Gfactor, your second cite is particularly enlightening. It’s very late here so I’ll give it a reread in the morning.
Perhaps I can extend the situation. Suppose you’re in your car and you have absolute proof (we’ll assume that details are not relevant) that there’s no marijuana in or on the car. Clearly the officer is lying to you when he says he smelled marijuana. Is the officer committing an offence by so doing? Attempted extortion? Harrassment? Can you arrest him for that offence?
How many times will this hypothetical issue be brought before the boards before it is considered properly answered? Please. Cease to continue further beating of these bleached equine bones.
Heh. It usually shakes out closer to this: the cop will search your car if he wants to --he just doesn’t *like *you, maybe–and make up a reason if needs must. Cops do that kind of thing all the damn time, and get away with it, too. Their idea of a “good reason” is privileged almost by default. It’s an ugly little open secret that many, if not most, judges will take a LEO’s word over that of a regular citizen almost every time – and if the non-police party is of a minority ethnic background, or appears noticeably “subcultural”, or otherwise manifests down-power social status, it’s practically a sucker bet.
This board is constantly evolving. That certain subjects will come up over and over is a certainty. It may be boring to some of us, but I don’t see the harm in discussing some subjects, especially civil rights, over again. If you find it monoonous, then just skip the thread,
I won’t deny that this could be the situation in many areas. I have a very close friend who is a police officer and he says that here (near Richmond, Virginia) he knows of several cases in which fellow officers clearly didn’t have their “facts straight” when they were in court. He elaborated that judges around these parts get quite pissed off when they get the impression that a LEO is reaching for straws or trying to stretch the truth out because their actions at the time of the incident weren’t quite legally correct.
Well, of course if the cop lies or plants evidence, then all bets are off. I mean, if you annoy a cop enough he can drag you into the woods and put a bullet in your brain, right?
So of course a cop can “make up” a reason to search you if he’s in the mood. The trouble for the cop comes after the search. Is he going to perjure himself on the stand? Of course some cops perjure themselves in court, and if a cop lies about what happened it can be difficult to rebut his lying ass, especially if you’re differently pigmented.
But suppose a cop “smells marijuana” and uses that as a pretext to search you. And he doesn’t find any marijuana, but does find some other contraband. Now he has to change his story, because if he testifies that he smelled marijuana but there was no marijuana then he’s an obvious liar. He’ll have to make up something else. Of course, it’s more likely that he’ll take a look at the hippies in the car, declare that he “smells marijuana” and then search. If he finds pot, then his made-up probable cause suddenly becomes plausible. And if he doesn’t find pot, the most likely scenario is that he lets the damn dirty hippies go…unless he finds a dead hooker in the trunk or whatever.
But if he finds that dead hooker in the trunk, then he’s going to have to think fast and make up a new story, and it’s possible that he’s blown the whole case with his clumsy lies.
How did that situation in the OP work again?
The cop “pulled you over” because “he smelled” marijuana from your car – as you passed each other at 55 mi/hr? Yeah, that’s real believable.
This has me giggling like a school girl.
I have had basically good experiences with police, but the first time I was ever pulled over (in high school, going 37 in a 25 late at night), the guy gave me a warning, but after he handed it to me he says, “just so you know, when you rolled down the window, I’m pretty sure I smelled something.” Um . . . ok? Maybe he really did, but I left with this nasty feeling that he was playing games with this hippie-looking kid with the long hair and his black female passenger. I don’t really know what his point was, but his whole demeanor was confrontational, and that last bit was just over the top.
I was pulled over, so to speak, and searched one night. I was walking my bike down the sidewalk because I didn’t have a headlight, required by law in my state, and I didn’t want to be hassled by the cops. That particular street makes a sharp left turn, and as I rounded the turn (on foot, mind you), I crossed the street so that I would be walking on the right. (Several blocks ahead, I planned to turn right.) The cop car, which had been sitting with no headlights, pulled up and pulled me over. They said that it was suspicious that I had crossed the street to avoid them. Jeez, I didn’t even see them until they pulled up – if I had seen them, I sure wouldn’t be dumb enough to cross the street. (It’s not rocket surgery. 
)
They asked, could they just go ahead and search me, and I said No, I do not consent, because I don’t think that simply crossing the street was sufficient to justify a search. I said that my political convictions were important to me, and I felt I should stand up for what I believe in. (cue national anthem.)
They searched me anyway.
I tried this once in Dublin. It didn’t work.
Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: It’s pouring with rain, so when the light went amber I didn’t stop because I was concerned that I’d skid through the junction. I presume it’s that?
Cop: The light you drove through was red.
