Are police allowed to look in locked compartments at traffic stops?
- Thread starter BigBlock
- Start date
- Status
R3dundantC
Member
The other night I was driving thru Florence, Ore at 12:30am, with a couple of my friends who staff at a local Boy Scout camp. And I =may= have been going a little fast when I passed a cop, and I was abruptly pulled over. My friends and I all are wearing BSA uniforms, and we all had knives and such on us. I figure honesty is the best policy to try to et out of my $200 speeding ticket, and so I inform the officer of the weapons. Which brought up the question "Do you have any other knives or guns in the car?"
and of course I just happend to have a M1 Carbine in the trunk
I informed the officer and less than, and i kid you not, 15 seconds later, 2 more officers arrived on the scene. At which point they wanted to remove the weapon from the trunk of my car, "for their safety". And they did. Thank God my trunk was so messy. The officer was kinda searching the trunk, without my permission, and I may have had a homemade suppressor for my .22 in there. So I was getting a little nervous. Finally they put the gun back in my trunk and let me on my way, sans ticket. I very well could have been sitting in county had they found a suppressor in there.
and of course I just happend to have a M1 Carbine in the trunk
I informed the officer and less than, and i kid you not, 15 seconds later, 2 more officers arrived on the scene. At which point they wanted to remove the weapon from the trunk of my car, "for their safety". And they did. Thank God my trunk was so messy. The officer was kinda searching the trunk, without my permission, and I may have had a homemade suppressor for my .22 in there. So I was getting a little nervous. Finally they put the gun back in my trunk and let me on my way, sans ticket. I very well could have been sitting in county had they found a suppressor in there.
WhisperFan
Member
If you have an approved Form 1 allowing you to make your own 'homemade' suppressor, then no laws were broken. If, however, you decided to make a suppressor without going through legal channels, you risked becoming a felon, losing your freedom, and a huge fine ..... a lot to risk for an illegal suppressor (if it was illegal)
kentucky_Dave
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 182
If they want to search my old truck, more power to them, but i am not responsible for anything that bites them as they root around in there.
And that's exactly what I'd tell them .
And that's exactly what I'd tell them .
R3dundantC
Member
I am very aware of that. It would be incredibly stupid of me to leave one in there, had i made one 
Neo-Luddite
Member
My friends and I all are wearing BSA uniforms...
and breaking the law while in public--the NFA no less--and admitting all this on a public internet forum?
I'm getting some coffee now...
and breaking the law while in public--the NFA no less--and admitting all this on a public internet forum?
I'm getting some coffee now...
look at it from thier side,
you pulled over some one, your searching the car/truck. You find lots of locked containers, but the guy says he does not have a key.
I don't know about you, but to me that throws up a bunch of red flags.
I'm going to want to go over every thing with a fine tooth comb, call in a dog, etc...
Not to mention the fact that they are going to break into them. Which they may know what they are doing, they may not. There just went a rifle case, and if they have a warrent/probalbe cuase, they don't have to pay for it.
If they can get a warrent to search your car, breaking open a locked box in said car, that you admit you don't have a key for, would not be a stretch.
Lets just say they do find a "no-no", you not having a key, will be used against you in court... "I mailed it to myself" is only going to make you look more guilty.
Generally no, but with reasonable cause he/she can.
Here's an example:
Years back a cop stopped me for not completely stopping at a stop sign.
I didn't have my license or registration and he said, in so many words, "since you can't prove who you are or have the registration, I would like to see what is in the trunk".
He said this after looking into the interior of the car.
I said ok and he looked into the trunk.
I got the feeling that, under these circumstances, he could force me to open the trunk, etc.
Tidbit: As it turns out, I know my license number by heart and he ran a check, etc. I ended up with a warning ticket and he followed me home (i.e., about 3 miles away). Whew!! I got lucky!
Talk about a stupid mistake!
Here's an example:
Years back a cop stopped me for not completely stopping at a stop sign.
I didn't have my license or registration and he said, in so many words, "since you can't prove who you are or have the registration, I would like to see what is in the trunk".
He said this after looking into the interior of the car.
I said ok and he looked into the trunk.
I got the feeling that, under these circumstances, he could force me to open the trunk, etc.
Tidbit: As it turns out, I know my license number by heart and he ran a check, etc. I ended up with a warning ticket and he followed me home (i.e., about 3 miles away). Whew!! I got lucky!
Talk about a stupid mistake!
SCKimberFan
Member
Explain that to me.
Here is your response to that:
"I do not consent to a search, then shut your mouth."
Maybe SC.
In Michigan, we're required to have a license and registration with us when we drive.
He might of thought I stole the vehicle and I can't say he would have been out in leftfield if he had thought that IMHO. (I ain't the prettiest looking man.)
If I'd steal a car, maybe he thought I might also have things in the car that weren't "appropriate"?
Edit: SC, this happened shortly after 9/11 and I look like Saddam Hussein but uglier. I had an uncle that could literally have been his twin brother. We aren't Middle Eastern but we sure are your classic olive skinned, hairy men in my family. So, I don't mess with the police. That's just reality. So be it.
In Michigan, we're required to have a license and registration with us when we drive.
He might of thought I stole the vehicle and I can't say he would have been out in leftfield if he had thought that IMHO. (I ain't the prettiest looking man.
