Okay, I live in Adelaide (South Australia) and recently I got stopped by two cops in a squad car when a friend and I were walking along the footpath (sidewalk for you yanks?).

Anyway, the two cops get out of the car, and start acting like dickheads. Shining their torches in our eyes, being sarcastic/rude, etc.

So, they ask me whether they can search my bag. I say "No sir, I do not consent to you searching my property/my person." without blinking an eye, the cop says nothing, and proceeds to take the bag off of my shoulders. I obviously didn't want to physically stop the cop from doing so, so I say again (very loudly) "I do not consent to a a warrantless search." Again, he does/says nothing and carries on with the search.

He finds a bong, a bottle of vodka, and one MDMA pill. He puts my friend and I in cuffs, and puts us in the back of the car. He asks both of us for I.D, and gave me a 'summons to appear at court' or something along those lines.

My question is, when I go to court, am I going to be able to get off of the charges (possession of alcohol whilst underaged, possession of MDMA, and having drug paraphernalia [sp?]) since the officer searched me without my consent/permission? Or am I fucked? If I'm fucked, what penalty should I expect? I'm a first-time offender.

I'll obviously be seeking legal help next week, but in the mean-time, can anyone either put my mind at rest, or help me so I can start working out what I'm going to do?

Thanks BI.
~21100575.

According to this PDF file http://www.lsc.sa.gov.au/cb_pages/im...0and%20You.pdf

"POLICE POWERS TO SEARCH
Even before an arrest has been made, the police may, without a warrant, search a person or a car if they have
reason to suspect the person holds, or the car contains evidence of a crime, for example, illegal drugs."

Also this from http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch02s02s07.php

"YOUR RIGHTS
If the police want to search you, your car or home:

* ask what offence they are investigating
* ask to see a search warrant
* always ensure that you are present when they conduct the search
* the police may only search you if they suspect you have evidence in relation to a crime or if you are under arrest
* the police must give you a receipt for any seized goods, as soon as possible after seizure compare the receipt with the goods taken "


So take from that what you will.

This is exactly why society has a collective hate for police officers.

- Tom

Who knows it's australia they probably have some BS defenition of probable cause.

Does Australia have a ACLU.
Those guys can help you

I was thinkin' the same thing.

But dude, im afraid the guy who posted the law shit is right. If they are THAT suspicious or have probable cause/Reason to believe (dont they all these days? ) that may. Its bitchy, un-fucking called and so uncool. But it IS. Sorry man, make up bullshit now though. Be like "he touched me!" or something LOL. It's a last shot attempt dude. Or demand he did NOT fulfill his job cause he didnt give you a receipt.

As fucked up as it is there's probably nothing you can do. Even if they didn't have probable cause then it would still be you and your friends word against two police officers, and your word doesn't mean shit against the police.

Police don't really have to have probable cause, just being a minor is enough cause for them to search you. They knew when you said that you had something you didn't want them to see.

fight it. if the cops dont give the court a good reason to think that you had drugs then they had no other right to search your bag. and if you did not have a fucking bag of weed in your hand then they had no reason to search you. just because you look like a drug addict or look rough is not a reason to assume you had something illegal on you. so in court the cops will not be able to say they had a reason to search you.

the cops will try to say the you did in fact consent to searches. at which point you explain to the court "your honor and jury. i know my rights. i know that he had no right to search me. now ask yourself this. if i had a bong and drugs in my bag why would i consent to a search? with knowing that it can be agreed by all that i would not have consented to any searches. and knowing that he had no good reason to search my bag the search was illegal meaning that any evidence confiscated is void. the officer violated my rights and searched my bag when he had no good reason."

