable.

"We simply observe that based on the totality of facts and circumstances known to Detective Roccoforte and his experience in the field of narcotics investigations, there was at least objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when the approach to the car was made," the court wrote in a footnote. The full decision added: "In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an investigatory stop, courts must take into account the totality of the circumstances in a process that allows police to draw upon their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might elude an untrained person."

Justice Bernette J. Johnson dissented, arguing the investigatory stop was not based on any reasonable notion that a crime was being committed. She cited a US Department of Justice report that slammed the New Orleans Police Department for its pattern of conducting illegal stops and searches without reasonable suspicion. Johnson's citation suggested she believed this to be an example of the very conduct DOJ seeks to eliminate.

"The defendant did not present any behavior suspicious of criminal activity to warrant an investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio," Johnson wrote. "The threshold issue to be determined in the instant case is whether the officer who conducted the investigatory stop had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity... These facts, even in light of the officer's ten years experience as a narcotics officer, and his claim that the area was known for drug activity, do not provide minimal objective and particularized justification for approaching the defendant in her parked vehicle, and conducting what amounted to an investigatory stop."

Kirton and Strate's trial is scheduled to continue on July 14.

A copy of the decision is available in a 200k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/pdf-mini.gif Louisiana v. Kirton (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/la-search.pdf) (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 6/24/2011)

[palani]

Face the fact: If a car has a license plate on it then it is the state's car. They don't need permission to search their own property. Imagine the outrage if the Louisiana supreme court had actually come out and told you this. They never will but that does not make it less of a fact.

[Dogman]

When it comes to law, Louisiana is part of the united states in name only. It is not based on English law. It's based on a mix mash of French, Roman and Spanish. Napoleonic code or law is common. Louisiana is the only state like it.

[palani]

Louisiana is the only civil law state although California's constitution makes reference to Mexican civil law where applicable (because Mexico once had parts of California).

Louisiana code is said to be modified for the areas of criminal law that common law applies to.

Actually I believe the other 49 states have made more progress in adapting civil law than Louisiana has made converting to common law. Civilization is a PROCESS by which a common law crime is made civil.

[iOWNme]

Civilization is a PROCESS by which a common law crime is made civil.

Couldnt have said it better.

[Dogman]

Louisiana is the only civil law state although California's constitution makes reference to Mexican civil law where applicable (because Mexico once had parts of California).

Louisiana code is said to be modified for the areas of criminal law that common law applies to.

Actually I believe the other 49 states have made more progress in adapting civil law than Louisiana has made converting to common law. Civilization is a PROCESS by which a common law crime is made civil.

They love being different and they would rather fight , kicking and screaming than change. And their politics are a hoot! High entertainment , with out a doubt. The only way to make them change anything in their legal system. If lucky , is to wrestle them to the ground and pin them there. and then put a gun to their heads. And then they may listen to you. And then it still will not be guaranteed they will do it.

[palani]

I remember after Katrina when Bush was making noises about sending a LOT of federal dollars down that way a LSU grad was overheard on the radio saying he didn't think anyone would be so dumb as to trust the local politicians with money.

During Katrina several hundred NOLA policymen turned up missing. While they tried to put the spin on it that these guys had departed to take care of their own the other spin was that these boys had been on the books for years but in fact never HAD existed at all and so could not be found when an actual emergency had developed.

[mamboni]

Well, not being a lawyer, I don't agree with allowing a police search without probable cause. But, defining probable cause can be quite fuzzy. The cop in this case was correct - he caught the perp with the goods. Experience can teach us to recognize things in a way that cannot easily be defined in words, whether in law or a procedure manual. I don't think cops should be thwarted from using their instincts. But, one needs ongoing QC to measure and correct performance. For example, a cop should be required to file a report on every car he searchs. After a period of time, if an unreasonable percentage of searchs have yielded no meaningful infraction, then the cop should be reprimanded and retrained. For example, the state may determine that a cop must be successful in 10% of searchs. Of course, one must define "meaningful" crimes, i.e. illegal drugs and firearms, DUI etc.

[osoab]

Well, not being a lawyer, I don't agree with allowing a police search without probable cause. But, defining probable cause can be quite fuzzy. The cop in this case was correct - he caught the perp with the goods. Experience can teach us to recognize things in a way that cannot easily be defined in words, whether in law or a procedure manual. I don't think cops should be thwarted from using their instincts. But, one needs ongoing QC to measure and correct performance. For example, a cop should be required to file a report on every car he searchs. After a period of time, if an unreasonable percentage of searchs have yielded no meaningful infraction, then the cop should be reprimanded and retrained. For example, the state may determine that a cop must be successful in 10% of searchs. Of course, one must define "meaningful" crimes, i.e. illegal drugs and firearms, DUI etc.


Not our positiion to decide what one puts in their arms, lungs, etc.

If no harm occurred, screw the instincts.

[Dogman]

I remember after Katrina when Bush was making noises about sending a LOT of federal dollars down that way a LSU grad was overheard on the radio saying he didn't think anyone would be so dumb as to trust the local politicians with money.

