When a cop says "please step out of your vehicle" or "may I search your vehicle?"

[Hunt480]

Im always respectful and say "yes sir & no sir" and everything seems to work out and I'm on my way but I would probably say no sir to a search even though I got nothing to hide. No offense to anybody here but there are probably some cops that will find what they want if they want you bad enough. Sorta like pulling you over for that tail light that seems to be working fine now or that that obscured tag thats been in the same place 20 years or the classic I saw you weave across the centerline a ways back.

 

[NavyLCDR]

am i missing something here? are you quoting from another thread?

Yes, you are missing a lot. Samuel79 ran away and he deleted all his B.S. posts.

 

[avs11054]

Another thing from reading this thread, I ask for consent for whether I need it or not. As someone stated above, if for some reason some of my evidence would have been found unlawfully, but I was granted consent, the evidence won't be suppressed. If I have no PC, I still ask for consent to search the car. There are plenty of people who either think you'll do a half <deleted> search of their person or their vehicle and you won't find whatever illegal item they might have in their possession.

There are people (judges) who may contend that the mere presence of a badge and gun cause the consent to be coerced, however, that's not for me to decide. If I politely ask someone to search their person or vehicle, and they say yes, that is consent. There are ways to articulate that it was not coerced.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Also, when frisking for weapons, weather it be in the car or on someone's person, any other contraband found can be used against the individual, and the person can be arrested for it. This is based on Minnesota Vs Dickerson in which a Dickerson was frisked for weapons. The officer felt a lump in Dickerson's jacket, which the officer was able to articulate was a bag of drugs, and Dickerson was arrested. The supreme court ruled the officer did not have a reason to frisk the subject, however, if the frist had been lawful, if the officer can articulate that while they are frisking a subject for weapons, and they find contraband, the subject can be arrested.

I would suggest you read Minnesota v. Dickerson again:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...esota+v.+dickerson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,48&as_vis=1

Before trial, respondent moved to suppress the cocaine. The trial court first concluded that the officers were justified under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), in stopping respondent to investigate whether he might be engaged in criminal activity. The court further found that the officers were justified in frisking respondent to ensure that he was not carrying a weapon.

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The court agreed with the trial court that the investigative stop and protective patdown search of respondent were lawful under Terry because the officers had a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that respondent was engaged in criminal behavior and that he might be armed and dangerous.

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. Like the Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court held that both the stop and the frisk of respondent were valid under Terry, but found the seizure of the cocaine to be unconstitutional.

It remains to apply these principles to the facts of this case. Respondent has not challenged the finding made by the trial court and affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court that the police were justified under Terry in stopping him and frisking him for weapons.

It is expressed over and over again in Minnesota v. Dickerson that the stop and the frisk were justified and lawful. Please show us where that is not the case?

 

[TexasRifleman]

am i missing something here? are you quoting from another thread?

No, we had several posts from one member who decided to delete all his comments.

Makes things sort of confusing. No big deal.

 

[Finprof]

A lawyer told me always to ask "Am I free to leave". If the answer is "No" then I am in custody and must be read my rights and have a right to an attorney. Then I pay my attorney some money to take care of the problem.

Is there any truth to this?

 

[avs11054]

navyLT,

it was all good til it got to the us supreme court. That is where it was ruled IN THIS CASE the original patdown was unlawful. In the future, however, an officer can do a pat down for weapons if RS exists, and any other contraband recognized can be used against the defendant. This is what's known as 'the plain feel doctrine.'

I'm not as technically advanced as you or I'd post post excerts like you did. But it appear your excerts are the opinions of the minnesota court of appeals. It was tweaked a little bit when it reached the us supreme court.

 

[avs11054]

A lawyer told me always to ask "Am I free to leave". If the answer is "No" then I am in custody and must be read my rights and have a right to an attorney. Then I pay my attorney some money to take care of the problem.

Is there any truth to this?

just because you are not 'free to leave' does not mean you are in custody and must be read your rights. You only have to be read your rights if you are not free to leave he police officer is going to ask you questions about a crime and is going to try and get incriminating statements from you. All a police officer needs is resonable suspicion to detain you, and you are not 'free to leave.' reasonable suspicion does not necesarilly require you be read your rigts.

