Assuming an officer asks to search your car, and you agree - if he starts getting out of line, by, say, taking all the stuff out of your car and putting it on the street, can you withdraw your consent at any time? Would he then be required to stop?
I don’t believe so. In addition, I don’t think a cop needs your consent to search your car as long as he can later testify he had some reason to.
If the cop has reasonable doubt that you are hiding something, or if they smell marijuana or someother substance they can search your car without your permission. If you say they can search your car, they can tear it a part. You can not rescind your permission, and even if you try, the officer would most likely tell you to back away, and call back-up…
breaker-breaker - subject getting defensive.
No.
You may want to check out this thread in the Pit before proceeding.
Only if you have a bigger gun than he does.
…and a faster car than the backup
Yeah, that thread is what inspired me to ask.
So if the cop is going through your car for 20 minutes, ripping things apart, and finds nothing to give further suspicion, if you’re in a hurry, or don’t want to see your shit ripped apart, you just have to sit by and live with it? You can’t stop him? Even though he’s found nothing to be suspicious about?
The willingness to post answers to question inthis forum, even when you have no idea what you’re talking about, absolutely amazes me.
And I really wish that those of you that do it, would stop.
To answer the OP correctly: yes, you may withdraw consent at any time. The moment your consent is withdrawn, the officer must stop his search.
Note that anything discovered prior to that withdrawn consent is not only admissible at a future trial, but also may serve as the basis for probable cause to continue the search without your consent.
In other words, if you have three suitcases, one with cocaine and automatic weapons in it, and another with child porn and untaxed cigarettes in it… you may withdraw consent when the innocent suitacse is being searched. But if the coke suitcase has already been opened, then your withdrawal is too late; the cop already has probable cause to continue.
And, Phlosphr, the standard is not “reasonable doubt,” but “probable cause.”
- Rick
It gets really frustrating attempting to answer honest questions about the state of the law when some idiots pop in with irresponsible, completely wrong, and politically loaded answers. I’m looking at you, Phlospher, Scumpup, and whuckfistle. Perhaps you should check out this warning and the multiple threads in the Pit about this kind of stuff.
The general rule is that your consent to a search can be limited or withdrawn at any time prior to the finding of contraband, or if probably cause somehow arises during the search. As an appellate court in Ilinois in State v. Balthasar, People v. Baltazar , 691 N.E.2d 1186
Ill.App. 3 Dist.,1998.stated:
If an officer asks to search your vehicle and you consent, but then he goes to the trunk, you can tell him to stop and withdraw your consent. While that may be an indication of possible contraband, withdrawing consent does not automatically arise to the level of probable cause which would allow the officer to continue his search. There is no problem withdrawing consent, nor limiting your consent in the first place.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=166558
Don’t let them search in the 1st place. Because of my rights weather I have something I’m hiding or not, I won’t let them search my car.
Ok, that’s what I thought, but I was curious about it. Thanks.
Just a question. If the police stopped you and asked for permission to search and you refuse couldn’t they then take you to the police station for further investigation? After all, they had probable cause to stop you so would they have probable cause to hold you until a search warrent could be gotten?
This would be based on the original cause for stopping you and not on your refusal to agree to a search.
That depends on why they were stopping you. Were they stopping you for speeding, or because they thought you had a dead body in the trunk?
If they had probable cause to stop you for DWI (DUI elsewhere) and then determined you really aren’t drunk, or if they stopped you for speeding and gave you a ticket and it didn’t look like you were guilty of anything else, there’s no reason to detain you further. Now, if they have probable cause to search your car for evidence of another crime, they can just search it right there, no warrant or permission necessary. This is the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. If they ask you for permission and you refuse, and there’s no probable cause to believe you committed a crime (or reasonable suspicion to detain you further, say, till the K9 unit gets there), they have to let you go.
OK, I thought that was probably it. However, I’ve learned that is isn’t always astute to be too picky about “my rights” with street cops. They might have to let you go this time, but some of them have long memories and in a small town can make things pretty sticky. I’ts awfully hard to drive around town and never violate a traffic law.
I’d say in most cases yes, they could, but that doesn’t mean they will. In general, a cop can arrest you for any moving violation for which a ticket might issue. (This is why, while first-year law students may try to argue a cop out of giving them a ticket, those of us who’ve passed the Bar know to shut the hell up.) So, assuming you were stopped for a moving violation (which is frequently the case), then if a cop really wanted to search the vehicle he could arrest you for the violation and then search the car – an immediate search of the passenger compartment at the time of arrest to ensure there’s nothing there that could be used as a weapon, and a fuller inventory search of the entire car once you’re in custody. However, that means he’s going to have to go thru arrest procedures and arrange for transportation both for you and the vehicle. That takes time and effort which would be better spent on the street watching for other crimes unless the officer has significant reason to suspect you.
That’s in the situation where their PC to stop comes from PC to arrest you (b/c they have evidence of the moving violation). There might be a situation in which they have reasonable suspicion to stop your car but not PC to arrest you, but I bet those situations are few and far between – any time an officer has suspicion reasonable enough to justify stopping a moving car (which seems to me more intrusive than the typical Terry stop of “Hey – c’mere, pal.”), I’d bet he’s almost certain to have enough PC to either arrest you (and thereby justify an inventory search of the car) or to at least search the car (and due to what some might call inconsistent Supreme Court precedent, cops do not need a warrant to search a car if they have the PC to justify the search).
–Cliffy
The above reply was to David’s post three above mine, not his immediate one.
I agree with pravnik in general, but as to the point that, “if they stopped you for speeding and gave you a ticket… there’s no reason to detain you further,” I reiterate that if a cop wants, he can arrest you for speeding instead of just ticketing you, and do searches following from that.
Of course, if he stops you for DUI and then upon observation decides you’re not drunk, then there is no PC for arrest and, absent other probable cause to perform a search, there is no right for him to detain you further or to search the vehicle.
–Cliffy
Not sure how my OBVIOUS tongue-in-cheeck response was political, or anything else for that matter.
My deepest apologies.
Cliffy’s right; I should have mentioned that. There may be no obvious reason for him to detain you further, but if he wants to (typically if the arrestee is being a jerk), he can arrest you for even a seat belt violation and have your car inventoried at the station. Not technically a “search” under the 4th Amendment, but the end result is the same.
Actually, aren’t speeding and such considered civil violations, and not criminal violations, or something like that? I thought I read that somewhere, that most minor traffic offenses weren’t arrestable.