# During a traffic stop, the officer asks permission to search my vehicle. I decline. Now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 5, 2019, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981 "2019-02-05T00:47:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/81 "2019-02-06T20:12:06Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > [Wrong.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian) Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters. > **[Civilian - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civilian)** > > The most common meaning for civilian is simply someone who is not in the military. It can also refer to any object that is not military in origin — e.g., "civilian clothes" or "civilian life." _civilian The most common meaning for civilian is simply someone who is not in the military. It can also refer to any object that is not military in origin — e.g., “civilian clothes” or “civilian life.”_ So, the police have managed to change the definition of civilian in a few cases. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/82 "2019-02-06T20:14:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civilian](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civilian) > > \*civilian > > The most common meaning for civilian is simply someone who is not in the military. It can also refer to any object that is not military in origin — e.g., “civilian clothes” or “civilian life.”\* > > So, the police have managed to change the definition of civilian in a few cases. And firefighters managed to get tacked on post - 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/83 "2019-02-06T23:29:34Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’re flatly declaring “wrong” based on a dictionary entry? I flatly call you wrong based on my Wikipedia article, which unlike your link, comes with references. > > [Civilian - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) The first reference is to the definition I previously linked. The second one is to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com), which has a nearly identical definition: > [@](#): > > noun > a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization. Those are the only references in the article that pertain to definition. [Cambridge](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/civilian), [Macillan](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/civilian_1#civilian_1__1), [Oxford Advanced Learner’s](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/civilian) also include police in the definition. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/84 "2019-02-06T23:45:23Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > The first reference is to the definition I previously linked. The second one is to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com), which has a nearly identical definition: > Those are the only references in the article that pertain to definition. > > [Cambridge](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/civilian), [Macillan](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/civilian_1#civilian_1__1), [Oxford Advanced Learner’s](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/civilian) also include police in the definition. You are declaring someone wrong based on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they describe various ways people use words. I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/85 "2019-02-07T00:40:31Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You are declaring someone wrong based on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they describe various ways people use words. > > I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it is not a reliable source. > **[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source)** > > Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wi... What value it has comes from being a quick and easy way to find proper references, if the article is properly cited. And in this case, despite what the text of the article says, the references cited in the article concerning the definition agree with what I linked. The first citation IS what I linked. The author misquotes the definition cited as "a person who is not a member of the military” when it in fact says “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force” ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/86 "2019-02-07T00:49:09Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it is not a reliable source. > [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source) That you are attempting to discredit Wikipedia as an entity instead of solely attacking the facts in the article is telling. > [@](#): > > And in this case, despite what the text of the article says, the references cited in the article concerning the definition agree with what I linked. The first citation IS what I linked. The author misquotes the definition cited as "a person who is not a member of the military” when it in fact says “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force” “The” references, eh? I made it clear I am talking about “legal” references. Go attack those and get back to me. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/87 "2019-02-07T00:50:31Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > In my experience, they come back after a few minutes in their car and say they radioed in your plate and were told the vehicle had been used in a burglary. That justifies their search, and of course you have no way to challenge what they “heard” the dispatcher report. Assuming the vehicle was NOT used in a burglary, you’d win that lawsuit so fast the lawyers would get whiplash. