[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
A police officer stopped the defendant for speeding and for having an improperly tinted windshield. After a brief discussion with the defendant, the officer realized that he was aware of โintelligence on [the defendant] regarding narcotics.โ The officer noticed a weapon when the defendant opened the car door in an (unsuccessful) attempt to locate his registration and insurance papers. He placed the defendant under arrest for speeding, driving without his registration and insurance documentation, carrying a weapon, and improper window tinting with the expectation of conducting an inventory search of the defendantโs vehicle. During an inventory of the vehicleโs contents, the officer discovered a controlled substance. The defendant moved to suppress this evidence on the grounds that the arrest was a pretext and sham to search.
Whether the officerโs subjective intent is relevant in determining the reasonableness of a seizure?
No. The officerโs subjective intent is immaterial in evaluating whether a seizure is reasonable.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Whren, in which it noted its โunwillingness to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers.โ The subjective intent of the officer making the seizure plays no role in determining whether probable cause to affect a seizure exists.
The U.S. Supreme Court also rejected the Arkansas Supreme Courtโs contention that it may interpret the United States Constitution to provide greater protection than the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 7 (1975) that a state can make its own laws more restrictive of police activity but cannot do so as a matter of federal constitutional law in contradiction of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
532 U.S. 769, 121 S. Ct. 1876 (2001)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved