traffic stop searches - how do they ask

[Stebalo]

So, I hear about all of these searches cops do that people say you can legally deny. They can't do the search without your consent. So I am wondering, how do the cops ask to do these searches?

"can I look in your trunk?"

"I need to look in your trunk!"

What is the proper response, simply "No" or should I ask them if they have probably cause or a warrant, and follow it by "no"?

Here in NJ, I have read online that depending on the cop, they think that just possession of a firearm, even if locked in the trunk even if in compliance with the Firearms Owner`s Protection Act, is grounds for confiscation. I just want to know what to prepare for.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I've never been asked to have my car searched. Once, after handing over my Glock 27 and CCW license, the LEO asked if I had any dope in my car and I replied, "Nope!" That was the end of it. Got my ticket and Glock and was on my way.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Keep it simple. "No, you may not search my car. Am I free to go now?"

- Chris

 

[HankB]

I've heard a good response is "Officer, my attorney has advised me to NEVER consent to a warrantless search. I'd never hear the end of it if I did."

 

[Stebalo]

Hankb

That's a great one. I'll try to keep that in mind if the situation arises.

 

[SteveS]

I would politely, but firmly deny any search. It is amazing the number of people that consent to searches when they have some type of contraband.

OTOH, if you are pulled over and the cop reasonably fears for his (or her) safety, he can "pat you down" and do a search of the area immediately around where you were (under the front seat, glove box, etc.). They can also says all sorts of things to coerce you into cooperating.

If they do conduct an improper search and find something, your only remedy is to have that evidence suppressed. My criminal procedure prof. said that these motions are only granted around 5% of the time.

 

[AZRickD]

"...I'd never hear the end of it..."

I'll have to add that to my quiver.

Rick

 

[Zundfolge]

I've been asked by police a couple of times to search my car (usually its because I was pulled over for speeding late at night while driving through the "wrong" part of town).

In every case they said something to the effect of "Do you mind if I search your car?"

It really depends on the demenor of the officer but my usual response is "No sir, you may not."

One officer seemed to be in a good mood and I wasn't so once I said "If you had probable cause you wouldn't be asking would you?" ... he laughed and said "I supose not ... so can I?" I just said "No, sir". and that was that.

 

[DMF]

They can also says all sorts of things to coerce you into cooperating.

No they can't coerce you into cooperating. Coercion will make the search illegal, not only would any evidence be suppressed at trial, but the LEO could face both civil and criminal penalties.

 

[nico]

what I've heard is pretty much to say "no" period. If they really want to search the car, and can legally, they will. If they can't, they'll quit bugging you.
As for coercion, I'm not sure what the legal definition of coercion is. But, my dad had a cop threaten tell him that if he didn't let the cop search his car, he'd call for a warrant and he'd have to wait for it for 2-3 hours. My dad stuck to his guns and just said "OK" and the cop went back to his car and came back with the ticket. Not to badmouth all cops, but the ones who are jerks and will try to search just because they feel like it also don't seem to like wasting their own time.

 

[F4GIB]

Here's how it happened to me.

I've gotten my warning ticket and am starting to walk back to my car. The officer asks "Doyouhaveanydrugsorgunsinyourcar?"

I answer (since the gun is on my hip) "No."

The officer says "CanIsearchyourvehicle?"

I answer "No."

Officer says "Why not?"

I answer "There's a Fourth Amendment. I might as well use it."

He thinks it over for a while and then says "Oh, you don't have any drugs or guns in your car" (he has previously run my record while writing the warning ticket and knows I have zero police contacts except a speeding ticket every three years or so). ... "You can go."

There is NO possible advantage to you in consenting to a search. If the police have probable cause, they will search anyway. If not, then they won't. All "consent" does is piss away the constitution and foster bad habits in LEO's.

Never, ever, consent to any search.

That's the advice of 30 years as a lawyer speaking. No client of mine has EVER gone to jail because he didn't consent to a search or because he or she didn't make a statement.

 

[Michigander]

Is there the possibility that the police can seize/impound you car in order to obtain a warrant to search?

I know if there is "reasonable suspicion," he/she is going to search anyways. But what if they suspect something, but do not believe they have enough for a "reasonable suspicion" cause to stand up in court? Could they still persuade a judge to sign a warrant (assuming there isn't a stack of blank warrants already signed)?

 

[Zundfolge]

IIRC If he has enough to get a warrant he has enough "probable cause" to search without it (since we're talking about a car at the side of the road here).

I've heard of them pulling the old "I'll just make you sit here for 2-3 hours waiting on a warrant" BS and its a bluff.

I'd love for one of you LEOs out there to weigh in on this since I'm neither a cop nor a lawyer.

 

[riverdog]

Is there the possibility that the police can seize/impound you car in order to obtain a warrant to search?

