TexasCHLforum.com

I agree that the incident described was an illegal search, because the officer did not have probable cause.

But if they taught you in civics class that a search warrant is always required for a search, they were wrong. The police can search a vehicle or pedestrian without a warrant, if they have probable cause. They can do a weapons pat-down without even that, and sometimes those pat-downs result in finding other evidence (typically drugs).

Another point to be introduced here: Police can perform illegal searches. However, judges generally will not allow evidence obtained from an illegal search to be used in a trial. Sometimes these issues go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, even if the case is thrown out, the victim of the illegal search has an arrest record, legal bills, and often loses whatever was seized.

- Jim

KBCraig wrote:Ross derives from Carroll, and in both cases probable cause is required.

Having an expired CHL in your wallet is not PC ...

And BTW, Carroll was a terrible ruling.

Probable cause is required. A search warrant is not.

I agree with you on the other points. The Supreme Court has made a hash of this area of law.

There was a case a few years ago where the police searched a motorist because he had an NRA bumper sticker. That is also not legitimate probable cause.

- Jim

Google Carroll v. United States and United States v. Ross. The police have never needed a search warrant to search a vehicle.

- Jim