Snoop Dog Arrested at California Airport

S

stephen426

New member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15441189/

While I know that he has a prior criminal history, what right does the police actually have to search his vehicle for a
vehicle code violation
Click to expand...
? Try not to take into consideration what you guys think of him as a musician or as a person, or the fact that he was found to possess drugs and a gun, but focus on the law here. Is a "vehicle code violation", whatever the hell that means, sufficient to search his vehicle?

Seems like illegal serch and seizure to me. This will probably get tossed out in court.
 
With that article being the only "fact-file" to base a judgement on I don't think there is enough information to make an educated assumption. For example, we don't know what the leo's saw (or smelled) to give them possible probable cause for a search of the vehicle. To many variables as it sits right now IMHO. Could be bogus, could be legit.
 
snoop dogg with a gun

Shouldn't he being a felon in possession be prosecuted under PROJECT EXILE just like other criminals. This criminal happens to be famous who cares. We need to look at this one carefully as to how they will handle it. as I know the law if he is merely in close contact with the firearm and is a felon he can be prosecuted.
 
Depends upon the probable cause the officers acted on. Chimel v. California allows officers to search the immediate areas under the suspects control with an arrest.. Did marijuana smoke/smell come out the window. Was the gun visible? The news report has too little info in it.
 
WARNING: Quotation marks are used to denote figurative language, NOT a citation to actual case law...

Search and seizure law concerning automobiles was basically gutted, beginning with a case called Terry v. Ohio. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled (and it's been awhile since I've read it, so the details are fuzzy) basically that a police officer can stop your car for ANY kind of traffic, vehicle, or ordinance violation (a "reasonable suspicion" standard). And, ONCE they have your vehicle stopped, they can search any area of your vehicle "within reach" of the driver or any of its occupants in order to "ensure the safety of the officer" (look for weapons). In other words, they can search the cab and do a pat down on all of the people in the car. Then, after they do this, they can re-evaluate whether they have discovered sufficient Probable Cause to do a full-on search of the rest of the vehicle.

What this means is, there essentially is NO 4th Amendment when you're in your car. The cops can stop you for almost ANY reason, no matter how petty, and they can search you and the cab of your vehicle WITHOUT probable cause. (Next time you drive, pay close attention to exactly HOW MANY traffic violations you commit. Speeding, lane change without signaling, crossing the lines, lights off when it's "dusky", etc...)

So, to answer your question: Yeah, they probably can get away with the search of Snoop Dog.
 
I think if he can remain out of prison, he will continue to carry a gun any chance he gets. Likely there are those around him with criminal histories and/or character flaws, and frankly Snoop doesn't want to end up like Tupac and Biggie.
 
What this means is, there essentially is NO 4th Amendment when you're in your car. The cops can stop you for almost ANY reason, no matter how petty, and they can search you and the cab of your vehicle WITHOUT probable cause.
Click to expand...


The following is only my opinion. However, based upon what Samarui is saying in the two sentences above, an American Citizen has no Constitutional right to travel, nor to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects.

The dictionary defines effects as: goods; movables; personal property

To declare that there is essentially no 4th Amendment protection when one is in one's car, and that no probable cause is necessary previous to infringing upon the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects seems to be saying that the IVth simply does not exist. Our effects, consist of anything at all within our cars. I would think that an LEO would have to have probable cause to BELIEVE one of those effects was a specific illegal substance or object.

The Supreme law of the land (the Constitution itself) states that we are not just to be secure in our houses, but in our effects also, which is defined as a movable object.

I sure hope that is not the case, as that would mean the IVth Amendment does not exist at all.
 
"I sure hope that is not the case, as that would mean the IVth Amendment does not exist at all."

A careful reading of the "Military Commissions Act" together with another Bush signed the same day called something like "The John Warner Military Appropriations Law" pretty well cancels out the entire BoR and its parent Constitution if the sitting President really wants total control. The one can be used to declare anybody an "enemy combatant" and deny them habeus corpus and the other grants the power to call up federal troops to restore order in any national emergency. The national emergency du jour could be anything the sitting President says it is.
Bush II may not use either of these laws tyrannically, but the Kaiser didn't round up and kill a bunch of Jews either, did he? He just passed a law that Hitler found useful.
:barf:
 
In Texas the only traffic offense you can not be arrested for is speeding. Once arrested the officer can search the immediate areas under your contol for his safety. If you have some contraband or illegal object in plain sight its game over.

The ruling in Terry V Ohio would have applied if the officer had witnessed suspicous behavior with a reasonable belief that a crime was to be committed. If Mr. Snoop hadnt committed the traffic violation he probably wouldnt be in the news as traveling to and from the airport in a private auto is a normal activity.

Based upon the article there was no probable cause until the traffic violation was committed. With a search incident to the arrest for committing a traffic violation the officers could search the areas that would be within the drivers reach to ensure thier safety.

***disclaimer***

This is all assumption based upon the posted article which may or may not be right. Your court justice mileage may vary due to the sitting judge and the skill or lack of skill on the part of the prosecutor and the lawyer for the defendant.
*********
 
Duh

Hmmm Lets see.......
This guy, Broadus, sings songs that basically say its fun to shoot cops and beat up women :eek: :barf:

Are you suprised the cops use all the tools they have to arrest him :rolleyes:
 
Im not going to rag on him for having a gun or smoking weed(though he did swear that he had given up the herb).

Whats sad to me is that a common thug like this is looked upon by todays youth as someone to be admired.

