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.
Keep looking.
Please ping me when you see a thread about cops that doesn’t turn into a hatefest within a couple dozen posts. I’ll be most happy to see it.
I’ve only been reading FR for almost ten years, so maybe that’s just not long enough to get to know the place.
Don’t get me wrong. I love it here. I depend on FR and the generally good company here, and I come here first when there’s breaking news. But there’s a few topics that really push my buttons. This is one of ‘em.
People often say that it’s just the abuses by cops that make them angry. But that’s not actually true. You could post a story about cops that acted most professionally, thoroughly respectful and within the law and there would be the dependable cop-haters still show up. Every time.
There’s a fine line between being conservative, a good rugged individualist — and having just plain issues with authority figures of all kinds. One of them is a good character trait and one of them is a psychosis. They’re both here in good quantity. :-)
Foolish people. Expecting to travel streets and highways without being detained and having a significant portion of their net worth and their transportation confiscated by the King's highwaymen.
Fools, all of them.
“It makes their job easier and if we have nothing to hide, why not let them search?”
If you don’t know the answer to that problem...you have a problem. Hell, have them folow you home and search that too. Make sure they go through your financial affairs. Let them put a GPS up your behind.
After all, you have “nothing to hide.”
I know that I’ve seen the same sorts of things you have. But, I’ve tempered those threads with the threads where the police have done well and have performed in accordance with what Americans expect from them. There is no replacing the duty of every citizen to be proactive and protect themselves, their loved ones, their neighbors and their properties. By and large, it is not the duty of the police to do more than investigate crime. They are not our private, or public, security guards. Americans should see police as equals and not place them upon pedestals. They are there to do a job, though dangerous and many times heroic. They deserve praise and accolades when they perform well and criticism when they perform poorly. Just as anyone is subject to in their private and professional lives.
4 days worth of people reading that post caught the sarcasm yet you stepped right in it. I’ll try and make it more obvious next time.
I would expect most of us here are very fond of peace officers. Unfortunately, peace officers seem to be in short supply since they've been displaced by rev'nooers.
I believe Ramius posted that particular series of words.
Many of us here would like the government to return to the days of "peace officers", whose job was to help maintain law and order. Unfortunately, peace officers have been largely replaced by rev'nooers. While I'm not entirely opposed to all rev'nooers (after all, the government has a legitimate need to get some money somehow) the blurring of the distinction between rev'nooers and peace officers has in fact been detrimental to both groups as well as to the general public.
The nature of a peace officer is not to be fundamentally corrupt. His job is to catch and aid in the prosecution of people who are dangerous or disruptive to society. Trying to find petty technical violations on which to arrest otherwise innocent people does not contribute to the job of prosecuting the bad people, so a good peace-officer will not engage in such tactics.
The nature of a rev'nooer, however, isn't so benign. His job is to collect money by whatever means he can (or in some cases, to harass people or businesses the government doesn't like). With the aid of modern seizure rules (which, if we had good judges, would be recognized as not being 'laws' since they violate the Supreme Law of the Land) cops can collect revenue without having to worry too much about guilt or innocence. When a city can profit by going after even those who are found 100% innocent, that forms a very strong corrupting influence.
Good peace officers deserve sincere respect. Rev'nooers deserve only the begrudging respect compelled by their position of power. Some cops blend the roles, and thus may deserve somewhat more respect than rev'nooers. I think society would be much better off, though, to segregate the peace-officer and rev'nooer roles.
That would never work.
The "rev'nooers" would all wind up shot, and the "peace-officers" would be assigned to investigate.
The cycle would then begin again.
You started on that spaceship yet? I’ve got a name for you — how ‘bout “Libertarian One”. I checked Wikepoedia for you; there aren’t any evil cops on Mars.
Sounds like a great place to retire, if it weren't so cold.
I'll just have to try to find a warm place that can be rid of cops.
Or, maybe reassemble the entire interior, reinstall hub caps, reload trunk (including spare tire), forgive the body search, and say 'yes sir' a lot.
Probable cause?
"Too young to drive a Thunderbird".
[Arkansas, and another reason I won't vote for Huckabee...but I've still got the T-Bird.]
I know just the warm place for you. I hope you’re not allergic to brimstone, Elk old buddy!
Nice of you to invite me into your home, but I think I'll pass, old buddy.
Rev'nooers would pretty quickly learn not to engage in tactics that will get them shot. At least, if the first batch didn't, the second batch would.
Of course, it would be no longer be possible for governments to use certain techniques to raise revenue or harass citizens, but most of the techniques the government would "lose" are ones it should never have been able to use in the first place.
Don’t hate Law Enforcement Officers but I do understand that there is a difference between what used to be known as peace officers ie the cop on the beat who knew who was up to mischief & the guys you got today who will ask you bluntly if you would like your beating with the handcuffs on or off.
Just as well. My brother-in-law police lieutenant might make you uncomfortable. It’s not pleasant watching a liberetarian quaking with fear and I recently had the carpet cleaned. No, I think my contemplated destination foy you might suit you better. You won’t have to worry about a freeze there because Ron Paul is never going to be nominated, much less elected.
But if he then finds or plants something incriminating it's better to have it go down that way than to have consented, because you have an additional defense that you can use later.
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.