That's how they approached the problem when I denied a search of the enclosed bed of my truck. They'd arrived on a 911, shots fired call. My truck matched the vehicle in the 911 call. It was 10PM and real cold in the middle of nowhere on I-5 and I was in no mood to stand around while they attempted to get a warrant. This wasn't a single cop bluffing, this was five cruisers (CHP and county) rolling on me. There was no contraband in the truck and I'd already told them there were rifles and handguns, unloaded and in cases in the bed. But they got on the radio to get a warrant.

Now I had two options: I could continue to stand around for an hour or so while they determined that no warrant would be forthcoming (because there had in fact -- as I learned the following day -- been no evidence of shots fired. The 911 call was a hoax.) or I could just let them look under the bed cover and get back on the road. They looked under the bed cover and that was that. The CHP cruisers left immediately followed closely by all but one of the county deputies' cruisers. I left when I got my paperwork back from the lead deputy.

So I consented to the search as an expedient. In another situation closer to home I may have said, fine, impound the car and expect a call from my lawyer and then I would have called a taxi. I wasn't going to do that 300 miles from home, 10PM in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Stebalo]

I've heard of them pulling the old "I'll just make you sit here for 2-3 hours waiting on a warrant" BS and its a bluff.

I heard about someone here in NJ who consented to a search and ended uphaving to wait 3-4-5 hours for K-9 to come in to sniff the car.


Not that I am going to consent if asked, but since there are some knowledgeable people here I thought I'd ask...once you consented to a search, can you withdraw your consent to end the search? Would withdrawal of consent possibly be construed to establish reasonable grounds for search?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I don't think they can arbitrarily hold you on the side of the road until a dog arrives or they get a warrant. That constitutes detaining you and they need probable cause to do so. Either they have a good reason to hold and search you or they have to let you go. Obviously if your vehicle matches one they are currently searching for, they do have a reason. But not so for a generic traffic stop.

 

[orangeninja]

I thought I might help out a little here......since sometimes I am on the "asking" end of this conversation.

First, NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH.....why? Whenever you consent to a search of a vehicle, the officer does not have to establish or prove probable cause, he doesn't even have to say what it is he is looking for, and since YOU CONSENTED, you have given up any legal protection you may have gauranteed you by the U.S. Bill of Rights. No B.S......you should hear how this breaks down in court. Just say no. The above is true EVEN IF THE STOP IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE YOU CONSETED. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Second, the K9 unit may be brought in a reasonable amount of time, and though not precedented in court, the rule of thumb is 20 minutes. Even with that, the Officer must have specific intelligence or circumstances that leads to a "REASONABLE SUSPICION" which is different than "Probable Cause" but must be articulated in a court of law none the less.

Third, even with probable cause, the Officer MUST ARTICULATE EXACTLY what it is he expects to find and WHY! I cannot stress this enough, a Terry Frisk for weapons is inadmissable if he searches for weapons and finds marijuanna in the glove box. A possesion charge will be thrown out.

Fourth, a warrant, or administrative warrant can usually be had within the hour, so don't buy that detained all night B.S.....however, the warrant must state exactly WHAT he is expecting to find and WHERE he expects to find it and WHY he thinks it is there. Execute a couple of bogus admin warrants and you'll find your butt directing school traffic for the remainder of your career. A warrant is FOR YOUR PROTECTION. It is not a threat to say "well I'll just get a warrant". Thats like saying to a girl, "well I'll just have to use a condom."



Fifth the:


"I heard about someone here in NJ who consented to a search and ended uphaving to wait 3-4-5 hours for K-9 to come in to sniff the car."

stuff must still be substantiated in a fashion that the officer must articulate in a court of law for the above to happen. However, if you are detained for 3-4-5 hours, any court will rule this an unreasonable delay and therefore an ureasonable search. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine will make ANYTHING HE FINDS INADMISSABLE IN COURT. Even a dead body.

I didn't write the Bill of Rights, I don't interpret them, that's the judicial and legislatures job, I enforce them. If I overstep my bounds, the integrity of the court depends upon the adherance to precedent case law.

Please forgive my spelling, but I hope the above helps.

In summary: get a warrant, it's not a big deal unless the officer is being a dick, if he's being a dick let him walk. Don't give up your rights.

 

[sendec]

Consent has to be expressed and not implied. It can be withdrawn at any time. Where probable cause exists to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of a crime or things otherwise criminally possessed there may be applicable exceptions to the search warrant requirement. These have been generically known as Carroll doctrine searches. The governing principle is that the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle and the lessened expectation of privacy in a vehicle mandate a different series of warrant requirements than for something like a house.

If your car is impounded it may be thouroughly searched for inventory purposes and any contraband, evidence or things otherwise criminally possessed will in general be admissable.

Conclusion- If probable cause exists, the car is getting searched either with a warrant or an exception. Consent searches are usually motivated by suspicion that does not rise to the level of probable cause.

There are also exceptions to the warrant requirement at or near (generally within 50 miles) of the border and at points of entry.

