DrugBuyers.Com: Busted for possession...please help I'm scared

I understand what you are saying and I somewhat agree and do know the case law you are referring to. I worded the point I was trying to make somewhat wrong. And was mixing the actual law with what the police officer is going to do from my personal experience.

A police officer can search your car without a warrant with probable cause and can do a plain view search without a warrant. Correct. The thing is that probable cause is a broad term to say the least. In her situation the police officer had probable cause due to the fact he evaluated her driving and believed her to be under the influence of alcohol or a drug which would act as probable cause for a search. The point I was trying to make is that the laws for searching a vehicle or not equal to that of searching a home and police officers can find probable cause easily.

I have seen them say that it was a suspicious looking vehicle or suspicious looking person that fit the description of a stolen vehicle etc... and that has acted succesfully for a warrantless search. As well, as the smell of say alcohol and/or marijuana. For instance I was at a friends house when I was younger and was in a back room while people in the front were smoking marijuana w/o my knowledge. The police were called due to a noise complaint and someone at the house opened the front door to two police officers, the police officers wanted to search the house so the owners asked me if they had to allow them to. (thinking I could come up with some kind of legal reason why they couldn't because they knew they were in troube) I said to have them get a warrant and they of course said they did not need a warrant due to probable cause "smelling the marijuana". They came in and searched the house found the marijuana arrested the person that it belonged to and they contacted a good attorney with the defense of a warrantless search and the judge ruled that the search was legal due to probable cause of 2 police officers smelling the marijuana before they entered the premises. ( Not saying the above poster is wrong just stating an actual experience).

The point is there are ways to get around searching a home without a warrant and the law regarding vehicles is more lax, it is much easier for a police officer to search a vehicle without a warrant. My vehicle has been searched without a warrant, without any probable cause, and without my consent. I was using a payphone at a public place when the place was closed. They of course did not find anything to use in court against me and I wonder how that would have went down in court.

Anyway, I should have been more specific I just did not want the poster to get his/her hopes up of having the charges dropped due to illegal search of the vehicle. Especially with them giving up all of that damming information, and taking the field sobriety test, as well as the urinalysis which proved him/her to be intoxicted and proved the possession charge in his/her own words.

To answer the question about whether or not it will help that they took those test 2 hrs later. I would think the answer would be no, and that infact it would mean that your blood alcohol level would have been even higher 2 hrs earlier. I agree that you should never take the sobriety test if you have had anything to drink at all. You will be charged with failing to take the blood alcohol test, which they will say is basically an addmission of guilt in court. But when taking the test you are just giving the police officers the evidence they need to convict you, they are going to take you to jail anyway at least when you are in court they don't have the actual proof. Just my opinion.

--------------------
~~~ Karma ~~~