Posted on 06/22/2002 7:30:52 AM PDT by forest
It seems there are a lot of very stupid criminals around. What kind of dingdong would consent to being searched by police while carrying large quantities of illegal substances? It happens.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Police in Florida were within their rights to board a Greyhound bus and question passengers. Furthermore, when police came to two men wearing heavy clothing on a warm day, police had a right to ask permission to search their luggage and bodies.
That police found bricks of cocaine strapped to the men's legs was not necessarily the question before the Court. The question for the Court was whether or not the perpetrators were coerced into cooperating with police, who did not tell them they had the right to refuse the search.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court, stating that the men agreed to the search, and nothing about the fact that they were seated on a bus forced them to say yes.
When an officer "asks" if he may search your stuff, you have a perfect right to "just say no." If police are doing a legal search, they will not ask. If they ask, that indicates they have no legal right. So, the proper response is a polite reply such as, "I choose to not participate in your random search." That is all that need be said. And, last week, in United States v. Drayton(1), the U.S. Supreme Court attempts to explain that concept to us yet again:
"Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen (2, 3), (holding that such interactions in airports are the sort of consensual encounter[s] that implicat[e] no Fourth Amendment interest). Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means. See Florida v. Bostick (4). If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized."
When a citizen clearly states to an officer that they do not wish to participate in a police fishing expedition, the officers should then leave that person alone. If police do not back off, the citizen's Fourth Amendment rights start to kick in. Or, in the legal jargon of the Court:
"The Court has rejected in specific terms the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search.(5, 6) While knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account, the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent. Nor do this Courts decisions suggest that even though there are no per se rules, a presumption of invalidity attaches if a citizen consented without explicit notification that he or she was free to refuse to cooperate. Instead, the Court has repeated that the totality of the circumstances must control, without giving extra weight to the absence of this type of warning.(7) Although Officer Lang did not inform respondents of their right to refuse the search, he did request permission to search, and the totality of the circumstances indicates that their consent was voluntary, so the searches were reasonable.
"In a society based on law, the concept of agreement and consent should be given a weight and dignity of its own. Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding. When this exchange takes place, it dispels inferences of coercion."
Which means, if you do not want to be bothered by a random search, just tell the police that. Because, at that point, they have no more right to search your stuff than you do theirs.
Among other things, the Constitution guarantees freedom from "unreasonable searches or seizures." It is unfortunate that many public officials can not be trusted to "support and defend" our Constitutional rights as they promised God and Country when taking their oath of office. So, as we see yet again, we must be the first line in defense of those rights.
"The Court has rejected in specific terms the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search." Which means, if you do not want to be bothered by a random search, just tell the police that. Because, at that point, they have no more right to search your stuff than you do theirs.
Among other things, the Constitution guarantees freedom from "unreasonable searches or seizures." It is unfortunate that many public officials can not be trusted to "support and defend" our Constitutional rights as they promised God and Country when taking their oath.
If there is any doubt as to the permissiveness of the search, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendent, just as we assume innocence.
If we want to stop this abuse, it might be good if there were criminal penalties for the officers who engage in illegal searches. The exact charge would depend on the details of the incident-what was actually done. Depending on circumstances, the charges might be armed robbery, strong armed robbery, burglary, carjacking or whatever.
How about, "My father/brother is a lawyer, and he told me that if I ever consented to a search, he would kick my ass".
This is a good tactic, because by telling the cop that you have a close family member who is an attorney, wether it is true or not, will give the cop pause for a moment. Put a little fear of God in him.
You'd be suprised. From time to time, criminals go to the police to file claims to get illegal drugs back.
My brother, last week, got pulled over. Being a young guy, the Grayling (Michigan) police officer immediately asked to search his bag. My brother replied that he would open the bag and let him look inside, pending the officer didn't reach in, if it would make the officer happy enough to let him go on with his day. The officer consented, and my brother opened his bag. Obviously, because my brother wasn't carrying anything illegal, the cop didn't see anything to further his suspicions. Was that good enough? No. The cop asked my brother if he could look through his car. My brother said that he would not allow the police man to search his car. The policeman immediately asked if he was hiding something. My brother politely replied, "would you allow a complete stranger to stop you at the grocery store sometime and search your car? With that the policeman sent him on his way without a ticket.
My whole point of this rambling is that, like the forest officer who set the wildfires in Colorado, law-enforcement officers end up thinking they are above the law and become arrogant. Sometimes, you have to remind them that their sh*t stinks the same as everybody's.
How true, I have a police report right here with a lie submitted as truth. The reporting officer said I gave him permission to enter and search my house. What I did was to agree to let the officer take a rifle, (legally registered) from me. The gun was in my house and I sent my son into my room to retrieve it. One of the two officers followed my son into my house and the other kept me from following. Once in my room the officer questioned my 12 year old son as to other weapons in the room.
After about 2 minutes of me telling the officer that I did not consent to the officer entering my home, I stepped around him and found the second officer going thru my bedroom closets, which was clearly a search. All in all 4 weapons were removed from my house, all legal and registered to members of my family. The 2 rifles, 1 shotgun and 1 handgun were taken.
I had called the sheriffs dept to report an assault, my 11 year old son had been hit with a baseball bat by an older boy, (14 years old) the older boy was threatening me also with the bat. This was on my property, I'm disabled and require the use of oxygen 24/7, so there was no way I could physically defend myself. I fired one round into a tree with a 22 cal rifle, not at the kid, this was after I had called 911 for assistance. After firing the one round the kid left, I put the rifle away and waited about 8 minutes till 3 cars arrived. I made a statement as to what happened but one of the officers was treating me like I had shot the kid.
The police report said I fired at the kid because he was threatening to break a window? While I did tell the officer the kid was threatening to break my windows, I never said that was the reason I fired. I was charged with negligent discharge of a firearm and being a felon in possession of 4 firearms. I had to hire an Attorney to defend my rights. When I brought up the part about the lies and my not consenting to a search, my attorney said it does not matter, said the officers could enter for their own safety to retrieve said weapon?
My felony conviction was 21 years ago, and was not for drugs or weapons. I knew that my having a felony made it illegal to own a weapon, but why does my wife, sons or brother (one rifle was his)loose their rights. The sheriffs office has refused to return the guns and stated that they are to be destroyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.