 

[NavyLCDR]

navyLT,

it was all good til it got to the us supreme court. That is where it was ruled IN THIS CASE the original patdown was unlawful.

Again, avs11054, I would ask you to post a citation that supports your claim. I would suggest that you actually look at the link I posted. Let me post the header for you:

508 U.S. 366 (1993)
MINNESOTA
v.
DICKERSON
No. 91-'.

United States Supreme Court.
Argued March 3, 1993.
Decided June 7, 1993.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA

367*367 White, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III and IV, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 379. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Blackmun and Thomas, JJ., joined, post, p. 383.

All of the quotations that I posted were from the US Supreme Court decision! You do recognize the names White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Rehnquist, Blackmun and Thomas, don't you?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx

just because you are not 'free to leave' does not mean you are in custody and must be read your rights. You only have to be read your rights if you are not free to leave he police officer is going to ask you questions about a crime and is going to try and get incriminating statements from you. All a police officer needs is resonable suspicion to detain you, and you are not 'free to leave.' reasonable suspicion does not necesarilly require you be read your rigts.

On this point, I agree with you.

 

[NavyLCDR]

To help your understanding of the limits of evidence obtained during a Terry Frisk, here is another excerpt from the US Supreme Court decision:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/508/366/case.html

Held:

1. The police may seize nonthreatening contraband detected through the sense of touch during a protective patdown search of the sort permitted by Terry, so long as the search stays within the bounds marked by Terry. pp.372-377.

(a) Terry permits a brief stop of a person whose suspicious conduct leads an officer to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot, and a patdown search of the person for weapons when the officer is justified in believing that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. This protective search-permitted without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable suspicion less than probable cause-is not meant to discover evidence of crime, but must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others. If the protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed. Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 65-66. pp. 372-373.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

A lawyer told me always to ask "Am I free to leave". If the answer is "No" then I am in custody and must be read my rights and have a right to an attorney. Then I pay my attorney some money to take care of the problem.

Is there any truth to this?

Yes. Police like to operate in gray world where you believe you have to do everything they say, but they can explain to a judge that you were just two buddies chatting on the side of the road after they pulled you over and you confessed everything out of your own free will. If you ask the cop point blank "Am I under arrest or free to leave?" you are forcing them out of the gray area. There is no consent, you are invoking your rights. If you are there you are not there voluntarily.

just because you are not 'free to leave' does not mean you are in custody and must be read your rights. You only have to be read your rights if you are not free to leave he police officer is going to ask you questions about a crime and is going to try and get incriminating statements from you. All a police officer needs is resonable suspicion to detain you, and you are not 'free to leave.' reasonable suspicion does not necesarilly require you be read your rigts.

If a cop is fishing for a confession or search there is no reason for them to detain you if they cannot easily ask questions. You force cops out of the gray area by asking "am I free to leave". As AVS said "You only have to be read your rights if you are not free to leave he police officer is going to ask you questions about a crime and is going to try and get incriminating statements from you." The cop knows he can't ask you questions there is not any reason to detain you, and he will cut you loose. Also he knows/assumes you know your rights and will not confess and they will try pulling over someone else who is dumber. However, If you are a criminal and they are holding you for a witness ID or something similar, then there is nothing you can do and you are going to jail.

For the most part, Criminal Justice is all a numbers game. Cops, prosecutors and judges see the same things day in and day out and assume that since 90% of the people in situation X are guilty, every individual in situation X is guilty/ will do as the cop asks. If you are under suspicion, you have to break out of that as quickly as you can. Asking "am I free to leave" establishes that you are not an easy mark and may move you into the 10%. Also, it stops the cop from accumulating more information which could lead to a search, confession or arrest.

Follow your attorneys advice. Not just because me, some guy on the internet said so, but because he is your flesh and blood attorney looking out for your interests.

 

[Erik]

Miranda is required when there are three things:

Cops
Custody
Questioning

Only two of those things? Miranda is not required.

 

[pitsmile]

A lawyer told me always to ask "Am I free to leave". If the answer is "No" then I am in custody and must be read my rights and have a right to an attorney. Then I pay my attorney some money to take care of the problem.

Is there any truth to this?

