So what does it take? Does he actually have to crash his truck first?

Let's see what we have here:

Late night. Check. (not admitted, but presumed)

Driving like he's impaired. Check. In fact, the cop probably would not have flipped a U-turn to pull him over if he was driving right.

People in vehicle have been drinking. Check. Admitted by Josiah, and apparently detectable by the cop.

Jacket thrown over beer case in attempt to conceal it. Check.

How much more do you need for probable cause?????


Why give Josiah false hope that he is going to get this tossed out on some technicality, such as no probable cause to search the vehicle, etc..? Until his lawyer convinces the court otherwise, that's a "Hail Mary" pass play, at best.

 

Just to lighten the mood a little bit:


Surprised anyone?

 

I read most of the post in this thread...
Here are a few problems you will have OP.

The traffic violation was your first and largest mistake which opened the door to everything else. When they asked for your licenses and registration you should have had them easily accessable. You did not. The cops will portray you as a young driver who was uncooperative during every step of a suspected DUI traffic stop. Not a good look to most judges.

The police can give many reasons to a judge not to let you go back in your own glove box after traffic laws have been broken...like fear of you hiding drugs or a gun, so forget about the technical detail of them going in your truck after the traffic violation and the smell of alcohol in the truck.
Top it off with open containers, intoxicated passengers...one underage and it's not a good look in most courts. Many judges I have seen will not let your lawyer talk much but will have plenty to say to you.

You keep looking at this as some sort of contest of who is right and who is wrong and you will most likely get the hammer in court if the judge thinks you are a smart *** or trying to play the system as many do and fail.
Im almost ready to tell you to save your money trying to fight it but who knows...you may get lucky or you may **** the judge off more.

Your age and statistics work against you. Guess what the #1 cause of death for people in your age group is these days?
Right now you need people that tell you the truth and keep it real not friends to make you feel better and go into court with the wrong attitude.

Pray the results of your blood test are positive in your favor but it's still not a good look.
Good luck.

 

good joke...

 

You have to give him credit, he's smarter than most here in that regard,

 

Many, many LOLz...

 

Bypassing a traffic control device (in this case going through a stop sign) does not automatically equate to driving while impaired.

You have added A LOT more than the original statement which I posted. The original statement does not provide for probable cause.

Please re-read the original statement: "Cops cruising along doing his job, sees a nice truck full of a bunch of young kids, and sees you blow a stop sign right in front of him. That right there gives him probable cause to search your vehicle."

Now re-read your post. Do you see a difference?

 

x2 on that one

 

I got to quit reading this thread! You guys are giving me a headache!

 

A friend of mine once told a story about crashing in a field while drunk.
When the cops came he had a beer in his hand and said he started drinking after the crash. He said he actually beat the ticket because the cop never saw him driving and couldn't tell for sure if he was drunk before the accident or afterwards and couldn't charge him with DUI.
Instead he got charged with drunk in public.

 

I'm far from an expert on this subject Bill but the way a cop explained it to me is that if he sees you run a stop sign, he then asks himself
"Ok why did he do it?
- Is he tired?
- Drunk?
- on drugs?
- Poor visibility?
- Just careless or negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle?"

it's entirely in the realm of possibility that an impaired driver is likely to violate some sort of traffic law due to being impaired, and therefore depending on many circumstances, this can be probable cause.

Let me ask you this:

Suppose Josiah was smashed, he was chitfaced 3 sheets to the wind and blew the stop sign.
Are you of the opinion that running the stop sign alone isn't enough for the officer to investigate further, or does he actually have to smell Josiah's breath and see him slur? So if he acts 'perfect', but the cop keeps poking around and then discovers that he is drunk as a skunk, should this information be inadmissible in your opinion?

I'm not being an ***, but really asking a sincere question.
How do you think it should play out?

 

The cop may also ask himself could they be fleeing from a crime?

If Josiah had done nothing wrong and nothing was found wrong in the vehicle all his arguments would be valid. Anyone can tell the officer no to a search.
Doesn't mean they cant search but it makes their job harder and you look worse if they eventually find anything. Same with the refusal to blow.

To the cop and the judge, he was stopped for a traffic violation. Alcohol was smelled. Further investigation found other criminal violations AND the driver was uncooperative.

When I used to drive thru Texas I would frequently see them with travelers on the side of the road with all the luggage out of the car, searching/with dogs just for speeding.

 

They find tons of drugs coming thru the state that way.

 

You are assuming too much here. How do you know their vehicle is being searched "just for speeding". Speeding was the initial offense the vehicle was pulled over for. When the officer starts asking questions things may not jive. Whose car is this, where are you going, what relation are you to the passenger. If the questions are answered differently by the driver and passengers that shows they may be hiding something.

Don't always assume someone is being searched just for speeding. I've been pulled over between Dallas and Shreveport when i was driving a Ryder truck because I was missing a mud flap. It was 2 am, Ryder was painted over on the truck, and I'm in a known drug corridor. Sure they were just looking for an excuse to pull me over, but I didn't have anything to hide. I just got a warning.

There is a moral to the story. Don't break the law; PERIOD. If you are doing something illegal don't complain when you get caught. If you are hiding something or breaking the law you deserve to pay the consequences.

 

Yes, it is in the realm of possibility just like its in the realm of possibility that a driver runs a stop sign because he/she is trying to conserve gas and lessen brake wear.

Or that the driver attempted to apply the brakes, but because of a mechanical malfunction they did not engage.

Or that the driver is having a medical emergency and is unable to apply the brakes.

There are many reasons people run stop signs and they are not all because the person is under the influence.

The point is, just because someone runs a stop sign does not automatically give probable cause to expect them to be under the influence or to search the car. Other factors must come into play.

As I've said, running a stop sign in itself is not enough. Every DUI stop I conducted when I was in law enforcement was because of the way the person was driving, yet they did not automatically lead to vehicle searches. In fact, vehicle searches in DUI/DWI stops were rare. And running a stop sign does not automatically lead to a vehicle search. If you truly believe it does, then why do you not see vehicle searches being conducted every time a person gets pulled over for a traffic infraction?

You can be as paranoid as you want and suspect everybody on the road of having a trunk full of drugs/contraband/dynamite/biological weapons/nuclear warheads/whatever, but just because you may have an active imagination does not give you probable cause to search every car you pull over.

As for the DUI portion, certainly the smell of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the driver's breath, slurred speech, and so on would provide reasonable suspicion that the person could very well be under the influence. This is something observed after you approach the vehicle, not simply from seeing the vehicle run a stop sign. Some of the other factors (before the stop) may be: is the driver changing speeds (speeding up & slowing down), crossing the center line, weaving in their lane, etc. which would provide suspicion of the possibility the driver is under the influence. But implying that running a stop sign means the driver is under the influence and that their vehicle can automatically be searched is absurd.

Also, the smell of an alcoholic beverage does not mean the driver is under the influence. The legal limit in the U.S. is 0.08%. This is why field sobriety tests are performed and breathalyzers / blood tests are given, because you can't tell by sight/smell/field sobriety tests alone. For example, there have been drivers I've given field sobriety tests and they failed so miserably that I wondered how they could even stand, yet they were just barely over the limit and other times I would think the person was borderline, and they would be three times over the limit.