Does a cop have the right to search your car?

[Parrothead]

Lawyer. Lawyer, Lawyer.

 

 

Doesn't matter who was right or wrong at this point. He needs a lawyer.

 

What is needful to search a car varies by community, but it is pretty easy around here for a police officer to find a legal reason to search.

 

Lawyer.

 

Actually, no.  It doesn't vary by community.  There are very specific instances in which an officer can search without a warrant.  And in order to get a warrant the officer requesting it must provide probably cause that satisfies a judge.

[Parrothead]

I probably would have said, "officer, I'm asking my mom where her registration is, would you like to talk to my mom?"

 

And here is a question:  if you are driving someone else's car (other than a rental car), how do you even have a right to consent to a search?  If I took the cops to my neighbor's house and let them in, has consent to search occurred?

 

I do understand how this could happen to someone young and inexperienced.  Hopefully it won't become too big of a deal.

 

Vehicles fall under different rules than houses.  In the same way if someone stole your car you wouldn't be responsible for any crime committed with it, or the dope left in it by the thief. 

 

With a vehicle it all comes down to the operator of the vehicle. Never, ever get into a car and drive it if you don't know the owner well enough to know what he has stashed in there.  A good lawyer may get you cleared of charges if he/she can prove it wasn't your dope, but why take the chance and potential legal bills?

[zoobie]

Vehicles fall under different rules than houses. In the same way if someone stole your car you wouldn't be responsible for any crime committed with it, or the dope left in it by the thief.

 

With a vehicle it all comes down to the operator of the vehicle. Never, ever get into a car and drive it if you don't know the owner well enough to know what he has stashed in there. A good lawyer may get you cleared of charges if he/she can prove it wasn't your dope, but why take the chance and potential legal bills?

Yes. DH drove a family member's car to the hospital when they were transported via ambulance. He tried to pull out the cup holder but it was the ash tray and had a bunch of roaches in it. He flipped out. The person was using pot for chemo side effects, but he didn't want to go to jail for them! We were still in law school and an arrest for possession would've been extremely costly. So yeah, be careful driving other people's cars even if you think you know them well!

[Parrothead]

That's probably a silly question, but let me explain.  My 17 year old nephew was driving his mom's (my sister's) car and had forgotten to put the headlights on.  An off duty sheriff pulled him over.  My nephew gave him his license, but didn't know where the registration was so when the cop went to run his license my nephew called my sister to ask where it was.  The cop came back and he was asking my nephew for the registration and my nephew kept telling him to hold on.  Then the cop said something about wanting to search the car and my nephew told him, "Well, it's not my car, but you have no right to search my car."  This was because that's what his father always taught him (his father is very anti government/authority).  The cop then asked my nephew to get out of the car and he wouldn't.  The cop then rips my nephew out of the car and tells him he's under arrest.  He went to handcuff my nephew and my nephew straightened out his arms so the cop couldn't which resulted in the cop throwing my nephew to the ground and cuffing him.

 

I know everything my nephew did was wrong, but I was curious if my nephew/BIL is right in that a cop can't search your car unless of course there's an obvious reason.  The car was searched (the cop had his K9 with him) and nothing was found so it wasn't like my nephew was hiding anything.  After hearing my nephew's version of the story (my sister's version made it sound like my nephew did nothing wrong) I'm on the cop's side, but I was told I'm wrong in that a cop can't search your car for no apparent reason and figured I'd ask here to see if anyone knew for sure.

 

To be perfectly honest, Bean it sounds like the kid may have provoked it.  Without knowing what attitude you nephew had it is hard to say.  Someone raised to defy authority like you stated above may well have had an attitude.

 

The rummaging around in the car is a sign that it isn't his car and he doesn't know where everything is.  Every person how borrows a vehicle should ask were the registration and insurance card is prior to ever getting the keys.  This was a dumb mistake on your nephew's and his parent's part. The vast majority of people keep their vehicle papers in the glove compartment.  Not just floating around the interior waiting to be found. 

 

The rummaging around also is a danger to the cop.  Cops like to see hands.  For all he knew this kid could have been looking for a knife or a gun or another weapon.  Officer safety dictates the officer get the kid out of the car.  And you said he did ask and the kid refused.  Kid's third mistake.