"why the possessions contained in my bag were illegal they were seized illegally and the constitution exists to protect me from such unfair treatment. I have faith that the courts will protect my rights and uphold the constitution for what it is. i hope the courts undestand and agree that this is not what america was founded on and finding me guilty today in these courts would be criminal on behalf of the government."

i hope that speech will help you. call a lawyer and have them put in some bigger words and reword it a bit so that way it will be a jaw droping speech. also call some human rights groups. i know some human rights groups have 300,000 people and they will back you bigtime. specially if you are color. the evidence will definetly be overturned and ruled that it was confinscated illegaly.

edit: dont listen to the fcukheads who say you cant do anything. it dont matter if you were a minor or whatever. if you were out past cerfue then they will have had right to search you. but as long as you weren't out past curfue then they had no right.

also. once again cops have to have probable cause/ reason to beleive you have something illegal in order to search you. this cant just be hunch on their part. that is not a reason to search you. it doesn't matter if they saw you walking from a neighborhood known to have drug dealers or if you talked to a known drug dealer. cops are abusing your rights. fight the shit. did you watch that video on youtube. he cop will not be able to provide a good enough reason to have searched you. yes, wit you being a minor and walking around a footpath late at night it would look suspicious. but that is not a reason to warrant a search. cops cannot go off hunches. dont be fooled.

oh yeah...your in australia so change up that speech i gave you.

but the cop will probably lie and say you had the bong out in the open and were taking hits. but of course if you were in the open then obviously you would not have had your bong out in the open and you would have been looking out for the cops and would have put it away as soon as you even heard the slightest sound of an engine or seen the slightest light. so really that proves that the cops would not have seen it. but they still might beleive the cops.

still with a good lawyer you can fight it. and the courts will most likely beleive you. specially if you were not high when they picked you up and if you were out in the open. i mean who would smoke a bong in the fuckin open. in the event that the cop does lie to make the court beleive he had a right to search you (him lying saying he saw you with the bong out).....you will have to be able to convince the court that you did not have it out. and if the place you were at had other people walking then you can use that. or if you were walking along a path that was in the open or was able to be seen by cars driving by then you can use that. have the officer describe if people driving by in their cars can see the footpath. tell when he first saw you. ask him "sir, do you think that when you see a group of shady looking teens walking down a dark footpath that it might appear suspicious to passerbyers."

the cop will answer yes to the last. i mean how could he answer no. if he does have th lawyer play it out and claim the cop answered that way because he knew that by answering yes it would work against him.

what the above does is the following. the cop will descibe in detail what led up to the events. he will have to tell wether A) the footpath was visible from the road or b) it was not visible from the road. then he will have to prove that he saw you with the bong out. now. common sense will tell us the footpath was visible from the road or the officer would not have seen you. now with a good lawyer you could argue that "if the path was visible from the road why would my client have his bong out in the open....i mean, as you answered before you agree, officer, that a group of teens walking down a shady footpath late at night would look suspicious to passerbyers". then have you lawyer argue "my client knew that they appeared suspicious and knowing that why would they have carried there bong out in the open and they would have watched for cars to make sure no one saw you".

hopefully the cop will not think that you are going to fight it and he will not think up lies before the court date. that way when he gets into court he will not be prepared for you to fight it. so he will not be able to make up lies good enough to prove that he had a right to search you. the only way the cops can convince the courts he had a reason to search you is if he can convince the jury you had the bong out in the open. now you will ask the above questions in hopes that he will describe a place out in the open.

then after all of that all you have to have your lawyer say is "your honor and jury. this officer never saw my client with a bong or other illegal possesions out in the open. He saw my client walking down a dark footpath and it appeared suspicious to him. the officer violated my clients rights and illegaly abotined the evidence. with everything that has been said earlier it goes to prove that the officer had no good reason to search my client."

you should be safe. just get a lawyer have him read my post so he can use my god techniques and pray the cop thinks that you will not contest the search. which im assuming he will not think you are going to fight it. if he does and he does happen to think up lies then your lawyer should be able to trap him by asking him question in a certain way.

Except he is not in the US so he has no constitutional rights. But still a nice speach.

yeah.....it was pretty damn good.