Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/24/2007 3:38:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2007 10:54:33 AM EST by Templar223]
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"

ETA: She tells the cop to go ahead and search. And she catches felony charges. Nice job, chicky.

Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.

I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent. I've got nothing illegal in my car, but I'd tell the cop "HELL NO!" if he asked me permission to search.

John

ETA: What do you / would you say to a cop asking permission to search?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:42:52 PM EST
People are stupid. I saw an episode where a guy got pulled for not signalling and the officer asked him where the crack was. He dug it out of his pocket and gave it to the cop.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:42:54 PM EST
They don't show the hundreds of others that tell them to get a warrant.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:44:29 PM EST
I was watching that too.


What an idiot.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:45:18 PM EST
That chicky snack was teh dumb.....
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:45:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:52:48 PM EST by Tango7]
Several of my LEO texts are full of stories where drug mules for the cartels said "Sure, Officer, you can search my vehicle" when they had KILOS in the trunk.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:46:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 3:49:01 PM EST by ChrisLe]

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"


Because people are stupid. If you consider the fact that the last time most people learned or read the Constitution was in High School, can you even expect them to know what their constitutional rights are?




Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.


Huh? Can you reference the law in IL that states this? LEOs do not need PC or RS in order to ask to search your car. Second, if they have PC, they don't need to ask. PC is grounds to search without permission.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:48:17 PM EST
I love how the ask them if they can search them/the car in an "Oh, by the way...." manner.

Like it's no big deal.

I am sure that catches a lot of mouth breathers off guard and actually fall for it.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:01:09 PM EST
In my hometown saying no to the police pretty much gave them reason to look i knows bullshit but theres not much you can do. The same cops held a gun to my head because I was shooting a paintball gun in my yard and someone called the police.


In the second episode the hookers are hott however I think they are too hot to be hookers, i should go and take care of them. after the aids test.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:01:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"

ETA: She tells the cop to go ahead and search. And she catches felony charges. Nice job, chicky.

Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.

I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent. I've got nothing illegal in my car, but I'd tell the cop "HELL NO!" if he asked me permission to search.

John


Never heard of that before.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:02:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"

ETA: She tells the cop to go ahead and search. And she catches felony charges. Nice job, chicky.

Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.

I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent. I've got nothing illegal in my car, but I'd tell the cop "HELL NO!" if he asked me permission to search.

John


That chick was kind of hot
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:03:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"

ETA: She tells the cop to go ahead and search. And she catches felony charges. Nice job, chicky.

Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.

I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent. I've got nothing illegal in my car, but I'd tell the cop "HELL NO!" if he asked me permission to search.

John



Mostly it isn't that they're stupid, just intimidated and scared of a uniform. Now, as far as the real dirtbag, he/she by defination is a dumbass. I can't comment about Ill. rules/laws or precedures but as far as I know any officer can ask whatever, until it reaches what amounts to the "accusatory" stage........at that point he'd better afford you access to a lawyer or he'll lose any case he might have.

Far as searches go, well I was on the job for well over three decades and on principle I would NEVER agree to a search. I would not resist or oppose one forced on me, but there'd be hell to pay thereafter.....For one thing I'd immediately demand a supervisor be called to the scene, if he didn't satisfy me, I'd demand directions to the agency HQ........What most folks don't realize is that intimidation works both way, turn it to your advantage!
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:11:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:11:53 PM EST by zwvirtual]
2 things:

1. Here's the trick; the cops can't ask to search your car and make it a consent search while they have you stopped. They have to wait until they tell you that
your free to go, then they pop the ol' "You have any drugs? Mind if I search"

2. The reason these dumbasses let them search is because if they think if they say no it makes them look guilty. It's kind of a Catch 22 for them.

I'm not trying to encourage anyone to do anything illegal, but if you're ever stopped by the police and they "release" you and then ask to search, reply
with: "I guess I'm not free to go then". If you show them in your mind that the detention is still in effect, then you cannot consent to search.
They'll probably respond with "no, you're free to go, I just wanted to ask you I could search for drugs, blah, blah, blah." Keep asserting that the officer
is detaining you and that you have no free will to leave. Talk about frustration...either they'll just cut you loose or stand there and desparately try to convince
you you're free to go, but stay there so they can search you.

