How much must I tell an officer?

Factual Questions
21

IIAL.

Absolutely not. Such a rule would eviscerate the whole concept of probable cause being necessary to search.

I believe the ‘No’ meant, “No, I don’t mind - go ahead and search.”

If you decline a search the police may not search unless they have independent probable cause. You may also limit the scope of your search… “Well, you can search the car, but I don’t give you permission to open the trunk…” and you may withdraw your consent at any time. Of course, if the search has already yielded contraband, it’s too late; they already have probable cause to continue.

How long may they detain you without your consent? Answers vary. The courts have generally declined to establish a “bright-line” test: “Anything over an hour is unreasonable!” Instead, they look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if an individual case’s detention was unreasonable.

So, the police could ask to search your car, and, if you refuse, could probably keep you by the side of the road for 15 minutes while the drug dog arrives. If the dog alerts on your car (a dog sniff, by the way, is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment) then they have probable cause to search. They probably could not keep you for three hours waiting for the drug dog to arrive, and they probably cannot obtain your consent by threatening you with a three-hour detention until the drug dog arrives.

There is an exception of sorts: the Terry search. Even without probable cause, the police may briefly detain you and briefly pat down your outer clothing if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that there is a safety threat at hand. The pat-down is intended solely to search for weapons. Police may not reach inside pockets, for example, but may pat down outside of pockets. Reasonable, articulable suspicion is a level of suspicion below that of probable cause, but above a mere hunch or guess. Police must be able to point to specific, articulable facts that would cause a reasonable officer in their position to be concerned for safety.

Of course, if, during the pat-down, the officer feels several hard, small, rock-like objects encased in plastic in a pocket, and if, based on his training and experience, he can tell that this is probably a prohibited substance… then he now has probable cause to conduct a search.

There are three types of encounters between citizens and police: the consensual encounter, the Terry stop, and an outright detention. Police are always free, just as any person is, to approach you and ask you a question, and you are just as free to disregard that question and go about your business. The moment that your liberty is restrained in a significant way, the Fourth Amendment is implicated, and police must have at least reasonable suspicion to briefly detain you and investigate further.

The police are fond of characterizing every stop as consensual. They will initiate a traffic stop, write the ticket, and say in one breath, “OK, you can go. By the way, is there anything in the car I should know about?” They will argue that the moment they said you can go, the traffic stop was ended, and the continued conversation is the beginning of a consensual encounter. I don’t, however, know too many people who would be willing to simply put the car in gear and drive away at that point.

What to tell police? As little as possible. If driving, and in general, you may have to identify yourself if asked; laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on this point. But beyond that, you need not say anything. If that makes you uncomfortable, you merely repeat, “I haven’t done anything wrong,” in response to whatever question you’re asked.

Of course, if you truly have done nothing, and you are so inclined, you can explain things. But never consent to a search.

  • Rick
22

Er… that probably should read IAAL above. IAAL, but not a good acronymist, it seems. :slight_smile:

  • Rick
23

Pulling the Strings, I guess you are asking about the US? I don’t know what you have to tell them specificially, but I can tell you what I do:
I give them my name & address & then I say that I don’t consent to any searches & ask them to sign a piece of paper that says no sign language interpreter is present (But they are welcome to get one, although it does take them 90 minutes to show up). Then I ask if Im under arrest & if they so no, then I say that I don’t consent to their voluntary detention (Why should I hang around so they might find something to arrest me for?) & see ya later! They usually have this blank look on their faces.

I also want to state that last time I did this, they called the Sgt to come down, so there were 4 officers & well, the lady cop grabbed my butt without asking (I suppose she was searching, but why they don’t tell me that first is a mystery)…

24

I think Bricker is correct. At any rate, here’s what I’ve read:

A Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) is allowed to make an encounter whenever they want. During this time they will ask you questions, and you are under no obligation to say or provide anything unless you’re operating a motor vehicle. You are free to leave at any time. The reason for the encounter is that the LEO is trying to get reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to detain you. If they gets RAS, the LEO is allowed to detain you for up to 45 minutes, during which time they are looking for probable cause to arrest you.

In a nutshell, here is the “4-Step Program” to losing your freedom:

  1. Encounter
  2. Reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS)
  3. Probable cause
  4. Arrest

(#3 leads directly to #4.)

25

In general, or under specific circumstances (car, pedestrian, etc.)? If the former, what’s to stop the police from walking a drug dog down any random sidewalk and searching houses the dog points at?

26

Altho I’m not an expert in Law, LEO’s or US laws:

The two best ways to keep out of trouble are:

Don’t look like you are someone who causes trouble. If you want to wear gang colours in a gang neighborhood, you will be “Encountered” more than, say, a nun in the same area.

The second best way to keep out of trouble, is to keep out of trouble.
I was in a traffic accident a few years ago. Snowy conditions. My fault, 100%.

Cop had a choice to charge me (Improper lane change, since I skidded a bit) or let me go. Was really borderline.

See, I’m SUPPOSED to have 100% control of my car at all times, it was obviously snowing.

Anyhow. I was wearing a suit and tie. I’m convinced it convinced her to let me go.

Well, that and a 16 year clear driving record.

27

What about the tired old story about just cracking the window a quarter inch, pushing out licence and registration, and refusing to respond to the officer beyond that?

Can they compel you to get out of the car?

28

I did that once, Sofa King. The cop “smelled marijuana” through the crack. No, he didn’t. But two more cops soon came by and they fucked with me for over an hour. Cops are control freaks. Challenge that, and you trigger a pavlovian response.

29

Good grief.

