Dayseed Dayseed:
stratos stratos:
$1:
Wow, that's quite a leap to make. Yer comparing drunk driving legislation to nazi Germany??
I'm comparing random stoping and searching to random stoping of ppl by Nazi Germany.
Well that's just an asinine comparison.
Also, Eyebrock, I know it's a stretch between articulating searching for further grounds of the offence in the backseat and just having a good ol' peep, that's why I said a good officer would forgo any talk of evidence gathering and stick to officer safety arguments. Why open up a messy can of worms when you don't have to? Just ask Sgt "Cause-A-Feeney". All he had to say was that he went into the trailer because Feeney was in a
goddamn violent car crash and he feared he was
bleeding to death rather than the circular logic of going into arrest him for the evidence he needed to arrest him for the evidence he needed to arrest him.
I'm just happy people here are referring to case-law authority rather than puking up opinion.
It's funny you should mention Feeney. I was talking with a defence type chum on Feeney and he said that nobody will go near any Feeney type breaches because it's considered bad case law. It's fuuny, I have yet to hear of a case tossed for a Feeney breach.
I think 'plain-view' has stood the test of time and the R vs Grunwald is s good, reasoned decision. But articulation by police is as vital as proving mens rea in an accused.
Interesting stuff and always fun to debate law issues with you!