)If I'd steal a car, maybe he thought I might also have things in the car that weren't "appropriate"?
Edit: SC, this happened shortly after 9/11 and I look like Saddam Hussein but uglier. I had an uncle that could literally have been his twin brother. We aren't Middle Eastern but we sure are your classic olive skinned, hairy men in my family. So, I don't mess with the police. That's just reality. So be it.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
A "Terry" type (withOUT probable cause) cursory search of the vehicle in and around the occupants, does NOT include completely separate locked containers! Now a search "incident to a lawful arrest" can include such areas, such as the trunk or a lockbox. So if you get a ticket for ANYTHING, then the search can expand to that, since a ticket can be considered an "arrest", even if you are not hauled in to jail. But no, just for a STOP withOUT a lawful arrest and withOUT specific articulable probable cause to search, locked containers are off limits to LEO.
That is of course, unless you consent, and then all bets are off- but you will NOT consent to search, now will you!?
Warning: This was the state of the law last time I looked at the issue, about 10 years ago. So it may have changed with the war-on-some-drugs whores sitting up on the SCOTUS bench in black robes. I doubt it has changed, however.
Bzzzt, the italicized part is incorrect, because you CONSENTED to the search as seen from the bolded part of your quote. You consented, and that's all there is to it. He did NOT have the RIGHT to search - he convinced you to consent, which is 100% different from what you describe as "reasonable cause" - he did not have "probable cause" (the actual correct term), which is the reason WHY he asked for consent. You have to learn to say "NO" to LEOs when they ask for your consent. They can be very friendly and persuasive when asking for consent, but if you don't have time for their nonsense, or just want to exercise your rights, then you say "NO THANK YOU, OFFICER, BUT I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH." You don't have to be rude, but you do have to be firm.
That is of course, unless you consent, and then all bets are off- but you will NOT consent to search, now will you!?
Warning: This was the state of the law last time I looked at the issue, about 10 years ago. So it may have changed with the war-on-some-drugs whores sitting up on the SCOTUS bench in black robes. I doubt it has changed, however.
Bzzzt, the italicized part is incorrect, because you CONSENTED to the search as seen from the bolded part of your quote. You consented, and that's all there is to it. He did NOT have the RIGHT to search - he convinced you to consent, which is 100% different from what you describe as "reasonable cause" - he did not have "probable cause" (the actual correct term), which is the reason WHY he asked for consent. You have to learn to say "NO" to LEOs when they ask for your consent. They can be very friendly and persuasive when asking for consent, but if you don't have time for their nonsense, or just want to exercise your rights, then you say "NO THANK YOU, OFFICER, BUT I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH." You don't have to be rude, but you do have to be firm.
There was a thread about a year back that dealt with LEO searches, complete with video lecture as to Americans' rights to not allow searches, to not give too much info, to ans questions, etc, etc, etc. It was a great view, and level-headed and very common sense. Can someone help me locate that old thread? We should link it to this thread as well. I'll try to find it now.
Doc2005
Doc2005
Hmmm.... ok guys, learn something everyday. I figured he didn't know who I was and might have thought I stole the car.
Guys, let me repeat, I look like Saddam Hussein. That's a different ballgame for me IMHO. I'm a hairy, olive skinned, rather large man.
Edit: If I don't have a drivers license or registration, doesn't that change the scenario dramatically, regardless of how I feel about my physical appearance?
Guys, let me repeat, I look like Saddam Hussein. That's a different ballgame for me IMHO. I'm a hairy, olive skinned, rather large man.
Edit: If I don't have a drivers license or registration, doesn't that change the scenario dramatically, regardless of how I feel about my physical appearance?
RDak:
The Secretary of State has your MDL's picture on file, as well as your autombile's proof of insurance. The MSP has your handguns on file, those that have been "safety" inspected. It won't take the average LEO 60 seconds to affirm or refute who you say you are. By the way, if you reaaaaalllly look like Saddam, I suggest you don't get all flustered and lose your head. <<Smirk...chuckle>>.
Doc2005
The Secretary of State has your MDL's picture on file, as well as your autombile's proof of insurance. The MSP has your handguns on file, those that have been "safety" inspected. It won't take the average LEO 60 seconds to affirm or refute who you say you are.
By the way, if you reaaaaalllly look like Saddam, I suggest you don't get all flustered and lose your head. <<Smirk...chuckle>>.Doc2005
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
In ten years of reading posts as a moderator at TFL and THR, I have read a lot of foolishness from various members. I realize we have a goodly number of the rather-young among us who naturally are ignorant of many facets of the law, but they are only a minority.
And there are those who cannot learn from others' problems--and often sound as if they do not learn from their own.
Wilful ignorance, or arrogance as to how to deal with legal issues, strikes me as foolish in the extreme. We have a couple of examples here in this thread which are as egregious as any I have ever read.
The original question was answered quite adequately, early on. What got posted, later on, was more than enough to verify to me that common sense is a declining attribute of some in our society.
Enough.
And there are those who cannot learn from others' problems--and often sound as if they do not learn from their own.
Wilful ignorance, or arrogance as to how to deal with legal issues, strikes me as foolish in the extreme. We have a couple of examples here in this thread which are as egregious as any I have ever read.
The original question was answered quite adequately, early on. What got posted, later on, was more than enough to verify to me that common sense is a declining attribute of some in our society.
Enough.
- Status
