Was this legal- police officer took cover off of my car without me present?

It doesn't sound legal to me, but you won't know until you contact the officer. There may be circumstances where they had a warrant or reasonable suspicion. If not, it sounds illegal, but usually what happens is just that evidence from illegal searches can not be used in court.

If you are in some sort of trouble with the law, remember to remain silent until you see a lawyer, and take everything to court.

I can see how you would feel violated, I would too!

Generally in law police officers may enter a vehicle or a dwelling if they see something that may be illegal from the outside, or if they have reason to believe the vehicle may have been used in a crime and do not have time to get a warrant to search it because it might be driven away.

If the officers removed your leather cover they may have had reason such as your car being similar to one that was involved in an accident or in a crime.

The fact that they left a card shows that they respect you and are responsible for their actions and will probably explain what they were up to by taking off your leather cover.

The actual laws varies from state to state as to what a person may do to the outside of a car without the owners permission. In some states its the same as entering the vehicle without permission which is a crime, in others it is not, in some it is undefined.

If it seems that they are accusing you of a crime and begin asking questions not related to your car then you need to ask them "What does that question have to do with my automobile?", if they persist tell them that you have nothing more to say to them. Always remain calm and polite but don't give anything away. If they continue to pressure you ask to see their official identification card(every state licenses police officers and there is an agency that monitors them for complaints training, etc.), or if over the phone ask for its number, and also ask for the name and phone number of their immediate supervisor, the name and number of their watch commander, the name and number of their chief, then ask for the address for "service of process"(that is where you send notices if you are going to sue them), and then ask for the name of the holder of their bond(all police have a bond in case they make a mistake and have to pay damages). By asking these questions, if the police try to intimidate you, you will show them that you know the law and how to make it work for you. If they ignore or refuse to answer any of those questions they are probably breaking the law.

You should also record the conversation when you call them. VERY IMPORTANT!!!

If you have done something illegal with your car of if the covering is illegal then you may need an attorney. Don't hesitate to get one.

While the Supreme Court stresses the importance of warrants and has repeatedly referred to searches without warrants as ''exceptional,'' 1 it appears that the greater number of searches, as well as the vast number of arrests, take place without warrants. The Reporters of the American Law Institute Project on a Model Code of Pre- Arraignment Procedure have noted ''their conviction that, as a practical matter, searches without warrant and incidental to arrest have been up to this time, and may remain, of greater practical importance'' than searches pursuant to warrants. ''[T]he evidence on hand . . . compel[s] the conclusion that searches under warrants have played a comparatively minor part in law enforcement, except in connection with narcotics and gambling laws.'' 2 Nevertheless, the Court frequently asserts that ''the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that 'searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions.'' 3 The exceptions are said to be ''jealously and carefully drawn,'' 4 and there must be ''a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.'' 5 While the record does indicate an effort to categorize the exceptions, the number and breadth of those exceptions have been growing.

Basically what was decided by the supreme court was that a search may be conducted by an officer if he could come to a reasonable conclusion that criminal activity was present or that emanate danger existed.

PLAIN ENGLISH VERSION

Yes he did violate the law because he probably just removed because he wanted to see what was under it, but , all he has to do is state a reasonable explanation of his intent, such as hew was trying to locate a similar car with damage under the area of the cover, and he would be exonerated.

The other problem, even if you were to sue, is damages. The court in civil lawsuits award damages, and you have no presentable damages. If you were to go to a shrink and claim that you could not sleep at night and therefore lost your job, and a psychiatrists would testify to this, you would have damage, otherwise, go with my advise................

CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES WISELY.........we all make mistakes, and we are all human, that is the way it is suppose to be, that is why we are human.........

GIVE THE GUY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT......

Assuming they didn't have a warrant, it's arguably a Fourth Amendment violation. The question is whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Generally, you don't in the exterior of the car. However, if they had to remove something to get where they searched, then it might be. In any event, you don't have any kind of case against them or anything like that. The only time a Fourth Amendment violation is really going to matter is if they found something incriminating and you want it suppressed at trial.

I don't know of an instance specifically, but I do know of a DOT officer who moved and weighted a coal truck in Kentucky without the drive being present (no one would admit to being the driver and evidently the keys were in the truck with it parked alongside the highway). The truck turned up with shattered axles and broken drive line. The owner sued and the state had to pay a BUNCH of damages. So, maybe yes, they removed the cover, but if that cover wasn't reinstalled correctly and any damages result, they are in a ton of trouble. It's just not good sense to go messing with other people's stuff without a warrent (that's why we have a Constitution!).

Yes its legal if you park a car in public and place a cover over it, the place may remove the cover to check that the car which is park on the street is legal IE license plate, registration etc all match the car vin number

It is legal. If they have probable cause to search, there is no legal requirement that you be present for that search.

He might have even been protecting your interests. Perhaps someone hit your car while you were in a parking lot and drove off but a witness gave a description of your vehicle to the police. They found your car and tried to make sure it was the correct vehicle. It's just one possibility.

Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

By Marian R. Williams, Ph.D.

Jefferson E. Holcomb, Ph.D.

Tomislav V. Kovandzic, Ph.D.

Scott Bullock

Read the article below and you will see that our government from the federal to the local are stealing under the color of law.

Strictly speaking, unless the cop had a warrant, looking under the cover would be an illegal search. The recourse for an illegal search, though, is just that any evidence of criminal behaviour that it turns up is inadmissible in court.

Richard

Yes it's perfectly legal and arguing with the Officer or someone at the Police Department will only make it worse for you.