vehicle search question

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think anybody was implying that you have to consent to a search "or else". If the police ask for consent say "no sir/no ma'am" and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, you even have to be careful about how you respond to the question. Some academies teach the officers to phrase the request "You don't mind if I look in your vehicle, do you?" Saying "No" when it is phrased that way is giving consent.

The correct response is "I do not consent to your searching my vehicle."

 

[offthepaper]

Posted by: Optical Serenity

"I'm a long time 2nd Amendment fan and a huge gun "type." I'm also an LEO...With all that being said, I sure hope that most gun types are not that rude. Its a bad representative of our hobby"
-----------------------------------
Hobby?

 

[Molon Labe]

"I'm a long time 2nd Amendment fan and a huge gun "type." I'm also an LEO...With all that being said, I sure hope that most gun types are not that rude. Its a bad representative of our hobby"
-----------------------------------
Hobby?

Good point, offthepaper.

I enjoy guns. But they’re more than just a hobby.

 

[chopinbloc]

anyone ever stop to think about WHY the founding fathers felt it necessary to prevent the authorities from searching whatever they please?

way i see it, there are two major reasons:
1. nearly everyone has something illegal or something that could be MADE illegal in their house. in my case i have some fireworks that i've never gotten around to disposing of.

2. if a person isn't making enough of an ass of themself to be noticed than that illegal thing that is in their house or car is irrelevant because it's not hurting anyone. i think this is the main concept they were getting at when they wrote the bill of rights. this is also a concept that legislators should consider when writing laws - if it doesn't hurt someone else, it shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Molon Labe]

if it doesn't hurt someone else, it shouldn't be illegal.

Correct.

Over the last century we have seen an explosion of Might Crimes on the books.

What's a "Might Crime", you ask?

In most crimes, the perpetrator has infringed on the rights of someone else, and the perpetrator is duly and subsequently punished. By contrast, a "Might Crime" is a crime based on something you might do.

As an example, let's say I own an un-papered, full auto weapon. According to the government, I am committing a crime. Yet I am not infringing on the rights of anyone else. The reasoning? I might injure or murder someone with my weapon. Hence it's a Might Crime.

There are lots of Might Crimes on our books.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Incidentally, courts have generally held that withholding consent may not form the basis for probable cause.

Yeah, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, too.

 

[insidious_calm]

+1

Standing Wolf

:banghead:

I.C.

 

[WvaBill]

In fact, remember, if you were pulled over to begin with, you did violate some law. Try and abide by traffic laws and shazam, you won't be stopped. I.

Not necessarily...

The Florida Highway Patrol Drug Courier Profile, for example, cautioned troopers to be suspicious of "scrupulous obedience to traffic laws.

[Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Office of General Counsel, Common Characteristics of Drug Couriers (1984), sec. I.A.4.]


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-180.html

 

[Mark in California]

I do not fear or try to avoid law enforcment. Why should I they are just doing a job. I will not consent to wave anyone of my rights, why should I they are mine. I will show my ID, answer question up and until the Miranda Warning is read, but I not consent to anything. Before that happens I will need to have my lawyer explain my rights to me.

A couple years ago we had a trucker pulled over for having to lone of trailer. He refuse to hold the tape measure so the officer had to call out the LT at 3:00am. The LT came unglued when the truck measured legal. Guess he did not have a sense of humor. The trucker told him, "I did not was my time, you wasted your time.

 

[SMMAssociates]

A couple years ago we had a trucker pulled over for having to lone of trailer. He refuse to hold the tape measure so the officer had to call out the LT at 3:00am. The LT came unglued when the truck measured legal. Guess he did not have a sense of humor. The trucker told him, "I did not was my time, you wasted your time.

Mark:

I love it....

I would have held the tape myself.... Kinda like pulling over without being chased.... Cranking off the Lieutenant is not high on my list of things to do . Been there, done that....

(I tell people I'm a rent-a-cop as well as a computer geek. I've been off the road for decades, but often worked directly with the local PD. Believe me, you don't want to crank off the Lieutenant. )

Know your rights and stay within them.... Just try to be polite about it if you can. I've never met a "bad" LEO in the "plant evidence" sense, but I've met quite a few who should have chosen another line of work. Hiring standards are a lot better now in most areas....

Regards,

 

[me3head]

BTW, guys - a trip to the car wash and some agressive use of the sweeper ought to get any contraband out of the car that's not under the rear seat or in the trunk. Pop the seat if you dare (they never seem to want to go back right) or bribe the attendants (tell 'em they can have the good stuff they find). No sense in starting with a dirty car.