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/88 "2019-02-07T01:00:44Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters. When I was in the military, they sure seemed civilian to me. Just because they often have ARs instead of shotguns now, or might have surplus military gear on hand, does not make civil police (nor firefighters) noncivilian. I understand this a pooly expressed way to say “us” and “them” to each other, but that does not make the expression correct. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/89 "2019-02-07T02:13:50Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > [Glazed Donut Crumb field tests positive as Meth](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/16/558147669/florida-man-awarded-37-500-after-cops-mistake-glazed-doughnut-crumbs-for-meth) with a bonus of drywall dust testing positive as cocaine. These are anomalies. Usually doesn’t happen this way. And it’s better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab. And those payouts are ludicrous! Bad arrests are truly a terrible, terrible thing to happen, but those made on good faith don’t result in payouts that high around here. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It’s not my job to help you beat my attorney, and it’s more than a little uncool to pressure me to do so. _Asking_ for permission to search your vehicle isn’t “pressuring” you. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/90 "2019-02-07T02:28:26Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > These are anomalies. Usually doesn’t happen this way. So what? “Not usually” and “anomalies” doesn’t equal rare. From that same article: > [@](#): > > A 2016 investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times found that tens of thousands of people are sent to jail each year based on the kits’ results, which often generate false positives: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Some tests … use a single tube of a chemical called cobalt thiocyanate, which turns blue when it is exposed to cocaine. But cobalt thiocyanate also turns blue when it is exposed to more than 80 other compounds, including methadone, certain acne medications and several common household cleaners. Other tests use three tubes, which the officer can break in a specific order to rule out everything but the drug in question — but if the officer breaks the tubes in the wrong order, that, too, can invalidate the results. The environment can also present problems. Cold weather slows the color development; heat speeds it up, or sometimes prevents a color reaction from taking place at all.” > > Data from the state law enforcement lab in Florida found that 21 percent of the evidence recorded by police as methamphetamine was not in fact methamphetamine, and of that, half was not illegal drugs at all, according to the ProPublica investigation: “When we examined the department’s records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result.” > [@](#): > > And it’s better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab. It’s even better to not give the cops permission to field test your doughnut crumbs. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/91 "2019-02-07T02:57:33Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > That you are attempting to discredit Wikipedia as an entity instead of solely attacking the facts in the article is telling. > “The” references, eh? I made it clear I am talking about “legal” references. Go attack those and get back to me. If I’m “discrediting” Wikipedia, then so is Wikipedia. Those were their words, not mine. And I’m not attacking anything. “The” references are the references cited IN THE ARTICLE. I’ve already demonstrated that the cite given for the definition at the beginning of the article doesn’t support the author’s definition. The line the author put in quotes is not in the footnoted reference. The document linked at the end that is claimed to be the DoD “definition” of civilian does not itself claim to be a legal definition of civilian. It’s a directive for cooperating with “civilian law enforcement officials”. The definition section just clarifies what the word means in the context of that directive, not what it means outside that context. > [@sps49sd](#): > > When I was in the military, they sure seemed civilian to me. > > Just because they often have ARs instead of shotguns now, or might have surplus military gear on hand, does not make civil police (nor firefighters) noncivilian. I understand this a pooly expressed way to say “us” and “them” to each other, but that does not make the expression correct. It’s more the other way around. The military thinking of police as civilian matches Oxford’s informal definition, “A person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group,” but like it or not the formal definition of civilian excludes police. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/92 "2019-02-07T03:54:01Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > If I’m “discrediting” Wikipedia, then so is Wikipedia. You’re not getting my point. Going after Wikipedia as a whole instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article is what’s telling. > [@](#): > > I’ve already demonstrated that the cite given for the definition at the beginning of the article doesn’t support the author’s definition. The line the author put in quotes is not in the footnoted reference. That happens as the content in links change. Since it’s a link to an online dictionary page, it’s not surprising. Dictionaries change definitions. It’s not necessarily a case of misquoting as you contended. But I don’t really care as I have pointed out, I obviously did not link to the entry for dictionary definitions- I obviously quoted the entry for the legal definitions as I keep telling you. > [@](#): > > The document linked at the end that is claimed to be the DoD “definition” of civilian does not itself claim to be a legal definition of civilian. It’s a directive for… “Claimed” to be? It’s a direct link to a DoD Directive on [fas.org](http://fas.org). Seriously? Hell, I’ll just spoon feed it to you: > [@](#): > > According to Article 50 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, “1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. 