"Stop, Don’t Consent to that Search!”

EdNews.org ^ | November 28, 2007 | Carrie Latabia Jones

[Sopater]

How many times have we seen it? Someone is pulled over for a traffic violation, or maybe just a routine traffic stop, and the next thing you know his or her car is being searched. Nevertheless, most of the time, it is with the consent of the of the person being stopped. Why are you consenting to a search when there is no probable cause for one? The answer is simple, people are not aware of their rights.

The Constitution and the protections that it guarantees can be a bit daunting to "just regular ole' folks," but the gist of it goes something like this:

·Police may initiate a conversation with any citizen for any reason, however they may not detain you without "reasonable suspicion" that you are engaged in criminal activity. When you are stopped, you should ask the officer, "Why am I being stopped?" If the officer does not indicate that you are suspected of a specific crime, then this is a casual stop and you should be allowed to terminate the encounter at any time, but if the officer indicates that you are suspected of criminal activity, you are being detained.

·If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The only reason he is asking you is may be he does not have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request, you give up your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Scheneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S., 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

Generally, if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search generally can be used to convict the person.

Do not expect a police officer to tell you about your right not to consent. Generally, police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. If, for any reason you don't want the officer digging through your belongings, after you have consented to the search, you should tell himthat you don't want him searching through your private things and If the officer still proceeds to searchand finds illegal contraband, generally your attorney can argue that the contraband was discovered through an illegal search and that evidence could be thrown out of court, this is not always the case though.

You have the right to terminate an encounter with a police officer unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. The general rule is that you don't have to answer any questions that the police ask you. This rule comes from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects you against self-incrimination. If you cannot tell if you are allowed to leave, ask the officer, "Am I free to go?"

I hope that this article informs people of their basic rights as far being stopped and the protections that are afforded to us by the Constitution. The goal of this article was to generally inform about the laws of consent and search, this article in not way is meant to be specific, for a more specific break down, I would advise to look at your state statutes, becaue they sometimes provide for more protection than the constitution does.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I think it’s just hysterical that so many “conservatives” hate law enforcement so bitterly, yet will probably still claim that they support law and order.

Law enforcement and law and order are not necessarily one in the same---therein lies the rub.

[webschooner]

I think it’s just hysterical that so many “conservatives” hate law enforcement so bitterly, yet will probably still claim that they support law and order. Kinda funny, that.

This thread and conservatives concern in general with unnecessarily heavy-handed police action, is due to the fact that conservatives believe in freedom and fear a slide into a police state. And not coincidentally, these are part of the principles of the Founding Fathers behind our constitution -- fear and concern to avoid a tyrannical government.

While conservatives respect the law, laws are created "of by and for the people", per our Constitution;, and should not be used to unnecessarily detain, abuse, or relieve us of our money and property.

Conservatives respect individual freedom as outlined in the Constitution above the rights of the occasional rogue cop to run roughshod over us.

[MrB]

The laws apply to the “enforcers” as well as us common citizens.

This includes the right to not be coerced and intimidated by authorities into giving up our rights.

[Retired COB]

Generally, those who don't have anything to hide, are willing to consent to a search even though they don't like it. I would be affraid that I would arouse suspicion if I refused to give consent to a search although I'd be well within my rights.

I have spent 26 years of my life in the military defending freedom. I would not willingly allow an officer of the law to search anything of mine, and I wouldn't care too much if he didn't like it.

[taxed2death]

I don’t smoke dope, cigarettes or anything else. I merely stated that “the search” will be over 5 seconds after it has begun. What happens after that is anyones guess and is not a concern of mine.

[sweet_diane]

"He said that once he refused consent, the officer performed the search anyway, because the refusal was a part of the grounds for "probable cause".

That was always my understanding. Once asked "do you mind if I search your car/belongings", you no longer have an option but to let them search.

[smoketree]

Nonsense. Your refusal does not indicate evidence of criminal activity or posession of illegal items prior to the refusal.
Sue them and demand they show the prior evidence for suspicion of a crime commited.

[Sopater]

The parents were very careful no alcohol, drugs, etc and watched as the friends arrived.

Turns out daughter had let more kids in the basement door who had drugs and booze

Turns out they weren't being careful and the cops were right. Good job to the cops.

[webschooner]

That was always my understanding. Once asked "do you mind if I search your car/belongings", you no longer have an option but to let them search.