Regards,

SMMA, I was reading your post and saw you refer to a vaccuum as a "sweeper" and thought to myself "gee, he must be from NE Ohio or Pittsburgh, because I've never heard it called that outside my home town." So I scroll up, and sure enough, Youngstown! I grew up in Canfield (although I just moved to IA). Just thought it was funny to pick out a fellow Youngstownian by one word! LOL

 

[Michael Courtney]

If the police have a warrant to search a safe, it's the wrong time to play tough guy. They can remove the safe from the premise and secure it.

If a safe is properly installed, the most likely option if law enforcement insists on a search is for them to call a locksmith to open it. Fine, if they are willing to spend the money to have it opened, I am willing to spend the money repairing any damage that occurs in the process.

Having it absolutely clear that the search was not consented to is worth the repair costs. In addition, refusing to open the safe will most likely put an end to "fishing expeditions" because of the time, money, and administrative approvals necessary to enter the safe. There's probably a higher standard of "probable cause" to get a spervisor to sign off on a $300 locksmithing bill to enter the safe than there is to merely claim probable cause.

Even if that involves pulling it out of a wall with a tow truck, or knocking it on it's side and rolling it out.

If this is possible, I suggest you get your safe properly installed. If law enforcement can get to a safe this easily, then so can the criminals.

Having the Police kick down a door and break a door jamb in your home, because you won't let them into a room after they've established an exigent circumstance is STUPID. You're going to end up with a broken door and getting paid squat for repairs.

I'll gladly trade the repair bills for the proof that the search was not consented to.

There's a difference between an LEO thinking he should search and an LEO establishing a real need to search to the satisfaction of a home owner or judge.

Refusing to aid in a search is not resisting, and it is not playing tough guy, it is simply exercising one's rights.

You need to make a rational informed decision before deciding to cooperate or not cooperate with the police.

And just about every criminal lawyer will give the rational, informed advice the same as I have. Do not forcefully resist a search, but do not consent or give aid to a search either.

Hindering the police from performing acts that they have the legal authority to do, can result in criminals charges,

Please cite a criminal conviction of a homeowner who merely refused to aid law enforcement in a search by opening a safe or a locked room. You can't, because a homeowner is under no legal obligation to aid in a search. The homeowner cannot actively resist a legal search, but he is under no obligation to assist.

Getting your car towed because you won't open your doors after the police establish probable cause is STUPID.

There may be difference between probable cause in the mind of an LEO and probable cause in the mind of the driver. Forcing law enforcement to tow or call a locksmith is worth the trouble because this effectively raises the level of proof that consent was not granted, as well as preventing fishing expeditions. The LEO will often have to justify his actions in the search to his supervisor, so if he can't articulate his reasons for the search BEFORE the tow, he'll decide it's not the best time for the search. It makes it less likely that probable cause can be determined AFTER the search, depending on what is found.

They call a locksmith and he ruins the locking mechanism in your door, tough. You're the one getting stuck with bill and the broken car door.

So what? Fixing a lock is cheap compared with the time and expense of a compromised position in potential legal proceedings. I have no problem spending a few hundred dollars in repair bills to have a stronger position if some trumped up charge makes it to court.

Michael Courtney

 

[Michael Courtney]

R.H. Lee, I think the "rogue LEO" thing is kinda like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster ... oft discussed, endlessly analyzed, but no one encounters 'em personally ... So many on THR refer to the rogue LEOs, but there's a paucity of personal experience being related.

We had the acting police chief in a neighboring department ignoring the local ordinance against hunting in his village and not only go deer hunting on some vacant land in his village, but he also felt quite at liberty to trespass and hunt without permission on adjacent land where I run a small farm business. When the local wildlife officer confronted him, he expected a "wink and a nod" but got cited for the offense and dragged into court instead.

We also had both the police chief and a seargent in the local department resign due to time card fabrication and droug dealing. It's a small town, and thus a small department, and I had occasion to come in contact with the seargent.

Michael Courtney

 

[baz]

I don't know where all these so-called 'rogue' LEOs are. Honestly, I've never met any. I sure would like to hear accounts of your personal experiences with them...........

Good for you. I haven't met any either, and I hope it stays that way.

