Yes I’m sure that will go over well in many jurisdictions.
Oh, so we should live in fear.
Gotcha.
[sub]dumbass[/sub]
The most obvious one is where you said that you would punish someone for excercising basic constitutional rights.
Oh gosh, you mean I called you to task for ignoring what I said and continuing to parade your ignorance? Oh boo, hoo.
Nope, take
Did it ever dawn on you that making strawmen doesn’t exactly advance your argument? I said nothing about ‘jams on your guitars’. I don’t know what you believe a search of a car is, but it is not just a glance in the trunk and is something that takes time. For ‘officer safety’, the police will handcuff the car’s driver and sit them in the squad car during the search in a number of jurisdictions. Will it happen every time and every place? No. Can it happen? Yes. Is assuming that a search will be quick stupid? Yes.
Nope, if the cop is a dick then you’re better off refusing the search because he likely has a record of conducting searches on shaky grounds, which makes the case even less likely to stand up in court. If he’s going to plant evidence or beat the hell out of you (which is a bit beyond ‘dick’), then you’re screwed either way. Of course, I find it interesting that you consider a cop just doing his job and following the standard policy in many areas to be a ‘dick’ if he’s not doing what you want him to, but call me a ‘dick’ merely for daring to assert that it’s the job of cops to go after people they have reason to believe are criminals.
It’s a concept not based on fact, since searches do not take zero time. It’s also based on perfect knowledge that I doubt you have, but I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore the repeated examples that have been provided to you by multiple people.
God your such a moron. It is not the job of officers of the law to paw through private property on a whim. Officers of the law are still random strangers unless I happen to know them.
Funnily enough, the courts seem to agree that cops searching without probable cause is cops not doing their jobs correctly. Anyway, if the job of cops is up to the courts to decide, why are you declaring that pawing through private property without cause is the job of the police?
You say you don’t want a police state, but also say that you think there is something wrong with excercising basic constitutional rights right up there in the quoted material. Whether you say you want a police state or not is irrelevant when you come right out and say that you would punish someone for daring not to consent to a search. You also come right out and call me a ‘dick’ for not considering cops anything other than ‘random strangers’ when it comes through pawing through my possessions for no reasons, so it looks like you’ve got that down to.
Every argument you made for about 5 posts there made the assumption that the lack of consent is grounds for a search warrant. It most certainly isn’t.
So to say it’s a given that if you don’t consent, you’ll be searched anyway (under warrant) is silly. They’d need probable cause, and chances are, they don’t have it.
And since this is the pit, YOU SIR ARE AN ASSHAT!
Yeah, they’re so horribly concerned with rapists and murderers and real criminals that they’re hasseling some guy because he just might have drugs somewhere.
You don’t consent, he has no probable cause, and if he’s a decent cop, that’s that. Whose time is being wasted?
I got lost, I guess… can you point out to me where someone advocated eliminating all of the police forces?
I don’t recalling saying we should all quake in fear, please quote where I said that.
I was actually making a observation, to the effect of it sounds nice on paper, but I’m sure if you start spouting all that shit at a cop on the side of a highway one night, it may not have the desired effect.
If you’ve ever worked retail maybe you’ll understand what I’m talking about. People spout off at you, you tend to just tune them out. There is a tactful way to point out that you are aware of your rights, and plan to exercise them, and there is the opposite. The way Crafter worded his post gave me the impression of some person yelling at the cop "I know my rights, and you can’t do shit, who do you think you are etc etc (think anyone that gets arrested on Cops). Some people are diplomatic and it could be helpful, but looking around at many of my fellow Americans, I think it might be better for them to keep their mouth shut.
Anyway like I said, I don’t think that would go over in certain jurisdictions. A small comment that doesn’t deserve more discussion IMO.
Yes I figured that out. I had assumed that refusing a search raised a big red flag, I was wrong.
**
Look at that, 2 tired SDMB cliches in one sentence.
How about:
I take that to mean the exercising your civil rights (in some jurisdictions) could get you in serious trouble, when in fact you should be able to exercise those rights without fear anywhere in the country.
That said, you don’t have to obnoxious about it, and I think you’re assuming that anyone who refuses a search is some kinda dope-smoking, draft-dodging non-shaving hippie freak out to give The Man a hard time.
That’s not groovy.
You can refuse a search with a very clear “I do NOT give consent” and leave it at that. If the cop goes ahead and searches anyway, I’d tell the next cop that shows up that I did not consent, and if I was locked up in the police car, I’d keep repeating it, since many police cars are now equipped with video and audio recording devices (or so a show like Cops suggests, anyway). I’d make it very clear to all witnesses that I was not consenting, and I wouldn’t even have to cite the constitution to do so.
