Local traffic stop in justices' laps

[flashl]

INDIANAPOLIS – “Do you have guns, drugs or anything else on you that I need to know about?”

It seemed like a simple question to the Fort Wayne officer who posed it during a routine traffic stop in 2006.

But it ended up before the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday, with the justices trying to balance law enforcement’s right to ferret out criminal activity with a citizen’s right to be left alone.

Raymond Washington Jr. and a friend were riding mopeds on Central Drive on a July day when officer Chris Hoffman spotted them. He stopped them for swerving over the centerline – although the street did not have centerline markings. He also thought Washington might have been younger than 18 and required to wear goggles and a helmet.

During the stop, Hoffman asked the question about drugs and guns.

Washington – then 27 – admitted he had marijuana in his front pocket and was arrested and charged with misdemeanor drug possession.

The trial judge threw out the evidence, saying the question violated the state’s constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Prosecutors appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in October that police are allowed to ask about guns out of concern for officer safety. But the opinion also said Washington’s nervousness was not enough to justify asking about drugs, a question unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop.

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

[1monster]

1. Trying to beat back a police state one case at a time... I could see this case

thrown out on two issues. Amendment Four against unreasonable search and seizure AND Amendment Five--Miranda Act, too--self incrimination. He wasn't read his rights before being asked a question that could lead to arrest, trial, and prison.

[happyslug]

2. Police have NO duty to tell you your rights UNTIL you are a suspect

As long as he was pulled over for the traffic problem he was NOT a suspect for drugs. Since a traffic stop is only a fine, the officer has no obligation to inform you of your rights. Furthermore the Officer can ask about "Other Items"

And let’s not forget, Terry vs. Ohio, that permitted the Police to stop someone and search for a weapon WITHOUT probable cause on the grounds that the Police needs to protect themselves (i.e. search for a weapon NOT anything else). The Supreme Court permitted such searches ONLY for weapons but if the search reveals clearly that is illegal it can be used against you. The issue is how far can the Police Officer go? The Court has ruled that if the Officer feels something that can NOT be a weapon, but may be something illegal, such as a bag, no problem cause what was found can NOT be used against you, but if the Officer feels something that MIGHT be a weapon it can be pulled and if illegal used against you i.e. The Officer feels something HARD; it might be a weapon so the Officer pulls it from the pocket and find stolen goods. Those stolen goods can be used against you in a court of law.

Remember it was the "liberal" Court of the 1950s that decided Terry and the first exception to the Fourth Amendment, technically it was to protect Police Officer from weapons, but has been expanded.

Notice Miranda was NOT made a rule on local Police till 1969, Terry was in the Mid 1950s. Thus the Officer had the right to ask questions of the Moped Riders for the questions were NOT related to what they were being pulled over for (i.e. NOT tied in with traffic stop). Given that the Defendants were NOT suspect of Drug use AT THAT POINT, the Officer had no duty to tell the Defendant his or her rights.

Remember the following; the Police only have to tell you your rights if you are a suspect. A piece of legal advice, if any law enforcement Officer tells you your rights, shut up and call a Lawyer (and if you can NOT afford a Lawyer, just shut up and refuse to answer the questions). When an officer tells you your rights, he or she has evidence that you may have committed a crime or is looking at you as a suspect. Just shut up.

The problem for this Defendant is that he was NOT a suspect for anything else but unsafe driving when he was pulled over. That is all the Officer had on him. The Officer can ask you questions about other things, if you tell him you have drugs on you he then has probable cause to arrest you (and then tell you your rights, including your right NOT to answer his questions). I am sorry, I think the Defendant's conviction will be upheld, probable cause was meet once the Defendant told the Officer he had drugs.