You might think I'm anti-LE for saying this, but actually I've worked both civilian and Military LE, and no matter what, I think we all have rights, no matter
what the LE might like to do.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:14:30 PM EST
Question: When are you FORCED to have the cop search your car? When are you required to have your car searched?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:17:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By MALT0SE:

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"

ETA: She tells the cop to go ahead and search. And she catches felony charges. Nice job, chicky.

Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.

I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent. I've got nothing illegal in my car, but I'd tell the cop "HELL NO!" if he asked me permission to search.

John


That chick was kind of hot


Only 'kind of' hot?

And if I may add....no way is that chick turning into her mother in twenty years.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:21:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?
....

A few random thoughts/questions: How can a bank robbery be a crime, if the bank employees "consented" after the robber produced a gun? How can a rape be a crime if the victim "consented" after the rapist produced a knife and said "you want it the easy way or the hard way"?

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:22:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?
....

A few random thoughts/questions: How can a bank robbery be a crime, if the bank employees "consented" after the robber produced a gun? How can a rape be a crime if the victim "consented" after the rapist produced a knife and said "you want it the easy way or the hard way"?



Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:24:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By HIPPO:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?
....

A few random thoughts/questions: How can a bank robbery be a crime, if the bank employees "consented" after the robber produced a gun? How can a rape be a crime if the victim "consented" after the rapist produced a knife and said "you want it the easy way or the hard way"?





+100000000
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:30:09 PM EST
I saw the one with the blonde and the guy wearing an "MFD" cap, I believe in Brevard Fl.

She says search, and has 27 gms of MJ, and some loose pills. "I have a prescription", sure you do.

They said 20+ gms of MJ was a felony.

Around here that would probably be a non-criminal citation......................

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:30:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:32:13 PM EST by zwvirtual]

Originally Posted By Codename46:
Question: When are you FORCED to have the cop search your car? When are you required to have your car searched?


Forced and required are really the same thing. What you're saying by using either word is that you have no say in the search.

When are you forced/required: 1. Comensurate to an arrest; a police officer can search your car. 2. Traffic stop: If an officer has a reasonable suspicion
(spelling Nazis, did I get it right) that you might be a danger to him they can have you step out, pat you down and search the interior of the car with the
exception of locked containers. And they can only search the "lunge" area of the interior. Places were you could reasonably expect someone to grab
a gun. This what's called a Terry Stop (Terry v Ohio), sometimes called a Terry frisk.

Also, if an officer has probable cause to believe you have fruits of a crime in your vehicle (let's say someone called the cops and said you put a stolen
TV in your trunk...it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm trying to keep this pretty basic) they can search where they would reasonably find the evidence. This is a
warrantless search based on the Carroll Doctrine (Carroll v US), which allows for warrantless searches based on the idea that vehicles are inheritently
mobile, and thus, and officer cannot reasonbly expect a vehicle to be sitting in the same place by the time they actually got a warrant.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:31:31 PM EST
So if he asks you if you mind if he searches your car and you don't answer him and walk away he can't stop you? Just walk to your car without answering him and drive away?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:34:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:35:14 PM EST by zwvirtual]

Originally Posted By ferretrodeo:
So if he asks you if you mind if he searches your car and you don't answer him and walk away he can't stop you? Just walk to your car without answering him
and drive away?


Yes, actually you could. His natural reaction would probably be, "excuse me, I said do you mind..." at which time you could either continue to ignore him or
like I said earlier, tell him that he's detaining you further. Another thing you could ask is, "Am I free to go?" If he says yes, then say, "then stop asking me
questions" and get in your car.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:35:49 PM EST
They pull that shit in Illinois as well, Hoffman Estates is a big perpetrator of it.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:45:32 PM EST
Be aware that laws vary from state to state. The Carroll Doctrine is not in effect in WA, for instance.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:48:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?

I'm watching now about the third instance tonight of people consenting. A cute little chicky snack where the cop said, "You know you're free to go now. Do you have anything in the car I need to know about? Do you mind if I search the car?"

ETA: She tells the cop to go ahead and search. And she catches felony charges. Nice job, chicky.

Now, in IL, without PC, they can't even ask that sort of shit that's not related to the reason for the stop. But in other states, apparently it's fair game.

I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent. I've got nothing illegal in my car, but I'd tell the cop "HELL NO!" if he asked me permission to search.

