Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
First, couldn't read the article b/c the link did not work at work. As to some of the other stuff:
As I recall my 4th Amendment cases, cars are treated slightly differently. If an officer has a articulable suspicion you are hiding something in your trunk, but does not have the authority to impound the vehicle, they can search your trunk b/c otherwise you could drive off and destroy the evidence before a warrant could be obtained. If on the other hand they can impound the car and secure it, they can't search it without first getting a warrant. Again, that's just my recollection from years back.
If you placed the device on her property without her permission, that would be trespass (Search warrants are essentially govt. authorized trespass). For that, you could be liable to criminal charges and/or civil suit. At the same time, I believe that there is no general exclusionary rule for illegally gained evidence in the State of Maryland but that would vary from state to state. [Note: There is a specific statute excluding the use of certain recordings in both civil and criminal trial.]
|
Your first part is somewhat correct. It can be done but to answer both points you brought up the police will at some point, most likely in court, have to prove exigent circumstances. Meaning that if they waited for a warrant the evidence would have been lost or destroyed. So stopping a vehicle and smelling marijuana but not finding it on the drivers person or inside the car might give some reason to belive it's in the trunk and the search might be valid. But it doesn't mean police can pull cars over at will and search the trunk of the car.
and.. you are correct in regards to the rule. If the Supreme Court feels the police violated the rights of the citizen all evidence at the point where the officer violated the rights and after is illegally obtained evidence and will be thrown out.
I would suspect after the Supreme Court hears the case they should and hopefully will error on the side of caution for the public and their rights and rule that the police violated the citizens rights when they placed the device on the suspects car with out a warrant. Why? The car was in the driveway, not moving, and parked. The police could have had someone watching the vehicle while another officer got the warrant. I imagine the police had been following him or others for weeks or months and couldn't find the crop so they decided to plant a tracking device on the vehicle to locate it. Being on the guys property is not an issue but planting the device should be looked at as trespassing on the owners property/vehicle with out permission. I guarentee there would be some fire if a citizen decides to plant a tracking device on police cars with out permission.
Perhaps the guy should sue the department for stalking. lol. cause in Virginia I have heard of ex-spouses getting nailed by police for doing the same thing.