 

When the kid said the car wasn't his, he gave the officer probable cause.  If he was going to press his case he should have said, "I need to call my dad because this is his car before I can consent to a search."  Or "You need to call my dad to ask about a search because this is his car."  Don't go spouting off about what rights an officer has or doesn't have.

 

The resisting was just a bad idea.  Another thing his dad taught him to do? 

 

Cops aren't going to beg.  They will ask once then if you don't comply then it is on you.  As hard as it is to believe, most of this happened because of training and officer safety.  The rummaging around could have produced a weapon.  The not getting out of the car, another safety issue - what if the kid finally found the weapon?  The resisting?  Better to put the kid on the ground quickly and cuff him with minimal fuss than end up in a fight because the kid thought he was billy-badass.

 

In my opinion when the cop removed the kid from the vehicle he should have just followed through with that movement and pulled him out straight to the ground, put a knee in his back and cuffed him. 

 

As for the search if the kid gave no indication that the vehicle belonged to a family member that can easily be deemed as probably cause that the vehicle was stolen.  So could the rummaging around.  And the resisting.

 

In the US a LEO can search one's vehicle for 4 reasons -

• plain sight (dope is sitting in the back seat for all the world to see),
• consent (if the driver/owner or driver or passenger/owner gives permission),
• probable cause (in some areas of the country a head light out could be a gang sign. In other areas a forgetful overstressed mom.  the cop must be able to say why the head light out signaled a crime being committed in the vehicle)
• and lastly the every famous search warrant.

[Parrothead]

Huh..I would have never thought of that!

 

Now you know. 

[Belacqua]

So, Chucki, what's your take on the advice in the video LibraryLover posted? It counsels calmly and politely refusing to consent to a search (as well as politely asking if you're being detained or if you're free to go)? Do you agree with that advice?

[AlmiraGulch]

I know I have the right to refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle, but I don't know if I ever would.  I know there's nothing in my car, so in my mind it might be easier to just let them do it.

 

On the other hand, I've watched too many Hollywood movies and know that that's when the cops plant stuff in your car!  Except....no.  I cannot imagine that would ever happen to the middle-aged woman.  

 

So, other than the fact that I have the right to do so, why would I refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle, if asked?

[Melissa in Australia]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

[zoobie]

I know I have the right to refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle, but I don't know if I ever would. I know there's nothing in my car, so in my mind it might be easier to just let them do it.

 

On the other hand, I've watched too many Hollywood movies and know that that's when the cops plant stuff in your car! Except....no. I cannot imagine that would ever happen to the middle-aged woman.

 

So, other than the fact that I have the right to do so, why would I refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle, if asked?

I wonder what I would do too. It might be interesting to see someone dig through the pit of despair that is my minivan. Maybe he can find the baby's other shoe...

[Danestress]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

A lot of Americans believe that our constitutional rights are precious. Many of us protect them just on principal - that limits on government power are good and should be prized and protected. Those limits protect the guilty and innocent alike, and both the guilty and innocent have a right to safeguard them.

 

I am sure other people in other place feel the same way.

[zoobie]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

Well, you'd likely be standing on the side of the road, handcuffed, while police officers tossed your stuff out of the car. I've got no reason not to let a police officer search my house, but I'm sure as heck not going to consent to the invasion of privacy, embarrassment, or mess. There's a constant struggle between individual liberty and public safety. The police are the ones who bear the brunt of this tension, but as a law abiding citizen of the United States, I have rights that include not being subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. If I've done nothing more than forget to turn on my lights (which could totally happen because I'm so used to automatic lights!), then I have the right not to have a police officer dig through my personal property without probable cause. I had a criminal procedure professor who would burn a copy of the 4th amendment every so often to show what the Supreme Court was doing to our rights. His favorite saying is "Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" I finished law school before the Patriot Act, etc. and we all wonder how much blood pressure medication he needs to be on now.

 

In my home, I would feel more comfortable saying "No, I do not consent" and closing the door. In a car, on the side of the road, likely with my kids, I would be more vulnerable and would wonder whether refusing the search would mean certain arrest. That's why practically, I'm not sure what I would do, despite being a lawyer and generally a big fan of personal liberties.

