[flashbunny]

What legitimate reason is there for a cop to ask permission to search a vehicle? If probable cause exists, no consent is needed. If probable cause does not exist, what is the basis for asking?

There is a gap between suspicion and probably cause. If a deputy has a suspicion, but not enough probably cause to stand up to a constitutional test, he can ask for consent. That's part of what they're trained to do - use their experience to detect when something just doesn't seem right. This isn't a roadblock with random searches. This is a situation where you have someone pulled over, and if you feel there is merit, you ask them to consent to a search. If they agree, you search. If they don't, they go on their way. The deputies don't like to waster their time, either. They're not going to go on fishing trips.

It's a valid, constitutionally tested tool for law enforcement. Again, I live in the area. I crossed over in the primary just to vote for David Clarke. He's only allowing deputies to do these searches who have had 40 hours on training as to the constitutionality of their search powers. He will hold any abuses of this accountable.

When he was being interviewed on the air this morning, somone called up and said an employee was asked to consent to a search during a traffic stop. After the stop the deputy gave him his card. That is the professionalism of his deparment and his approach. You are trained to do what you are asked. You are expected to follow your training and the law. And you will be held accountable for your actions as a deputy.

I know fully know and respect the constitution, and this doesn't go against it. It's just a tool available to fight crime, and I don't want to hamstring a trained police officer based on somebody's unfounded fears. I would rather have this available to be used under the discretion of trained officer than to deny it completely because some people see a bogeyman that isn't there.

[supercat]

It's just a tool available to fight crime, and I don't want to hamstring a trained police officer based on somebody's unfounded fears.

If someone 'consents' to a search and the cop finds something, that suggests:

1. the person is a total moron, or
2. the person believed the cop was either going to search whether or not consent was given, or was otherwise going to punish non-consent, or
3. the person had no knowledge of the item found, perhaps because it wasn't there when permission was given.

I know most crooks aren't the smartest knives in the drawer, so #1 is certainly plausible in many case, but it seems to me more people are apt to be found because of #2 or #3. We would both agree, I think, that in case #3 the cop shouldn't be stopping the motorist; I would argue the same for case #2.

So tell me, how many crooks are caught because of case #1 who wouldn't be easily caught in short order by other means?

[Flyer]

If they don't, they go on their way. The deputies don't like to waster their time, either. They're not going to go on fishing trips.

Not in my case.

[Teacher317]

That's part of what they're trained to do - use their experience to detect when something just doesn't seem right... If [you] agree, [they] search. If [you] don't, they go on their way. The deputies don't like to waste[] their time, either. They're not going to go on fishing trips.

From my experience, once they get that feeling, that something is amiss, they don't stop fishing until that feeling is assuaged. They most certainly do not "go on their way."

And, by the way, how does the presence of a gun or four in my car constitute something that "is not right"? (Four is usually my minimum when going to the range, and one is my minimum at all times.) The shotguns are not registered to me, and I cannot prove that I own them, because Indiana does not require me to do so... but I'm sure that the officer would not use this as a reason to harass me further. /sarcasm>