But why do you need to hear of any personal experiences? The fact that you or I have not had personal experiences with bad cops doesn't mean they are not out there. Cops get disciplined, fired, or even locked up all the time.

Sure, most of them are good guys. All the ones I know are (and I know several very well).

The 4th Amendment is just as important as the 2nd Amendment. Just as no one should have to justify themselves for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, no one should have to justify themselves for exercising their 4th Amendment rights.

There have been lots of good reasons offered for not consenting to a search. But we shouldn't even have to defend not consenting to a search, any more than we should have to explain why we keep and bear arms.

 

[Michael Courtney]

anyone ever stop to think about WHY the founding fathers felt it necessary to prevent the authorities from searching whatever they please?

Expanding your ideas to most gun enthusiasts, I'll bet that even though a search of most forum contributors homes might not turn up anything illegal, such searches would likely result in confiscation and legal wrangling.

There are several enthusiastic hunters and shooters residing in many of our homes. So even though there is nothing illegal about the amount of guns and ammo found in the home, "doing something about this arsenal" is a temptation too great to pass up for many departments. We see stories regularly about apparently honest citizens arrested and their guns confiscated because someone in local law enformcement is uncomfortable with the amount of guns and ammo in their home.

Now if this is true about guns or ammo that might be found in one's home, it might also be true of guns or ammo that might be found in ones vehicle.

Let me say that if every member of local law enforcement is comfortable with the number of guns you own, you need to buy a few more.

Michael Courtney

 

[aguyindallas]

In Ohio, when an officer runs your license or license plate registered to you it will show if you have a CCW. So, when I get pulled over and am not carrying I still tell the officer I have a CCW and am unarmed before he even runs my license. A couple times I’ve still been asked if there are any weapons in the car, even though I told him I’m not carrying. This hasn’t happened yet but let’s say I do have guns in the car. In the trunk in a case and unloaded. If the officer asks to see them (to make sure they’re being transported correctly, for example), am I obligated to let him? Or is this the same as him asking to search my car? I know I can decline consent for a search if there’s no probably cause but I don’t know if I have that right when the officer knows I have guns in the car.

First of all, what are you doing that you have been pulled over "a couple times"? Ohio has not had a concealed carry law for too long...I havent been pulled over in years.

 

[SMMAssociates]

SMMA, I was reading your post and saw you refer to a vaccuum as a "sweeper" and thought to myself "gee, he must be from NE Ohio or Pittsburgh, because I've never heard it called that outside my home town." So I scroll up, and sure enough, Youngstown! I grew up in Canfield (although I just moved to IA). Just thought it was funny to pick out a fellow Youngstownian by one word! LOL

Yikes!

Gotta watch what I say!

There's a guy on the OFCC site who used to live a couple blocks from me. Way too close....

Never realized that "sweeper" was so local.

Canfield's a nice town now that they've raised the speed limit on US224 to 35mph, too.

I have a cousin - now living in Pittsburgh - who married a guy from Corning IA. They met while she was having ticketing issues at the airport in Mexico City. (They lived south of Canfield for a while - near the Haus Farm, or was that the Whitehouse Farm? Western Reserve Road.... My wife hasn't made me go there for too long....)

Regards,

 

[Michael Courtney]

Originally Posted by Optical Serenity


In fact, remember, if you were pulled over to begin with, you did violate some law. Try and abide by traffic laws and shazam, you won't be stopped. I.

Not so. The local departments around here routinely pull folks over that merely look out of place. I've been pulled over a couple of times in an older vehicle or pulling an older trailer because they didn't fit the neighborhood. Of course, the LEO claimed that I had a inoperable tail light that worked fine when we double checked it. On another occasion, the LEO claimed that a "trailed matching this description" was reported stolen. It was a landscape trailer modified by adding sides to haul cattle. I've never seen another one like it, and I know everyone else in the area who raises livestock.

Michael Courtney

 

[offthepaper]

Posted by TennTucker:
---------
Optical Serenity ~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're a perfect example of why I would not consent to a search of my vehicle.
-----------------------------
Ditto!

 

[Owen]

I haven't gotten a ticket in years, but..

The whole problem here is that there are so many laws that noone, not even the police have much idea about what's legal and what isn't. The big ones are obvious. The Bible pretty much covered that in ten sentences. It seems that our politicians don't have much of a gift for being concise. Or consistent.