[TXBeth]

I wonder what I would do too. It might be interesting to see someone dig through the pit of despair that is my minivan. Maybe he can find the baby's other shoe...

I can see it now..."Oh, yes, officer, thanks for offering! And if you find a left yellow shoe or an information sheet about Friday's field trip, please let me know!"

[Joanne]

Your BIL is a tool and is raising your nephew to have the se predilection.

 

"Probable cause" is by nature vague and subjective. The prudent answer therefore in dealing with officers is to not adopt an adversarial stand.

 

Even if you don't agree with power grabs, it makes no sense to escalate interactions.

[AlmiraGulch]

In my home, I would feel more comfortable saying "No, I do not consent" and closing the door. In a car, on the side of the road, likely with my kids, I would be more vulnerable and would wonder whether refusing the search would mean certain arrest. That's why practically, I'm not sure what I would do, despite being a lawyer and generally a big fan of personal liberties.

 

This is my issue.  I am not a lawyer, although I was accepted to law school and would have gone had I not found out I was pregnant with my second child, and I am a huge believer in civil liberties and protecting personal rights.  But if I were in my car on the side of the road with my kids there with me, I'd be pretty convinced I was going to be arrested.  The arrest would be more traumatic for me, and for my kids, than just allowing the search.

 

Of course I'd be mad at myself for doing it, but I have a feeling, depending on my mood, I just would anyway.  

[Ravin]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

 

Under U.S. law, standing on your rights (in this case, against unreasonable search) is not grounds for anything. Probable cause to search can be established a lot of ways, but getting consent is easier for an officer.

 

Honestly, there is no way I would consent, even being pretty sure there's nothing in my car. Why make it easier for them to look for excuses to arrest you?

 

By the same token, I would also never be rude or resist an officer's direct orders.

[mommaduck]

The cop asked before the the resistance. As soon as he resisted he gave the cop the right to do either a safety search and or a search pursuant to arrest. Cops have more latitude in a traffic stop than a house search due to safety concerns.

 

Yep, if he refused the search and then obeyed the cop by getting out, that may have been the end of it. It would have given the cop open view of the inside from where he was and, if he didn't see anything bothersome, then that would be the end.

[Parrothead]

So, Chucki, what's your take on the advice in the video LibraryLover posted? It counsels calmly and politely refusing to consent to a search (as well as politely asking if you're being detained or if you're free to go)? Do you agree with that advice?

 

I didn't watch the videos. (I really dislike watching videos. Give me a transcript any day.)

 

Yes, please be polite.  I know there are a-hole cops out there, and they come a dime a dozen.  I've had to deal with them myself on numerous occasions (I always write letters to their supervisors).  Why provoke an a-hole?  The good cop is going to follow the rules.  If the owner/driver says no then no search.  That won't stop the good cop from trying another tactic to get permission to search though so beware that saying no once, one needs to say no every time during the traffic stop. And the question won't always be "May I search your vehicle, sir?"  It might be "Hey man, are you going to let me look in your trunk for weapons?"  When the driver says no, the cop may try again, "Are you hiding anything under the front seat?  Can I take a quick look?"

 

The bad cop is  going to try to be pushy and aggressive.  The politer one is the better off one will be. In the same manner that one would never poke a grizzly bear or a mean drunk, don't answer a-hole behavior with more a-hole behavior.  That goes for all the a-holes, not just the cop ones.   And the less one says the less likely one will trip oneself up and cause things to turn uglier than they have to be.  Keep cool. Know that yes, this cop is an a-hole. The politer and quieter I am the faster this will be over with.

 

The way to deal with a-hole cops is to do it later. Go to the supervisor.  Ask to be present when the tapes/recording are reviewed by the superior officer.  Write letters to the supervisor and the chief or sheriff or whoever is head of the department/agency.

 

Also remember that what one might take for being a jerk is simply training.  Cops aren't taught to be sunshine and roses.  They ask a lot of questions in a tone that doesn't suggest "let's go get a beer when I'm finished up here".  And most of their questions are going to have either a "yes" or "no" answer.  Unless the LEO is on a fishing expedition.  You'll know that by the way the questions become open ended and one has to tell one's story.  And don't feel the need to fill in any awkward silences.  People start spilling their guts when there is a long silence. Of course one only has to worry about that if one has done something that needs to be kept hidden. 

