Jay-Z's 99 Legal Problems

I've always been a big fan of 99 Problems, but I'd never really given much thought to the car stop verse before today, when Jason posed a question about it. Now I ain't passed the bar, but I know a little bit, enough that I might help him get out of this shit. So, without further ado, a legal workover of 99 Problems (by line):

The year's '94, in the trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin' law
Well that's not good. Drugs in the back of the car. You're really asking for it. While I know its 94 in the song, I'm gonna do this using contemporary standards. It'll be easier that way.

I got two choices y'all pull over the car or
(hmmm)Bounce on the double put the pedal to the floor
Now I ain't tryin' to see no highway chase with Jay.
Plus i got a few dollars i can fight the case
Well done, Jay. This is by far the most intelligent decision you could have made. If you continued to drive, not only would you be way more suspicious-looking (headlong flight is grounds for a stop-Illinois v. Wardlow), but the police could do pretty much anything short of killing you in trying to stop you and get away with it (Police causing a car crash in stopping fleeing criminal were not held liable for subsequent paralysis- Scott v. Harris) .

So I...pull over to the side of the road
I heard "Son do you know why I'm stoppin' you for?"
Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hats real low?
Do I look like a mind reader sir, I don't know
Now, if this is the case, you might have a chance to get out of this one. If the officer's sole justification for stopping you is your race, the stop is not justified. (St. Paul v. Uber). However, if race is only part of the calculus, and there might be some other reasons to stop you, then your racial discrimination claim is gonna fail. (United States v. Weaver).

Am I under arrest or should I guess some mo'?"
Well you was doin fifty-five in a fifty-fo' "
Uh-oh. It looks like you're in trouble now, Jay. If the officer has probable cause to believe you committed a breach of the traffic code, then he has all sorts of rights. Among these is the right to stop you, and search you. Even if you don't think that's what he's really stopping you for, the Court will look at whether a reasonable officer could have pulled you over for speeding, not the subjective intent of your particular arresting officer (Whren v. United States).

"License and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin' a weapon on you I know a lot of you are"
I ain't steppin out of shit all my paper's legit
Well, first off, you've gotta give them your license and ID. During an investigative stop, which includes what they're doing here, you have to give them your license if they ask for it, or they will have cause to search you and possibly arrest you (Hiibel v Nevada). Secondly, they can probably check you for a weapon. Traffic stops, by their very nature, involve a danger to the officer (Pennsylvania v. Mimms). Therefore, under Terry v. Ohio, the officer is justified in patting you down to make sure you're not armed. Third, you have to get out of the car. Under Mimms, in order to protect officers, a suspect can be ordered to get out of the car. So, out you go...

"Well, do you mind if I look round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that.
Well, at least he's asking. If you don't give your consent, he might not be able to search. However, if he's got probable cause that you're doing something wrong beyond speeding (just speeding itself isn't gonna be enough to justify a search of the car subsequent to a traffic stop- Knowles v. Iowa). The fact that the glove compartment and trunk are locked might be useful to you, in case he does decide to arrest you. The fact that you can't get to them means that they are not in your grab area, and therefore would not be able to be searched without a warrant (New York v. Belton). However, this is made problematic by the fact that you're in a car. Since cars are movable instrumentalities, the police will not need a warrant to search the car, as long as they are arresting you. (Carroll v. United States).

"Aren't you sharp as a tack, you some type of lawyer or something'?"
"Or somebody important or somethin'?
"Nah, I ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit
"We'll see how smart you are when the K9 come."
Looks like you might get away on this count. If the police officer had the dog on him, he'd be able to use it to sniff the car, as you have no right to possess contraband. (Illinois v. Caballes). However, if the police can't justify your continued detention until the dog shows up, anything the dog uncovers will be suppressed. (Caballes).

"I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one."

May all your hits be crits,
B