During Katrina several hundred NOLA policymen turned up missing. While they tried to put the spin on it that these guys had departed to take care of their own the other spin was that these boys had been on the books for years but in fact never HAD existed at all and so could not be found when an actual emergency had developed.

LOL!

Yes

That is Louisianian for you! High crime and politics, that is why it is so entertaining to watch them , wondering who is going to jail next and who is next in line to fill the vacated seat.

LOL

[mamboni]

I'm speaking in general. There will always be laws to be broken. But yes, I am in favor of legalizing "illegal" drugs, within reason. But I don't support allowing drunks and stoned junkies to operate motor vehicles on public roads - there are limits to liberty.

[Dogman]

Well, not being a lawyer, I don't agree with allowing a police search without probable cause. But, defining probable cause can be quite fuzzy. The cop in this case was correct - he caught the perp with the goods. Experience can teach us to recognize things in a way that cannot easily be defined in words, whether in law or a procedure manual. I don't think cops should be thwarted from using their instincts. But, one needs ongoing QC to measure and correct performance. For example, a cop should be required to file a report on every car he searchs. After a period of time, if an unreasonable percentage of searchs have yielded no meaningful infraction, then the cop should be reprimanded and retrained. For example, the state may determine that a cop must be successful in 10% of searchs. Of course, one must define "meaningful" crimes, i.e. illegal drugs and firearms, DUI etc.


I'm speaking in general. There will always be laws to be broken. But yes, I am in favor of legalizing "illegal" drugs, within reason. But I don't support allowing drunks and stoned junkies to operate motor vehicles on public roads - there are limits to liberty.

Agree with most you say, but it will never happen. To earn their keep they will use both the forehand and backhand to justify what they do. They when they want , they can dream up any excuse to make a stop , it is the cop that makes the decision of probable cause and that can be anything under the sun.

[EE_]

Experience can teach us to recognize things in a way that cannot easily be defined in words, whether in law or a procedure manual. I don't think cops should be thwarted from using their instincts. For example, the state may determine that a cop must be successful in 10% of searchs. Of course, one must define "meaningful" crimes, i.e. illegal drugs and firearms, DUI etc.

I understand what your saying in the same way I can look at a cop and tell if he is a dirty corporate prick with 90% accuracy.

[midnight rambler]

I call Bullshit

I suggest you know the subject matter before you talk bullshit.

Regarding the issuance of 'CERTIFICATES OF TITLE' (Chapter 501 is the "Certificate of Title Act"):


§ 501.004. APPLICABILITY. (a) This chapter applies to a motor vehicle owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state.

The ONLY automobiles REQUIRED to be 'licensed' are those which have a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE issued by the state.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/501.004.00.html

[palani]

I call Bullshit

Then by all means do your due diligence and provide some rebuttal. Be sure an include an explanation as to why you believe you have the ability to purchase anything at all while doing so with those paper things called FRNs and while you are acting in the capacity as an agent for the Federal Reserve (ref 12 USC 411).

[horseshoe3]

and the state succeeded in convincing the high court

They want you to think there is a difference.

[Son-of-Liberty]

I suggest you know the subject matter before you talk bullshit.

Regarding the issuance of 'CERTIFICATES OF TITLE' (Chapter 501 is the "Certificate of Title Act"):


The ONLY automobiles REQUIRED to be 'licensed' are those which have a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE issued by the state.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/501.004.00.html

This post jogged my memory so for those still learning this stuff it is important to note that the piece of paper they give you when you register "your" car is a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, not TITLE.

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is just a piece of paper proving that there is TITLE somewhere.

They have the same BS system up here in Canada. It's all tricks and lies and they will never come out and tell the public why they have no rights.

[po boy]

I'm speaking in general. There will always be laws to be broken. But yes, I am in favor of legalizing "illegal" drugs, within reason. But I don't support allowing drunks and stoned junkies to operate motor vehicles on public roads - there are limits to liberty.

The problem is who decides what drugs are acceptable? Legal drugs kill far more than illegal drugs neither of which is there a shortage.

There are going to be drunks and junkies traveling on the highways no matter the legality and sober drivers kill twice as many people as impaired drivers. So if it were truly about safety wouldn't they ban sober driving and legal drugs as they kill way more people.

There is no guarantee of safety without trampling on liberties. "Those who would give up freedom for security....... "

Cobalt there is a good read called Dispatch of Merchants by William Avery which talks about "the magical power of the frn" and explains how nothing you purchase with them is really yours. Are those fed note really backed by nothing or are debts discharged not paid and pledged as collateral for the national debt?

[mamboni]

.

There are going to be drunks and junkies traveling on the highways no matter the legality and sober drivers kill twice as many people as impaired drivers. So if it were truly about safety wouldn't they ban sober driving and legal drugs as they kill way more people.



Now don't be deceptive: the sober drivers outnumber the impaired ones a hundred to one. And the sober ones causing accidents are the idiots on cell phones and texting.8)