I dont understand. I was pulled out of a vehicle in AZ last night, searched, then stood by as the police went through my vehicle, leaving everything tossed and discheveled. I had done nothing wrong and nothing was found. The policeman never asked if he could search the vehicle. I was not arrested although I didnt have insurance. I never knew not having proof of insurance was enough to search the car-I had done nothing criminally wrong.

That seems to be the case. I've been involved and witness several occurrences of this. The police routinely search just about anything that they come across simply because they know the average person is unaware of this ruling. Either that or they rely on threats of towing your vehicle or impounding it if you do not cooperate. There is no justice in today's world without it being infracted upon. Check with a lawyer about whether or not you can do anything. The answer is probably "no", but you do leave with the added knowledge that if this ever happens again, sue the a$$holes!

Vehicle was search because the law is that if the driver has a suspended license they impounded the car in the state of Arizona.
Searching the car, they found a pipe under the back seat.

Facts:
The inventory of the property inside the car, they did not list anything. There were closed bgs, breifcase, clothes shoes c's things in the glove box. wigs, woman's makeup, mans shaving equipment .

They used the inventoy of the car to allow them to search it. Found a glass pipe under the rear seat, it is a four door car and the only way was to pull out the bench seat in the rear of the car. The proplem is that the police never inventory any personal property, just the glass pipe.

The traffic stop was for changing lanes, suspended license and not carrying up to date insurance card in the vehicle.

The driver of the car went to traffice court. Now the changing lanes charge were dismissed. No insurance was dsmissed.
The suspended license charge was changed to Driving without carrying a license paid a fine.

Question: If the traffic charge Changing lanes gives the right to stop the vehicle . That charge was dismissed, is that stop the legal right to impound the car? Suspended license charge was dropped to not have a driver license to show the police. and the no insurance, did have insurance and showed the court and that was dismissed.. I know at the time the computer report showed that th license was suspended, but that was wrong, the suspention was safified in 10/07. Is it the law 'FRUIT FROM THE POSISON TREE, Does that come into play?

The p/o testifed at the probable cause hearing, and the police report are not the same, nder oath the p/o lied or prejury. The audio tape is available and the police report is gotten already

I RESIDE IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AND I AM GONG THROUGH A SIMILAR SITUATION NOW I AM A BLACK MALE IN A SMALL MAJORITY WHITE TOWN AND I AM INTERESTED IN THE RULING OF THIS CASE AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF MY LAWYER COULD USE THIS CASE IM MY SITUATION BEING THAT I AM IN NORTH CAROLINA THANK YOU

We dont get pay by the amount of dope, guns, or shit heads we take of the street. I get pay the same no matter what and it goes up every year! More guns and dope in your comunity go ahead find ways to interpret the 4th Amendment. I have a gun, badge and a vest. I'll be ok :). You better learn to find your own car when it is stolen, find the tweaker who took your property and is sniffing your wife pennys from the burglary he pulled at your place, first aid for when you get stab, shot at, or beaten. Beacuse i do a lame job when i find out my "victim" is a shit head

The preceding comment was in support of the original post. I did not make that clear in the post, and it appeared after a post that was clearly the prose of an uneducated right wing armchair quarterback with a shady past. I in no way wanted anyone to think I was remotely supporting this nut.

Dear Chief Justice Berch:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter once said: "The Court's authority possessed of neither the purse nor the sword ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.” Baker v Carr, 82 S.CT. 691

The public hopes that Ruth McGregor’s resignation and your election as Chief Justice signal a sincere effort by the legal community to restore confidence in the Arizona Supreme Court.

As you know, Canon 2 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct states:

“Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny…”

As publisher of Common Sense II, I am committed to holding all Arizona government institutions—including the courts—to the high standards the public expects as set forth in the Rule of Law. Therefore; from time to time I will bring to your attention, within your administrative capacity, various issues of public concern such as those listed below:

I Will you continue former Chief Justice Ruth McGregor’s policy of sending documents to the lower courts to address the “political concerns” of citizens, and those of radical, race based political activist groups such as Los Abogados? If so, will you also include your own letter of endorsement, even though such action creates the impression of partiality?

II How can the Commission on Judicial Conduct effectively carry out their responsibility to protect the public interest when their offices are located down the hall from yours and they appear to be subordinate to your authority as Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court?

As you are aware, “the test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence, is impaired.” A.C.J.C. Canon 2

On a personal note: Members of the Pima County legal community inform me they hold you in high regard. They assure me you will strive to restore and enhance confidence in our legal system, and our courts. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to assist you in this endeavor.

Yours truly,

Roy Warden, Publisher
Common Sense II
(520) 881-0535
roywarden1@netzero.net

Cc:

Selected members of the Arizona Legislature and Senate, media outlets, political activist groups including Los Abogados and the Minutemen, and, 1500 Pima County lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and other legal professionals who currently subscribe to Common Sense II.