Posted on 01/24/2002 8:47:07 AM PST by Jerry W. Howard
JUST SAY NO TO SEARCHES! By Pat Barber A chief deputy sheriff told me, "We rely on people's ignorance to get their consent." Most folks don't know they have a constitutional right to refuse a police search request...and a lot of others are afraid to say no. For the past year, police agencies across Texas have stepped up what they call "consent" searches of vehicles on our highways. The unprecedented numbers of searches are mainly the push of the state's 47 federally funded Drug Task Force(s) with a major assist from the Texas Highway Patrol and local officers. An officer will stop a traveler on some pretext such as a seat belt or speeding violation, or as has been documented in many cases — no valid reason at all, get the driver out of the vehicle, ask, "Do you have any guns or drugs in your car?" And when the traveler answers in the negative, the officer says, "Then you don't mind if I look in the trunk, do you?" The officer is standing there in his mirrored sunshades, black Task Force uniform, pistol on his hip, and the traveler has nothing but a limp ego. Most people feel intimidated by this kind of pressure. They don't know their rights, believe they will be searched even if they do refuse, and give up. Police officers are not required by law to inform the traveler that he or she has an absolute constitutional right to refuse a search request, that a refusal cannot be used in any way to imply probable cause of criminal activity or that they will be free to leave if they do refuse. A chief deputy sheriff told me, "We rely on people's ignorance to get their consent." An old DPS trooper friend tells his family and friends to say to these black-shirted and black-booted "storm troopers" (task force officers) the following: "Officer, I don't have anything to hide, but I don't want you pawing through my stuff." Sometimes a refusal will bring threats to get a warrant or a drug dog, but if the officer really had probable cause to search, he wouldn't be "asking" for a search; he would be "telling" you. However, my data indicates that a firm and consistent "no" will work most of the time, regardless of their threats. An officer stopped my daughter for speeding and wanted to search her pickup, although there was no evidence she was carrying contraband. She told him she was late to meet her vet — that was why she was speeding and that she didn't have time for a search. The officer threatened to go to the JP for a warrant. When she heard the magic word "warrant", she thought she didn't have any choice. What she said was, "Officer, my father is a lawyer, and he told me that if I ever gave consent for a search, he would kick my butt. I'm sorry; I can't do it." The officer angrily said, "Take your ticket and get out of here." Her quick answer saved her a lot of unnecessary humiliation, and is recommended for three reasons: 1. Her response was funny (although the officer obviously didn't have a sense of humor) 2. It was evident she had access to legal counsel 3. The officer knew she was acting on advice of counsel. I have had many complaints from average citizens who are upset about the new highway search terrorism. One well dressed lady traveling in a late model suburban was seen standing by the side of the road trying to hold her hair together in a 20 mph wind while officers threw her possessions on the ground. After the officers finished the "consent" search and left, a local citizen stopped and helped her pick up her things. I've seen vacationing families with children standing in the summer heat in the bar ditch while officers went through their suitcases. I saw two gray-haired ladies standing in the cold, last winter. I've had hundreds of complaints from citizens who felt like they had been mistreated for no reason. I may be old-fashioned, but this kind of dangerous and ineffective police behavior is offensive to me, and I would expect, to most Texans. The "shotgun" search approach may occasionally net smugglers, but at what price? Most folks don't want to see us turn into a third-world police state where you can't walk across the street without a police dog's nose in your crotch. My main goal is to create a fundamental debate about roadside searches. Do they yield enough criminal cases to justify intrusions into glove compartments, trunks and luggage of law-abiding travelers? While the police agencies are quick to seek publicity for their busts, data about "failed" (nothing found) searches is suppressed. No police paper trail is kept. If we ever got an accurate assessment of what they are doing, we would likely see an enormous number of citizens are being terrorized and harassed by an ineffective policy. They can't stop the flow of drugs. How far do we allow them to erode our constitutional liberties in an unwinnable war on drugs? Tell your clients to Just Say NO to Searches! Pat Barber Attorney at Law 102 W 2nd St. Colorado City TX 79512 915/728-3391 pbarber@bitstreet.com http://freespeech.org/justsayno
A chief deputy sheriff told me, "We rely on people's ignorance to get their consent." Most folks don't know they have a constitutional right to refuse a police search request...and a lot of others are afraid to say no.
