We’ll, If they leave and and don’t share it’s a problem.
There’s also the risk that you’ll get arrested for having stuff in your car that is absolutely not drugs in any sense of the word. People have been arrested for having donut crumbs, flour, herbs, any item that conceivably looks like a drug could get you hauled away.
My vote is no, you don’t get blanket permission to search my stuff just for asking. If they had the authority to search my car, they’d just search it.
What’s the difference between letting a cop search my car and letting some rando on the street search it? Answer - The cop is looking for a reason to arrest me, and the rando isn’t.
It’s not an opinion. Ask any lawyer in the country. It’s a legal fact that you have much to lose and nothing to gain by consenting to a search.
Not true. If an officer has probable cause, they will not ask your permission. Asking your permission to search your vehicle is an admission by the officer that they have no legal reason to search you and they’re just fishing.
That said, there is very little stopping a cop from saying “I smell weed” and using that as probable cause. So you’re correct that there isn’t much you can do to stop a search if the police are determined enough to perform one. But once they’ve asked your permission, you already know they aren’t that determined. So just say no.
I am not a cop and I appreciate your contributions to the many threads you have helped over the years. In this case I have to agree with you. For some reason this thread is full of negativity toward daily police work. Not all threads are.
The OPs question has been answered. If someone is pulled over and the officer establishes probable cause there will be a search. If not, no search. At that point the OP has his answer.
All the speculation and assumptions that have been provided are ancillary to the question and really shouldn’t be in GQ.
This is not true. The common definition of probable cause is “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true”. Are you nervous/fidgety? Refusing to consent to a search?
Maybe you don’t want the officer pawing through your perfectly legal collection of bondage gear and latex masks. Or finding your legit prescription bottle of Viagra. Or the big bag of Poise incontinence pads you just bought. Or maybe you just don’t want him getting dirt all over the light-colored upholstery in your new Tesla. There could be a hundred reasons why someone would not consent to a search; “breaking the law” is only one of those possible reasons. That being the case, refusal to consent would mean only a one-in-a-hundred chance that someone is breaking the law; hardly probable cause.
OTOH, there aren’t many things that smell like marijuana that are not in fact marijuana, and there aren’t many things that look like an open container on the floor or a gun on the seat that are not in fact those things. If a cop smells something like weed, or sees something like a beer can or gun, that’s probable cause.
If they’re asking permission, they may or may not have probable cause; you have no idea which is the case. If an officer believes he has probable cause for a search, he may still ask for permission, which serves as a backup against his probable cause being thrown out later in court. So if he believes he has PC, and he asks you for permission to search, there are two possibilities:
#1: You consent, and he searches and finds evidence that leads to criminal charges. His probable cause is later found out to be bogus/unacceptably weak, but it doesn’t matter because you consented to the search. The evidence remains in place against you.
#2: You don’t consent, but he searches and finds evidence that leads to criminal charges. His probable cause is later found out to be bogus/unacceptably weak, and the evidence he found against you is disallowed.
This statement is demonstrably false. An officer will often ask permission, even in the presence of evidence justifying a warrantless search, because, as I pointed out, consent to the search ends any second-guessing by a court later. I have, on two occasions, had my car searched after having declined to assent to such searches. Whether or not the officer actually had a valid justification for the search in each case was never tested, as, of course, there was nothing turned up in the search.
This is what a Narcopouch is for. I’d much rather determine what something is in the field rather than go through the entire process of booking someone, sealing up a lab kit, etc… If I bring in a crumb of a doughnut that is obviously a crumb I’m going to get my ass chewed, first by the lab techs, then by my brass.
This is what I was going to post. I’ve yet to see an attorney beat both PC and consent.
What’s with the passive-aggressive snit? If you have something to say, just say it already. Let your argument stand or fall on its own merits.
Glazed Donut Crumb field tests positive as Meth with a bonus of drywall dust testing positive as cocaine.
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.
If the assumption is the police are criminals who will do whatever they want and the law be damned then the well is too poisoned to have a good discussion about the law. That’s neither passive aggressive nor a snit.
It’s also possible that the cop is saying “I smell weed” to see your reaction, and also to get you to say “I don’t have any weed” so he can say “then I can go ahead and search?” and you will then say Yes. If he says “I smell weed” and you respond “I don’t consent to any searches” and he goes ahead and searches anyway, then he has or thinks he has probable cause. If he then finds weed, you are SOL. If he doesn’t, then you might be able to complain but it is going to be your word against his.
