Hypothetical scenario - I’m in Maryland.
I get stopped for a broken tail light or some such. He asks permission to seach my car. I say “No” just on principle.
Let’s assume it’s idle curiosity on the part of the policeman, and there’s nothing overtly, in you face, suspicious about my vehicle, my appearance or behavior.
What happens next?
Can I be detained on the basis of my refusal to submit to a seach if there’s nothing else obviously illegal about my behavior? What are the policeman’s options?
In an ideal world, they’ll let you go on your merry way. In a worse case situation, they’ll try to come up with any suspicious reason and search it anyway. I’ve actually had the former happen more often then the latter and I’ve had twenty-five stops in a two year period and only one ticket during that time(don’t ask)
Peace - DESK
I’m sorry I gotta ask… 25 traffic stops in 24 months. What the hell are you driving, the deathmobile?
You not letting them search causes suspicion, sort of like a catch 22 for traffic stops.
Yeah, but is that a legally sufficient and supportable predicate reason (in front of a Judge) to initiate a search and have it upheld as legal? ie “it was necessary to search his vehicle, because he wouldn’t let me search when I asked the first time”.
Worse, a 1975 Ford Maverick. At least it was a 302.
Peace - DESK
I am not a lawyer or policeman, but I think a lot depends on what the policeman wants, how you’ve behaved, and a million other circumstances. If, as you said in the OP, it’s just idle curiosity on the part of the cop, and you’ve been nice and polite, and he has no reasons to suspect you, he should take a polite refusal as the end of it and let you go.
But if the cop has it in for you, he can probably make things pretty unpleasant. There was a case of a family of black folk who were stopped (in Maryland, I think), and one of the young men was a lawyer who declined the officer’s request to search the car. I don’t recall all the details, but I do know that he kept them there for a long time while a K9 unit was called to sniff the car for drugs. I imagine that if the dog indicates the presence of drugs, all bets are off, and they’ll haul you in. (And do you suppose it’s possible that the dogs are ever mistaken, or that the handler could say there was a positive when there there wasn’t? Naaaah.)
This site (The ACLU’s instructions on “What to do if you’re stopped by The Police”) says that “In certain cases, your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. It is not lawful for police to arrest you simply for refusing to consent to a search.”
The ACLU has that form in PDF format to carry in your wallet.
In our post 9/11 country I wouldn’t put anything past any law enforcement agency.
Police can stop and (briefly) detain based upon “Reasonable Suspicion.” If you are stopped for a traffic violation, we can really only detain you to complete the investigation/enforcement related to that initial reason. We can detain further if a new element comes up which equates to new reasonable suspicion. Unlike what was stated above, “Reasonable Suspicion,” which is well-covered in case law, is not the same as appearing “suspicious” in the lay sense.
For more in general, see www.findlaw.com. The classic case on r.s. is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968) , but for a quick discussion, see also: BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) .
Regarding searching the car, there is much case law on this also. The landmark case concerning vehicles is still: CARROLL v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925). This has been elaborated on often, notably in NEW YORK v. BELTON, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) .
In short, vehicles can be searched: Incident to Arrest, because of Probable Cause, by Consent, and, of course, pursuant to a warrant.
Challenging stops and challenging searches – and thereby getting cases tossed out of court – are covered in week one of Criminal Defense 101 
although I’m sure the attorneys here will correct this. IANAL, however, IAAPO (police officer), and I like civil rights as well as you do. I’m not going to risk my career, a lawsuit, and losing my arrests, by inventing reasons for stops.
All that being said, why don’t you want to let someone look in your car??? :rolleyes:
Rob
I get the impression searches are basically an “ends justify the means” type situation. If they find something, “I was suspicious.” is sufficient- as finding something shows their suspicion was correct. If they DO NOT find anything, they’re in an interesting position… because, in my mind, they’ve just conducted an illegal search, 4th Amendment issues, etc.
I don’t think I’d mention any of this at the time, though… since I don’t know whether the cop could suddenly find something in my car the second I started getting interested in his badge number. I’d just let him get tired of it and let me go with a warning or something similar that made me feel like he was doing me a favor and not illegally searching my car.
<hijack>I’ve always been interested in the subject of locker/bag/car searches at public schools. They had these at least once a month and to my knowledge they never turned up anything. I’d think this would be wildly illegal, but minors can’t vote and have limited legal options available directly to them, so I don’t see how a highschool student could challenge the practice.</hijack>
Enough with the tinfoil nonsense already and take your pills. :rolleyes:
On the anecdotal front, a friend of mine was a notorious stoner from back in the day, and had been busted on a prior occasion for possession.
During a routine traffic stop for a defective taillight, he was asked if the officer could search his car. Being that he was late for an appointment, and despite the fact he had nothing drug-related in his automobile, he refused.
