The whole thing might have been a set up. The feds knew of the Mexican drug dealers and had them fully under surveillance. They knew the time and place of the buy. Because our guy was pleading out, we didn't get to find out if the "Mexican drug dealers" were actually federal agents or informants. Given everything we know these days, I wouldn't be surprised.
Probably very foolish to consent to the search! Obviously the officer felt there was no probable cause and refusal to consent does not constitute such. Cops probably didn't have a K9 available and took a long shot and won.
I have heard it said that in most inner cities it is presumed that vehicles traveling at or slightly below the speed limit are ferrying drugs - that's all Rex had to do. But wasn't there a SCOTUS case that affirmed that exceedingly cautious driving did constitute probable cause for a stop/search?
They were just not very bright, 2 good old boys from the rural South. Nothing they did was smart. The stop was always a pretext because the highway patrol officer had prior knowledge that drugs were in the car. It didn't help them they were in a convertible sports car speeding along. They should have not consented to the second search, having already consented to the first.
I am, so to say, "just asking for a friend" (and am not an attorney as you seem to be) - did the "prior knowledge" of drugs being in the car constitute reasonable cause to stop? So, the speeding was irrelevant; ie. the pretext was unnecessary? And I had thought the very standard guidance to anyone in a roadside stop was answer no questions and consent to nothing - particularly permission to search the vehicle or your person. Cops only ask in that situation if they feel they have no reasonable cause. You need only to present valid credentials and confirm your identity - if you are detained or arrested you have Miranda rights. (I found your site, by the way, from that war-gamer guy on substack).
They need some justification to pull someone over. Even though the officer was informed of the drugs, the sting operation wanted it to look like they just found the drugs in a routine search. Most of the news articles about just "finding" drugs after a traffic stop are likely similar to this one.
We do not have to consent to a search. If they had been driving the speed limit safely in a regular sedan, the charges could have been defeated based upon the improper stop.
In theory, even though they were under surveillance, the officer didn't know that they still had the drugs.
So CHiPs wasn’t just a dumb cop show after all! These numbskulls really don’t understand that speed and flashiness gets caught every time.
The whole thing might have been a set up. The feds knew of the Mexican drug dealers and had them fully under surveillance. They knew the time and place of the buy. Because our guy was pleading out, we didn't get to find out if the "Mexican drug dealers" were actually federal agents or informants. Given everything we know these days, I wouldn't be surprised.
Crazy. Get to work writing your movie script!
Probably very foolish to consent to the search! Obviously the officer felt there was no probable cause and refusal to consent does not constitute such. Cops probably didn't have a K9 available and took a long shot and won.
I have heard it said that in most inner cities it is presumed that vehicles traveling at or slightly below the speed limit are ferrying drugs - that's all Rex had to do. But wasn't there a SCOTUS case that affirmed that exceedingly cautious driving did constitute probable cause for a stop/search?
They were just not very bright, 2 good old boys from the rural South. Nothing they did was smart. The stop was always a pretext because the highway patrol officer had prior knowledge that drugs were in the car. It didn't help them they were in a convertible sports car speeding along. They should have not consented to the second search, having already consented to the first.
I am, so to say, "just asking for a friend" (and am not an attorney as you seem to be) - did the "prior knowledge" of drugs being in the car constitute reasonable cause to stop? So, the speeding was irrelevant; ie. the pretext was unnecessary? And I had thought the very standard guidance to anyone in a roadside stop was answer no questions and consent to nothing - particularly permission to search the vehicle or your person. Cops only ask in that situation if they feel they have no reasonable cause. You need only to present valid credentials and confirm your identity - if you are detained or arrested you have Miranda rights. (I found your site, by the way, from that war-gamer guy on substack).
They need some justification to pull someone over. Even though the officer was informed of the drugs, the sting operation wanted it to look like they just found the drugs in a routine search. Most of the news articles about just "finding" drugs after a traffic stop are likely similar to this one.
We do not have to consent to a search. If they had been driving the speed limit safely in a regular sedan, the charges could have been defeated based upon the improper stop.
In theory, even though they were under surveillance, the officer didn't know that they still had the drugs.