"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.

[Lloyd227]

"Not necessarily. It could just be that they have nothing to hide, so they voluntarily give up their right to refuse the search."

or another distinct possibility might be that they are too lazy, stupid or complacent to be bothered with standing up for anything on the principal of the matter alone.

Or could be they are a member of the leo community who benefits from a country of "subjects" rather than citizens.

[SubGeniusX]

I sincerely believe that they would not consider these (rare) searches as “unreasonable” given the present state of lawlessness in the country.

I sincerely don't believe King George III thought that the "Quartering of Troops" was "unreasonable given the state of lawlessness in the" Colonies...

now I do understand that times change and that some folks believe that the Constitution is a malleable document ... I think from the sound of what you are saying that you would agree with the man who said this

"...our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."

[XenaLee]

Cops like this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313743,00.html
are why I no longer trust officers of the “law”. And it took more than one such story like this to convince me that it’s not wise to take a chance with your life and freedom by blindly trusting the person that’s pulling you over.

Sure, most of the time they’re honest cops and nothing, other than maybe getting a ticket, happens. But it only takes “one time” of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and stopped by the wrong cop for you to be dead or falsely imprisoned. Some of the cops I’ve been given tickets by over the years have seemed ok, but there were others that gave me the creeps and made me feel like they’d have LOVED for me to resist or give them an excuse to do something violent.

[Lloyd227]

"Refusing a search affords instantaneous probable cause for the warrant"

This is quite likely the most ignorant and assinine thing I've read all day now....

It's also not true, not even close. Please stop repeating this mantra

[XenaLee]

How about just using some home-made concentrated habanero juice or paste instead? That stuff is pretty lethal too!

[Loud Mime]

Any druggies or Jihadis that read this board will be grateful for the education.

They already know their rights better than the common citizen.

I have one tactic I use: "If I consent to search, will that get me out of the ticket?"

[zeugma]

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.

IMO, you should never voluntarily consent to any search at any time for any reason. If they don't have probable cause, it ain't none of their business what I have.

 

[NavVet]

Okay, change the word “killed” to assaulted and see how many that raises the number up to.

You act like the cops are trampeling on your rights if they ask you if you will consent. The only rights violation would be if you said no, and they searched anyway without the proper authorization. Consenting to a search is also one of your fundamental rights.

This, “I got a speeding ticket once so all cops are evil” mentality is amazing. I don’t know if you’ve ever been involved in many traffic stops, but the reactions are predictable, “Did you make your quota this month?”, “Don’t you have any murders to be harassing” etc.

The fact that most posters seem to equate cops with “Jack booted thugs” is very disturbing.

[NavVet]

I deal with cops every day. I know that does happen, but the number of cops that have their rights violated by criminals is far far greater.

If we ever got to the point that people were routinely being asked to be searched at random, I would feel differently, but that’s just not the case. Most folks that are pulled over, just give the cop their licensce and registration and that’s it and no search takes place. It is interesting that all of the litigation in these cases involves people who are arguing to supress the cocaine that was found in the trunk etc.

[MEGoody]

or another distinct possibility might be that they are too lazy, stupid or complacent to be bothered with standing up for anything on the principal of the matter alone. Or could be they are a member of the leo community who benefits from a country of "subjects" rather than citizens.

Also possibilities.

The point is, it is lazy, stupid and complacent just to use a broad brush to paint a whole group of people.

[SubGeniusX]

Okay, change the word “killed” to assaulted and see how many that raises the number up to.

so your first assumption turned out to be unsubstantiated by facts, and you want to change the rules ...

Ok, do me a favor and you do the research this time^*... please try to find info on Officers Assaulted w/ a Weapon (Gun/Knife/Etc..)since what you are talking about here is the searching of the vehicle in order to ensure the safety of the officer. I would think that would disqualify a hand to hand assault ... for the purposes of this discussion ...

^*since you are the one making the statement the burden should be on you to back it up ... not me to refute it...

[paul51]

I don’t know how thugs can violate the rights of cops. Abuse them, disrespect them, etc. , yes. Unfortunately, that’s goes with the job and I agree it’s wrong. If I’m stopped, I’ll produce my license, registration. I won’t consent to a search without a warrant. The cop shouldn’t expect me to trust his intentions anymore than he is willing to trust mine. As long as I am violating no laws, I expect to be left alone.

[SubGeniusX]

Never Mind I found it... Here of the 6,490 assaults on police officers during traffic stops in 2006, only 291(4.5%) were with a Firearm and 37(0.6%) were with a Knife or cutting weapon.

for a Total of 328 (5.1%) ....

now if I make an assumptive extrapolation from previously demonstrated data (post #166) we can "assume" that approximately 118(36%) of those were Felony stops... The other 210(64%) are what you referred to as "simple" stops...(I think I am giving you the benifit of the doubt here as I think the %s would be higher for the Assults during Felony stops)

considering that 6490 assaults occurred on officers at traffic stops yet only a very small % of them involved a Knife or a Firearm, I would again state that the theory you posit as the search being for officer safety is flawed... it could even be argued that by removing folks from the vehicle for a search puts the officer more at risk ...

[Norman Bates]

That’s absurd.

[P.O.E.]

Once you allow a search or entry to your property (car, house, etc.), you are opening a potential Pandora’s box. If they were out to get you for some reason (need to fill a quota, have a grudge or have a relative/friend with a grudge, etc.) - they could find the slightest pretext to drag you through the legal process.

And wait ‘til smoking cigarettes and drinking at home become illegal.

[elkfersupper]

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.

This "experiment" per Benjamin Franklin, is clearly over.

I sincerely hope most people don't agree with you.

[darkangel82]

At the least this officer committed violation of oath, criminal solicitation, making false statements and perjury.

Four felonies at once. But of course nothing will happen to him for it.

[elkfersupper]

This is exactly the way I feel.

Thank you for making me realize I am not alone.

[elkfersupper]

Not necessarily. It could just be that they have nothing to hide, so they voluntarily give up their right to refuse the search.

In that case, they are fools.

[meyer]

Never consent to a search. Never. Let them get a warrant - it’s your constitutional right.