John


Never heard of that before.


www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/AppellateCourt/2002/2ndDistrict/May/Html/2001386.htm

Questioning on a t/stop must remain reasonably related to the initial scope of the stop, unless the officer can reasonably articulate circumstances or facts that would indicate criminal activity apart from the initial traffic violation.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:54:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By pvc1984:

Originally Posted By HIPPO:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Templar223:
What is it with all these people who consent to searches of their person/car on traffic stops?
....

A few random thoughts/questions: How can a bank robbery be a crime, if the bank employees "consented" after the robber produced a gun? How can a rape be a crime if the victim "consented" after the rapist produced a knife and said "you want it the easy way or the hard way"?





+100000000

I might have missed the words of the constitution that allows the government to go ahead and perform unwarranted search if the victim "consented".
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:57:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:58:14 PM EST by zwvirtual]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Be aware that laws vary from state to state. The Carroll Doctrine is not in effect in WA, for instance.


Right, I think even SD threw that out some time ago. Basically now with cell phones and computers a person can get a telephonic warrant pretty quick
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:58:09 PM EST
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:59:06 PM EST
If you do not exercise your rights you will lose them. Exercise your ight to decline a search.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:06:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By warped:
They pull that shit in Illinois as well, Hoffman Estates is a big perpetrator of it.



Christ, I work there all the time and have never been stopped.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:06:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By Templar223:
I can't believe these people have illegal shit in their car and they consent.


It's doper logic. they think if they say no the cops will think they are hiding something and be even more curious/supect they are dirty. Forgeting that if the cops are asking for consent to search they already think youre dirty.

Then there is the probation issue. A lot of the time when someone says yes its because they are on probation with search and seizure terms and are afraid if they say no they will get a probation violation. Even when the cop doesnt know they are on probation.

We only catch the dumb ones.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:06:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:08:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?


Common law. And common sense.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:08:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?


The constitution covers that people be free from unreasonable searches. SCOTUS defines what is reasonable and unreasonable.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:09:47 PM EST
I don't know about this. I declined a search once and they called the K9 out. I was "detained" for over an hour till the K9 showed up. Found nothing and let me go. Said I could have saved myself the hassle if I just consented. I told them I had time to kill and didn't mind. PS. If a K9 is called find out before what the "hit" signal(s) are or they will use anything as a reason that the dog "hit" on something.


Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By Codename46:
Question: When are you FORCED to have the cop search your car? When are you required to have your car searched?


Also, if an officer has probable cause to believe you have fruits of a crime in your vehicle (let's say someone called the cops and said you put a stolen
TV in your trunk...it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm trying to keep this pretty basic) they can search where they would reasonably find the evidence. This is a
warrantless search based on the Carroll Doctrine (Carroll v US), which allows for warrantless searches based on the idea that vehicles are inheritently
mobile, and thus, and officer cannot reasonbly expect a vehicle to be sitting in the same place by the time they actually got a warrant.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:11:52 PM EST
The big problem is that if you refuse 90% of cops will think you are guilty/hiding something based on that.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:17:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By Texas_Infidel:
I don't know about this. I declined a search once and they called the K9 out. I was "detained" for over an hour till the K9 showed up. Found nothing and let me go. Said I could have saved myself the hassle if I just consented. I told them I had time to kill and didn't mind. PS. If a K9 is called find out before what the "hit" signal(s) are or they will use anything as a reason that the dog "hit" on something.


Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By Codename46:
Question: When are you FORCED to have the cop search your car? When are you required to have your car searched?


Also, if an officer has probable cause to believe you have fruits of a crime in your vehicle (let's say someone called the cops and said you put a stolen
TV in your trunk...it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm trying to keep this pretty basic) they can search where they would reasonably find the evidence. This is a
warrantless search based on the Carroll Doctrine (Carroll v US), which allows for warrantless searches based on the idea that vehicles are inheritently
mobile, and thus, and officer cannot reasonbly expect a vehicle to be sitting in the same place by the time they actually got a warrant.



Interesting. Absent any other PC or RS, one hour is well beyond the "reasonable" timeperiod.

-Z
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:20:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:
2 things:

1. Here's the trick; the cops can't ask to search your car and make it a consent search while they have you stopped. They have to wait until they tell you that
your free to go, then they pop the ol' "You have any drugs? Mind if I search"


thats not the case law everywhere. Her you can ask for consent during the stop as long as it doesnt prolong the stop.