[Parrothead]

I know I have the right to refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle, but I don't know if I ever would.  I know there's nothing in my car, so in my mind it might be easier to just let them do it.

 

On the other hand, I've watched too many Hollywood movies and know that that's when the cops plant stuff in your car!  Except....no.  I cannot imagine that would ever happen to the middle-aged woman.  

 

So, other than the fact that I have the right to do so, why would I refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle, if asked?

 

If you have your kids with you and you are storing Christmas presents or birthday presents in the trunk.

 

There really is a body in the trunk.

 

You don't have time to wait for a search to be completed. Depending on how thorough a good search could take almost an hour.

 

Because your dh put a bunch of ammo and weapons in the trunk when he drove your car to work and he forgot they were in there.  But you found out the next day because you had no place to put your groceries.  And the reason you are being stopped is because the bag boy who helped you out with your groceries squealed when he went back into the store and the manager called the cops with a full description of your vehicle.

[Parrothead]

In my home, I would feel more comfortable saying "No, I do not consent" and closing the door. In a car, on the side of the road, likely with my kids, I would be more vulnerable and would wonder whether refusing the search would mean certain arrest. That's why practically, I'm not sure what I would do, despite being a lawyer and generally a big fan of personal liberties.

 

 

This is my issue.  I am not a lawyer, although I was accepted to law school and would have gone had I not found out I was pregnant with my second child, and I am a huge believer in civil liberties and protecting personal rights.  But if I were in my car on the side of the road with my kids there with me, I'd be pretty convinced I was going to be arrested.  The arrest would be more traumatic for me, and for my kids, than just allowing the search.

 

Of course I'd be mad at myself for doing it, but I have a feeling, depending on my mood, I just would anyway.  

 

Keep in mind one cannot be arrested for not consenting to a search. 

[AlmiraGulch]

If you have your kids with you and you are storing Christmas presents or birthday presents in the trunk.

 

There really is a body in the trunk.

 

You don't have time to wait for a search to be completed. Depending on how thorough a good search could take almost an hour.

 

Because your dh put a bunch of ammo and weapons in the trunk when he drove your car to work and he forgot they were in there.  But you found out the next day because you had no place to put your groceries.  And the reason you are being stopped is because the bag boy who helped you out with your groceries squealed when he went back into the store and the manager called the cops with a full description of your vehicle.

 

Well, the bodies in my trunk are well disguised because they're hidden under the kids' Christmas presents!  I better move them, just in case.  

 

P.S.  All very good examples!

[AlmiraGulch]

Keep in mind one cannot be arrested for not consenting to a search. 

 

Oh, I know.  

 

My mind just always goes down paths it shouldn't and creates worst-case scenarios that likely would never happen so that somehow my refusal to consent to a search would result in my being arrested.

 

Yes, I'm paranoid. 

[SKL]

This reminds me of when my brother was in high school.  He was a slob.  His room was terrifying.  He was also known as a computer geek (this was around 1980, so not that many computer geeks out there).  So one day the cops came because a computer had been stolen from school and someone though my brother might have wanted it.  The cops asked my mom if they could search my brother's room.  My mom said, "go for it."  Ha.  The cops looked through the door, looked at each other, and said, "there's no computer in there, let's go."  Ha ha.  My mom was of the opinion that there could have easily been 30 computers in there, but whatever. :P

[Parrothead]

Oh, I know.  

 

My mind just always goes down paths it shouldn't and creates worst-case scenarios that likely would never happen so that somehow my refusal to consent to a search would result in my being arrested.

 

Yes, I'm paranoid. 

 

Yes, I know where you were heading.   I just didn't want someone to get the wrong idea.  "Even the lawyer on the board was afraid of getting arrested for not allowing a search."

[Parrothead]

That goes for all the a-holes, not just the cop ones.

Thinking about this more. Guys seem to end up in trouble because of testosterone. When one man comes upon another man who is being an a-hole one of two things happens. Either the first guy is smart and tries to just leave the a-hole the way he found it. Or he decides to enter the pissing match arena. And there is something about entering the match against a cop that just provokes normally level-headed guys. ("Oooh. I'm going to take on a cop. I've had no hand-to-hand training but I can take him. I just know it.")There seems to be some sort of short circuit in their brain function that automatically returns them to the days of the caveman. It is an interesting phenomena to watch.

