No worries.
To each his own I guess.
Yes I have rights and I want to protect them. As I was driving down the street, and had absolutely nothing to hide, I saw no harm, and I don’t see harm now. Part of this is the belief that everything that happens that we don’t like in our society must be met with lawsuits, someone getting fired, a free plane ticket hopefully all three at once. An Officer wanting to search my car is not in the same category as a strip search or being imprisoned without trial for a decade. 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.
I don’t equate looking though my car as running roughshod over my rights. Or as we said as kids, don’t make a “federal case” out of everything.
It absolutely does not behoove you in any way to allow your property to be searched when the officer has no warrant and no probable cause. There is no upside at that point, it’s all downsides.
To each his own, I agree. And this is EXACTLY what a federal case is. The quickest way to move on to work that is important to our society is if he doesn’t search your car. Just cause he or she has a badge and a gun doesn’t make them right.
A search without probable cause isn’t work that is important to our society.
Many *many *times on Live PD they show cops stopping people for a traffic violation and letting them off with a warning.
Nothing in this thread has changed my mind that if you don’t have something to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about. If you act like a dick of course the cops will think you have something you shouldn’t.
A different search situation that I encountered.
I live quite remotely in a passive solar house full of windows. Perfect for growing MJ (If I chose to.) One day, I was home alone and waiting for my wife to come home. She was a good half hour late (before cell phones and legal MJ.)
Two cop cars pull up. My legs went to jelly as I immediately thought that they had some bad news about my Wife. No, no, as far as they know my Wife is fine, but someone that had skipped bail had used my home as an address. “Is that person here?” Was the cops question. No of course not, never heard of them. Then they started going on about, “well, it may be an alias”. Um, what? You don’t know what the hell is the persons name is you’re looking for?
Then the question came. “May we look in your house” (with the reason that they where looking for this person[note that my house is perfect for growing MJ). I was so relieved that my wife was OK, I said sure.
One cop went in. And then I noticed that the other cop/car was a drug enforcement SUV with a dog inside. It took me a minute after a calmed down realizing that my wife was OK, but felt it was VERY suspicious. This person had jumped bail in a different county 100 miles away. How did this person get my address? I don’t even get mail delivery.
I guess if I was growing, they couldn’t do anything about it? Because they entered the house for a different reason? But if they find a ‘crime’ in commission of looking for something else, I think you’re on the hook.
Sorry Loach, but that was really, really fucking weird.
I said “IMHO”, Your opinion is different.
It sounds like you trust the cops. And for the most part I do as well, but lots of people have had experiences that would make them distrust the cops. Especially a lot of people of color, some of whom paid with their lives.
And I’m not worried, but I also have no desire to allow a search that isn’t warranted. I’m not willing to sacrifice my rights for the short term benefit of going on my way. The solution is not to give in to unreasonable searches, it is to stop the searches from happening. Cops can ask, no problem with that. But they have to abide by the law and respect when a driver says no.
We’ve had similar threads like this in the past, and the consensus is always the same: you should never give permission for an LEO to search your vehicle. Even if you have “nothing to hide,” there’s a chance there’s illegal drugs or contraband in your vehicle that have been there for years and you’re completely unaware of it. And then there’s the risk of a rogue cop planting evidence.
There’s nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by granting permission for a search. It’s simply not worth it.
At the end, well, no.
I spent 10 months in the Soviet Union in 1990-1991. Mostly police were useless – Moscow police were all provincial hicks so they couldn’t even give you directions.
When I spent 6 weeks in Tambov (sort of the Fort Wayne, Indiana of Russia), I did notice that I was occasionally followed (I guess by the local KGB), and my hotel room was obviously searched once, but I attributed that to provincial boredom.
In my limited experience, the most in-your-face cops were Turkish. I remember a Istanbul-Ashgabat flight in 1996 where I received the most personal search I can recall from a Turkish gendarme.
As far as US traffic stops go, one election day I (as head precinct judge) was taking the paper ballets down to the county election office, when I was pulled over by a cop for a broken headlight. I have never felt white privilege as much as when I told him I had ballots for the county and he just gave up and walked away.
I should have asked him for an escort to the office, but instead shouted after Officer Pretext Stop that I’d get the headlight fixed.
Same here.
But with that said I would not let another cop (or anyone else) search anything of mine voluntarily.
I won’t even allow the person at the Walmart look at my bags/receipt. Sounds fanatical but there’s just something about it that rubs me the wrong way.
I’ve heard or somehow gotten the idea that disallowing a search is considered probable cause (because if I had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t I consent?) and therefore you can’t really do much to prevent a search anyway.
Catch-22.
Can anyone comment if that’s true, or just one of those things people tell each other?
Quite untrue!
I’m sorry to hear that. My question was asked out of simple curiosity and not any sort of malice toward any police officer. In my most-recent traffic stop (which only occur about every fifteen years or so for me), the two Texas State Troopers behaved professionally and courteously. The only thing unusual to me was the request to lower the rear window, but I assumed this was so that the officer could better assess his safety. I am in a border region and it is quite possible that these particular troopers were there to assist in immigration enforcement.
Any extended UNjustified detention could very well be considered an Arrest, yes, that was addressed many many years ago by SCOTUS.
This assumes that “unjustified search” is equivalent to “searches not authorized without warrant by the Constitution.” That’s an improper equivalence.
The Constitution puts some strict limits on unwarranted (in the meaning of lacking a warrant) searches. It does so for a good reason: the Founding Fathers had plenty of experience with the King’s representatives searching people and their premises for a whole host of reasons that didn’t have much to do with anything other than the rumor that the person was traitorous. The whole American judicial/criminal system hinges upon the idea that we treat people as NOT committing a crime unless and until we have good reason to believe otherwise. Thus, we either go get a judge to authorize a search, or we have some very limited circumstances where we go ahead and search without that permission.
The trouble with this is that it has the potential to allow people who are committing a violation of the law to avoid being detected, because while a reasonable suspicion is being formed, the relevant higher standard for a warrantless search has not been met. In addition, in the modern era (starting roughly with the Warren court of the 1950s), judges have been encouraged to second-guess such searches from a hind-sight standpoint. Yes, we are always told that the review of the search should be based on what the officer knew at the time, but some courts simply pay lip service to that standard. So an officer may have a decent enough reason to think, “maybe I ought to search the car”, but may either a) lack “proper” reason under case law, or b) be worried that he’ll be second-guessed as lacking that proper reason.
Of course, all this is obviated by the simple question, “May I search your car?” If I get a “Yes” answer, I can proceed without worrying about the lack of the warrant. There’s nothing inherently wrong with an officer doing that.
I wasn’t using unwarranted in a legal sense. Substitute “unnecessary” instead. Sorry for the confusion.
I read this all the time on these threads. I understand DWB concerns over sections of our country. That is absolutely horrible, but I unfortunately understand that concern, and would probably factor that significantly in any decision I’d make.
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.
This.
Patrick Henry, the Give me liberty or give me death guy was against the Bill of Rights, giving as the reason the fear that people would come to regard them as the only rights they have as opposed to deliniating the rights government has, a prediction that has become true in the long term.
Here is a four-minute YouTube video on how to act at a traffic stop – with exaggerated acting; I have never had a cop act that unprofessionally.
For Burning Man I camp with a group of about 250, one of the larger camps there. In early August I’m part of the crew that buys about $3,200 worth of consumables for the camp; it comes to about three orange truck stacked to waist-high with the square stuff and two shopping carts with the irregular bags.
On leaving the store, we ‘insist’ the door-checker tick off every item; they just roll their eyes and wave up through.
Personally, I see it as a feature, not a bug.