If you thought I was “probably” correct, perhaps you should have read my entire post, specifically the part in which I said:

Your use of a 45 minute rule is absolutely unsupported by case law. In some circumstances, I have no doubt a 45 minute detention would be seen as reasonable; in others, an unreasonable detention.

If you don’t know the answer, don’t speculate.

  • Rick
30

[Joe Friday]
Just the facts sir.
[/Joe Friday]

31

I rememberd a case from my Torts book that would apply to this discussion.
Enright v Groves (560 P.2d 851 if you’re that interested).

“We find no statute or caselaw in this jurisdiction which requires a citizen to show her driver’s license upon demand, unless, for example, she is a driver of an automobile and such a demand is made in that conection.”

32

I’ll second this from personal experience. I was once pulled over for a burnt out license plate light. Yeah, that’s right.

The officer, who had a much younger officer/trainee/ride-along with him asked to search my truck. Thinking nothing of it, and that it will only take a few minutes since my truck was small and almost empty, I say “go wild.” I have nothing to worry about. No drugs, no guns, nothing illegal.

I spend the next 20 minutes uncomfortably handcuffed in the back seat of their squad car.

Just regular procedure, once they have permission.

33

Where I live, CelticCowboy, you could have ended the search as soon as they pulled the cuffs. They do that “for their protection”.
I see you live in CA too. You can stop the search at any time, unless they have cause. If you have so much as a pocket knife on you, they have cause.
They can also smell pot on you. :wink:
Secret code phrase to get a cop to leave you alone;
“Remember who you work for, buddy.”

34

My husband and his friend were pulled over for expired plates by a K-9 unit. The cop asked if he could search the truck and since it was so late, they said yes, just to get out of there. He sent his dog through there and insists the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The dog sat down and did nothing else. Does anyone know how a dog is supposed to respond when it does smell drugs? I would think he would bark or paw at whatever smelled wrong.

I’m sure the cop was making it up, because he told them if he had another cop car there, he would be tearing the truck apart. But he let them go, generous guy that he was.

35

I’ve heard of dogs being trained to come back to their master, sitting down, and staring at them to indicate a positive - no idea if it applied in your case or not.

36

Some dogs are trained simply to sit when they smell drugs - I’ve seen film of them in action on the streets of London.

IIRC, here in the UK you’re required to give your name and address if a police officer asks for it, and that’s all you’re required to do. (At least for pedestrians like me, I think car drivers have to produce various bits of documentation). Of course, since we don’t have identity cards and aren’t required to carry any form of ID, there’s no way for the police to check you’ve given them your real name. (My experience is that they will ask for some sort of ID, and will grow perplexed and irritated, but won’t actually arrest you, if you haven’t got any.)

37

Bricker: Thanks for clarifying the “Do you mind” portion of the scenario, it’s clear as crystal what the other poster meant now.

Stolatt: I can confirm SenorBeef’s information. I know of at least one institutional security corporation’s k-9 unit that uses “return to the handler and sit” as indication of a positive. This is regardless of the type of material search the dog has been trained for.

38

I give up. I looked thru the acronym pages and can’t find IANAL oR IAAL. what do these mean?

39

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer
IAAL = I Am A Lawyer

In general, the police cannot bring a dog on your property. Moreover, dogs must be relatively close to what they’re sniffing out.

However, if the dog were merely walking down the street next to the handler, and alerted on your house, I suppose that could serve as the basis for a search warrant application, although it’s unlikely to support an immediate warrantless search. Cars and houses are monumentally different cases, remember. The expectation of privacy we have in a car is much less than in a house. What may permit a warrantless search in a car will likely demand a warrant when applied to a house.

There are certain cases in which a warrantless search of a house is justified. But not this one.

  • Rick
40

I am a cop, with 17 years on the job. I am currently the detective sergeant at an agency in Washington State.

There are some variations of law from state to state and even with different jurisdictions within a state. Here are the general rules for the questions I’ve seen raised in this thread.

Do you have to identify yourself to an officer?
If you are driving, you must absolutely identify yourself.
If you are on foot, the question is a little more tricky. If the officer is investigating a possible crime, you generally have to identify yourself. If it is just a casual contact, you do no have to identify yourself. If you refuse in a situation where it would be required, you can be arrested for obstructing an officer (or something similar).

** Do I have to answer an officer’s questions?**
You have the right to remain silent. That is always true. You may have to produce ID, but you don’t have to say a word. If you do so, an officer will probably do his or her best to find probable cause to arrest you for something. As always, if you’re not doing anything wrong, it is best to cooperate.

When do the police have to read me my rights?
Current case law says that the “trigger” for the Miranda Rights is custodial interrogation. This means that you are in custody (and the custody must be “the functional equivalent of arrest” and the police ask you questions. There is no requirement to read you your rights at the moment of arrest, or at any time for that matter, unless they want to ask you questions.

When can the police search me/my vehicle/my home?
This area is a lot more complicated and varies widely in different jurisdictions. Under federal law and most states, the police can perform a search any time that they have probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime. In Washington, we can’t do that and have to obtain a search warrant if we have probable cause.
There are several exceptions, the easiest being consent. If an officer asks for permission to search and you consent, he or she can seize anything found and charge you with any crimes they uncover. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE CONSENT. As someone mentioned earlier, if the officer is asking for permission, that is a good indication that he does not have the probable cause to search without your OK.

Can an officer order me out of my car?
Another one that varies. I believe the prevailing rulings are that an officer can order the driver and passengers out it he or she can articulate a good reason (such as officer safety while performing a search of the vehicle).

I think that covers most of the questions I saw raised. Let me know if there are any more, and I’ll do my best.