[Word Nerd]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

 

Would you mind if a policeman were peeking in the windows of your house without cause or looking through your dresser drawers or closets or poking through your purse? If you have nothing to hide, why would it be a problem?

[Melissa in Australia]

I see.

 personally I do not know anyone who has had their car searched by police. Here you would either get a warning for driving without headlights or get fined for it. No need to search car or handcuff anyone.

[Melissa in Australia]

Would you mind if a policeman were peeking in the windows of your house without cause or looking through your dresser drawers or closets or poking through your purse? If you have nothing to hide, why would it be a problem?

 

the police wasn't peeking he asked . If a police asked to look through my handbag, or something I would have no problem.

[zoobie]

Yes, I know where you were heading. I just didn't want someone to get the wrong idea. "Even the lawyer on the board was afraid of getting arrested for not allowing a search."

I am being honest. I really don't know what I would do. I'm not trying to sway someone else, but I'm not sure I would be willing to take the risk or deal with the potential aftermath of refusing a search of my vehicle. Refusing consent alone is insufficient to support the arrest, so eventually it would get tossed, but in the meantime... If I had a dead body in the trunk, I absolutely would refuse consent because there's a dead body in my trunk! I don't really have much to lose in that scenario. I hope I'm never in the position to have to make such a decision (especially with a dead body).

[Parrothead]

the police wasn't peeking he asked . If a police asked to look through my handbag, or something I would have no problem.

Here in the US we are weaned on "no unlawful searches" so it is second nature to us to question it. The only time a LEO is looking through my handbag is with a warrant or as part of my consenting to enter one of the historic buildings like the Smithsonian. (After 911 all bags get searched if they are being brought in.)

[Melissa in Australia]

Here in the US we are weaned on "no unlawful searches" so it is second nature to us to question it. The only time a LEO is looking through my handbag is with a warrant or as part of my consenting to enter one of the historic buildings like the Smithsonian. (After 911 all bags get searched if they are being brought in.)

 

The only time I have heard of people having their bags searched here (Australia) is either at airports or random searches at big concerts. At both places they also have drug sniffer dogs accompanying the police. The dogs signal which bags to search. I have no problem with that at all.

[Paige]

I see.

 personally I do not know anyone who has had their car searched by police. Here you would either get a warning for driving without headlights or get fined for it. No need to search car or handcuff anyone.

That's the way it normally is here too. I've never known anyone who has been asked to have his or her car searched. I've only heard about it on tv and the internet. So, if a policeman asked to search my car for something like my lights being off, I would be concerned about what was up, and I would refuse.

 

A quick google search, which I admit, may not be completely accurate, says that in Australia, the police may search your vehicle if they want. You have no official right to refuse. It may vary by state or territory. Maybe it makes the news in the USA more because we expect a right to refuse and get all angry and call the news and post online when we feel mistreated.

[Jenn121]

The main issue in the OP's scenario is not that he refused the search when asked. If the LEO have then proceed to search after consent had been denied then the officer would be at fault. But because the nephew then got himself arrested, the previous denial is null and void. 

 

It would be hard to find a jurisdiction that does not allow a search of the vehicle after an arrest. At that point the search is for inventory and to make sure that there is nothing dangerous in the car while it is in impound.  Everything found is then allowed in as evidence.  It does not matter if the car belongs to someone else because the current driver had control of the car.  Now, if an item was found that the current driver(non-owner) of said car denies ownership of then it is a matter for the jury or judge to decide if that is reasonable or if they believe the person.

 

Officers cannot arrest you declining a search but it can arouse suspicions and they can change interview tactics to get answers. Officers are trained to use many different techniques to get the information they require.

 

 

 

ETA:Typos.

[Renee in NC]

The main issue in the OP's scenario is not that he refused the search when asked. If the LEO have then proceed to search after consent had been denied then the officer would be at fault. But because the nephew then got himself arrested, the previous denial is null and void. 

