You know the scene played out often on Cops- cop asks perp if he has any drugs in the car, perp says no, cop finds it anyway and is “upset” at perp for not admitting he has a pound of herion in the trunk. I get the reluctance to admit it in those cases, but what if you have say less than a quarter oz. of pot in the car- is it best to admit it, hoping the cop will go lenient as he implies, for you being upfront and honest with him, or is that just a ploy to save him the hassle of actually searching the car?
Let me start by saying you’d be a dumbass to be in that situation to begin with.
That said, I’d politely decline warrantless searches and not volonteer information. The worst the cop can do is arrest you, the sentencing will be done by the court. As long as you’re polite you don’t have to incriminate yourself. Whether the cop will relay information about your not volonteering information and whether that will affect your court case is hard to tell.
The possibilites are:
-Don’t tell cop, cop doesn’t search - You’re free
-Don’t tell cop, cop searches, cop decides to let you go - You’re free
-Don’t tell cop, cop searches, cop decides to arrest - You’re arrested
-Tell cop, cop decides to let you go - You’re free
-Tell cop, cop decides to arrest - You’re arrested
The way I see it, not telling gives you 2 chances to go free, telling only gives you one. 
That’s math, and who can argue with math?
Daniel
Why I’m driving around with 1/4 of Australia in my car is no one’s business.
I just wish I could get better mileage, though.
Nobody, that’s who!
I parsed it as follows:
-Don’t tell cop, cop doesn’t search - You’re free
-Don’t tell cop, cop searches and finds it , cop decides to let you go - You’re free
-Don’t tell cop, cop searches and finds nothing , cop lets you go - You’re free
-Don’t tell cop, cop searches and finds it, cop decides to arrest - You’re arrested
-Tell cop, cop decides to let you go - You’re free
-Tell cop, cop decides to arrest - You’re arrested
So there’s even more reason to say nothing.
Call me a cynic, but I’d think that generally the cop only asks you if you have anything on you to earn your trust–make you think he’ll let you go if you’re honest with him, then arrest you when you show him the goods, saying that it’s “just part of his job” or some other excuse for violating the trust that he just established.
It’s been my experience that if you tell them that you have nothing illegal, then they find something, the officer will act personally offended, as though you were his friend up until the point that you lied to him.
As a person trying to transport something illegal, isn’t it “just part of your job”
to do whatever you can (within reason, without hurting anyone) to not get caught?
Of course, different police will react differently in different areas, expecially if they don’t consider it a major offense. And individuals will always react differently.
It’s probably to some extent the cop trying to make his job easier by getting a person to just admit they have something. Well it’s really not in your best interest to do so.
Does anyone know if a cop’s report of cooperation or non-cooperation is likely to have any affect on the court case?
I’ve seen some traffic tickets marked a certain way to indicate that the offender was an asshole to the cop during the stop. If a prosecutor sees that mark, he won’t offer to reduce the charge in exchange for a plea.
But there’s a big difference between being an asshole and simply not volunteering information.
It’s been a long time since I had any contraband of any sort, but I think my answer to the cop would be, “If I were carrying anything illegal, I certainly wouldn’t share that information with an officer of the law.” And I would refuse any requests for warrantless searches.
You’ve got to be the dumbest criminal in the history of the planet to tell a cop you’ve got heroin in your car.
You think the cop is going to let you go if he finds heroin? Not gonna happen.
And consenting to a search when you know you’ve got heroin? That’s so dumb I don’t even know where to begin. I guess the the criminal operates under the theory that the cop will search you anyway, so if you consent he’ll go lighter on you. But why?
If the cop has the legal authority to search you, he won’t ask your permission, he’ll just do it. So if he asks permission, that is proof that he doesn’t have that authority, and can’t legally search you. And if he doesn’t have the legal authority to search you, why would you give him permission to do so, knowing you’ve got drugs in your car? The cop is not going to forget about the heroin because you were polite! Yeah, he might let you slide on speeding, or a busted tail light, or expired tabs, or whatever. But drugs? No way. Yeah, the cop might lie about it later and say you gave consent, or make up some probable cause…but most cops won’t. And even if he lies and claims you gave consent and finds your drugs, how are you worse off than if you actually gave consent?
Of course it never hurts to be courteous and polite and respectful, keep your hands in plain view at all times, etc etc. But consenting to a search is just crazy.
It doesn’t seem to go over very well, so I don’t really recommend it, but my standard answer to such questions (“Do you have anything illeagle?”) is:
“Not as far as you know.”
It’s also worth reminding our studio audience that NOT granting permission to search the vehicle (or your home, or your person) is NOT sufficent “probable cause” to then legally search. (As long as you’re not being an asshole: being beligerant, acting nervous, etc. might be probable cause in and of itself in some areas.) So if you say no, he claims that’s probable cause and searches, then he’s now performed an illegal act which won’t likely hold up in court. Might ruin your night, but will generally get the case dismissed.
You can do what I did one time when I was underage with an open case of beer and 3 drunk guys in my car:
Cop: Have you been drinking?
Me: No (true)
Cop: Is there any alchohol in the car?
Me: I did not bring any alchohol into the car.
Cop: Did any of those guys?
Me: As far as I know, no one brought any alchohol in the car.
I’ve seen enough Law & Order to know that you have to be an imecile to offer the cops any information.
er…imbecile
So that is your standard answer to the question? Find yourself in this type of situation often, do ya? 
I guess the question is: Is 0.25 oz. of marijuana enough to get you ninto trouble? I would suppose that such a small amount would not qualify you has having "intent to distribute’. and of course, you may be entitled to use such a small amount if you are suffering from cancer or AIDS. However, it is a crime to provide FALSE information to a police officer…so, better just:
-deny permission to search your car
-deny knowledge of any illegal substance
Of course, if you are the victim of a corrupt police officer, you could well be framed anyway. just be polite and do what is asked of you 9except allow a search).
You’re entitled to your math… the cop is entitled to the math.
Well, that depends on your location. In CA, it might be best to admit to a small amount of weed. It’s only a citation, here. And, if you had a “prescription”, it’s not even that.
But if there is no obvious signs, I’d just deny knowing, and refuse a search (“I am sorry, I just don’t have the time, officer”). If a search occurred anyway and my non-criminal amount of weed was found, I’d just claim I forgot. I’d act real apologetic, too, slap my forehead, and so forth.
It’s liek when you “lawyer up” and they say “well, you must have something to hide if you are demanding your lawyer” :rolleyes: - but in reality it’s they who accused you of being a suspect by reading you your rights.
I guess the thought process is, “If I consent to a search, then the cop will think I’ve got nothing to hide, so he won’t search me. But if I refuse a search, the cop will know I’ve got something to hide, and will definately search me and find the drugs.”
Unfortunately, this little exercise in reverse psychology is completely wrong.