The officer told him to wait in his car. He calmly went back to his patrol car, and radioed a fellow officer that he was requesting backup…
…the K-9 unit. :dubious:
Who proceeded to show up, and walk around the car, leash in hand. :dubious: :dubious:
My friend was pretty pissed off at the waste of time (at least a half-hour in waiting for the K-9 officer, plus time before and after he left the scene) but realistically, this type of thing does happen. Probably more often to people with priors, but it can happen to anyone.
BTW, this was in 1996, approximately, so not even post-9/11 could be blamed. Just Officer Goodolboy killing a little time on his shift.
Suffice it to say that if your local CHiP wants a gander at your ride, he can get it easily enough, by hook or crook. If you have nothing to hide, I’d say let him look around, and save yourself the time waiting.
Why? Two reasons actually.
One: I’m so squeaky clean that I think it would be an interesting experience to say “No” if I did not perceive that the officer had a defensible reason for wanting to search my car.
Two: Precisely because of the (to me) highly arrogant assumption inherent in your rolleyes, that consenting to a seach of my private space is “no big deal”. It is a big deal to me.
That was an attempt at humor. Please don’t read into it and please don’t assume it was arrogant. If it was arrogant, why would I go to all the trouble of looking up the cites?
BTW, people say no to me regularly. Despite what people who have little experience with cops may think, I’m able to get over it.
Rob
Point taken. Thanks for the cites!
That’s exactly backwards. Anything found during an illegal search may not be used as evidence of ANYTHING; probable cause must be established before the search, and must be shown to have existed before the search. OTOH, conducting an illegal search without finding anything has no certain repercussion; the PD might discipline him, the searched party might sue him, but nothing’s carved in stone
There are various exceptions that can permit this sort of thing: lockers have a reduced expectation of privacy because they belong to the school and are on school grounds; cars and bags belonging to students on school grounds might be subject to “administrative searches,” which do not require a warrant.
And he’s black.
We could use some more cops like you around here.
The Boulder PD is alright, and the BCSO is upstanding, but those damn CUPD cops…
Well, this was back in the 70’s, but my youngest brother, the “hippie,” got stopped almost every time he went out. He drove an old black Rambler with white doors and the Zig Zag man painted on each door. He had hair down to his waist. He was a rolling cop magnet. The lack of a deck lid made searching almost moot, but the bastards stopped him almost every day “just because.” I was with him once when it happened. I was the elder, straight arrow (okay, geek), and I thought my presence might change the picture. But no. We were going through a nice neighborhood of Pasadena, CA. My brother was not speeding. We were just driving through. My brother asked why he was being stopped. The cop said one of his tail lights was out (he got that one a lot). My brother said no, it wasn’t. The cop said the car matched the description of a prowler seen in the neighborhood. My brother said he hadn’t been in the neighborhood for months and NO car matched the description of his. Finally the cop backed off, said we could go, and told my brother not to drive through that neighborhood again. My brother went out of his way to cruise that street for several weeks. (We geezers are bright but none too wise.) Somehow, he didn’t get stopped again. . .there.
Why wouldn’t you want to have someone go through your house if you have nothing to hide? (I know you were kidding.)
Let me take this opportunity to apologize for the “bastards” remark. That was not aimed at police in general, but at individuals on the then Pasadena Police Department who harrassed my brother continually and without cause. They pissed me off then, and the memory of their treatment of my brother pisses me off now. I’ve had personal friends who were police officers and I know very well that personalities vary among cops as much as they do among the public at large.
Just out of curiosity, how is a K9 unit, actively examining the vehicle, NOT a search?
I mean, sure, the dog’s on the outside… and whatever he’s smelling is on the inside… and yeah, when he smells it that’s probable cause blah blah blah…
But the DOG is searching the INSIDE of the vehicle… by smell.
If I had some X-ray glasses, and I were an officer, could I just look into any car that passed? Would that be a legal search?
Why is what the dog does legal?
PS: I’m aware that if you can look into the window and see, say, a dead body, that’s ‘legal’, whereas reaching into the window and lifting up the blanket covering said body might not be. This is a subtly different argument.
PPS: I’m also aware that smell is actual molecules leaving the vehicle, and therefore in ‘public display’ so to speak. So are x-rays… the question is, is using a tool to detect them not searching? Why not?
Back to the OP, they’ll find something if they want to badly enough. Might not be what you expect though.
I was once pulled over and searched, with plenty of probable cause. LOTS of alcohol, some of which I was drinking while driving and well under 21 years of age: Not a problem. Ticketed. Drug paraphanalea: Ignored. Crossbow with ammunition, blowgun with ammunition: Ignored. Baseball bat with blood on it (chicken variety): Ignored. Unsharpened decorative throwing star: Got me arrested.
Nowadays I don’t even bother arguing. If they want to search, they have all the reason they need; a dog would be overkill. I make sure that they don’t find anything by not having anything to find. Seems to work ok so far. 
