Ep

Ep#650 Towing fleeing suspect's car from driveway
Have a search and seizure question in mind?
Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR.
🚨 www.bluetogold...
bluetogold.com...
If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates!
--
Blue to Gold Training:
➜ Class Schedules - www.bluetogold...
➜ On-demand Training - university.blu...
➜ Free Legal Training Webinar - bluetogold.com...
➜ Book Store and Training Materials - www.bluetogold...
CONNECT WITH US:
🌍 Facebook - / bluetogold
📸 Instagram - / bluetogold
🐦 Twitter - / bluetogold
🎥 TikTok - www.tiktok.com....
💌 LinkedIn - / blue. .
#LawEnforcementTraining #PoliceTraining #LegalEducation

[@OffendingTheOffendable]

Corvettes are for chads

[@alexfranzwa6730]

Not an unheard of scenario and explained well. Thanks.

[@enderfal]

I would tend to agree that per the law seizing the car in a public area seems fair game. I would question if it could be deemed a 8th amendment violation later, but to the status now, I think your good. But on private land, by a house, just get the warrant, saves the hassle for everyone. There was I think a fairly recent circuit case for a civil asset was returned where the car was not owned by the arrestee and I could see that being a major issue here. Losing a 80k car because I someone used my car in a way I would never have allowed seems way to excessive to me.

[@mikef4462]

good stuff! thanks

[@kevinfinkelstein5112]

I was looking for a video that my question applied to but couldn't find one. My question is in regard to characteristics of an armed person. My agency says that we are permitted to stop a person (in Maryland) based solely on the characteristics of an armed person. I attended one of your online seminars, and when I brought this up, I was attacked by everyone attending. Am I missing something? Are characteristics of an armed person alone sufficient to stop someone in Maryland?

[@BluetoGold]

This is a split issue between some courts. But at the end of the day, if all the officer has is that there is evidence the person is “armed” without more then I believe it violates the second amendment. And that makes sense. What if this was allowed in Texas? Could the officer just stop and detain every armed citizen? Then the citizen needs to prove to police they have the proper permit? No way. And let’s also not forget about the stereotypes this introduces. The Supreme Court held that states “shall” issue concealed carry permits. Therefore, the presumption is they are a lawful person unless we have some facts to indicate otherwise. Here’s a great case on this issue: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that police violate the Fourth Amendment when they stop people simply because they are carrying concealed guns.
The Friday ruling overturns a 1991 state decision that had held that carrying a concealed gun constitutes reasonable suspicion for police to stop the individual and investigate whether the person has the proper gun license, the Allentown Morning Call reports. How Appealing notes the story and links to the majority opinion and two concurrences (here and here).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in the Allentown case of Michael Hicks, who was spotted on a surveillance camera either putting a gun into his waistband or adjusting his garments around it in the early-morning hours in June 2014. He walked into a convenience store in Allentown with the outline of the gun visible through his shirt. Hicks returned to his car, and police stopped him before he could exit the parking lot.
It turned out that Hicks had a valid license to carry a concealed firearm. But police detected an odor of alcohol, and when they searched Hicks, they said they found a small bag of marijuana in his pocket. Hicks was charged with driving under the influence and possession of marijuana. He was convicted only on the DUI count.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the investigatory stop was not justified under the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio. That case allows police to stop and frisk a person based on a reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and could be armed and dangerous.
In 1991, a Pennsylvania appeals court ruled in Commonwealth v. Robinson that possession of a concealed firearm in public is sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that a person is dangerous, allowing police to briefly detain the individual to check for the proper license. The decision created what is known as the “Robinson rule” in the state.
In the Friday decision, the state supreme court overturned Robinson and said evidence from Hicks’ detention should have been suppressed. Robinson“contravenes the requirements of the Terry doctrine and thus subverts the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment,” the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said.
“We find no justification for the notion that a police officer may infer criminal activity merely from an individual’s possession of a concealed firearm in public,” the state high court said. “Absent some other circumstances giving rise to a suspicion of criminality, a seizure upon that basis alone is unreasonable.”
Some people are barred from gun ownership, and a license is required for a concealed firearm, the court said. But “there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance.

[@seanmcmillan3455]

Isn’t civil forfeiture applicable to felony for profit? How is the suspect car in a pursuit involved in felony for profit?
Great examples of the sweatsuit and dead body in the car. How we do what do matters a great deal.
Why would we take the car for evidence in the first place? I can see a statutory reason to take a car (AZ has a statute for this) but it’s stored at the tow lot. It’s not seized for evidentiary purposes. It’s not like you’re going to get a CDR download for a pursuit.
DNA maaaaayyyyyybe but if you don’t have any reason to believe it was stolen, you’d expect to find the R/O’s DNA in the car. That wouldn’t tell you who was driving that particular moment.

[@iznbrgwhite421]

Did you really say that because someone has an expensive vehicle , that the said expensive vehicle can't be forfeited due to it's value and that being too much of a punishment for a crime ?!! Are you lawyer?!! And why are you standing up for felons committing multiple crimes. This is seriously delusional. It's very simple. You flee, you get your vehicle forfeited.

[@DXT61]

This one is interesting and you raised a scenario that i have wondered about. If an officer is on the section carved out in Florida vs Jardine and is not investigating but doing a knock and talk but observes a marijuana plant by the front door is it plain view? By the way it appears it could be seized. If the plant is beside the house in an area not generally accessible to ordinary citizens then even though it's curtilage, it's curtilage not in the ordinary citizen section so a search warrant is required?

[@sdnlawrence5640]

"As punishment". Don't you have to be found guilty in a court of law (we learned that from Dragnet) before you can be punished? NAL but I think the phrase is due process.