Posted on 11/29/2007 6:38:28 AM PST by 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.
It's because at the bottom line, people don't respect what police do, and that's a lack of respect for the law. If you don't respect the law, you aren't going to respect its enforcers.
For better or for worse, people simply don't feel that most traffic infractions should be against the law. Because the vast majority of most folks' encounters with police are the result of traffic violations, they aren't going to respect the police. Likewise, I think that people really don't respect the idea behind the War on Drugs. I think that most people would agree in theory with the concept that drugs should be illegal, but they don't respect the means by which the drug war is fought.
Bottom line: people don't like speeding tickets, so they don't like cops.
The alternative is to have cops that (1) lose that "respect my authority" posture that many seem to have adapted as of late (I had to deal with one just this morning, in fact), and (2) remember that they are civilians, just like the people they're protecting. Too many cops these days think they're bad-ass paramilitary commandos.
I was stopped by the latter type about a month ago, while driving in my truck. My crime? Paying the toll I was required to pay at an exact change tollbooth---fifty cents. I still don't know exactly why I was stopped.
But this punk fit the stereotype to a T---high and tight hard-charger haircut, aviator sunglasses, hell, he even had his blouse tucked properly in the Marine Corps style. He railed at me in his best R. Lee Ermy impression the entire time, and got extremely pissed at me because I answered his questions yes or no---and I told him I was not required to have a full-on conversation with him while his partner checked my credentials in the cruiser. He was a total parade deck Jarhead pining for his days in the Corps, and I was a long-haired blond dude in a pick-up truck.
And then he saw the sticker on my truck: US Naval Academy Alumni Association. All of a sudden I was this a-hole's "brother," and he tried to be all cool with me. Within minutes, my license was back in my hand and I was on my way.
I still have no idea why I was stopped.
My little tale is just one of the million or so you could probably collect in a fortnight if you wanted to. And you wonder why many people of all political persuasions don't really like cops?
Trust me I won’t, I live in Texas and I am armed. Oh yea I also spent 8 years in the Infantry and do know how to use my weapon.
Nonsense. We do not live in a police state. Governments pay out millions for the unlawful actions of dirty cops like you suggest.
This is the "very thin line" of which you speak ...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
by not standing up for the "“principle of the thing” and allowing the search because "they can keep you hanging around infinitum" ... is no different than the idiot students that said they would give up their right to vote for an Ipod...
you are simply willing to give up another "right" in favor of reward or convienience.
FIFY
Doesn’t anybody give a rat’s behind for the Constitution any more? Let’s just rip it up and forget about it. Why does everyone think it was important to codify these rights in the first place? There’s just too much trust of government here. If the founding fathers could see us now, they would wonder why they bothered to risk everything just for us to toss what they accomplished out the window.
Most police departments have turned into Revenuers, that is, their goal is the same as most guvmint entities, to protect its turf, get newer and better "stuff", and grow its budget. As a result, you have the growth of photo radar, even shortening the yellow light duration in some jurisdictions to give more tickets. Rear-end collisions have gone up where they install these things. And the companies that market the systems to the police departments market them on the basis of how much money they can make off them. Meanwhile the police spinners lie to the public about how they are concerned about safety.
Meanwhile, in most jurisdictions, most police departments release illegal immigrants, even when they already have them in custody over some minor traffic violation.
The public is pretty saavy. The public does not want to allow reckless drivers and supports taking them off the streets, but when the traffic in most areas flows over the speed limit all the time, and the radar revenuers come along and issue you an expensive ticket for keeping up with the traffic, slightly over the posted limit, yes, most rightly resent it, and know that its "just about the money". Particularly when they happen to net serious criminals in my example, and they have a catch and release policy. Our Constitution was written by folks who had suffered a tyrannical guvernment and were trying to protect against one again. We may not yet have a tyrannical gubmint, but it is a slippery slope and a process of increments, as is Liberalism.
I had it happen to me about 10 years ago on I-30 east of Dallas on my way home. The Highway Patrol pulled me over in the middle of the afternoon because I was driving an old pick up and had long hair and beard and I do have many Tat’s.
When I asked them why they had pulled me over they said something about my crossing over the white line on the side of the the road, not the lane divider.
After they verified my insurance and license and determined I was not wanted for anything they then started with the “Do you mind if I search your truck” Crap. When I told them that I would and that I spent 8 years in the military defending my country and its constitution I then got the “well I’ll just call in the Dogs and we’ll see if we have probable cause. I told them go ahead, I like dogs and that I have all the time in the world, besides I told them that as long as I had them tied up doing nothing they weren’t doing harm to others that may not know their rights as well as I did.
They called in a Sgt and when he arrived they spent about 30 seconds in conversation and came back to me handed me my documents and told me I was free to go.
Cops are not your friend.
PING!
I have nothing to hide. I won't consent to a search without a warrant. If the police think I have done something wrong, they can follow the process. If not, they can stop wasting my time.
That can be a real problem ... cops fresh out of the military, and forgetting that their mission has changed from "search and destroy" to "protect and serve". One might hope that the military folks over in Iraq now, working with the "concerned local citizens" to keep the peace might have an easier transition to being good civilian cops.
true story:
trooper pulls over guy for speeding in rental car. at the conclusion of signing the speeding ticket, he then asks “can I search your car”. guy says “no”. trooper says “are you hiding something?” guy says “no”. trooper says “I can have you wait till a warrant comes.” guy says “no you can’t. I signed the ticket, you have it, so our business here is done. have a nice day.”
trooper looked like someone pee’d in his Wheaties.Sucks when people know their rights.
Response: Officer, if you think it's worth the time and trouble, I'll wait
I think it’s amazing that so many “conservatives” are so willing to relinquish their rights. The rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. The conservatives I know cherish that. The rights you’re so willing to give up will eventually be taken from everyone else. For our own good of course.
The “cop hater” garbage is old. So spare us. Expecting the police to do their job without abusing their power is not “cop hating.” And using the term on law abiding citizens who simply expect the police to abide by the laws as well is a “cop out”.
Sad. Discouraging. But there’s nothing hysterical about it.
“Miranda” was made for illegals.
Old Ernesto Miranda got his in the end.
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.