http://www.northjersey.com/…

A traffic stop of a vehicle with tinted windows led to the alleged discovery of cocaine and firearms and the arrest of a Bronx man.

On Aug. 12, at approximately 10:26 p.m., Daniel Santana, 25, from the Bronx, was stopped at the intersection of Martha Washington Way and Bruce Reynolds Boulevard.

Fort Lee Police Officer Timothy Cullen pulled over the white 2006 Chevy Impala because the car had blacked out tinted windows, said Capt. Joseph Zevits from the Fort Lee Police Department.

Upon further investigation, Cullen noticed a Philly Blunt, commonly used for inhaling marijuana, on the front seat area of the vehicle. Santana denied smoking marijuana and told Officer Cullen to check the car if he wanted.

Officer Cullen “called his bluff” and found a hidden compartment in the front dashboard of the vehicle with a kilo of cocaine, which could be worth up to $200,000 on the street.

“He may have been going to New York City, but we couldn’t say for sure,” said Zevits. “There was no intention to sell in Fort Lee that we were aware of.”

Also found was a semi-automatic Glock Model 17 handgun, fully loaded, with a high capacity magazine containing more than 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition. The serial numbers on the gun were scratched off.

The alleged perpetrator was also driving with a suspended driver’s license. He did not resist arrest.

Santana was charged with distribution of one kilo of cocaine, possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon while in possession of cocaine, defaced firearm, possession of a large capacity magazine, possession of drug paraphernalia, obstructed window view and driving with a suspended drivers license.

Bail was set by Judge Matthew Fierro at $250,000 without a 10 percent option.

Not that this is an uncommon story but it occurred not far from where I live.

So this Daniel Santana isn’t very bright. Tinted windows where it’s illegal. A Philly blunt on the seat. And then allowing the cops to search the car. The Officer Cullen probably could have justified searching the car on the Philly blunt alone but regardless you *never* give cops permission to search your belongings. It can only turn out worse for you.

Note the scare tactics used in the article regarding the gun. “Semi-automatic.” Well of course it’s a semi-automatic. It’s a Glock Model 17. That’s sortof the point of a pistol over a revolver. Through FUD the media has made a term which describes the most common handguns known to people through TV and movies something scary. Most people don’t even know the difference between automatic and semi nor do they know the laws regarding them. And then the article goes on to say it had a fully loaded, high capacity mag containing more than 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition. That’s completely arbitrary. You can get a 17 round clip for the Glock 17 which fits flush in the gun. Just like the 19 and it’s 15 round clip. Fifteen is just some arbitrary number the State of New Jersey came up with. In NY “high capacity” is 10. We aren’t talking about the 33 round mag here that sticks out of the gun by several inches.

Fact of the matter is this guy, while you may disagree with his apparent choice of employment, was not harming or threatening anyone. His need to conceal the identity of the weapon and to have the weapon in the first place is due to the prohibition on drugs. Theory and history shows that the side effects of prohibition is worse then the problems which stem naturally from the thing prohibited. This young man will likely end up in prison somewhere and as a result of the awful prison industrial complex and judicial system he will come out of prison a far bigger threat to society then even the FUD makes him out to be now. I find it rather unlikely the there weren’t any real crimes with real victims that Cullen could have been dealing with or investigating.

Daniel Santana should be allowed to trade cocaine to whomever wishes to do so, possess any size magazine for his weapon of choice, scratch out any damn serial number on anything he owns and smoke as much marijuana that he can handle so long as he doesn’t aggress against other person. To do otherwise is an aggressive and illegitimate act in what is supposedly free society. The truth is there isn’t liberty here… you are owned by the State.

In January, an Onondaga County sheriff’s deputy pulled over Audra Harmon, who had two of her kids with her in her minivan. A routine traffic stop escalated quickly.

The deputy, Sean Andrews, accused her of talking on her cell phone. She said she could prove him wrong.

He said she was speeding. She denied it and got out of the van. He told her to get back in. She did, then he ordered her back out.

He yanked her out by the arm, knocked her down with two Taser shots and charged her with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. His rationale on the disorderly conduct charge: She obstructed traffic when she got out of the van. The speeding accusation: going 50 mph in a 45-mph zone.

Syracuse.com has the full the story.

http://cbs13.com/…

The California Supreme Court on Monday reinstated the drug conviction of a man based on evidence found during an illegal traffic stop, in a case that had brought the issue of passenger rights before the nation’s highest court.

The unanimous ruling came in the case of Bruce Brendlin, who was riding in a car that was pulled over in Yuba City after a deputy suspected something was wrong with the vehicle’s registration. During the November 2001 stop, a Sutter County sheriff’s deputy found equipment used to make methamphetamine in Brendlin’s possession.

Brendlin challenged his conviction and four-year prison sentence, arguing that the drug evidence should have been suppressed at trial because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. The state had since conceded there was no basis to stop the car.

His appeals reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled last year that passengers, like drivers, have a Fourth Amendment right to challenge the legality of traffic stops.

Brendlin’s case, however, was complicated by the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant against him, which prosecutors said would have justified a search even if passengers can challenge traffic stops. The U.S. justices sent Brendlin’s case back to the state courts to sort out that issue.

In its ruling Monday, the California justices said authorities were allowed to use the evidence because the deputy had recognized Brendlin and discovered the warrant prior to the search.

The continued weakening of the 4th Amendment. So now they can just randomly stop individuals completely without cause and if they then suspect something or supposedly recognize someone of interest? And what gives the cop the authority to search the vehicle when it’s not the person with the warrant. The warrant alone is enough to take the person away. What does that wanted status have to do with the car or building they are in? Does this mean that if I happened to let someone in my home who has a warrant I’m automatically subject to a search without consent?