[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.

[wolfpat]

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

[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.

[wrench]

"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"."

So, a search warrant was requested by this thug, and signed by a judge? Your student friend has a copy of the warrant and did not persue the false warrant through the courts?

At the least this officer committed violation of oath, criminal solicitation, making false statements and perjury.

[Sopater]

Also, the request for consent to search may not sound like “May I/we have permission to search your vehicle?”. It probably sounds more like “Would you mind opening your trunk for me?” or “What have you got under your seat there?”. My point is that if you show them, you’ve given consent.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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".

I doubt it went down that way---refusal cannot be part of the grounds for probably cause. If it were, there would be no reason at all for the cop to ask if he can search, since even if you refuse, he searches anyway.

[sweet_diane]

"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 was always my understanding. Once asked "do you mind if I search your car/belongings", you no longer have an option but to let them search.

[smoketree]

Nonsense. Your refusal does not indicate evidence of criminal activity or posession of illegal items prior to the refusal.
Sue them and demand they show the prior evidence for suspicion of a crime commited.

[Scotsman will be Free]

“Any officer can claim probable cause” is a true statement, but it means zilch in court unless he can articulate to a judge what his PC was. Simply telling a judge “I had PC so I searched” is not going to cut it. Granted, there are stupid judges out there who would go along with that, just as there are stupid judges who make up new rules after the fact or ignore the laws and court rules, and do what they want.

[RinaseaofDs]

Their is a massive difference between a search of your car, and a search of your premises.

With a car, exigent circumstances apply, and if reasonable suspicion exists, then you can do the search and justify it on the grounds that by waiting to obtain a warrant, evidence could have been destroyed or disposed of. Bottom line, however, is that exigent circumstances doesn’t alleviate you of having probable cause. You still have to have probable cause to make the search stand up in court.

Even in those cases, if you actually REALLY do have reasonable suspicion, and the cop believes there really is a crime being committed to the point he feels he has probable cause, they will get someone to drive your car to a station, wait for a warrant, and then pop your trunk.

The issue here is, there are WAY too many cops out there that simply want to throw their weight around, and take it personally by exercising rights they know you have. The very fact that there is no suspicion, and they are asking to do a search, means you have a whole new problem on your hands. The cop knows your rights, and the limits of his powers, and STILL is asking to do a search.

City hall, literally, has singled you out for a fight. With a cop like that, there’s a reasonable chance they may plant evidence, and now things get worse. For me, its better to just refuse the search, but otherwise be compliant, including agreeing to be taken into custody. At that point you can SAY ZERO and call an attorney.

The responsibilities the State has once you are in custody are pretty clear, and you have much more room to maneuver. In my book, you can even offer to wait until he has obtained a search warrant, agree to have your car towed (not let an officer drive) to a station for the search. I would bend over backward to accommodate the officer, but I wouldn’t agree to the search there on the side of the road.

Dealing with a cop like that requires witnesses and documentation, and this is the only way I can see doing those things without getting tased.

[Still Thinking]

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.

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.