For the past year, police agencies across Texas have stepped up what they call "consent" searches of vehicles on our highways. The unprecedented numbers of searches are mainly the push of the state's 47 federally funded Drug Task Force(s) with a major assist from the Texas Highway Patrol and local officers. An officer will stop a traveler on some pretext such as a seat belt or speeding violation, or as has been documented in many cases — no valid reason at all, get the driver out of the vehicle, ask, "Do you have any guns or drugs in your car?" And when the traveler answers in the negative, the officer says, "Then you don't mind if I look in the trunk, do you?" The officer is standing there in his mirrored sunshades, black Task Force uniform, pistol on his hip, and the traveler has nothing but a limp ego.
Most people feel intimidated by this kind of pressure. They don't know their rights, believe they will be searched even if they do refuse, and give up. Police officers are not required by law to inform the traveler that he or she has an absolute constitutional right to refuse a search request, that a refusal cannot be used in any way to imply probable cause of criminal activity or that they will be free to leave if they do refuse.
A chief deputy sheriff told me, "We rely on people's ignorance to get their consent." An old DPS trooper friend tells his family and friends to say to these black-shirted and black-booted "storm troopers" (task force officers) the following: "Officer, I don't have anything to hide, but I don't want you pawing through my stuff." Sometimes a refusal will bring threats to get a warrant or a drug dog, but if the officer really had probable cause to search, he wouldn't be "asking" for a search; he would be "telling" you.
However, my data indicates that a firm and consistent "no" will work most of the time, regardless of their threats. An officer stopped my daughter for speeding and wanted to search her pickup, although there was no evidence she was carrying contraband. She told him she was late to meet her vet — that was why she was speeding and that she didn't have time for a search. The officer threatened to go to the JP for a warrant.
When she heard the magic word "warrant", she thought she didn't have any choice. What she said was, "Officer, my father is a lawyer, and he told me that if I ever gave consent for a search, he would kick my butt. I'm sorry; I can't do it." The officer angrily said, "Take your ticket and get out of here." Her quick answer saved her a lot of unnecessary humiliation, and is recommended for three reasons:
1. Her response was funny (although the officer obviously didn't have a sense of humor)
2. It was evident she had access to legal counsel
3. The officer knew she was acting on advice of counsel.
I have had many complaints from average citizens who are upset about the new highway search terrorism. One well dressed lady traveling in a late model suburban was seen standing by the side of the road trying to hold her hair together in a 20 mph wind while officers threw her possessions on the ground. After the officers finished the "consent" search and left, a local citizen stopped and helped her pick up her things. I've seen vacationing families with children standing in the summer heat in the bar ditch while officers went through their suitcases. I saw two gray-haired ladies standing in the cold, last winter. I've had hundreds of complaints from citizens who felt like they had been mistreated for no reason. I may be old-fashioned, but this kind of dangerous and ineffective police behavior is offensive to me, and I would expect, to most Texans.
The "shotgun" search approach may occasionally net smugglers, but at what price? Most folks don't want to see us turn into a third-world police state where you can't walk across the street without a police dog's nose in your crotch. My main goal is to create a fundamental debate about roadside searches. Do they yield enough criminal cases to justify intrusions into glove compartments, trunks and luggage of law-abiding travelers?
While the police agencies are quick to seek publicity for their busts, data about "failed" (nothing found) searches is suppressed. No police paper trail is kept. If we ever got an accurate assessment of what they are doing, we would likely see an enormous number of citizens are being terrorized and harassed by an ineffective policy. They can't stop the flow of drugs. How far do we allow them to erode our constitutional liberties in an unwinnable war on drugs? Tell your clients to Just Say NO to Searches!
Ohhhhhh, oooooh, ahhhhhh, much better now!
