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.
BTW, I was just recently broke down on the side of the road. The local cop said he could call in for a tow, but that it was completely against policy for him to give me a ride anywhere.
Dumb policy, IMO, but I guess they have their reasons.
Sorry about your aunt. Race should not enter into such decisions, but of course it often does, on both sides.
Yup.
Are you familiar with the fact that every single druggie who gets caught in possession claims that the cops planted the evidence?
Do you remember the OJ trial, where the defense claimed the evidence was planted?
Hopefully, my claims of police misconduct, due to my zero contact with the law during my life, would have greater credibility than some guy with a three-page rap sheet.
LOL...
BJ if yer from Buffalo, as I am ... I really hope that was a rhetorical question...
But if not the correct answer is, Slightly More Stupid than a Cheektowaga Officer, Slightly Less Stupid than a Tonawanda Officer, and a near Genius in relation to a Kenmore Cop.
carrying concealed weapons. due to stupid MI laws, that i didn’t know at the time, any weapon in your vehicle, not in a case and in your trunk, is considered a concealed weapon.
C'mon that doesnt count, that happened against "inner city" folk, and they probably deserved it any way...
just like the "small town" folks that got "caught up" in Tulia, TX ... that was just a good cop trying to get bad trash off the street ...
/I really hope the sarcasm was noted there ...
I haven’t seen anybody defending bad cops. They are criminals just as much as those they frame.
But you must admit that the vast majority of the claims of police brutality or evidence-planting are false. If all such claims were accepted as valid, there would be nobody left in the prisons, as when the evidence is overwhelming the only possible defense is that the evidence has been faked.
Another way unreasonable searches have become acceptable is by good, law-abiding citizens consenting to a search because they know they have nothing to hide. If there truly is nothing to hide, then there is, of course, no reasonable suspicion. But this practice has been effective in breaking down public resistance to unreasonable searches.
To combat this, what we need to do is, if we are pulled over and the officer asks if we object to having our vehicle searched, our response should be, “not at all, after you obtain a warrant. I’m willing to wait here for as long as that takes.”
You see, when an officer asks if you object to a search, what he is really trying to do is leap-frog over the process of requesting a warrant, which requires the submission of ‘reasonable suspicion.’ With these unreasonable searches, the officer knows that if they keep asking for warrants based upon no evidence, eventually they are going to be hauled before court on a suit of violation of civil rights.
At least that’s my understanding of it. This article is extremely vague and if I were someone reading this board, I would do nothing based upon this article. Extenuating circumstances (not mentioned) include: what if the person being pulled over had been speeding at a very high rate of speed? The difference between careless and reckless driving ‘can’ pose some grounds of ‘reasonable suspicion,’ especially if the officer has even a weak argument that the accused was speeding after he/she saw the officer’s lights (fleeing or eluding). Also, attitude is everything. If you resist the officer with the attitude that you simply hate cops, that is going to effect how they treat you. If you come across as just an ordinary citizen who plays by the rules and doesn't feel what is happening is right or warranted, the officer will probably more accommodating (NO guarantee there, of course, it all depends if you've got one with a Napoleonic complex standing there, and they do exist).
If you plan on ‘fighting the man,’ you really need to do a LOT of homework on your state and LOCAL statutes. Otherwise, you’ll end up in jail and will end up looking like just another nutter.
In your view. But likely in their view, those who would put up a fuss are the fools, so there you go.
If you’re caught doing that, you will be probably be charged with assaulting an officer. So, you ought to think twice.
You can do no harm to a canine unit.
If more good citizens made these officers request a warrant, submit what they consider their ‘reasonable grounds,’ and go through the entire process, in a year or two we’d see a huge reduction of these casual requests to search a vehicle where there is no reasonable suspicion. These officers don’t have the time to wait around for an hour for a warrant they know will probably result in a search with no find. They have revenue to make for the municipality. And the good ones would rather be going after the bad guys.
By the way, it’s been my experience that most cops are of the good type. I’ve only had a run-in with a couple of jackbooted thugs and jackasses.
My understanding is that the Supreme Court has decided that refusal to allow a search does not by itself constitute "reasonable suspicion," and that a search performed for this reason will be deemed unreasonable and any evidence thus obtained would not be permissible in court.
The overstepping officer is counting on the citizenry not knowing what their rights are or being in too much of a hurry to demand to have his civil rights respected. By simply saying, “I don’t object if you obtain a search warrant and I’m willing to wait” throws a new spin on the situation.
If someone is pulled over for SPEEDING or making an illegal turn, why should there be a search at all? I know that sometimes, criminals are caught this way but there is no ‘right to consent to a search.’ That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
As for druggies, I’m sure you have no problem with being popped for hauling a brace of wine bottles in the back of their car too, or are you only against ‘some’ drugs?
As many cops have been turned into revenuers (not necessarily detectives, who are the real heroes of police work)
Also, cops are safer on the job than fisherman and statistically safer than landscaper/gardeners.
It’s sad that some die in the line of duty on simple traffic stops but if you’re pulling someone over for something else, why even worry about what they MIGHT be carrying since you can let them go on their way. A speeding ticket is not grounds to fish for weapons or bring an incident to a place it didn’t have to go. If the person has warrants, arrest them. Otherwise, write the ticket and go solve or fight an actual crime.
Since I’ve seen no cops refuse to perform no-knock raids and major police departments have been shown to engage in massive corruption and brutality (LA, NO, NYC) I can only assume most police do not have the interests of the citizens or liberty at heart. AFter all, the Blue Wall of Silence is about protecting dirty or reckless cops. How can I respect such a profession if that’s the case? Our Marines conduct themselves better in a police capacity than cops do.
Well SubGeniusX,
I am from Tonawanda. It is a true story and I think that the real reason for 40 minute waits for something that is perfectly legal is that the cop has already made out the ticket before he comes and asks to see your license. At that point you are done for and there is no amount of talking or sob stories that will get you a warning. When he realizes that he can’t tear up the ticket and that you are actually in the right, it then takes 40 minute of explaining to supervisors and their superiors to get someone with the authority to cancel the ticket.
The problem is just the cops, its also that there isn’t anyone with authority who will actually make a decision.
Jack
I live in the city, I have found in most cases that the BPD are actually most professional of the Local LEO’s (Sherrifs seem pretty good also)... but most of the ‘burb cops can be asshats
You're not kidding.
Have you ever seen those little cases for people to put pills in by day so they properly take the prescribed dosages at the proper time? Well it is a felony to store prescription medications in containers other than that with the label on it. There are far too many laws in this country for you to ever waive any of your rights voluntarily.
Organized police forces have been in existance since the early nineteenth century; in that “majority” of our existence they have by and large shielded us from the from the anarchy and chaos that would have destroyed this country at a very early age. It is very disturbing that you and far too many others work under the assumption that the nature of a police officer is to be fundamentally corrupt and that he or she exists only to trample on the rights of the populace. I can only take it that you see the right of every individual to do whatever he wants, at any time, for whatever purpose damn the consequences to be inalienable. Your la-la land is getting crowded. Better start working on that space ship!
Let me also point out about Rampart that it involved the gang-affiliated Suge Knight and criminal black cops he often hired as off-duty security, including one who robbed a bank and others involved in CRASH. So basically, minorities (to some extent) hurting and shooting minorities.
It was as if, at least in part, the Bloods had infiltrated the Rampart division of the LAPD. One of them was even shot by an undercover cop because he threatened him with a gun on the road (and that wasn’t the first time he had threatened someone.)
Lots of criminals go into being police. It’s the profession closest to what they do and gives them a cover of legitimacy or a ‘lawful’ outlet for their predilections.
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.