Wrong.

 

The police only need probable cause to effect the arrest. They can legally conduct a search incident to arrest of the person arrested and the area within that person's immediate control. The purpose is to locate and seize any weapons or evidence that the arrestee may be able to destroy or hide. Although the purpose of the search is to locate and seize weapons and destructible evidence, officers are not even required to show there is reason to believe they may find these things.

 

Chris Henry wasn't arrested. The police need probable cause to arrest, therefore they need probable cause to search. Since Henry wasn't arrested, they would have needed probable cause to search his car, or his permission.

If there is any NFL news you will post it. It's amazing the number of football threads you start in March and April!

 

I'm trying to catch Gametime in posts. :lol:

Come on now we all know good and well if they want to do they are going to do it.

 

If they search him without probable cause, then whatever they find is not admissible in court. You can't claim probable cause after the fact. So if they searched him and had no probable cause (or searched his car without his permission) whatever they find is useless and he's in no trouble. He might get arrested but the charges will get dropped as soon as they find out his rights were infringed upon.

Chris Henry wasn't arrested. The police need probable cause to arrest, therefore they need probable cause to search. Since Henry wasn't arrested, they would have needed probable cause to search his car, or his permission.

 

It never said that he didn't give his permission. Who knows he may have been so happy to have been pulled over without anything in his car that he asked them to search it. :lol:

If they search him without probable cause, then whatever they find is not admissible in court. You can't claim probable cause after the fact. So if they searched him and had no probable cause (or searched his car without his permission) whatever they find is useless and he's in no trouble. He might get arrested but the charges will get dropped as soon as they find out his rights were infringed upon.

 

Of course all they have to say is that they smelled something or saw him reach under the seat in a suspicious manner and then it would be their word against his......Who do you think the judge is more likely to believe?

Game set and match. Have a good life in jail Chris because I don't think we will ever see him in a Bengals uni again.

 

 

Or quite possibly in an NFL uniform of any kind.

Chris Henry wasn't arrested. The police need probable cause to arrest, therefore they need probable cause to search. Since Henry wasn't arrested, they would have needed probable cause to search his car, or his permission.

Terry v. Ohio says otherwise. Police call it a "Terry Stop"

 

LINK

Assuming this was Henry and people in Cincinnati are not randomly blaming Chris Henry for crimes he is gone in a hurry, and we now need Chad even more.

 

Ha we're gonna find out later CJ was the one driving Henry every where.

Terry v. Ohio says otherwise. Police call it a "Terry Stop"

 

LINK

 

The terry stop or "stop and frisk" means police can pat down suspects or people that they are questioning IF they think they have a weapon. The police still have to have reasonable suspicion to perform the pat down, and the police can only be looking for weapons. Reasonable suspicion is only slightly lower than probable cause. If they are searching for weapons and they feel something, they can only take it if it feels like a weapon. If they find drugs they have to be able to prove that it felt like a weapon or they honestly believed it was a weapon. Otherwise that evidence is not admissible in court.

 

All they can do in a terry stop is pat down the outer layer of a persons clothes.

 

I'm also pretty sure police will need more than an expired license plate as reasonable suspicion to perform a "stop and frisk".

 

I've learned all about Terry v. Ohio in my Criminal Procedures class.

The terry stop or "stop and frisk" means police can pat down suspects or people that they are questioning IF they think they have a weapon. The police still have to have reasonable suspicion to perform the pat down, and the police can only be looking for weapons. Reasonable suspicion is only slightly lower than probable cause. If they are searching for weapons and they feel something, they can only take it if it feels like a weapon. If they find drugs they have to be able to prove that it felt like a weapon or they honestly believed it was a weapon. Otherwise that evidence is not admissible in court.

 

All they can do in a terry stop is pat down the outer layer of a persons clothes.

 

I'm also pretty sure police will need more than an expired license plate as reasonable suspicion to perform a "stop and frisk".

 

I've learned all about Terry v. Ohio in my Criminal Procedures class.

 

So from your class when a police officer says, "I think I smell marijuana." Can they then search the car? How many times has that happened?

So from your class when a police officer says, "I think I smell marijuana." Can they then search the car? How many times has that happened?

 

I'm pretty sure if a police officer smells marijuana that is probable cause.

I'm pretty sure if a police officer smells marijuana that is probable cause.

 

And that, in essence is all that had to happen. The police pull Chis Henry over, run his plates and decide that no matter what they smell something. It's just that easy. As for Henry, I think he's a piece of garbage and richly deserves what he's got coming. However, don't think for a minute that if the police want to search your car they really have to have a good reason. This from someone that has never had worse than a speeding ticket and has NEVER had their car searched. It just isn't that hard.

And that, in essence is all that had to happen. The police pull Chis Henry over, run his plates and decide that no matter what they smell something. It's just that easy. As for Henry, I think he's a piece of garbage and richly deserves what he's got coming. However, don't think for a minute that if the police want to search your car they really have to have a good reason. This from someone that has never had worse than a speeding ticket and has NEVER had their car searched. It just isn't that hard.

 

Well I'm sure that a police officer would have a lot of complaints brought against him/her if he/she is constantly searching people for no reason and using the smell of marijuana as the reason. It might not be that hard, but it isn't that easy either.

Well I'm sure that a police officer would have a lot of complaints brought against him/her if he/she is constantly searching people for no reason and using the smell of marijuana as the reason. It might not be that hard, but it isn't that easy either.

 

 

 

See, that's the difference between the classroom and the real world. So maybe it isn't the marijuana smell, maybe the policeman saw the suspect take his hands off of the steering wheel and reach beneath the seat. If they are successful most of the time, and the good cops can tell when that should be their story (and don't get me wrong I'm glad they do) what is going to happen to them? The thing is the good cops know when to make sure they search a vehicle and when not to. You can't search them all but when you know that you should there are plenty of outs as to a reason why.

Chris Henry wasn't arrested. The police need probable cause to arrest, therefore they need probable cause to search. Since Henry wasn't arrested, they would have needed probable cause to search his car, or his permission.

 

I agree with respect to Henry's specific situation for which he received a traffic citation. I was responding to your general statement that "police need to have probable cause to search someone or their vehicle." This is not necessarily true. American courts have long recognized a police officer's authority to conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful custodial arrest. In fact, there are several exceptions in which officers can conduct searches without a warrant and even without probable cause: consent searches; emergency searches; motor vehicle searches; inventory searches; and searches incident to lawful custodial arrest.