Leaf owner arrested for plugging in at school

[Raza]

What do you mean?  Taxes and such fund parks.  Therefore, we get to use and enjoy them.  If you want to start using extra electricity at the park to charge your Leaf, somebody has to pay for it.  Which means taxes go up.  This is why you often have to pay to rent public parks for large events and/or or pay fees for utility use.

Taxes fund public schools, too, that can't be the argument here.  And his kid was at that school, so it's not like he was pulling up to it for no reason. 

[Raza]

A non-issue. Assuming it was a legitimate unlawful warrantless search of his car (and, given that vehicles frequently fall under warrant exceptions, that is not necessarily the case...nor are warrantless searches per se unreasonable or illegal), nothing indicated that anything found in the car is being used against him. The remedy of an unlawful warrantless search is the evidentiary loss of anything recovered. Nothing recovered from the search = no loss.

Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now?  I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.

[NomisR]

Oh, so all of a sudden, we're for regulation when it comes to outlets?  Very inconsistent. 

ordinance isn't necessarily regulations but simply can be used to clarify what constitutes as free for public use. 

[NomisR]

Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now?  I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.

I thought they would need permission before they tear apart my car leaving my belongings on the side of the road for me to pick up. 

[sparkplug]

It's really false advertising to call a car a leaf when it doesn't run on leaves.. heck you can't even plug it into a tree.

[Tave]

Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now?  I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.

The guy was parked illegally in front of a loading dock with his doors open. The police wanted to ID him so he could move his car. I suppose they could have called a tow truck instead.

[Soup DeVille]

The guy was parked illegally in front of a loading dock with his doors open. The police wanted to ID him so he could move his car. I suppose they could have called a tow truck instead.

I think that would have been legally preferable.

The door was unlocked, not open.

[Catman]

Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now?  I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.

Automobile Exception - Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the "automobile exception," this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).

[Raza]

The guy was parked illegally in front of a loading dock with his doors open. The police wanted to ID him so he could move his car. I suppose they could have called a tow truck instead.

Didn't realize he was parked illegally.

[Raza]

Ah, so it is the probable cause thing.  Which is essentially willy-nilly.

[NomisR]

So, the officer was searching for?   uh... stolen electricity???

[Catman]

Ah, so it is the probable cause thing.  Which is essentially willy-nilly.

You asked about it and I gave you the answer.  Its been argued a billion times in court, no need for me to get into it.

[Catman]

So, the officer was searching for?   uh... stolen electricity???

It explains automobile searches without warrants which is what Raza asked.  I wasn't relating it to this case.

[TurboDan]

It explains automobile searches without warrants which is what Raza asked.  I wasn't relating it to this case.

It actually would be interesting to see how arguments would go about this search if it went to a higher court.

If the stated reason for the search was to find out who owned the vehicle, I would wonder if a judge would toss the search because that information was easily obtainable without conducting a search, simply by running the plate. And is a desire to find out who owns an illegally parked vehicle justification enough to search the vehicle – especially one that is, by its nature, parked.