2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. 3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.” The definition is negative and defines civilians as persons who do not belong to definite categories. The categories of persons mentioned in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of the Protocol I are combatants. Therefore, the Commentary to the Protocol pointed that, any one who is not a member of the armed forces is a civilian. Technical and legal. That trumps dictionary definitions by far. As far as a DoD directive not being a legal definition, it is a technical one. Again, trumping dictionary definitions. BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don’t include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong? ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/93 "2019-02-07T04:33:01Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > It’s even better to not give the cops permission to field test your doughnut crumbs. Post #51. But that’s me. If other people want to give permission that’s their choice. And in my experience about 80%+ give permission, including those that have something to hide. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/94 "2019-02-07T05:03:20Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > Assuming the vehicle was NOT used in a burglary, you’d win that lawsuit so fast the lawyers would get whiplash. Really? Assuming anyone would take (or allow to proceed to trial) a Section 1983 case where there are no damages, what evidence can I offer that overcomes the cop’s testimony that he thought the dispatcher said “it’s dirty.” Or that the dispatcher heard “five” when he’d said “nine?” ---
**Author:** ![K2500](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f6c823/32.png) [@K2500](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/K2500)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/95 "2019-02-07T05:23:17Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > _Asking_ for permission to search your vehicle isn’t “pressuring” you. True, though I’ll say sometimes it feels like pressure. Maybe it’s the circumstance or maybe some of these guys are really good at making questions sound very unquestionable. Which I suppose could be an advantageous ability. * * * For my part, I would refuse permission. If he’s got his cause or can manufacture one he’ll search anyways and if he doesn’t he won’t. Hell, I won’t even give my name unless our specific interaction demands it. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/96 "2019-02-07T06:25:23Z")
I lived in Japan for 25 years over almost 40! year period. (Damn, I’m getting old.) It interesting to compare the differences in the legal systems and how police act, etc. Police in Japan and Taiwan are much less active(?) in terms of searching out people to search. Fewer traffic stops, fewer tickets and not really the issue with searching. However, if you get on the wrong side of the things, there are fewer safeguards. There is a huge problem with forced confessions in Japan. The conviction rate is something like 99%, which is insanely high. There’s just no way that the police and DAs are that good. Many of the convictions are from forced confessions. In America, I’m another middle age, middle class white guy. The only interaction I’ve had with American LEO in the last 30 years was quite professional. I was stopped in Georgia for going over a double yellow line. I only had my Taiwanese drivers license on me. My wife had our International Permits (which are just a translations anyway) but they were really cool about it. They were quite polite and professional. They asked if I had been drinking, which is a reasonable thing to ask, and I laughed because I had just pulled out from the parking lot for the AA meeting. > [@spifflog](#): > > I’d like to move on as quickly as possible, and I’d like him to move on to other work, that is important to our society. Officers should be doing their work, which is to not waste time on fishing expeditions. If there are reasonable grounds for a search, do the search. If there isn’t, then the responsibility for not wasting the officer’s time doesn’t fall on the driver; it’s up to the officer to take a “no” and ove one. > [@spifflog](#): > > Sometimes just cooperating with the police, not treating them like the enemy and showing them a bit of respect is the way to go. Other people have commented on this, but declining a search is not treating someone like an enemy nor is it being disrespectful. One can be respectful while declining. There isn’t a need to go all sovereign citizen on the officer. Just say no. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/97 "2019-02-07T10:35:43Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > But this whole “you never know if a prior owner left a crack pipe in your car that you never saw” or “you never know if your son’s friend left drugs in your car” is a crock. If you’re hanging with people that are leaving drugs in your car, that’s a YOU problem. And if you really think there is cocaine left in your car for five years ago when you bought it you’re just looking for an excuse. An excuse for what? