Wasn’t that decision overturned a couple years ago? erroneous reference was fixed
Goddammit yes. I am fully aware of Gant, had actually scripted this accordingly… and screwed it all up by trying to crank this out in the middle of the night off the top of my head. Dammit dammit dammit. Will fix this after work.
Thank god for class participation, is all I can say. And mea maxima culpa. erroneous reference was fixed
I’ve been there.
Raen, you just earned yourself a free shirt from the alumni store. Email me your size and where you want me to deliver it.
Can’t believe it took me this long to realize, but is ol’ Blue a reference to a car driven by a certain wizardly private eye?
I don’t know, it’s missing the multicolored doors and other “features”.
Is there no image because of Raen’s comment, i.e. it was taken down?
Yeah, it was bad info, I’ll be putting it back up after I get home and fix it.
I’m confused as to the reason the cops are allowed to search the passenger area of the car, but are not allowed to search the trunk. If the justification for searching the passenger area is to find evidence of the crime they were arrested for, why doesn’t that also apply to the trunk? Is it just that the passenger area was “near” reach at the time of arrest, while the trunk is not, or is there some other principle at work here?
I just asked on a previous page, but perhaps because the trunk counts as a locked container. (You need keys to open it and there was no passenger inside it.) Hopefully, he’ll clarify.
One would hope there’s no passenger inside! Pretty sure that’d be a flagrent MV violation, and depending on context, could invite an unwelcome visit from ICE.
So finding a small amount of contraband on someone gives you probable cause that they’ve got more? Looks like the D&D players got off lightly after all; they could have had their whole house torn apart.
hey, if the police find a locked box during the search and break it open to search it, can you get them to pay for the box/lock they’ve broken? those can be expensive.