 

It would be hard to find a jurisdiction that does not allow a search of the vehicle after an arrest. At that point the search is for inventory and to make sure that there is nothing dangerous in the car while it is in impound.  Everything found is then allowed in as evidence.  It does not matter if the car belongs to someone else because the current driver had control of the car.  Now, if an item was found that the current driver(non-owner) of said car denies ownership of then it is a matter for the jury or judge to decide if that is reasonable or if they believe the person.

 

Officers cannot arrest you declining a search but it can arouse suspicions and they can change interview tactics to get answers. Officers are trained to use many different techniques to get the information they require.

 

 

 

ETA:Typos.

 

I said this earlier in the thread, but this is no longer allowed in NC.  The NC State Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

 

However, read this:

 

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=276

 

The US Supreme Court allows it.

[MyThreeSons]

Sometime last school year, I was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit in a school zone. My then 17yo son was sitting in the front passenger seat, which was the side of the car the officer approached. In addition to my license, registration and insurance information, he asked for my son's license. I briefly thought about questioning the need for that, but I was already going to be late to teach at co-op, so I just nodded to ds, and he pulled out his wallet. He doesn't have a license, just a state ID card, which he handed over without explanation. I ended up paying the fine online, so I didn't get another chance to ask the officer what he was fishing for. There was another high school student in the back seat, and the officer looked at him, but didn't ask for his license. 

[Lanny]

Nephew needs to get a good criminal justice lawyer, today. Resisting arrest is a serious matter. Nephew made this routine traffic stop far worse than it should have been, with his actions.

[Erin]

Keep in mind one cannot be arrested for not consenting to a search. 

Absolutely. 

You can be arrested for hindering a search, but for simple denial?  No.  

 

 

 

A friend of ours, and lay minister at our church, is by day (and often, by night) a Colorado State Trooper of 20 years.  His last 10 years have been the relative quiet of eastern Colorado, but his first 10 were the Front Range by CO Springs.  He's also one of the primary shooting instructors for the state.   He loves what he does.

 

He likes to tell the story of the neighbor kid he pulled over a few years ago.  Basic stop for speeding, for which the kid was ticketed, our friend asked if he could search the kid's pickup. 

Trooper Tom was his neighbor, so the kid knew him both in uniform and out.  So he said sure.  Tom then launched into a lecture.  

"Don't you dare let me search your pickup!  I am a representative of the State of Colorado when I am wearing this uniform.  I have no reason whatsoever to ask you for a search right now.  This is a basic traffic stop.  Your answer is no sir, I'd rather you not."  

 

For obvious reasons, we have a lot of cop/justice/law analogies in our church sermons and just last night he made the point that a lot of cops are pretty arrogant people.  "We can't help it.  I mean, you gave us a club, a taser and a gun!" lol

 

[Erin]

I just dealt with this a few weeks ago, which is probably why I'm so fired up about it still. 

 

My kids and I had driven the 750 miles from Kansas to ND over Thanksgiving, to visit their dad in the oil field.  He then followed us home for a friend's husband's funeral.  He had Buck and I had Bean.

We were about an hour from home when I ran a stop sign.  Basically, I'd been through too many towns by this point and had forgotten that the highway turns in the middle of this town. At a stop sign.  I wasn't speeding, I was just looking the wrong direction and didn't even noticed it. 

 

I did, however, notice that hey, I crossed the highway!  So I stopped, turned around and got back on the highway.  I think I'd driven a half block when the sheriff pulled me over.  

He asked where I'd been and where I was going.  Common side-of-the-road conversation while they're waiting for you to get your info.  I said we'd been in ND, and were heading to my friend's town.  But then he stood there looking at my license and kept scanning the back seat of my car with his flashlight.  (My address is 40 miles from where I claimed I was going, since we were heading to my friend's for hugs before tomorrow's funeral).  

 

He quizzed me on my address.  I gave it.  By this point I'd lost my smile.  What was going on here?

 

Why did you say you were in ND?  Visiting my husband.  (Still scanning with his flashlight)

Why aren't you going home?  Officer, why are you asking me all these questions?

Does it bother you that I'm asking you these questions?  Not at all, I'm just wondering what on earth you think you see in my car that is prompting this. 

 

Pause.