I drove a station wagon when I lived in Massachusetts, and often had gun paraphenelia in the back of the car. Even though the guns were in locked cases, with trigger locks in place, that was still technically breaking the law, because the law stated that the gun had to be locked in the trunk of the car. That hard rifle case with a pad lock was enough to get me a nice little fine and loss of my firearms license. If something that trivial could cause that much damage, how ad could the things I didn't know about be?

There are over 300 offenses in Massachusetts that could cause an officer to pull you over. 300+!

The whole system is making it impossible to keep your nose clean, because only God knows what dirt looks like this week.

So, knowing that I A) don't exactly know what's illegal this week, and B) do know that if the officer has to ask, I don't have to comply. I am not going to comply. I honestly have no idea if I am breaking the law.

 

[Mainsail]

I have been asked this question before when driving through Florida on 301. There is a town there that annexed a 100 wide strip of land a mile long for the sole purpose of being able to sit a police car out there and write tickets. This supposedly accounts for 80% of the city budget.

Anyhow, I was driving a Ford Courier truck and had been hit from behind two days prior by a pointy nose car, it bent my bumper straight down so the plate was not visible. The state trooper who responded to the accident told me to put my plate in the rear window until I could get home and have the truck repaired. So here comes this local cop pulling me over for…guess what….having my plate in the rear window! I offered to return it to the bumper and he said it wasn’t necessary. Then he said, “Well Mr C, I’m not going to cite you and you’re free to go.”

Just as I turned he asked the question, “Oh, do you mind if I searched your vehicle”? See the word play there? Did I mind? Loaded question hey? I let him search and was able to drive away. Later I wondered if my ASP baton was legal or if he had even seen it. I think it likely that he was looking for something bigger. My big military bag in the bed probably caught his eye though. Afterwards I felt pretty violated, and very nervous about the police state atmosphere I had just experienced.

Nonetheless, I later spoke to an attorney and he gave me the following advice. Do not consent to any search. You can’t possibly know the intricate details of every local, county, state, and federal law as to what you are and are not allowed to carry in your car. If they try to trip you up with the “do you mind” question, simply say that you do not mind but you do not give your consent to a search.

Sorry for the length.

 

[Molon Labe]

simply say that you do not mind but you do not give your consent to a search.

Huh? That's a mixed message. Just say you do NOT consent to any searches, and leave it at that.

 

[zahc]

Of course, the LEO claimed that I had a inoperable tail light that worked fine when we double checked it.

I was pulled over on the way home from work and the cop said my brake lights were not working. At all. Neither one.

1) the entire time the cop saw me, I never hit the brakes. I had cruise control on and didn't hit the brakes till his lights came on.

2)When I was pulling away after my warning, I could see the brake lights working fine, reflecting off the yellow line. They have worked fine ever since.

Perhaps they need to add something about how to make up creative excuses in academy.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Huh? That's a mixed message. Just say you do NOT consent to any searches, and leave it at that.

I agree. The best answer to a request to search is this complete sentence:

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

LEO's often tend to request in searches with loaded or ambiguous wording such as "You don't mind if we search the vehicle, do you?" or "You don't have anything to hide, so isn't it OK if we search your vehicle?" A simple "Yes" or "No" answer is ambiguous, and it is a mistake to try and answer the implied, "What are you hiding?" Let's all practice it together a few times:

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.

If pressed for a reason for declining the search, you can be silent or answer with one of the following:

I believe in my fourth amendment rights.

Legal counsel has advised never to consent to a search.

Michael Courtney

 

[DRZinn]

if you were to lock yourself out of your vehicle, I couldn't leave you there, I'd have to call and have a tow truck come and tow you away at your own expense.

Wonder why people hate cops?

you get the added bonus of paying for a locksmith to open your doors. That runs in the neighborhood of $500 and you have no legal recourse.

Actually it's more like $50. And as has already been mentioned, the car has not been abandoned, since you're still there. When you are no longer detained, you are able to get back in the car and drive away. The cop is not able to get in and search without consent, or a real good probable cause to break the window.

What happened?

Rogue cops happened. Too many laws happened.

the officer is going to ask you to open the vehicle and retrieve your keys. You're back to square one if you retrieve your keys. If you refuse, your cars going to get towed.

On what grounds?

How about this one:

Get out, lock the doors behind you, put the keys on the roof, all the while making it clear you do not consent to a search. Step away from the vehicle.

If the cop gets the keys and unlocks the door, it'll be pretty clear in the car video that you did not consent. But if he has what he thinks is probable cause, he can still get in without breaking anything. Either way you win.