New warrantless search laws

If a person is ok with being searched that is fine. I do not want the voice of ignorance from others to lead anyone to believing we are forced to do things we are greatly protected against.
There should be common sense applied in every thing. If I was stopped by an officer for speeding(and guilty) and he asked if he could search my vehicle I would ask him if I was going to get a warning or a ticket. If he told me a warning I would tell him to search anywhere he wanted. If he told me I was going to get a ticket I would say, "Ok thanks but no you do not have my permission to search my vehicle."
Everyone should be familiar with Terry V Ohio 392 U.S. 1(1968). In this case the courts held that "reasonable" is;

, Terry V Ohio 392 U.S. 1(1968), Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Also;

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Terry V ohio led to Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032(1983), which included the glove compartment with reasonable suspicion and not just because.
I might note that almost every state has state constitutions that parallel the Constitution of the United States. This would give state law precedence even on matters covered by the constitution. This also means that there is duel protective laws.
I am thinking that most do not recognize the importance of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and "due process" or exactly how far reaching this is.
The courts have held that a Terry Stop can include a person, with the famous "reasonable suspicion", the area around the drivers seat, and the glove box if reasonably accessable by the driver. Bear in mind that specific and articulable facts must be used to determine reasonable suspicion and not just a hunch or being nosey. An officer must reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. With the Supreme Court ruling Arizona v. Gant, 07-542, if a driver is not in a vehicle the vehicle will be off limits to search.
Probable cause is a different story.

otr500(2009).

We did not gain our liberties over night. It took many years and lots of bloodshed. These same liberties can be leeched away from us without any bloodshed. Let us keep this country free. We do not want future generations to have to read in a closet how it use to be, or read of the fall of America in the same book with the fall of Rome.

 

You are absolutely right! Read my last post that I wrote before reading this.
However, the scenario you list would fall under reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. If my license plate matched there would be probable cause.
However, my vehicle matching a description of one involved in a crime would probably be explained to me prior to the asking of a search. I would then have the opportunity to ask what was stolen and what was being searched for. I could then decide if I wanted to help the police determine that I am not a suspect or that I had the time to kill to wait for a warrant. Knowing that I was innocent and by complying be cleared as a suspect, the police could be freed up to look for the real perpetrater, I would be more inclined to comply. This would be my choice.
I would also like to state that there would still be, lacking any evidence that could be seen or some matching clothes, slim reason for reasonable suspicion and certainly not probable cause. This can be affirmed by
Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223 (1964), and Terry V Ohio.
Example: Did the witness know the make of the vehicle or just that it was a 4 door silver car? Was there a good description of the perp or just that he was about middle aged wearing glasses? It doesn't take much to make an illigal search or arrest but it does take more for a conviction.
My concern is not with an officer of the law performimg a job that might take a bad guy off the streets. My concern is with law enforcement officers that usurp authority that is not granted to them.
I was running teams hauling cars through Georgia. I had ran 10 hours hard and was wore out. I had been in the sleeper 2 hours when a very bright light and someone yelling to get up awoke me with a fright. I was told to get out of the vehicle. I did as I was told to find 3 police cars around the truck. We had the B.O.L's for every vehicle, the keys, and the dispatch sheet. A police officer spent over an hour climbing all over the truck to verify the numbers matched. I was very upset and was threatened with arrest. I told the officer to arrest me. I was not co-opereative at all. My co-driver had given permission to search. They could certainly have found a stolen car before waking me. Until the officer got off the truck I had one officer with his hand on his gun by my side.
Of course all the cars were legal and a police officer told me that they had stopped a car hauler 2 days earlier that had stolen cars on it. I was furious and asked did that mean all car haulers were illigal?
The chief apologized later that day and assured me he would take steps(sure he would) to ensure this didn't happen again.
I would never have let them search the truck without a warrant or wake my co-driver for no reason. I got that driver off my truck as soon as we got back to the yard.
The point is that this was 5 cops hoping to find more stolen cars. This is why we need, and have, laws to protect us. The stop was illigal the search was not. There was no crime, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause for the stop. There was even a sergeant there.