An officer can detain you without placing you under arrest. This means he/she is still conducting business and determining whether a law has been broken or cause for an arrest. The officer is required to read you Miranda Rights if you are under arrest. If you do not comply - the officer can place you under arrest.
---------------

In NJ an officer cannot search your vehicle without one of three reasons:
1- something illegal in plain view
2- something within your reach they feel is a threat to them
3- a warrant
This does not mean it isn't done.
---------------

There is a difference between a frisk and a search. A frisk (terry stop) allows an officer to pat down the outside of your clothing, if the circumstances and context of your actions and location raise suspicion- fitting a possible criminal scenario. (walking down the street with a crowbar where car break-ins have been reported recently) IF the officer feels something under your clothing that fits something he/she recognizes to be illegal from their experience, probable cause for a full search is justified - if the item turns out to be illegal an arrest is legal.
----------------

I do believe asking to step out of your vehicle is an order, not a suggestion, and failure to comply can result in an arrest.

 

[Boberama]

Try to stay seated and they will call in backup or forceably remove you.

 

[NavyLCDR]

There is a difference between a frisk and a search. A frisk (terry stop) allows an officer to pat down the outside of your clothing, if the circumstances and context of your actions and location raise suspicion- fitting a possible criminal scenario. (walking down the street with a crowbar where car break-ins have been reported recently) IF the officer feels something under your clothing that fits something he/she recognizes to be illegal from their experience, probable cause for a full search is justified - if the item turns out to be illegal an arrest is legal.

Your statement seems to be in conflict with Minnesota v. Dickerson. Can you please explain to us the difference in your scenario above and what happened in Minnesota v. Dickerson where the arrest and evidence were thrown out by the court?

From:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...esota+v.+dickerson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,48&as_vis=1

The officers pulled their squad car into the alley and ordered respondent to stop and submit to a patdown search. The search revealed no weapons, but the officer conducting the search did take an interest in a small lump in respondent's nylon jacket. The officer later testified:

"[A]s I pat-searched the front of his body, I felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane." Tr. 9 (Feb. 20, 1990). The officer then reached into respondent's pocket and retrieved a small plastic bag containing one fifth of one gram of crack cocaine. Respondent was arrested and charged in Hennepin County District Court with possession of a controlled substance.

Is this not the exact same scenario you are describing, pitsmile? How is your scenario different?

And the results of this scenario?

1. The Terry Stop and resultant Terry frisk WERE JUSTIFIED:

Respondent has not challenged the finding made by the trial court and affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court that the police were justified under Terry in stopping him and frisking him for weapons.

2. The officer felt what he believed, due to his experience, to be cocaine:

Thus, the dispositive question before this Court is whether the officer who conducted the search was acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent's jacket was contraband.

3. The officer ascertained the object in the pocket was cocaine with only very minor manipulation of the object:

Rather, the court concluded, the officer determined that the lump was contraband only after "squeezing, sliding and otherwise manipulating the contents of the defendant's pocket" — a pocket which the officer already knew contained no weapon.

4. During the Terry Frisk, the officer's were not searching for drugs, they were searching for weapons:

Here, the officer's continued exploration of respondent's pocket after having concluded that it contained no weapon was unrelated to "[t]he sole justification of the search [under Terry: ] . . . the protection of the police officer and others nearby." 392 U. S., at 29. It therefore amounted to the sort of evidentiary search that Terry expressly refused to authorize, see id., at 26, and that we have condemned in subsequent cases. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S., at 1049, n. 14; Sibron, 392 U. S., at 65-66.

5. Since the Terry Frisk is ONLY for weapons, and since an object in a pocket is NOT in plain sight, and clearly an object in a pocket must be manipulated or removed to determine what it is, a search warrant or consent to a further search must be obtained for the evidence removed from a pocket to be admissible, otherwise:

Although the officer was lawfully in a position to feel the lump in respondent's pocket, because Terry entitled him to place his hands upon respondent's jacket, the court below determined that the incriminating character of the object was not immediately apparent to him. Rather, the officer determined that the item was contraband only after conducting a further search, one not authorized by Terry or by any other exception to the warrant requirement. Because this further search of respondent's pocket was constitutionally invalid, the seizure of the cocaine that followed is likewise unconstitutional. Horton, 496 U. S., at 140.