That must be something they teach now in the gubmint screwels.

You do have another option, as Nancy Reagan said, "Just Say No!"

[savedbygrace]

“What in particular would you be searching for, sir?”

If the officer doesn’t have an answer for that, then any warrant he might want to present would not qualify as a 4th Amendment warrant.

Naturally, when that officer explodes and yells at you to get out of the vehicle, you’d better not hesitate, and you’d better cooperate with the detention and arrest 100%. Only follow that path if you intend to sue for damages, and are prepared to go through hell to do so.

Other than that, BOHICA, so smile and give up your Right to not be searched unreasonably with a serf’s attitude.

[Ramius]

Nonsense. None of this is about the “occasional” rogue cop. There’s a clear hatred for cops in general. It couldn’t ~be~ more obvious. This thread is only one of hundreds over the years, and is still just getting started.

It doesn’t surprise me when lefties and hippies get all puffy-chested about “the man keepin’ me down, man...” but it does get a little curious when conservatives do it.

Like the alternative is what... to not have cops?

[dljordan]

“I would be affraid that I would arouse suspicion if I refused to give consent to a search although I’d be well within my rights.”

Then they have intimidated you into giving up your rights.

[tacticalogic]

I’d be inclined to consent to a search if they can give me a reasonable explaination of what it is they’re looking for and what leads them to believe I might have it. Otherwise, not so much.

[nevergore]

From a practical view (not a legal rights view), The question would be not one of rights but whether it was reasonable to consent.

Recognizing that in a nation of over 300 million some police abuses will occur. Currently the overall nationwide environment with police is not one of unreasonable searches.

[Beckwith]

OK, I tell the officer that I don’t want to speak with him or allow a search, as is my right under the 4th and 5th Ame ndments.

What happens next, now that the officer thinks I’m a wise ass?

[Lloyd227]

"If he asks, I’ll say no. Its called respect. My taxes pay his salary."

Well Said... remind them at every opportunity that they are in fact EMPLOYEES and not rulers here. Of course all law enforcement officers should be given respect and we should always acknowledge the difficult and necessary role they fill.

But I for one, have grown sick and tired of the egos and attitudes of these wannabe jackasses that tend to gravitate toward the job. Daily here in New England, I see our CT State Troopers routinely drive 80+ mph on the freeway, local city dog catcher wannabes who use their emergency lights simply so they can go on through the stop light and turn into the Dunkin Donuts shop (I've personally witnessed this!).

I'm tired of the attitude they take when they pull me over for a right turn that was only illegal between 3 and 4 pm and I did not see the 12" x 12" sign that told me this detail, or when I was driving 43 mph in a 35 mph zone... I understand they have a job to do, but leave the attitude at home... I am NOT a criminal and you sir are NOT God... get over it.

Thank you for your comment and suffering my rant :-)

Can you tell I've come to hate a certain segment of the law enforcement community and have no patience for the rest of them who support and enable those with bad attitudes?

Cheers,
Lloyd

[Realism]

I think it’s just hysterical that so many “conservatives” hate law enforcement so bitterly, yet will probably still claim that they support law and order.

In 40 years I've only had one bad experience and yes it was an illegal search. One local cop in PA having a bad day decided to pass it on to me while his partner and I stood and watched in disbelief. All other experiences were very professional.

[webschooner]

Like the alternative is what... to not have cops?

No, the alternative is that the police follow the constitution and respect our constitutional rights. Which most do. But a few don't. That's why we are each given constitutional rights.

[SubGeniusX]

Does this also work for airport security ‘random’ searches?

You should see the "trouble" I have caused with THIS at airports, courthouses, and Federal Buildings....

The Bill of Rights - Security Edition: The First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, printed on each side of a sturdy, playing-card-sized, pieces of metal.
Highlighted in red is the extremely controversial fourth amendment; the "search and seizure" amendment, which makes much of law enforcement so dificult.

I have had to reorder the "Frequent Flyer" pack a few times... but it is well worth the "irony" of having an LEO/Security Officer confiscate my "rights"...

The Bill of Rights - Security Edition

[Dionysius]

Problem is, they can keep you hanging around infinitum until they get a warrant. So, if you’ve got nothing to hide. why not? There’s a very thin line between “principle of the thing” and just plain foolishness.