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/98 "2019-02-07T12:14:22Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > These are anomalies. Usually doesn’t happen this way. And it’s better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab. It’s better for you, I fail to see how it’s better for me. > [@](#): > > _Asking_ for permission to search your vehicle isn’t “pressuring” you. Do you think you get 80% acceptance without the people you ask feeling pressure to acquiesce? You’re a cop. You have me in a compromised position, a position of extreme uncertainty. Uncertainty that you, the cop, are in absolute control over. You then suggest that this position of uncertainty (of which you are in complete control) will end favorably if I agree to something. If that’s not pressure, I’m happy to use an alternate word to describe it, but it’s why people agree to it. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/99 "2019-02-07T14:47:06Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’re not getting my point. Going after Wikipedia as a whole instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article is what’s telling. Pointing out that Wikipedia acknowledges being an unreliable source is a response to this: > [@](#): > > I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones. And I have dug into the sources for the opening section. They don’t support the opening section. > [@](#): > > That happens as the content in links change. Since it’s a link to an online dictionary page, it’s not surprising. Dictionaries change definitions. It’s not necessarily a case of misquoting as you contended. But I don’t really care as I have pointed out, I obviously did not link to the entry for dictionary definitions- I obviously quoted the entry for the legal definitions as I keep telling you. The content of the link has not changed since [at least 2009](https://web.archive.org/web/20090425012742/http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian), which is as far back as the Wayback Machine goes. What has changed is the text of the article. And less than two months ago. [Here’s how the article began until 12/23/2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian&oldid=867121156) > [@](#): > > A civilian is “a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force”. > [@](#): > > “Claimed” to be? It’s a direct link to a DoD Directive on [fas.org](http://fas.org). Seriously? > > Hell, I’ll just spoon feed it to you: > > Technical and legal. That trumps dictionary definitions by far. > > As far as a DoD directive not being a legal definition, it is a technical one. Again, trumping dictionary definitions. BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don’t include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong? The link to the DoD directive reads “US DoD definition of the term Civilian, refers to civilian law enforcement agencies”. The document linked includes definitions for “Civilian Agency” and “Civilian Law Enforcement Official”, but not for “Civilian”, although their definitions imply that they are using the term in the “specialist in Roman or modern civil law” sense. I’ve already read the section on Geneva Convention protocols, and I also checked those references. Article 50 is defining who is covered by article 51, but it doesn’t dictate the use of the term outside the Geneva Conventions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981/100 "2019-02-07T17:19:19Z")
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#): > > This seems like a good idea [until it backfires](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival).And don’t forget, spouses/significant others are favorite suspects in murder cases. So you get home from work, find the missus in the living room with an axe in her forehead, you call 911 and the cops show up–YOU know you didn’t do it, couldn’t have because of what you think is a reasonable explanation. THEY think you’re a suspect and will poke holes in your story, which you told shortly after finding your wife slaughtered like a pig in your home. You’ll mess up something “trivial” like what time you left work to head home, or what time you got home, and when that doesn’t fit the facts, you must have been lying. If not the cops, the DA will get you. Just don’t talk. Nope. I am innocent, which means someone else did it. I want that someone else caught and convicted. If I can tell the police anything that will assist that, I am willing to take the chance. Yes, of course I am going to make mistakes and there will be inconsistencies. All stories, true and false, have inconsistencies. So what if I said I left work at 5:30 and it was really 5:45? I didn’t do it. If inconsistencies in an alibi were all that it took to convict someone, nobody would ever be acquitted. > [@](#): > > You can’t count on cops & DAs wanting to find perpetrators, you can count on them solving cases. If the facts can tell a plausible (if incorrect) story, and you fit into that story, you’re done. Sorry - I don’t believe this. “We don’t care if you are guilty or innocent as long as we can clear the case” - not buying it. TV isn’t real, and false convictions are man bites dog cases. Besides - I am upper-middle class, boringly conventional, and I didn’t do it. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/during-a-traffic-stop-the-officer-asks-permission-to-search-my-vehicle-i-decline-now-what/828981.md?page=6)