Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 04-Jan-2025 21:33:17 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   @896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

   Im not sure if the car would be considered evidence, but even if it was by slashing the tires you in no way destroyed the evidence or made it any harder for the evidence to be used in a court of law. So i cant imagine that angle working.

   As for more probable cause, sure, but if your vehicle is immobile no amount of probable cause will allow a search. Once it is immobile you need a warrant regardless of how strong your probable cause maybe.

   > The premise is also wrong i suppose i need to look more. But i think the focus of the vehicle search doctrine focuses on the vehicles as class of readily mobile locomotive.

   Even simply locking your drugs in a safe in the trunk is enough to require a warrant actually, the premise is intentionally absurd as a joke, using a large safe would get the job done with less theatrics.

   > It can be argued that no matter what you do to a car, a car is redily mobile as long as someone can fix it.

   Im not sure specifically where the threshold for immobility is. But I know I've read a case (cant remember the name) where a warrant was needed because the car was on cinder blocks and didnt currently have tires on it.

   Also all of this is moot because in 2020 the supreme court (PA in this case but it may be upheld in higher courts) dictated all vehicle searches now need warrants regardless of mobility.