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.
Yes, but they are all Bills fans
The police do not have your best interests in mind.
I don't mean to present cops in a bad light. I know cops and am related to one. But, I agree with you that when you are stopped, you become a suspect. And yes, he did not stop you to wish you a nice day.
What were you charged with? Keeping and bearing arms?
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.
Are you saying if you have a weapon in plain sight it is a concealed weapon, but if you place it in a box or hide it in the trunk it is NOT a concealed weapon???
Thanks for making my point.
The nineteenth century wasn't that long ago.
Whatever did we do before then?
Civilization managed to thrive somehow for eons.
Ha. A couple years ago I bought a used Jeep Cherokee. I was cleaned up and detailed real nice. Still I thought the $20 bill in the ashtray was a good find, folded up in a receipt for a recent lube and oil change. And about a year later I had occasion to extend the passenger side headrest and underneath was neatly tucked a small bag of bud (I gave it to someone who I knew would enjoy it, 'cause I don't). Would have been just a violation in Oregon but still the fine can be as high as $1000. So no, don't consent to searches. A few years ago I got stopped on suspicion of expired registration. During the stop the cop tried very hard to look through the vary dark tinted canopy windows to see the stuff inside, it was too obvious. I told him the windows were tinted dark for a reason and I wasn't going to permit any fishing, so stop wasting my time and either write a ticket or move along.
Oregon's laws regarding traffic stops and consent searches are very restrictive to the police. They are permitted to investigate only the PC for the violation stop and anything beyond that is strictly consensual and must be made clear when consent is asked for.
Honestly, the abuse of rights via the commonplace coerced consent is far more egregious than the pre-Miranda coerced confessions.
I see no reason why police shouldn’t be required to inform the detained of their right to refuse the search.
Terrorists aren’t intimidated into consent, and marijuana isn’t worth the police state abuses.
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.
Cops should be allowed no more privileges, especially with respect to arms, than ordinary citizens.
Yeah, there are stories out there about bad cops who will plant illegal drugs in your car and then arrest you. If in doubt have a supervisor called to the scene.
Just imagine a LEGION of freepers standing next to you waiting...
I'm too much the rabble rouser. I'd ask first for their probable cause or a warrant. The likely reaction is going to be a curled lip and a contemptuous remark: "What're you, some kinda LAWYER? I'd just explain to them that while I have been to law school and I carried a badge as a LEO in my youth it's my role as a teacher of Advanced Placement American Government that dictate my actions this day. I'll ask what kind of a role model would I be if I didn't make the police do their job exactly as the law requires and the US Constitution DEMANDS? It's been a long time since I actually had to play that little scene out, but I have done so. Usually it was a rookie that pulled that bull**** but he also had a wiser older training officer who knew a deep pile of do-do when he saw one and got his trainee to back off.
A dash video is useful for exposing bad conduct on either side, but the problem is you don't have possession of it, and agency policy will likely make it as difficult as the law allows for you to obtain it.
I think that if a dash camera was present the defense can demand to see the tape and have it submitted into evidence.The problem is that...so I've heard,at least....when the tape shows misconduct on the part of the cop or if it shows that the accused is innocent the cops always claim that the camera wasn't on at the time or somehow malfunctioned.
“Nonsense. None of this is about the “occasional” rogue cop.”
True. They are a little more frequent than “occasional.” Those of us who grew up in small towns are well acquainted with cops who do exactly what they want with no consideration for the law.
I can personally remember 4 different cops in 4 different towns who searched when and where they pleased, among other indignities. Eventually, they all get fired or in some cases, prosecuted, but in every case I know of, the process took several years.
Perhaps city cops or state cops are a bit more professional. I suspect not.
I don’t hate cops. As a group, I respect and genuinely appreciate the job they do. As individuals, I don’t trust them to abide by or enforce the law. Too many horror stories both personal and from my acquaintances.
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.’
A warrant requires “probable cause.”
In fact that is law in Oregon. A person must know they are (and in fact be) free to refuse consent and leave when consent is requested. No threatening to get a canine unit, standing in front of your car or door or otherwise blocking you. Anything like that will get a case tossed out of court, even if you give consent.
Once I ran afoul of a speed trap, on US 75 in Grayson county. I keep my insurance certificate in the seatback pocket, or I did then at least. I told the officer this, and asked if was OK to reach back there, he asked if I any guns or weapons back there, I said "back there? No". We did our business, which eventually involved taking one of those defensive driving courses, and I went on my way. What I failed to mention was the arsenal in the trunk. (This was before the days of CHL in Texas and way before "traveling" was finally defined in the law so that ordinary folks, with no state permission required, could once again lawfully have the means to protect themselves in their vehicle, without needing a gun rack.)
I know for a fact that just that has occurred. The son of my wife's first cousin, (a more like a big sister first cousin) is one such. He might be back looking for Druggies again by now though. OTOH, some Jihadies are drug dealers and suppliers, so they get two for the price of one.
So long as the officer arriving with the search warrant brings along a large coffee, cream and sugar, they could search 'til they're blue in the face, thereby allowing real crime to occur elsewhere and place the citizenry at greater risk.
Their foolishness would be of no concern to me.
What a pathetically Liberal response.
Much in the vein of a Leftist claiming one is 'against children' because they refuse to take in every illegal immigrant who sneaks across the border with a family in tow.
Supporting law enforcement when they do their jobs correctly and in accordance with the rules set forth by the Founders is what Conservatives do best. When law enforcement strays from its duties and infringes on a free people's rights, that must make the Conservative angry.
Damn! I didn’t know swords were illegal now.
I agree. I've just never seen it here.
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.