By the way, you’re an asshat.
Riboflavin, to be honest I don’t feel like composing some point by point response to your point by point response, they seem to be getting a little long winded for both of us.
I will say this though, a lot of my preconceived notions on this subject have been dispelled, so much to the point, that theres no further point in debating my original posts. I’ve been in a car in 2 instances in different states where we were pulled over and consented to search, both without incident. We were not handcuffed, and the searches were over in 10 minutes. I credited having nothing illegal in the car, and consenting to the search as factors that moved the situation along expeditiously. It seemed an appropriate assumption to make, as it was drawn from real world experience. Perhaps I was lucky, who knows, I hope there isn’t a next time to do things differently and find out.
The jamming guitar was a joke I slipped in, because the other poster said he had amps and guitars in his trunk.
Hey,that’s what I said TEN posts ago…
ASSHAT
I just wanted to say asshat
Either I’m not speaking correctly or you’re not listening correctly. I will attempt to make myself as clear as possible ok?
You took what I said wrong.
**
I agree 100% I will humbly point out that this doesn’t neccesarily translate perfectly to the real world, I hope you’ll agree.
**
Of course, thats why I said “Some people are diplomatic and it could be helpful”. I then cynically added that many Americans are not known for their tact, mentioning most of the people I see on Cops (kind of a joke there har har har, but true, har har har), and they would be best served refusing to talk, or waiting for a lawyer instead of going off on their 4th amedment rights.
Now keep in mind obnoxiously giving an officer a sermon won’t get you in serious trouble, (which I never said), however I’m sure the officers could come up with some creative ways to legally make your day a bit longer. get it?
**
No I don’t, actually most of them seemed more informed then me on the subject, but a few of them seem to extrapolate a bit too much.
**
Yes I know, in fact that was my fucking point. That a 4th amendment sermon was not neccesarry and could in fact be counter productive in a few cases.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word many, it’s not what I meant.
**
Yes letting him know that what the first cop did was illegal, i get it.
**
Same thing I would do. Now that wasn’t so bad was it?
**
Actually, no. You did point out that it was a straw man, but didn’t address that point specifically.
Cool.
Yes,correct
I re-read what was posted after I had posted
DAMN I feel like such an asshat
Could you please indicate where in my post I advocated such behavior?
When I get pulled over I always treat the LEO with respect. I remain very calm and do not yell. But at the same time I assert my rights to the absolute maximum.
Here are the reasons:
-
I am communicating to the LEO that I’m not your “Average Joe” push-over. Most people don’t do this, and it tends to throw him off guard. This has the effect of deflating his ego, even if he’s a rogue cop.
-
It has been my experience that most cops respect me more when I assert my rights. Instead of “big cop / little me,” I choose to play on their level.
-
Cops tend to be much more careful among those who understand the law and understand their rights. They realize I have a head on my shoulder and that they had better “follow the book.” And they know I’ll be watching.
As others have mentioned, refusal to allow a search is not probable cause for a search. It must be that way, else it would be a catch-22 situation.
Bottom line is this: I have a hyperactive justice gland and I always assert my rights when I think they’re being violated. I guess it’s just the way I am. If you want to be a gutless push-over, knock yer self out. Not me.
My mistake I should have said wrongly assumed.
**
Same here.
**
I agree, with the caveat that “Average joe” should be treated in the same manner whether he knows his rights or not. I am aware that “Average joe” could get himself in a bind by waiving certain rights.
**
Most do, a few don’t, such is human nature. Pity you get one that doesn’t.
**
Agreed.
**
Yes, I know that now.
**
I’m hardly a pushover when it comes to anything in my life, so I don’t really worry about these things. The couple of times a car I was in was searched, I was not worried, the cops seemed fine, we let em search their little hearts out (about 10 minutes), and then everyone was on their way. Perhaps in light of this new information I may or may not make the same decision again.
Letting them search my car was hardly a gutless decision, and it wasn’t made because I was intimidated by the officers, more that I was 100% sure they wouldn’t find shit. So far I’m 2 for 2.
You aren’t bothering the cop too much when you refuse consent to search. If he really believed you had something worth finding, he’d have found some probable cause. Really, he’s thinking that he wants something to break up the monotony of traffic duty, and this guy might kinda look like he might have something. If you are respectful and refuse, then that’s all there is too it. That’s your right, and that’s why he asks.
In fact, if you do consent, and they do find something, you will be ragged from one end of the precinct to the other. By the cops, no less.
“Why would you consent if you had something like that in the car? All you had to do is say no and you’d be at home watching TV right now.”
Give 'em a break-- they’re drug addicts for crying out loud:)
If they were smarter than they were, they wouldn’t be running drugs. Hopefully.