I definitely agree with you that “The proof that was needed to get the occupants out of the car was that they had the license plate cover covering a part of the license plate that was not showing and that was not permitted in the Minnesota law. I think it was standard met for the cop to pull them over because all the cars should have their license plate showing all the letters and numbers.” also, another proof was also the drugs. All of the circumstances were correct. I want to notify you that you did a great job on this whole QTIP. However, it is necessary to reference your entire discussion. I would suggest that maybe putting in a reference. But overall, you truly did amazing explaining all of the standards met and all of the required information for all of the proofs. I also did part two of Riley vs California and I as well agree with you. Overall, you did good.
change this to different words, but same meaning pl
and this one two
Your post for the first part of the discussion is very well done. You explained how the standard of proof was met and if it was there for the specific question. You said that the officer must have had reasonable suspicion to believe drugs were in the vehicle. However, the officer had only pulled the three over for a Minnesota law violation which was the license plate cover covering the license plate. The officer asked the driver if drugs were present, and the driver said no, which prompted the officer to say that a drug dog would be called and it would sniff the driver’s car for drugs. That’s when the driver said yes, and thus began the search and the findings of drugs. Unless the officer had seen drugs on the dashboard or somewhere in his plain view, the officer had no real reason to ask if drugs were in the car. I do agree with you that he did have reasonable suspicion, but it was only after he asked if drugs were in the car. Overall, you did a great job on your post!