I was stopped once on my discharge day from the Army. I had a Toyota pickup loaded with everything I owned (it had a camper top). I was stopped along with about ten other cars for a "license" check. The cop examined my license and handed it back. He then asked "What's in the back?". I looked him straight in the cheesy sunglasses and said "Nothing that concerns you". He got really snippy, but in the end had to let me go. I was the last of the ten cars to pull away, and by the time I left he had his other two pals there, practically raving at how I was some kind of loon and how they would "find out anyway". Yeah, sure, no warrant, no search. Screw'em.
These people crack me up. I'd sure like to hear the description (or an example) of a "police state" from some of these people who think we're "just headed in that direction". NAZI Germany didn't have cameras on every street corner, or the technology to track phone calls, purchases, bank accounts, and such.
The only reason we still have the illusion of freedom is that there are still too many guns among the populace, and the number of JBTs is not quite enough to make the effort too obvious. Both of these shortcomings are being remedied as the gun-grabs continue and more psychos and felons are recruited by the local and federal gestapos.
I have posted this story before, so some may have seen it. Anyway:
One time, a very good friend of mine was pulled over by an unmarked police car while in-town. The cop comes to the car, and my friend had the window already rolled down, waiting for him. My friend asks what the problem was. The cop kind of chuckled and said, "You know". mY friend kind of chuckled and said, "No, I really don't". The cop says again, "You know" while pointing at a nearly finished cigar that my friend had been smoking. My friend immediately starts laughing and says, "You think this is marijuana, dont you.... you think I'm smoking a blunt?". The cop asks to see the cigar and asks my friend out of the car. He handed it to him, and got out. The cop unwrapps whats left of it on the hood of the car, smells it a bunch, and looks kind of pissed when he realizes its not pot. The entire time, my friend was just babbling how he is "an honest, law abiding citizen and has done nothing wrong(he knew the law, had nothing illegal, and wanted to mess with the cop a little). The cop then says(no joke), "Well, can I search your car". My friend starts to say "Yes", but then says, "No, wait, you don't have that right. No, you can't search my car". Cop gets even more pisses now. Gives him a lecture(that my friend swears must have been five minutes long) on how an "honest, law-abiding citizen" should have no problem. They aregue for a few more minutes, and my friend, almost hysterically laughing says, "Go ahead... search it.... do whatever". The cop says(again, no joke), "No. Im not going to. Consider this your free one". My friend says he just laughed, turned around, got in his car and drove off.
Cops are shameless, but if you know the law, they know they are screwed.
LOL!!! Thats classic!
Oops -- too late.
Can't say that I see much evidence to support this assertion.
Never have I had anyone ask to search the car. But I have had some pleasant conversations about firearms and law enforcement in general. They always compliment the nicely maintained Baretta 92F in its open case sitting on the seat next to me.
And every time I have done this, I have received only a warning as opposed to a ticket ... Cops have a hard job, and I think they appreciate it when they run across a citizen that knows their rights, and is responsible enough to assert them, but does so with some empathy for the cop.
Don't forget that some of them have been sensitized to equating domestic terrorism with those who allude to the Constitution. There was even a thread about this recently. I should have bookmarked it. That particular information was passed out to law enforcement in Arizona, but give it time. My guess is that it has already spread a lot farthur than that.
If anybody has that link would you please post ti on this thread.
It has worked well, because government is accountable to no one. Congress is filled with spineless wimps and crooks. The courts are rigged, elections are rigged in too many places, and nobody dares call a spade a spade. Executive branch agencies dance to the tune of NGOs on everything from gun control, to property seizure, to institutionalized kidnapping. State CPS agencies cross state lines to steal children who have never taken a breath of air in their state (Oregon), and only a few kooks notice anything unusual about it.
Too many people I talk with don't know and don't care what is happening so long as it's happening to "that person on the news". The best they can muster is: "He/she/they must have done something wrong to get shot/burned/bulldozed. Hope it isn't my house tomorrow."
But, what the heck, I plan to keep voting as long as they'll allow that little distraction.
“Sparky” is that you?
Don
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.