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.
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.
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.”