Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Brown" data-source="post: 312797" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>This is partially correct.</p><p></p><p>Obviously an arbitrary witch hunt is not supported by caselaw nor are searches by mere suspicion by police.</p><p></p><p>However the portion about plain view is not correct.</p><p></p><p>The Supreme Court has ruled other behaviors and observations, not necessarily of illegal activity, can justify a search based on probable cause i.e. smell of burnt marijuana, an empty bottle that appeared to have contained an alcoholic beverage, a bullet in plain view and no other notification from the driver regarding the presence of a firearm.</p><p></p><p>None of these are necessarily illegal but I have personally used each of those examples to justify a search that led to the discovery of contraband and was upheld in court.</p><p></p><p>As far as carte blanche searches at the company's request, the company does not own the vehicle. Thus they have no authority to grant consent regardless of where the vehicle is parked.</p><p></p><p>If the company provided evidence or information of illegal (not a company policy violation) activity occuring on company property, that could be considered as possible circumstances that might later justify a search but is not sufficient in and of itself to justify a search.</p><p></p><p>Michael Brown</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Brown, post: 312797, member: 18"] This is partially correct. Obviously an arbitrary witch hunt is not supported by caselaw nor are searches by mere suspicion by police. However the portion about plain view is not correct. The Supreme Court has ruled other behaviors and observations, not necessarily of illegal activity, can justify a search based on probable cause i.e. smell of burnt marijuana, an empty bottle that appeared to have contained an alcoholic beverage, a bullet in plain view and no other notification from the driver regarding the presence of a firearm. None of these are necessarily illegal but I have personally used each of those examples to justify a search that led to the discovery of contraband and was upheld in court. As far as carte blanche searches at the company's request, the company does not own the vehicle. Thus they have no authority to grant consent regardless of where the vehicle is parked. If the company provided evidence or information of illegal (not a company policy violation) activity occuring on company property, that could be considered as possible circumstances that might later justify a search but is not sufficient in and of itself to justify a search. Michael Brown [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom