Just curious. If I’m motoring along and a policeman stops me and gives me a warning for not having my headlights on. He then decides (for whatever reason) that the boxes in the back seat of my vehicle look interesting, and asks to inspect them. I politely say no to his request.
For the sake of argument let’s say I was a well dressed and well spoken, professional looking 40 something white male driving a fairly expensive SUV, and tell him I’m protecting my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
What is the usual sequence of events after this? A good tasering and some handcuffs? An vigorous discussion about constitutional rights? Police dog involvement? Does he make me step out of my vehicle?
Based entirely on having watched too many episodes of Cops, if the cop doesn’t have probable cause to search your vehicle, you get a ticket for the headlights and body/drugs/UFO in the trunk are none of his business.
From my LEO friends, if you’re asked for search permission, and you decline to authorize it, then you will be removed from the vehicle, placed in custody, and a search warrant will be obtained for the vehicle, based upon probable cause of the arresting officer as explained to the judge.
SDMB legal beagles will be along shortly, no doubt.
Sorry, but that’s wrong. Legally you can decline permission and no (legal) inference can be made from that denial. If they do not have probable cause, then they cannot search your car.
If they do have probable cause, they don’t need your consent. Heck, they don’t need a warrant. They can search your car on the side of the road based on exigence.
Them playing mind games to get you to let them search your vehicle probably comes next. Or them making the ordeal alot harder than it would be otherwise. At least some officers do that. I personally think it should be a crime to try to coerce someone out of invoking their rights (it happens all the time in the judicial system with searches, interrogations and trials) but as of 2005 that isn’t the situation.
I recall an episode of 60 minutes that featured cops on I95 (or whatever the main drag from NY to FLA is) interdicting drug runs. They would pull a “Columbo” and bid the suspect a good evening only to turn around and say “you know we’ve had reports of terrorists smuggling rocket launchers, you don’t have any rocket launchers in your trunk do you?” The suspect would laugh and say “no”. The cop would laugh and say “yeah we didn’t think so.” Walking away, the cop would turn again and say “you don’t mind if we look anyway do you?”
I saw this on Cops one time when the officer said, “You’re wearing a belt buckle with a marijuana leaf symbol on it, therefore you better let me search your car.”
And the dumbass did let him and pot was found
:smack:
As a well-spoken, polite middle-aged white male who has had this happen several times my experience has been that the cop gets pissed, tries to intimidate, is frustrated when you don’t raise your voice, points out possible violations and ultimately leaves.
My favorite cop statement? “So is that dog licensed?”
WTF? He pulled me over for speeding.
My reply? “Not in this county, we live somewhere else. But feel free to write me an unlicensed dog ticket and I’ll take it to the judge.”
Cop: May I search your car? (more of statement than anything)
Me: Absolutely not.
Cop: What are you hiding?
Me: Nothing. And I want to know your probable cause.
Cop: I’m just gonna bring in K9 then.
Me: Go right ahead.
K9 comes in, dog sniffs around my car, and finds nothing. Cop gets an attitude about me wasting 30 mins of his time. I score one for the little man.
if a police officer still forces a search of your car after you deny consent, is there anything you can do in return against the officer legally (assuming he finds nothing illegal)? i.e. file complaint that actually means something
and if he does find something to write you a ticket or arrest you on during the search, does your defense have to come down to your word vs his that you did not consent?
Well you can always file a complaint or write a letter, but I’m not sure how far it will get you.
So I think what you’re saying is this. A cop stops you because your brakelight is out. Then he says “hey friend, mind if I search your car?” to which you reply “Yeah I mind. No you can’t search my car.” Then he searches your car and finds a pound of marijuana in your glove compartment.
If that’s the case you’re describing your defense is that the search was invalid because there was (a) no probable cause and (b) no consent. Therefore anything resulting from that search is inadmissible in court. Therefore the brick of marijuana cannot be used as evidence.
If the policeman were to lie (not saying that he would) and say that you gave consent, your defense would be (a) I did not give consent and (b) how dumb would I have to be to give consent with a brick of marijuana in the car. The charges would probably get tossed (unless they strongarmed you into a plea deal).
If the policeman says he has probable cause - he will have to describe the basis of his PC. This cannot be based on the fact that you declined consent. It needs to be something like “he was driving impaired” or “I smelled marijuana” or “there were 2 eyewitness reports of a guy selling drugs out of a similar style/color car.”
Any questions? I hope that addresses what you were asking about.
IIRC in my state (NJ) they ARE allowed to search all parts of the car that are in reach of the passengers, the glove compartment, under the seats, etc. They need consent (if they don’t have probable cause ie, strange noises, bloody hand sticking out of the trunk) to search your trunk or other areas of the vehicle.
What happens after you decline to be searched is largely dependent on the officer. My first experience as a teen resulted in the officer eventually searching my pockets. He said he was doing this because I was acting nervous, and that was true because of his threatening nature and my first time ever being pulled over. I don’t know if “acting nervous” meets the legal standard of probable cause or not. The second experience with the same small town police force was worse. After I declined a search, he said something like, “Fine, just wait here for the K9 unit to arrive.” After waiting an hour for the K9 unit to come, they brought out a dog to try to find a probable cause. When the dog didn’t find anything I was free to go and everything was fine (except for the scratches all over my doors from the paws ). The Supreme Court ruled that this is legal, that police do not need suspicion or probable cause to use drug-sniffing dogs.
A cop only asked me that once, when I was pulled over for doing 75 on a 65 road, for which he eventually let me off. He asked, “May I search your car?” I said, “It is very messy, that would probably take a really long time.” It was during finals weeks, and I hadn’t slept, so I didn’t intend for it to be a subtle denial. Still, I think that put him in the position of having to produce probable cause for a search at that point, which he did not, and let me off with a stern warning.
This is true under some circumstances. For example if the policeman has a reason to think that you pose a danger to his safety, he can do a search of the car within your reach. Generally, however, they are going to need probable cause or consent in order to search you car.
I was stopped one time and the trooper asked to look in my trunk.
I had done nothing wrong and was kinda joking with him.
I said OK if I can look in yours.
I opened my trunk and showed him a dirty trunk.
He said OK and said come on back here.
He opened his trunk and showed me a clean trunk which contained a handgun.
I said OK. I got in my car and left.
end of story.
In one of the Western states, State Patrol officers carry a search warrant pre-signed by a judge. If you say, “No, you can’t search my car assclown.” they will go back to their cruiser and show you the search warrant. The trick here is that you are entitled to a copy of the search warrant so you demand this copy. The officer fills it out along with their cause for the warrant. When they find nothing, you sue the crap out of them for harrassment.
Arrg… I hate asking, because I hate the cite police. But: cite please?
See if they carried around something bogus to trick you into consenting - that I could believe. But carrying around a pre-signed search warrant? Doubtful. Also they will still need PC to justify a search warrant. They won’t have it - or they could just search your car sans warrant.
). The Supreme Court