Come on gang. Quit adding stuff.
Well guys please show me where it says anywhere that the officer asked for consent to search? Please show me where the woman gave consent to search? Please show me where the officer committed any constitutional violation?
Quit adding your own take to the article. The article says virtually nothing it is all assumption in many of the responses but just for the sake of argument lets take one fact that was printed and expand on that.
She told the dispatcher she was armed. As I stated before is it not possible the responding officers simply secured the weapon and did not search at all? Again as I stated earlier is it also not possible that the gun was laying on the seat or visible in her purse? Was she intoxicated, high, mentally unstable? The article does not say but hey lets put it in there as fact. NO ONE KNOWS SO QUIT GUESSING AND ADDING STATEMENTS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE LE DID SOMETHING WRONG.
Remember there is something in the 4th Amendment called the "Vehicle Exception". You do not have the same expectation of privacy in your vehicle as you do in your home because a vehicle is mobile and anything in the vehicle falls under the plain view doctrine. Whatever an officer sees, smells, touched, hears and so on can be enough for a search. Should you give consent you have the right to stop the search at anytime however if the officer has probable cause to arrest you the search is now "Incidental to Arrest" and he does not need consent for anything.
I am not saying this woman should or should not have been arrested but unless you were there close enough to hear and see everything you better have a crystal ball because that is the only way you gain any insight from the article.