Say you stop domeone for speeding. It takes you about 20mins to contact the driver, call in the stop, run the drivers license status, fill out the ticket and get the driver to sign.

If you ask for consent to search you are good as long as the search doesnt take longer than it would have taken to fill out the cite. the issue is overdetention. If a second officer arrives on scene and one does a consent search while the other fills out the cite its still good.

Other juristictions may have different case law on this issue though.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:20:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By opti12206:
If you do not exercise your rights you will lose them. Exercise your ight to decline a search.

Is it legal? Can you show text in the constitution that allows that? Or you are just repeating the stuff somebody told you. Ever wonder who benefits from this attitude?

My rights are God given (AKA inalienable rights), the constitution does not allow the government to violate them. So called "Bill of Rights" is a set of extra restrictions on the government. Can you explain what does it mean "exercise your rights" ?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:21:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Texas_Infidel:
I don't know about this. I declined a search once and they called the K9 out. I was "detained" for over an hour till the K9 showed up. Found nothing and let me go. Said I could have saved myself the hassle if I just consented. I told them I had time to kill and didn't mind. PS. If a K9 is called find out before what the "hit" signal(s) are or they will use anything as a reason that the dog "hit" on something.


Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By Codename46:
Question: When are you FORCED to have the cop search your car? When are you required to have your car searched?


Also, if an officer has probable cause to believe you have fruits of a crime in your vehicle (let's say someone called the cops and said you put a stolen
TV in your trunk...it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm trying to keep this pretty basic) they can search where they would reasonably find the evidence. This is a
warrantless search based on the Carroll Doctrine (Carroll v US), which allows for warrantless searches based on the idea that vehicles are inheritently
mobile, and thus, and officer cannot reasonbly expect a vehicle to be sitting in the same place by the time they actually got a warrant.



What you experienced was not a Carroll stop search, but a Terry Stop search. You can refuse to let the police search your vehicle and they have the choice of
either letting you go, or searching based on reasonable suspicion. When it comes to Terry stop searches they can make you wait 5 hours if they have to, if that's
what it takes to get a dog there to sniff you car. I didn't make the rules, SCOTUS did.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:22:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
I saw the one with the blonde and the guy wearing an "MFD" cap, I believe in Brevard Fl.

She says search, and has 27 gms of MJ, and some loose pills. "I have a prescription", sure you do.

They said 20+ gms of MJ was a felony.

Around here that would probably be a non-criminal citation......................



Wow, florida is tough. Here thats a traffic ticket. A cite and release into traffic court. Punishbale by a $40.00 diversion class that takes about 8 hours on a saturday.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:23:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:
2 things:

1. Here's the trick; the cops can't ask to search your car and make it a consent search while they have you stopped. They have to wait until they tell you that
your free to go, then they pop the ol' "You have any drugs? Mind if I search"


thats not the case law everywhere. Her you can ask for consent during the stop as long as it doesnt prolong the stop.

Say you stop domeone for speeding. It takes you about 20mins to contact the driver, call in the stop, run the drivers license status, fill out the ticket and get the driver to sign.

If you ask for consent to search you are good as long as the search doesnt take longer than it would have taken to fill out the cite. the issue is overdetention. If a second officer arrives on scene and one does a consent search while the other fills out the cite its still good.

Other juristictions may have different case law on this issue though.


I'm very surprised to hear that. Most everywhere else the stop must be over before an officer asks, because asking before someone knows if they are going to be cited or not is or would often appear to be coercion.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:24:08 PM EST
I don't think we educate the Country as a whole very well on their basic individual rights...but then again that may be the master-plan.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:25:00 PM EST
The nonchalant approach is interpreted unconciously as not being a threat. The response is usually "I didn't mean to agree to the search" It's an actual taught method.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:26:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?


The constitution covers that people be free from unreasonable searches. SCOTUS defines what is reasonable and unreasonable.

I guess I was wrong then. Sorry. No warrant from a judge needed, right?
If the government decides what the constitution means, then why do we even have it written?
Hey since we can't understand what constitution say, how can we understand what the SCOTUS says, then? Let's just have cops do whatever is good for us.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:27:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
The big problem is that if you refuse 90% of cops will think you are guilty/hiding something based on that.


