PLEASE sign if you feel the charges or any should be dropped!! sign now

A little backround on the petitioner. I Carol Weideamann am an upstanding citizen who has been married for 5 years and has 3 children. I am in the P.T.A as well as a cubsocout leader!! My House cleaning company has been going well for the last 3 years. My husband am I not on any form of welfare and just bought our first house 3 years ago!! I really enjoys attending church with my family as well has volunteer with nonprofit organization such as clothing drives and raising money for the schools in my community. As a law if I am convicted of the charges stated below the judge has to sentence me to a mandatory minmum of 10 YEARS!! If I can get all or part of the charges dropped I will be eligable for probation at minimun.

This petition is for Carol Lee Weidemann who was unfairly treated during an arrest as well as unlawfully searched as partaining to the 4th amendant right reguarding search and seizure. She is looking at a Mantadatory minimum of 10 YEARS!! Carol was a passenger in her vehicle when stopped for a taglight being out. After being asked to get out of the car and if she would consent to a search she stated NO! The officers than detained her and searched the car where they allegedly found a wooden box containing alleged marijuana. Dhe was then taken intocustody. After stateing again to the officers that she further does not consent to a search of her trunk.....they proceeded to obtain the trunk key illegally and open ythe trunk where they then allegedly found marijuana in. There was no probable cause for the search the police report states that the officer claimed our stories did not match up!! Carol Weidemann has been charged with the tag violation (even though she was a passenger) as well as posession with intent to sell, as well as a winshield violation and posession of paraphenlia. Please read the few court cases below and sign my petition to have this case dismissed on the gounds of illegal search and seizure!! If you think the trunk search should be tossed please sign. If you think the mandatory minimum is to HIGH Please sign!! AS there was nothing in plain view and the cops did not have proper consent to search or they went beyond the scope of their initial investigation!!

In many states, any amount of marijuana seen in a car establishes probable cause to search the car's interior. In one case, officers stopped a car and spotted a single seed and a few stems on the back seat. The court held that was sufficient to permit the officers to search the car's passenger compartment.

Trunks vs. Passenger Compartments
[N another case, Officers Moffett and Najera were on routine patrol when they observed a vehicle speeding and occasionally swerving out of its lane. The officers stopped the vehicle for speeding, suspecting that the driver might be tired Dr under the influence. Officer Najera approached the vehicle and spoke with the driver, Steven Wimberly. Officer Moffett approached the passenger side, where Richard Harrison was seated. As he approached, Moffett shined his flashlight into the vehicle and saw, among other things, a smoking pipe and twelve dark seeds and the floor near Richard's feet.
The general characteristics of the seeds, coupled with their proximity to the pipe, led Moffett to conclude they were Cannabis seeds. Moffett ordered Richard to hand him the pipe, and Richard complied. The officer sniffed the pipe, detecting the odor of burnt marijuana. He also observed a burnt residue, including some seeds and stems, inside the pipe.

At this point, the officers ordered Richard and Steven out of the car and searched the passenger compartment. Inside, they detected the aroma of burnt marijuana. Additionally Officer Moffett found a plastic bag containing a small amount of marijuana inside the pocket of a jacket found in the car. The officers then used Steven's keys to open the vehicle's trunk. Inside the trunk they found I suitcase which they proceeded to open, revealing several pounds of marijuana and hashish.

The California Supreme Court held that Officer Moffett's search of the vehicle's passenger compartment was legal. The Court explained that Moffett tried probable cause based on his observation of the pipe and the seeds. The Court pointed out that Moffett's observation of the seeds alone was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the vehicle's passenger compartment and any :container within the compartment such as the jacket. Therefore, all the evidence found in the car's passenger compartment was admissible against Steven and Richard.

The Court went on, however, to hold that the officer's search of the vehicle' s trunk was illegal. The Court explained that the officer's discovery of the pipe, seeds, and small bag of marijuana was indicative of the casual use of marijuana. Nothing indicated that the two men were transporting marijuana in the trunk. In other words, although there was probable cause to search the passenger compartment, the officer's further intrusion into the vehicle' s trunk was unlawful because there was no probable cause that marijuana would be found therein. As a result, the Court held that the large amount of marijuana and hashish found in the trunk was inadmissible in court.

This decision makes an important distinction. Unlike a vehicle's passenger compartment, which is surrounded by see-through windows, a vehicle's trunk normally cannot be seen into from outside. Accordingly, the courts have found that it is reasonable for a person to expect more privacy for items placed inside a vehicle's trunk than for items placed in a vehicle's passenger compartment.

Therefore, the rule has developed that probable cause sufficient for searching a vehicle's passenger compartment may not be sufficient to justify the search of the vehicle's trunk. Rather, in order for an officer without a warrant to search the trunk of a vehicle for marijuana, he must have probable cause to believe that marijuana is concealed in the trunk.

In Payne v. State, defendant was stopped for following too close. The arresting officer came up with 12 reasons why he searched defendant's vehicle. These included nervousness, lack of eye contact at the appropriate time, and standing in "the handcuff position". The Georgia Court of Appeals judges viewed the video and determined that these 12 articulable suspicions were a crock. The court held that defendant was illegally detained, which amounted to an unlawful arrest thus making the coerced 'consensual' search unlawful. Evidence suppressed.

In State v. Hanson, the long haired, bearded musician was stopped for weaving within his lane (not a traffic violation). While taking six minutes to write a warning for a non-existent traffic violation, the officer asked some forty questions. After being told he was free to leave, the officer then asked for permission to search the vehicle. The Court of Appeals viewed the video tape and determined that the officer's testimony lacked credibility. They further ruled that in asking for consent to search, the officer went beyond the scope of the original investigation. Evidence suppressed.

In State v. Blair, a Trooper stopped a vehicle for speeding. The vehicle had a drive out tag and contained four occupants.

The Trooper questioned the driver and the front seat passenger as to ownership of the vehicle. The Trooper testified that he became suspicious when neither produced proof of ownership, they provided conflicting explanations concerning the purpose of their journey, all four appeared very nervous, and defendant, who was seated in the rear, clutched a black bag.

The Trooper asked if any weapons, drugs or large quantities of case were in the car. The driver said no. The Trooper then asked the purported owner (front seat passenger) for permission to search the car. He respectfully declined. The four were detained while a K-9 unit was summoned.

Defendant fled with his bag, was apprehended and found to be in possession of marijuana, baggies, and scales. The Court of Appeals held that the detention in this case was impermissible because the facts known to the officer did not provide reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity. Evidence suppressed.

In Padron v. State, defendant was stopped for a minor traffic violation. After 6 minutes of horsing around, the deputy told defendant he was going to issue a warning ticket. After returning his license the officer began asking questions about contraband in the car. He asked defendant a total of 5 times for permission to search his vehicle. Cocaine was found in a suitcase in the trunk.

At the suppression hearing, the officer said defendant seemed very nervous, and that defendant and his passenger gave conflicting stories. The Court of Appeals said that the video tape showed no nervousness and no conflict in stories. Furthermore, the Court said that the investigation had no connection to the traffic stop and that no reasonable articulable suspicion existed for the investigation. Evidence suppressed.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing


Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in


I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

0 / 50

Latest Signatures

No one has signed this petition yet


Jenifer MannBy:
Technology and the InternetIn:
Petition target:
distrist attourney press governor


No tags


Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title