Me: It was amber.
Cop: It was red.
Me: From where you were sitting, you couldn’t have seen what colour the light was.
Cop: OK, I’ll give you a ticket for dangerous driving then, for jumping an amber light.
(There was more jolly banter around this, which concluded with the cop saying, with a smile “you’re late for work now, aren’t you?” - but this was the nub of the conversation.)
Your mistake here was responding to the officer’s first question - it’s a very common ploy to get you to admit to something. For example, if you speed past a cop and they don’t record your speed, they may well ask “why do you think I stopped you?” when they pull you over. If you say “because I was speeding” in an attempt to appear contrite and/or alert, you’ve basically handed them a licence to ticket you - you have confessed to the crime. Without that, they have little or no evidence on which to convict you and you’re more likely to get off with a warning.
I have been pulled over several times (mostly for speeding) and never got a ticket this way (of course I have also been very lucky). The correct response to “why do you think I stopped you?” is a polite “I’m not sure, perhaps you could tell me?”
On a particularly memorable occasion, I was accused of jumping a red light (although they would also have noticed the speed at which I drove off). The police car was positioned on the opposite site of the road and couldn’t possibly have seen whether or not the light was green (it was), they just wanted me to admit to something. After a breath test (clear) I was on my way.
The reason it sticks in the memory is because I was driving barefooted, which made the walk to the police car a bit embarrassing. However, that was fine - they said the last person they stopped was wearing slippers!
For me the basic issue is one of trust: if the officer has lied on this issue, then on what other issues has he lied?
“I’m not sure” will get you done for Driving Without Due Care over here. I’d suggest, “I’m sure you’re about to tell me, officer.”
From personal experience, Probable Cause is completely disgressionary. If the officer “thinks” he smells something funny or something looks funny then that is enough for the courts (Indiana courts anyway). If all is well all an officer has to do is say “I made a mistake” when and if he gets to court and life moves on.
The story:
I don’t think it necessarily follows that if someone says they smell marijuana, but upon a search no marijuana is found, that the person who smelled the marijuana is lying. When I was working at a high school, I found more than one student who smelled of marijuana but no longer had it on their person. The smell of the smoke can hang around long after the pot is smoked. I was not lying about still smelling it.
Sorry, brief technical blurb.
The story (continued):
In the early 90s, a young and arrogant N8 was driving his girlfriend’s car when the brakes went out (the brakes were bad anyway and I was, in fact, driving to my parents house to fix them). After swerving to miss the sherriff I managed to coast to a stop. The sherriff came at the car with pistol drawn and we did the “Down on your knees” tango for a bit as I explained the situation.
He understood the story and eventually released me and said the car had to be impounded. Meh, whatever. As I stood there he started searching the car (without asking) so i stood there and watched. He asked me to move to the rear of the vehicle and I asked “Why?”. He said so he could search the car and I said “Go ahead, I’ll just stand here and watch.” He continued to ask me to move at which point I said “F*** You, If you’re going to search this car I’m going to watch you do it.” at which point the handcuffs came out.
The charges were “Failure to cooperate with an officer” and I bonded out that evening. No formal criminal charges were even filed. As a bonus, the day I was arrested happened to be race day in May. Since I was technically arrested in Speedway I was detained inside the track for the duration of that year’s Indy 500 with a pretty good view of turn 2 and the back straight. Not the best way to see the race but not as bad as all that either.
How is not knowing how a cop pulled you over driving without due care? And “I’m sure you’re about to tell me,” sounds like the silent following is, “and write me a ticket for it.” I’d rather not be snarky to a cop if I can help it.
Because you obviously weren’t paying attention. That is, you were driving without Due Care.
Not only the board, but also the law. And not - IMO - in a desireable direction. I just read yesterday that the Supremes have agreed to hear an appeal out of IIRC Arizona, concerning whether cops have the right to search a parked vehicle, after arresting the vehicle’s owner outside of the car. Personally, I cannot imagine any reason why such a search would be warranted, why there would be any threat to the police, and why they couldn’t impound the car and attempt to establish probable cause for a warrant. But the clear trend over the past decade or 2 has clearly been to reduce the expectation of privacy - especially in vehicles, and to increase LEOs’ ability to stop and search.
A trend I strongly disagree with.
Realize that “probable cause” is only relevant AFTER the search, whan and if it is being challenged in court. At the time, it is sufficient to clearly and politely refuse consent to a search. Realize that you may think your car is clean, but your passenger might have something in his pocket, your kid may have put a roach out in the ashtray when he borrowed the car, there may be something in the luggage in the trunk…