 

So you've been gone for a few days, that means your trunk will have bags and such in it, right?  (By this point I was thinking, 'ask me, you turkey.  Just ask...' )

Yeah.... , and put a puzzled look on my face. 

 

He paused again, looked at me, then decided he was just going to go run my info and he'd be right back.  Back to a normal traffic stop.

 

 

 

As soon as he was gone, Bean, who'd been quiet up til this point said, "What was that about???  Yeah officer, we have bags in our trunk.  Our bags of cocaine!"

 

Thank you Miss Weisenheimer, for holding that in. :rolleyes:  That admission from my 12 year old might have counted as probable cause.  lol

[Laurie4b]

Not always as permission removes any attempt to use lack of probable cause to have the search thrown out.

 

But isn't that what she was saying? If the cop had had probable cause, he wouldn't have asked, he would have acted. The cop asked. The kid denied him permission.

 

He could have still searched the car, but what he found may not have been admissible if he'd been denied permission and didn't actually have probable cause. Right?

[zoobie]

But isn't that what she was saying? If the cop had had probable cause, he wouldn't have asked, he would have acted. The cop asked. The kid denied him permission.

 

He could have still searched the car, but what he found may not have been admissible if he'd been denied permission and didn't actually have probable cause. Right?

It's procedure to ask. Even if the officer thinks he has probable cause, s/he asks. If the person consents, the search is good. If the person refuses, his actions surrounding the refusal can be used to bolster probable cause. Being argumentative or combative, being shifty, etc. Basically anything you say can and will be used against you (sound familiar? ;) ). So the questions related to permission are also a form of information gathering/interrogation. There are some interesting debates as to the overlap of fourth (search and seizure) and fifth (self incrimination) amendment rights--right here they can contradict each other. If you refuse the officer's request to search, how much are you self-incriminating yourself? The basic "yes" or "no" response can't be used against you, but everything surrounding the consent or denial can be. I'm guessing this will be affected by Salinas v. Texas (silence can be used against you prior to Miranda warning). You should probably say nothing more than "I am asserting my right to remain silent. I want an attorney."* But that doesn't seem suspicious, does it?

 

*not legal advice

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But isn't that what she was saying? If the cop had had probable cause, he wouldn't have asked, he would have acted. The cop asked. The kid denied him permission.

 

He could have still searched the car, but what he found may not have been admissible if he'd been denied permission and didn't actually have probable cause. Right?

No. If consent is given, then having the search thrown out later is extremely difficult.

If the officer searches based on probable cause and no consent, then the validity of the probable cause can be raised in pretrial motions.

 

Officers will almost always ask permission given the opportunity for that reason.

[goldberry]

This is the most interesting thread.  I would have always consented to a search without even questioning it, just because I know there is nothing there.  Since the last thread on this subject, I have read many stories about young males, especially other races, who are subjected to unreasonable searches and also treated incredibly disrespectfully by law enforcement.  This makes me want to refuse just on principle. 

 

Interesting though, for anyone who doesn't think we still have blatant racisim problems...

[Murphy101]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

Other than my right to privacy is not dependent on that. I have the right to hide anything I want, tyvm.

 

But secondly, just because you have nothing to hide, does not necessarily mean they have nothing to find.

 

I had a cousin get in big trouble years ago having illegal fireworks. Illegal in my state. Not his home state. He honestly had no idea. He got pulled over for a broken blinker when he turned without signaling. (He did not know blinker was out.) No big deal. Whatever right? Nope. Cop hit pay dirt opening the trunk and seeing those illegal fireworks and the makings of pipe bombs. (No pipe bombs. Just most if the household stuff to come close to making one if you know how.)

 

Holy cow. It ended safe for cousin 25 years ago, but seriously that could have and likely would today, end up really horrific for a 16 year old. A 16 yr old with nothing to hide who just wants to not be grounded for breaking curfew.

[Berta]

what is the big deal about having the car searched. I would think anyone saying NO would be cause. I mean if you have nothing to hide why would it be a problem?

 

I value my privacy. It's no ones business what I have in my car, purse or house. I would NOT be okay with anyone thinking they can rifle through my belongings for no good reason.

 

Would you mind me going through your car? What if I came to your house and started going through your nightstand, dressers drawers, closets? When I am done pulling all that apart I will go through your purse and wallet. I might even put my hands in your pants pockets to see what you have in there too.