He has absolutely no talent, though he was pretty good as a crack dealer in "Training Day", but he was in his element there, so no kudos for that.
 
I've heard that once a felon, always a felon. What I mean by this is, if the officer reconized who was in the car as a felon, by sight, does this allow for a legal search?
 
Terry/Chimel frisks are legal. IIRC, "Snoop Dog" (whatever his real name is) has managed to earn his street cred by being indicted for one violent crime or another. Aw hell, let's look it up real fast:
Ah. Here we go.

Other Known Disturbances and Arrests:
1990s - Snoop Dog was arrested for possession of cocaine. Over the next three years he spent time in and out of prison.

July 1993 - Snoop was stopped for a traffic violation and a firearm was found by police while conducting a search of his car. In February 1997 he plead guilty to one count of being an ex-felon in possession of a handgun and was ordered to record three public service announcements, pay a $1,000 fine, and serve three years probation.

August 1993 - Snoop was charged for being an accomplice to the murder of Phillip Woldermarian. In February 1996, with the help of attorney Jonnie Cochran, Snoop was found not guilty of all charges but voluntary manslaughter, on which the jury deadlocked.

May 1998 - Snoop Doggy Dogg was arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession. He was fined of $100, plus a $170 penalty assessment fee and a $100 payment to the Victim's Restitution Fund, for a total cost of $370.

October 2001 - Snoop was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, after his tour bus was stopped and searched in Ohio. In May 2002 he pleaded no contest to the charge and was fined a total of $398.30 and a suspended 30-day jail sentence.

April 2003 - Snoop Doggy Dogg's bodyguard, McKinley Lee, was grazed by a bullet after unknown assailants showered Snoop Dog's car and other cars in his entourage with bullets.

August 2003 - Snoop was named in an affidavit claiming that he and the makers of the "Girls Gone Wild: Doggy Style" tape lured two underage girls to take their tops off for the camera by offering them marijuana and ecstasy. The suit was settled in July 2004.
Click to expand...

If you want to act like a criminal, and be seen as a Bad Man, and want all the creds that come with it, don't be shocked when the cops start treating you accordingly.

Chimel v. California expanded the Terry frisk to include the arm's reach of anyone in a vehicle. Often referred to as the "wingspan" search. It's only a look for weapons, but if during that check another item that is clearly and immediately recognizable as illegal is found, it may be seized.
 
In Texas the only traffic offense you can not be arrested for is speeding. Once arrested the officer can search the immediate areas under your contol for his safety. If you have some contraband or illegal object in plain sight its game over.
Click to expand...

Can someone verify this statement? This sounds absolutely bogus. If it is indeed true, someone can be arrested for any stupid traffic violation. Speeding, on the otherhand, is an arrestable offense in many states if the speed is 30 mph over the speed limit (or double the limit in lower speed limit zones).

Like I originally said, try to leave your personal opinions about Calvin Broadus. It seems that some of you guys feel that it is okay to search someone for just about any reason just because they have a criminal background. There are actually laws that protect those who have served their time (and supposedly their debt to society).

Personally, I don't care about Calvin Broadus or his "music", but I do care about "questionable" search and seizure since it can affect anyone of us.
 
Hookay...

Like I originally said, try to leave your personal opinions about Calvin Broadus.
Click to expand...

Let's start over. Keep in mind my last "refresher" on this stuff was circa 1981.

1. Incident occurred at an airport - specifically a loading zone.
Since 9/11 the Feds/FAA and other authorities have restricted loading zones for both passengers and freight. For passenger loading zones someone has to be with the vehicle at all times and you must be actively loading or unloading passengers. The report does not indicate the nature of the "violation". Let's assume for the moment that there was a violation and the authorities made contact ("move along bud" or "let me see your license").

2. During the course of detaining the vehicle and associated persons for a vehcile code violation, the officer is authorized to look into the vehicle from any exterior angle desired. Should any evidence of crime, contraband or suspicious activities come to any of the officer's senses, he may investigate further.

3. Supposing the officer has probable cause (i.e. refusal to provide IDs, an odor of intoxicating substances, suspicously shaped items, etc.) he may order the vehicle vacated and perform a cursory search of the vehicle and occupants.
3.A: Cursory search. The officer may enter the vehicle to retrieve visible evidence/suspicous items, look under seats, in ashtrays, unlocked consoles, etc. He may not open locked compartments nor open locked/sealed items such as packages, luggage, briefcases, gloveboxes or the trunk, unless he has evidence sufficient for an arrest. (He will need a warrant to open such items.)
3.B: The officer may perform a pat-down search of the subjects for his/her own safety. During such pat-down search, any item on the person that is not identifiable by touch and which may be either a weapon or contraband may be removed and examined.

4. The officer runs the IDs of the persons. No wants or warrants return. However, a certain Mr. Broadus pops up as a convicted felon. Depending on what evidence was uncovered during the initial search (and how far the officer(s) went in that search) may either nail his slats to the barn or allow him to walk away ...again.

Keep in mind, Broadus may have had time left on a parole or other judicial restriction which allow officers broader discretion to search.

Also keep in mind that one of the fastest ways to be allowed to inspect the local jail facilities is to be a known felon, start talking trash to the cops and refusing to cooperate.

Other notes:
For those not familiar with krazy Kalifornia laws on firearms, the state deems that a loaded magazine in the vehicle with the firearm is, under law, a loaded gun -- even if the magazine is in the glove box and the gun is in the trunk.

Those of you with more current LEO experience will no doubt show me where my knowledge is sadly out of date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top