"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.

[Sopater]

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.

[NavVet]

Any druggies or Jihadis that read this board will be grateful for the education. Anyway, in my experience, people are aware of their rights, they just think that if they act like they have nothing to hide, the cops won’t actually search.

[ClearCase_guy]

I like to ask myself, “What’s in it for me?”. I cannot imagine anything good coming from a police search of my car. I’m confident that my behavior and my possessions are all completely legal — still, how can I benefit from a police search? The answer is clear: I can’t. Therefore: No warrant, no search.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

I don’t have anything to hide, and I don’t want an officer going through my car.

If he asks, I’ll say no. Its called respect. My taxes pay his salary.

[joe fonebone]

I would never give consent to search anything or any of my possesions. And I would never voluntarily speak to the police or prosecuting attorneys, even if I was a witness to a crime, without an attorney present. Ya never know when you are going to be a victim of an overzealous cop or prosecutor.

[Sopater]

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

Sorry, I didn't realize that our contsitutional rights were supposed to be kept secret. I was merely trying to start a discussion around why some people do or don't consent to a search regardless of their constitutional rights.

[z3n]

I disagree.
Face it, people are just not libertarian minded anymore.
Most people know that they should be able to deny consent to search, theoretically, but they know it "just doesn't work that way".

I have always said that I would not consent to a search purely on principle during a traffic stop. However, I the issue has never come up.
I had a friend who was in law school, worked for the county courts, and refused a search by a highway patrol officer. He said that once he refused consent, the officer performed the search anyway, because the refusal was a part of the grounds for "probable cause".
That's what I mean when I say it doesn't work in real life the way it should.
Any officer can claim probable cause and based on that not need consent.

[PAR35]

Generally, those who don't have anything to hide, are willing to consent to a search

When you consent to the search, you aren't limiting the extent of the search. Perhaps some day you will have the opportunity to try to put the back seat of your car back in, and you will change your mind.

[AppyPappy]

And don’t give your wallet to a mugger. He doesn’t have a right to it. Stand up for your rights!!

[econjack]

I like to ask myself, “What’s in it for me?”

I wouldn't even ask myself that question. I'd ask the police officer. If he can give me a good reason, I'll submit to the search. If not, no search.

[z3n]

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention, these days, if you refuse consent to the wrong cop, you could get tasered.

[padre35]

Exactly, it is more a question of a stranger pawing through my stuff then it is some sort of desire to hide a shipment of cocaine or whatever.

That and when I consider what our Founders went through to enshrine the idea of Creator Granted Inalienable Rights, I just cannot rollover and consent to that sort of thing.

[wolfpat]

Didn’t the SCOTUS rule that a refusal is NOT probable cause. IIRC, this was just a few years ago.

[steve-b]

What's NavVet stand for?

(The obvious interpretation is ruled out; people in the Navy are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.)

[maine-iac7]

still, how can I benefit from a police search? The answer is clear: I can’t. Therefore: No warrant, no search.

I'm a white-haired ole great granny - and that would be my take...I wouldn't give them a chance to plant something that would boost their career with a 'bust'

[PAR35]

I would never give consent to search anything or any of my possesions.

I fully agree with that.

And I would never voluntarily speak to the police or prosecuting attorneys, even if I was a witness to a crime, without an attorney present.

I'd disagree with that. That's a sure way to bring the focus on yourself. Look at what happened with the Ramseys. They lawyered up, got uncooperative, and the investigation focused on them.

That being said, a high number of cases are solved by someone stupid enough to incriminate themselves.

[Steamburg]

Please don’t take away the stupid criminals. You could underpopulate the jails. No one in their right mind would want to try to convince an officer that he had nothing to hide. Thats like keeping your driver’s license in your Bible and leaving it on the dashboard so the officer will know that you are a Christian speeder. Cops aren’t going to ask if they don’t suspect something. If they get permission, then it isn’t a search and evidence won’t be suppressed for lack of probable cause. The argument becomes was the consent voluntary? That is easier for a prosecutor to argue, particularly because “people who don’t have anything to hide always comply”.

[mvpel]

He said that once he refused consent, the officer performed the search anyway, because the refusal was a part of the grounds for "probable cause".

Then that cop is an oath-breaking police-statist, and should be punished for his crime.

[cpdiii]

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.

The vast majority of the police are good guys and you would have nothing to fear. A small percentage are bad guys. I would not give them permission to search. More than one bag of grass, or controlled substance has made its way into the car via a plant by the cops.

My apologies to all the straight cops but it only takes one to tarnish the rest.

[Gay State Conservative]

I wonder how often it is that a cop stops someone for a broken tail light,asks the stopee for consent to search,receives consent and finds something illegal...drugs...guns...a dead body,etc.

On those cable cop shows where the cop asks for consent to search I always assumed that the cop already had probable cause to search but asked in order to avoid the bother of contacting a judge,etc.