 

You most likely are not hiding anything, but it SHOULD bother you to have someone invading your privacy.

[Erin]

This is pretty much my opinion, too.  I'm a pretty dull person and have never had anything to hide, but the very thought of a stranger, pawing through my stuff, just creeps me out!  

With obvious exceptions, I have a right to own a gun, I have a right to speak my opinion, and I have a right to privacy.

[Berta]

This is pretty much my opinion, too.  I'm a pretty dull person and have never had anything to hide, but the very thought of a stranger, pawing through my stuff, just creeps me out!  

With obvious exceptions, I have a right to own a gun, I have a right to speak my opinion, and I have a right to privacy.

Can I get an Amen?? Your right to own a gun, speak your opinion and guard your privacy is protected by our CONSTITUTION and not consenting to a search of person or property does not mean you have something to hide.

[MedicMom]

I guess I am stuck on why someone would raise their child to react like that to a police officer. I'm not a police officer but we often get called to situations where LE is present. Frankly the first thing I want to see is hands...I need to know that the person who has been pulled over/detained/whatever does not have a gun or knife or something that can be used as a weapon. Anyone who is (a) ruffling around in their car and (b) refusing to answer the LEO's questions and © just being difficult in general is going to raise every spidey sense I have as a paramedic and I guarantee that his behavior was viewed as suspicious by the LEO.

[Erin]

Absolutely.  This kid handled it ALL wrong.  

He doesn't have to be confrontational to maintain his right to privacy... A simple "I'm sorry officer, I have to say no" would have been better.

 

And while the ruffling in the car thing might indeed make the cop nervous it doesn't necessarily translate to probable cause.

[Trish]

Exactly. If the officer had probable cause he wouldn't be asking for permission to search. This is one of the many reasons why I have a dashcam ( http://www.amazon.com/BOOMYOURS-270%C2%B0Rotating-Vehicle-Blackbox-G-sensor/dp/B008GAMNBK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1387123741&sr=8-5&keywords=dash+cam ) running in my car if I am in it.

 

It's fairly obvious that there is a dashcam in play, and might make the officer think twice about violating your rights. It also takes away the "he said, she said" argument. There is audio and video, even a blinker can be heard on the recording. I won't drive my car without it.

 

I was thinking of asking for one of these for Christmas. I do know, though, that in Florida it's illegal to record someone on AUDIO without them knowing it. So I'm wondering if that would invalidate any useful footage I got in case of accident or wrongful accusation by police. Or if I'd just have to "announce" that they're being recorded. (and then would they have the right to tell me to turn it off?)

 

'My husband suggested I have a sign on the car saying, "this interaction may be recorded for training purposes..."

 

Heh.

 

[zoobie]

I was thinking of asking for one of these for Christmas. I do know, though, that in Florida it's illegal to record someone on AUDIO without them knowing it. So I'm wondering if that would invalidate any useful footage I got in case of accident or wrongful accusation by police. Or if I'd just have to "announce" that they're being recorded. (and then would they have the right to tell me to turn it off?)

 

'My husband suggested I have a sign on the car saying, "this interaction may be recorded for training purposes..."

 

Heh.

 

 

Do not take this as actual legal advice!

 

If it's illegal to record audio, it's illegal to RECORD it. So don't worry about not being able to use it--don't do it, period. They make security cameras that record only video.

 

Also, don't do the dashboard cams advertised for that insurance company--that's crazypants. No savings is worth it!

[Trish]

Do not take this as actual legal advice!

 

If it's illegal to record audio, it's illegal to RECORD it. So don't worry about not being able to use it--don't do it, period. They make security cameras that record only video.

 

Also, don't do the dashboard cams advertised for that insurance company--that's crazypants. No savings is worth it!

 

It's only illegal to record it if it's secret. If you tell the person they're being recorded, it's okay. We have a 4-way stop near our house where my husband has been ticketed TWICE for not coming to a full stop, even though he has. (in one of the incidents  he actually waved to let the person at the other corner go, THEN proceeded) Still got a ticket, as the cop insisted he did not see him stop. (Maybe my husband should be getting this for Christmas!)