[AZPubbie]

I suggest that you read my response above as well.

As for why there was a search, it was probably because something triggered the officers suspicion and he asked permission. The reason/basis for the search wasn't an issue in this case and that usually means that the driver consented to the search.

You'd be amazed at how many defendants consent to searches when their case is loaded down with drugs. They admit that they gave consent but claim that they didn't know they could refuse. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has held that police cannot coerce consent, but they don't have to tell the suspect that they're free to refuse.

[tacticalogic]

You'd be amazed at how many defendants consent to searches when their case is loaded down with drugs. They admit that they gave consent but claim that they didn't know they could refuse. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has held that police cannot coerce consent, but they don't have to tell the suspect that they're free to refuse.

Unless the officer can give some reason for the search, and tell you specifically what he's looking for I don't see any reason to consent. If he's asking to search, he must think there's something to find. If you don't have it, that means he's going to tear your car apart looking for what isn't there until there's nowhere else to look. Then he may just bid you "Good day." and leave you standing there with your personal effects scattered out on the ground alongside the road.