The basic answer to “what happens after you decline a search” is that the officer tries to get you to consent. They are good at that. You don’t have to consent, anymore than you have to answer questions. If standing on your rights is worth the hassle of prolonging the stop, good for you and that is a principled position. If just saying “go ahead and search if you want” gets you on your way sooner, and you are reasonably sure that your best friend or son or whatever didn’t leave his crack pipe under the seat, then there is an upside to not standing on your rights. You might still get a ticket, but at least you won’t be standing on the roadside for as long.
The idea that cops routinely carry drugs which they then plant on people willy-nilly just because, or to pad their arrest statistics, strikes me as unlikely.
As I have mentioned before, if I were accused of a crime and I was innocent, I would blab my head off, let the police search my car, whatever. If I were guilty, I would refuse searches, refuse to answer questions, the whole nine yards. IOW I would expect to act like I had something to hide, because I did.
Do I believe that people who invoke their rights should be considered guilty, either by the cops or by the courts? Hell no. But I still think most of them are.
And of course, my extensive research (in the form of watching Cops) leads me to believe that most criminals, especially street criminals, are really fucking stupid. And those criminal’s “sure - go ahead and search, I’ve got nothing to hide” is usually followed by “those aren’t my drugs”. And there’s been no planting involved.
Regards,
Shodan
Even non racist cops tend to treat minorities a bit different*, but it is more on how you are dressed, you car and how you comport yourself. If you are wearing gang colors, expect to be hassled. Talking back instead of respect- hassled.
But yeah, the militarization of police is a big issue. Notice how they call non-police “civilians” where of course most police are civilians themselves.
- in areas where there are ghettos, there is more crime there, so …
Maybe you are on a major drug highway or in a neighborhood known for drug sales.
Now that I am older, drive a Volvo and am a retired Fed, they never ask to search my car.
But yeah, when I was a young smartass driving a souped up Impala, they did, and the LAPD even planted drugs on me once. Dismissed of course.
Very untrue and the same with “taking the 5th”. Saying “Am I free to go?” and if the answer is no or they read you your rights, your only response (after basic ID) should be “I want to call my attorney” and then STFU.
I do believe that if they are asking you questions just as a witness, you should answer. But still, be careful.
I’m retired from the job and currently instruct in a police academy. The simple answer to OP is this - if he has probable cause he can/will search without your permission. If he doesn’t and you refuse consent, that ought to be the end of it. In my state the officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that (far less than probable cause) to believe that there may be evidence of a crime in the car to even ask for consent. There is a form that you must read/have read to you spelling out all your rights regarding a consent search. Smelling weed on your coat would be considered RAS. In fact, that might be considered probable cause. As the marijuana laws are changing that will get murkier.
As for the “dispatch says your car matches a burglary suspect’s” trick, that alone, even if true, is not probable cause to search and if the officer tried that ploy, he would have to produce some evidence that it was the truth -(911 tapes or written reports regarding the burglary) at a suppression hearing. In any warrantless search the burden is on the state to prove that the search was justified, not on the accused to prove that it wasn’t. Sadly, there are a small minority of officers who will search first and seek or invent PC later. In their minds “the ends justify the means”. Why they would jeopardize their careers for a bullshit drug bust (or even a major one) is beyond me. My pension and security for my my family meant too much to me to pull that crap. (Not to mention its illegal.) Once you are found to have no credibility in court your career is, essentially, over. Society made the laws and if they hamper me in my ability to catch bad guys, so be it. Its not me personally paying the price but society as a whole. For the most part, I would advise family and friends to refuse consent. It pains me to say it but even if the risk is very small that they would get set up by a dirty cop, its still too big a risk. Of course, there are exceptions. If there is a manhunt underway for a school shooter or something and they ask to look in your trunk as you are passing through the area, go ahead and open the trunk (assuming you don’t have a meth lab back there). A traffic stop leading to the request? Nope.
This seems like a good idea until it backfires.
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.
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.
You dont know anyone who smokes MJ? Or takes prescription pills? They leave a tylenol with codeine there, and you dont have a 'script, and you will spend the night in jail, pay bail, pay a lawyer, and get a drug arrest on your record. Yeah, you will beat it, after thousands of dollars.
Be a smartass or fit into whatever the cop thinks is “drug mule” category and he can drop a baggie.
Wrong. Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters.
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.