When, in the Dickerson case, the officers felt what appeared to be cocaine, it would seem the correct action would have been to stop, inform Dickerson that he was being detained under suspicion of possessing crack cocaine; and either obtain consent from Dickerson to enter his pocket and retrieve the item there OR if consent was refused, obtain a search warrant prior to entering the pocket to remove the item.

What am I missing here?

 

[FuzzyBunny]

This might be the video mentioned above.

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

This video is one that rings so true!
I am not anti cop and in fact come from a family of police officers.
I am very anti BAD COP. I know great cops and a few very bad ones. You never know which one is pulling you over. Show the same respect you would want.

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 and Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

 

[NavyLCDR]

+1 for the BUSTED video.

The only thing I don't like about that video is that all the subjects in the video DID have something to hide! I would like to see them do one where the subject is Joe LawAbidingCitizen...something like a guy gets stopped travelling THROUGH New York but traveling between two "free" states, has his gun unloaded in the trunk, cop asks him if he has guns, guy says yes, cop asks to see them, guy opens his trunk, cop cites him for illegal possession of a handgun without a license in New York.

I don't consent to any searches because I value the Constitution - not because I have something to hide.

 

[Erik]

In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the United States Supreme Court unanimously adopted the plain touch doctrine, thereby allowing officers to seize evidence recognized through the sense of touch during a lawful patdown without a warrant.

The min point of the PTD? The officer must, without manipulation, immediately recognize that item felt for what it is.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the United States Supreme Court unanimously adopted the plain touch doctrine, thereby allowing officers to seize evidence recognized through the sense of touch during a lawful patdown without a warrant.

The min point of the PTD? The officer must, without manipulation, immediately recognize that item felt for what it is.

Then what would keep an Officer from immediately removing ANYTHING that he/she felt in a pocket under the pretext that they immediately recognized it through the sense of touch as an illegal item?

For instance, let's say they felt an item in my left pants pocket, and pulls it out: oh that's your car keys, sorry felt like a crack pipe to me when my hand brushed against it. Item in my right front pocket and pulls it out: oh that's a cigarette lighter, sorry, felt like a spring operated knife to me, but I am not allowed to manipulate the item in your pocket to find out. Item in my left shirt pocket, pulls it out: oh, pack of cigarettes, sorry felt like a package of powder cocaine to me. Right shirt pocket: bag of weed, BINGO, I knew that was a bag of weed as soon as my hand brushed against the outside of your pocket!

 

[Deanimator]

i didnt get to see what samuel said because it was removed (for being off topic, or incorrect?) so quite a bit of this thread doesnt make sense anymore.

The assertion was that failure to CONSENT to a search provided PROBABLE CAUSE for an involuntary search. This is of course errant nonsense.

 

[Deanimator]

just because you are not 'free to leave' does not mean you are in custody and must be read your rights

You're confusing two different issues.

1. If the LEO says you're NOT free to leave, you ARE in custody, PERIOD. At that point, other than any STATUTORY identification/notification requirements, your best bet is to invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. If lawful, make sure your voice recorder is going. Do not say a WORD without your lawyer present. Save the "banter" for "Law & Order".
2. Miranda rights relate to being questioned. If you're not being questioned, they're not strictly relevant. Of course if you're the subject of a custodial interrogation WITHOUT your Miranda rights being read to you, that taints any admissions you might make.

 

[Guns and more]

i suppose a fella with a car that contains something that will get him in trouble might say he didnt want them to look inside because of it.

Or perhaps a fella' might just want to exercise his right as in the fourth amendment.

According to your logic, random searches of homes would be fine too.

Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, the get weak and go away.

 

[northernlights78]

if an officer sees a rifle case in your car, by law they can look in the case to make sure the rifle is legal and unloaded. But, this does not give them further right to search the entire car. Unless the rifle search goes badly...

 

[NavyLCDR]

if an officer sees a rifle case in your car, by law they can look in the case to make sure the rifle is legal and unloaded.

Not if the case is locked and not if they have no other reason to detain you.

 

[Panzercat]

Step out of the vehicle. Remember to leave your cell inside if you're in California, or hell, just in case since its apparently open season on them now. Locking the doors is also advisable as it gives clear indication that you do not concent to a search, especially if you're not the one unlocking them.