While I have had friends in the police, and still know and like two
- I don’t trust the b/ggers when they are ‘at work’
It seems that they get brownie points for exaggerating a conviction, and in my experience they have no worries about lying.
Ok, so lets say I get pulled over and the cop asks me for permission to search. I politely say “no”. Then what? Will the cop just let it go and send me on my way? Or will the cop detain me to get a warrant or arrest me?
It seems like if I have nothing to hide, the most expeditious way to get out of the situation is to just consent to a search. Unless the officer construes my tire iron as a weapon, I don’t carry anything in my car that would get me into trouble.
Unless he himself drops a joint and a nugget of hash into your glovebox. (Here is where my paranoia shows itself.) While I don’t think it happens often, police officers planting evidence does indeed happen.
Generally, if he asked, it’s because he knows he cannot get a warrant. Getting a warrant isn’t hard, and it doesn’t take long. If he has legal reason to search, he will do so. Asking you almost guarantees that he doesn’t have legal reason, he can’t get a warrant, and he knows it. Therefore, his only option for searching is to get your permission. So, in that case, no, he won’t generally detain you to get a warrant, because he has no probable cause with which to get a warrant. So usually, he’ll be forced to let you go. He may try to keep you around and bully you or wear you down. Simply ask, “Am I free to leave?”. If he says yes, then politely take your leave and get the heck out of there.
If you’re a jerk, he may decide to detain or arrest you. The way you find out if you’re being legally detained is to ask “Am I free to leave?” If he says no, you’re being detained and will probably be arrested in short order. Once this happens, say NOTHING besides, “Officer, I have nothing to say until I speak with a lawyer.” NOTHING ELSE! Not, “I’m sure this is all a misunderstanding”, not “Can’t you let me go this time?” Not, “Well, I do have half a pound of heroin in the trunk, but it belongs to my brother-in-law.” Nothing, besides, “Officer, I have nothing to say until I speak with a lawyer.”
Remember, once arrest is immanent, anything you say can and WILL be used against you in a court of law, even if you think it will help you. It won’t.
Politely refusing the cops request would not be probable cause for a search (unless you refuse a field sobriety test, in most states). The cop might already have it, but if so would probably search without a warrant while you sit on the curb in handcuffs.
I seriously doubt that if one politely refused a search the cop later found weed it will make a bit of difference in the ultimate sentence, if any. If you volunteered that you had it, no cop is going to let you go, so you might as well lie.
This is a common misconception. A cop does NOT have the right to search your car, just because he wants to. He CANNOT get a warrant to search your car on the grounds that you are suspicious because you refused a search.
If the cop is suspicious of you and you refuse to let him search, he’s first gonna try to intimidate you into cooperating. Or he’s going to look for an excuse to let him search. But a broken taillight does not give him that excuse. An uncooperative driver does not give him that excuse. A driver with dreadlocks and a Greatful Dead bumper sticker does not give him that excuse.
Yeah, he can make up something. He saw a gun, he smelled pot, you threatened him. Except, if he makes up an bogus excuse to search you without your consent, how are you worse off than if you consented to the search? You’re better off, because at least now you’ve got a story to tell the judge. And if the judge has heard defendents complain about this particular cop much more than they complain about average cops, he’s gonna know it.
So yes, a sociopath cop can frame you for a crime, or beat the crap out of you, or put a bullet in your brain, and he has a pretty good chance to get away with it once or twice. Consenting to a search doesn’t make you safer from a sociopath cop, he can plant drugs on your car during a search with consent just as easily as during a search without consent.
If your concern is time, who’s to say that you’ll waste more time consenting to a search and getting your car ripped apart and your belongings dumped on the side of the road, compared to the cop deciding it’s not worth his time and after some posturing letting you go.
Once on COPS Officer Friendly graciously allowed a guy traveling with his family to dump a small bag of weed on the ground in lieu of arrest. I know if I was a cop, the paperwork, court apperances, driving miles to the station, etc. for a small amount of pot which would probably result in a small fine at most would not be worth my time.
This is not necessarily true. When I’m conducting a search, even if I have the legal right to do it, I always ask first. The reason is that their attorney, if he is any good at all, will always try to fight the basis of the search, and try to call my judgment as to whether I had the right to do it into question. But if the person consents, he’s pretty much destroyed any argument the lawyer can make.
I hadn’t thought of that angle, and it makes sense…once you get consent that shuts down any later attempts by his attorney to get evidence thrown out.
But if you have the right to search his car, and you ask for consent, and he refuses, you’re going to search is car even without his consent. He gains nothing by giving you consent. Yeah, if his car is clean giving you consent probably won’t get him in trouble. But what I can’t understand are the people who KNOW they’ve got drugs and STILL give consent. Yeah, the cops might get a warrant anyway, but maybe they won’t. Why do you think people give consent in these situations? Reverse psychology? General ignorance of polic powers? Hypnosis?
I have often wondered why so many people who know they have something bad hidden in their car or house consent to a search. Dunno. Either they are stupid, think the cop is stupid or think the cop won’t search if they act innocent (which is stupid).
As for me, even if I knew that I had nothing to hide, I wouldn’t ever consent to a search. The only time I ever have was when a couple of buddies and I were coming home from a high power match and I had 3 AR-15s, 3 M-1s and other assorted goodies in the back of my car, where the cop could see them if he looked. I didn’t want him to go all barney fife and shoot us thinking he had captured a terrorist cell.
I am going to say that it depends on the officer.
My father, back in his hippy days, got pulled over and had a joint in his ashtray. The cop did the flashlight thing and asked him if he’d been smoking pot, my dad looked at the cop and said “I’m going to be honest, there’s a roach in my ashtray.” Cop gave my dad a speeding ticket and told him not to smoke and drive.
Same situation with a family friend and he went to prison for two years.
I think it depends on the officer, the locale, how much, whether you’ve been doing it, and whether it seems like you’re going to be selling it. Too many variables - I know a lot of cool police officers who will give you a warning but make note of your name and license in case they run into you again, and I know a lot of police who figure that it’s illegal and arrest you.
In my eyes, though, I’d just not say anything. I mean, it’s going to look bad if they find it and you lied about it, but if they don’t ask, don’t tell.
~Tasha
I’ve never been able to figure that one out. I almost never have someone refuse to let me search.
True. Always say no.
If something like this went to court, and the cop was asked what precipitated the desire for a search, what is stopping him from saying you were acting suspicious, or nervous, even if you weren’t? Video would not show this if they had it, unless you got out of the car, and if they didn’t have it, wouldn’t it be their word against yours? How could a lawyer prove the search was unwarranted if this was the rationale used by the officer?
“Acting suspicious” is not probable cause to search your car. It may be enough to give the officer the right to search YOU, to make sure you don’t have any weapons on you or within easy reach of you. But not the rest of the car.
It wouldn’t even go to court, because the prosecutor wouldn’t bother, knowing the judge would throw such a case out instantly.
Now, reality is, if the officer really does think you’re acting suspiciously, he’s going to try to come up with a legal justification to search your car, whereas if you don’t fit his profile of “troublemaker” he’s more likely to let you go. But he’s got to come up with an excuse more definate than “acting suspicious”. He’d have to claim he saw contraband in plain sight, or that you assaulted him, or an informant told him you had committed a crime, or you had outstanding warrants, or some such.