[piytar]

Yup. You caught the key word there alright: CONSENTED.

[logi_cal869]

I think the key word here is ‘stupid’...

[jameslalor]

Consensual is NOT the keyword in this case; reasonable suspicion is. Consent has absolutely nothing to do with this ruling, the court was not deciding whether the officer could lawfully search, where the heck do you get such an idea from? The court was deciding whether the officer could lawfully stop the person and ask to search in the first place.

Consent to search may overcome the need for probable cause prior to a search, but it does NOT overcome the need for reasonable suspicion to approach a person, which was the focus of this case.

The court was considering whether or not an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law may pass for the reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. You see, under existing precedent and principle it’s generally unlawful for police to, say for example, go to every doorstep in the city and ask the residents for consent to search or pull over every car in the city with no reason and ask the drivers to submit to “voluntary” searches.

In order to get to the point where consent for a search comes in to play, officers need to be able to articulate a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred. That is what is needed in order to pull over your car, not consent; consent is so entirely immaterial to this case that it’s not funny.

[MaxMax]

The disagreement with the search stopped at Consensual. I don't understand
how this was considered and illegal search by the police.

Also, the police are allowed to intimidate anybody any way they please if they
suspect wrongdoing, or want information. And they can lie without accountability
which is also allowed by the courts, in the court to prosecute. Something
everybody should remember when dealing with law enforcement.