Hell they wouldnt be asking if they didnt already think that. I wont even stop you unless i think that. With 33,000 residents in my patrol area I'm not stopping anyone i dont think is drunk, wanted, suspended on probation or parole or riding dirty with ope or stolen property. not enough hours in the shift to waste time stopping decent people.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:27:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By Texas_Infidel:
I don't know about this. I declined a search once and they called the K9 out. I was "detained" for over an hour till the K9 showed up. Found nothing and let me go. Said I could have saved myself the hassle if I just consented. I told them I had time to kill and didn't mind. PS. If a K9 is called find out before what the "hit" signal(s) are or they will use anything as a reason that the dog "hit" on something.


Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By Codename46:
Question: When are you FORCED to have the cop search your car? When are you required to have your car searched?


Also, if an officer has probable cause to believe you have fruits of a crime in your vehicle (let's say someone called the cops and said you put a stolen
TV in your trunk...it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm trying to keep this pretty basic) they can search where they would reasonably find the evidence. This is a
warrantless search based on the Carroll Doctrine (Carroll v US), which allows for warrantless searches based on the idea that vehicles are inheritently
mobile, and thus, and officer cannot reasonbly expect a vehicle to be sitting in the same place by the time they actually got a warrant.



What you experienced was not a Carroll stop search, but a Terry Stop search. You can refuse to let the police search your vehicle and they have the choice of
either letting you go, or searching based on reasonable suspicion. When it comes to Terry stop searches they can make you wait 5 hours if they have to, if that's
what it takes to get a dog there to sniff you car. I didn't make the rules, SCOTUS did.


Five hours would almost certainly be too long. SCOTUS needs to cowboy up and put a definitive limit on what time frame turns a detention into an arrest.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:27:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
The big problem is that if you refuse 90% of cops will think you are guilty/hiding something based on that.


My base does Random Vehicle Inspections from time to time when you enter the installation. I have been searched:

2- Coming back from the range (You can have firearms in base housing). I was given the "felony" treatment for having an AR.
4- Going to work on the other side of base.
1- Leaving the base.

On the search leaving the base, they were looking for "stolen .mil equipment". The SF guy was outright pissed when I did not give consent to being searched. He had to get a warrant to do it. After they did the search (finding nothing), he threatened to give me paperwork for "obstruction of justice". I later found out that exact SF guy was "removed from service" after he was found stealing items from searched vehicles. SFS are usually the biggest group of thieves in the AF. I'm not saying there aren't cops that actually do their jobs right, but that is my observation.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:28:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?


The constitution covers that people be free from unreasonable searches. SCOTUS defines what is reasonable and unreasonable.

I guess I was wrong then. Sorry. No warrant from a judge needed, right?
If the government decides what the constitution means, then why do we even have it written?
Hey since we can't understand what constitution say, how can we understand what the SCOTUS says, then? Let's just have cops do whatever is good for us.




Don't gripe at me...I'm just explaining how it is. If you don't like the system, fix it.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:29:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?


The constitution covers that people be free from unreasonable searches. SCOTUS defines what is reasonable and unreasonable.

I guess I was wrong then. Sorry. No warrant from a judge needed, right?
If the government decides what the constitution means, then why do we even have it written?
Hey since we can't understand what constitution say, how can we understand what the SCOTUS says, then? Let's just have cops do whatever is good for us.



Dude, its not hard to understand. You can waive your constitutional rights. You can waive any rights.

SCOTUS is pretty good since the 60s at protecting peoples rights.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:37:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:

Originally Posted By bs16:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
bs16, it is the nature of our legal system that an individual may surrender almost all of their rights, if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so. As such, a search that follows an uncoerced grant of permission is generally lawful. I don't have a problem with that.

Can anyone show me where in the constitution it allows the government to do so?


The constitution covers that people be free from unreasonable searches. SCOTUS defines what is reasonable and unreasonable.

I guess I was wrong then. Sorry. No warrant from a judge needed, right?
If the government decides what the constitution means, then why do we even have it written?
Hey since we can't understand what constitution say, how can we understand what the SCOTUS says, then? Let's just have cops do whatever is good for us.



Dude, its not hard to understand. You can waive your constitutional rights. You can waive any rights.

SCOTUS is pretty good since the 60s at protecting peoples rights.

What so hard to understand: it is not about me, it is about the actions of government. Show me in the constitution where it allows them to do it?

I understand that it is how things are these days, but what do we expect if everybody likes this new socialist point of view

I guess if there's lots of crime, then it's ok, no need to fight it, no need to even acknowledge it, it's just the way things are.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top