Awesome! That way only ppl who agree with y'all attends! Gotcha! Well between his coach and his prayer warrior - he'll never see daylight again😊
4 days ago | 27
Amen Sylvia! Now that the case won’t be thrown out over a technicality the Prosecution will have to really prove he’s guilty! Yall did that!😂
4 days ago | 7
People are paying for membership and you keep changing the levels. You put the video on nosey but you said all sonya conversations would be on gadget. You need your memberships reviewed its very dishonest and you are cheating your PAYING VIEWERS customers.
4 days ago | 7
ERNESTO WILLIAMS: via chat GBT: Key Legal Precedents There are a few key Supreme Court cases that establish the framework for vehicle searches: Carroll v. United States (1925): This decision created the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Officers can search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. California v. Acevedo (1991): This case clarified that police can search any part of the vehicle, including closed containers, if they have probable cause to believe the container holds contraband. [SO, DID THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH WHAT WAS ON THE LAPTOP???\ Arizona v. Gant (2009): This case clarified the limits of searches incident to arrest. If the officer arrests a suspect, they may search the vehicle only if the person is within reach of the vehicle or if there’s reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the arrest was made. [ERNESTO WAS NOT WITHIN REACH OF THE VEHICLE, SO WHY DID THEY SEARCH HIS VEHICLE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT ???] 5. Conclusion: Detaining the driver and passenger: Based on the traffic violation (speeding and failure to stop at a red light), the officer’s stop and their order for both the driver and passenger to exit the vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Officers are allowed to ask passengers to exit the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop (see Maryland v. Wilson). Searching the vehicle: Whether or not the officer’s search of the vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment depends on whether they had probable cause to search. If the officer saw a suspicious container in a plastic bag and had probable cause to believe it contained contraband (e.g., drugs), the search could be justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The plain view doctrine could also apply if the container was in plain sight and was immediately recognizable as containing contraband. If the officer lacked probable cause or if the search was based solely on the container's appearance without any additional justification, the search might violate the Fourth Amendment, and any evidence obtained could be subject to suppression in court
3 days ago | 0
Infamous Sylvia
I will be going live with Sonya to discuss the judge’s denial. Member only
4 days ago | [YT] | 11