This may or may not apply to commercial vehicles and compliance inspections.

 

[riverdog]

An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous.

The quote is from FLA vs J.L. and I'd like to have had that information when I was stopped. I specifically asked one of the deputies if the 911 call really established probable cause and he answered in the affirmative. Cops lie? No, really? Maybe he was just misinformed.

The anonymous tip, is just a tip to look and see if a crime had been committed, it isn't grounds for a search and certainly isn't PC. Without evidence that shots had actually been fired, there was no PC. That's how I read the the Florida case. Is there a different interpretation?

 

[orangeninja]

sendec, you're correct......you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car, just less so. In other words, you may look through the windows at every angle possible, without actually entering the threshold of the vehicle itself. The "Plain View" doctrine.

Also, a Terry Frisk is limited to weapons only and only may be conducted within the immediate area of the passagers area of control. Not in the truck or a locked briefcase, glove box etc.

The laws sometimes waiver from state to state, but criminal procedure is Federally mandated. Probable Cause is still Probable Cause.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I recently adopted the habit of carrying a small, pocket tape recorder for this very reason. I don't speed and I consider myself a safe driver so I don't expect to be pulled over, but in the event that it happens, if an officer requests permission to search the vehicle and I decline, what's to stop him from just saying "Thank you, sir, step out of the way while I proceed with my search."?

Having it on tape could be invaluable.

I'd also apprciate some of the LEOs on here commenting on the rumor that if a search is reqiested and your refuse permission, once they get a warrant (if they go that far) they will deliberately trash the car in the process of searching, then leave you to put it together again.

Is there any protocol on this? If they search your vehicle and find nothing, are they required to return the vehicle to you in the condition it was prior to the start of the search?

 

[DMF]

Third, even with probable cause, the Officer MUST ARTICULATE EXACTLY what it is he expects to find and WHY! I cannot stress this enough, a Terry Frisk for weapons is inadmissable if he searches for weapons and finds marijuanna in the glove box. A possesion charge will be thrown out.

You obviously have no concept of what you are talking about. If a LEO is conducting a Terry frisk of the vehicle and finds evidence of a crime it falls under the plain veiw doctrine, and is admissable. That marijuana will be used in court, and you will get convicted on the possession charge. The cop was frisking for weapons and sees something else that is illegal it's admissable. He had a right to be there because of the frisk, and therefore what he finds is admissable.

 

[orangeninja]

DMF....pay close attention here since court rulings have stated that "glove box" is NOT within the bounds of the "plain view" doctrine. Perhaps you can even say a "locked" glovebox. This is true during a Terry Frisk due to the fact that a locked and in some cases mearly closed storage device is NOT within the immediate control of the vehicle operator. Thus searching it for weapons is a violation of criminal procedure and anything you find may be inadmissable in a court of law.

I am very familiar with the plain view doctrine.

However, if an Officer were to be conducting a "reasonable" Terry Frisk and finds some bud laying on the floor mat or under the seat, even in the cup holder, then yes....he's got you. He still must articulate the need for the Terry Frisk in the first place if he would like the possesion charge to stand. DMF...are you LEO?

I should also point out that anything that is subject to search must also have the capacity to contain a weapon. A wallet for example, would not be subject to search during a Terry Frisk. A Terry Frisk of your vehicle is the same as a Terry Frisk of your person. If an officer locates contriband, it must be within the confines of the search AND if he were to find say a Crack rock in your pocket during a pat down, he must know it's identity upon "plain touch"......I assume you are also familar with this.


Hawkmoon....I have seen it done where a consetual search has left my brother with parts of his car, tool kit and my sisters purse all over the side of the road. Since the search was consented to, the Officers did not have to state the reasonableness of the search and a complaint to the IA did nothing. If the officer trashes your car, I'm affraid there is not a lot you can do about it, however if he trashes your car based upon a warrant that turned out to be bogus, you have a legitimate claim to a violation of civil rights.

 

[cookhj]

before they can even ask to search, they have to hand you back your license and anything else they may have taken from you. one of the stipulations in asking consent to search is that a reasonable person has to feel free to leave. if the officer hands you back your license and gives you the ticket and then asks to search your vehicle, say no and drive off. once you have your license you are not being detained any longer and you are free to leave. not very many people know this, and it jumps up and bites them in the a$$.

 

[DMF]

I'd also apprciate some of the LEOs on here commenting on the rumor that if a search is reqiested and your refuse permission, once they get a warrant (if they go that far) they will deliberately trash the car in the process of searching, then leave you to put it together again.

No they do not trash your property because you refused to provide consent.

Besides the whole concept of detaining you while waiting to get a warrant is ridiculous. The Carroll Doctrine allows for the search of a mobile conveyance in a public place with PC alone. No warrant required. A mobile conveyance is a defined exigency allowing for a search with PC alone.

For more on the Carroll Doctrine follow this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#4