But not all the time. YES an officer may approach you for no real reason just to ask you questions, and YES you are free to leave. But if he is stopping you under reasonable suspicion that you DID, ARE PRESENTLY, or ARE ABOUT TO commit a crime, then you CANNOT leave. But you are not under arrest.
Well… actually you should probably ask “Am I free to leave?” Just because you are not under arrest does not mean you are free to go. An arrest is based on probable cause that you committed a crime. A dentention or “Terry Stop” is based on reasonable suspicion. Being detained is not the same as being under arrest. So the officer may say “No you are not under arrest. But you are not allowed to leave yet!” And he will be right. Then if you do try to leave, you can be arrested! So ask him if you are “free to leave”. The advice about never consenting and getting a lawyer and not ansering questions is good advice if you possibly did something wrong.
I would not sign it either. I do not have to enter a contract with you just to obey the Constitution and preserve your rights. If you do not want to be searched then I will not conduct a voluntary search of your person. But if you start scratching your belly or constantly sticking your hands in your pockets or some other action you can be patted down. If you got drugs in them pockets you will be arrested. And then I will search every last nook and cranny of your clothes and bags for more illegal stuff
Then I will give you something to sign at Central Booking…
Provided there is nothing illegal in your pockets, I will not be a dick to you and harrass you. I will get the information I need to establish the fact that you ARE or ARE NOT or COULD BE the man last seen carrying a bloody knife or peeking in windows. If you cooperate and are innocent… you are NOW free to go.
Me neither!! But I am just letting people know what their rights are…
OK, I have a question, this has been a big issue in Texas lately. If an officer asks to search your car and you say no, do they have the right to detain you until they get drug dogs or a warrant? This is if there is no probable cause for a search, i.e. they pulled you over for going 5 over the limit and then asked to search your car.
Some lawyer from Colorado has made a big name for himself lately by putting up big billboards telling people not to consent to searches (with his number on it, of course) and it is making the police furious, some have demanded that he take down the billboards, etc. He says that Texas law does not consider refusing to allow a search probable cause or a reason to detain the person. I always consent to searches (if I have contraband I have eaten it before being pulled over or it is hidden in a place that the cops would never find without dogs) but I have friends who refused, and the cops wouldn’t let them leave until they showed up with the drug dogs.
The drug dog is almost always justifiable. The warrant would probably take way too long, so I would say NO to that. Unless the judge was riding with the officer or was on call or yada, yada. Besides, if there is “…no probable cause for a search” then they would never get one anyway. Bring on the dog.
Now, if there is one dog in the entire county and you are waiting five hours for him to get there… call the lawyer.
But usually if the officer takes enough time running your name and writing the ticket for whatever reason he pulled you over, that should be pleanty of time for the drug dog to arrive. And all the dog has to do is scratch the side of your car once or twice.
Bear is right on track - the key is that the detention must be reasonable. If you’re pulled over for fifteen minutes while the officer writes a ticket, and the dog arrives during this time, you have no reason to complain. And of course, if the dog alerts on your car, there is probable cause to detain you and either search the car or get a warrant.
However, the officer can’t keep you waiting for a long period of time, nor can he threaten to keep you waiting as a means of extorting consent which might not otherwise be forthcoming. In general, absent reasonable, articulable suspicion, the officer may not prolong the traffic stop beyond that which is necessary to issue the summons and then must let you be on your way.
Courts are divided, though, on the exact circumstances by which a traffic detention may flow into a consensual encounter. If the officer hands you back your license, gets you to sign the summons, and tells you you’re free to go, and then immediately follows it up with, “Say, you don’t mind if I look around your car, do you?” some courts have held that this begins a new, consensual encounter. Others have held that the traffic detention is still on-going.
Most jurisdictions have, however, adopted a “totality of the circumstances” approach, where all the factors are taken into account.
Since this thread has already veered towards a general discussion of police searches I don’t feel too bad about being OT in regards to the OP.
How accurate are the drug dogs? I would imagine that some are better than others depending on the dog’s natural ability and the training it has received. I have also seen a program on television that stated that nearly all drug dogs wash out of training and are not put into service. But, what is to stop an overzealous police department from training a dog to scratch at the car on cue? Something to the tune of - Hey I pull over this guy with a beard driving a VW van, he refuses to allow the search so he must have something in there. Why don’t we use our special dog on this one. Why is the advice of an animal trusted as probable cause?
No disrespect to the police officers on this board, but I just don’t always trust the police. I mean the Rampart division in L.A. is just the latest example of what some cops do.
btw- I have a beard and drive a VW van in which the police would not find any drugs if I did consent to a search unless they put them there. I’ve never been pulled over while driving it, but if I was are my chances greater that a search would be requested because of appearance? I feel strongly that a search would violate my rights, so I would probably not consent. Would this increase my chances of something being planted if I was unlucky enough to get one of the few cops who does this sort of thing?
I get the feeling that the answers everybody gave is for real cops searching the guy. What if it’s campus security? Does the guy have more/fewer rights? Does it make a difference if it’s public or private property? I would think that being stopped on private property means that they security (or cops) can pretty much do anything since the guy is trespassing. Just curious.
bp, every cop, campus, real cops or whatever MUST have an ID on them. Ask to see it. It looks like a license. They must show it to you if you ask. Wish I knew about this sooner.
“How accurate are the drug dogs?” They can be fooled by an open sandwich or food container-just saw that happen on Cops.
Bear_Nenno, Ive been to court with some of the local cops, they didn’t tell the truth.
I have to have them write out what they say, [being deaf, you see], it’s quite a chore to get them to do that & once I get them to write on paper I want them to sign it, that way they can’t lie again in court…BTW, our courthouse doesn’t provide interpreters, yes, I know they have to.
I think planting is fairly common. One time I went to the house of the guy I sometimes bought pot from. He didn’t have any, I went out to my car and saw a cop was parked just up the block. Sure enough, when I got in my car and took off he turned on his lights and pulled me over. He said one of my license plate lights was out (it wasn’t, and in Texas it’s OK to have only one if you can still read the plate), and then started shining his light around in my car - apparently on any traffic stop they can look in your car with a flashlight if it is dark to check for obvious weapons, but they can’t do a thorough search without permission or probable cause. He asked if I had any drugs on me, and I said (truthfully) ‘no’. The cop picked up a ball of dried mud that was at least twice as big as the biggest pot seed I have ever seen and said that’s what it was, and that this gave him probable cause to search me and the entire vehicle, and asked me again if I had any drugs on me. I said no, told him to go ahead and search, and he called for backup. One cop searched me fairly thoroughly, made me turn out all my pockets, etc., while the other spent about 30 minutes searching the car - even made me unlock my gascap to check in there. The other cop kept asking me what I was doing at the dealers house, I said his son was a friend of mine, he asked me if I knew who lived there, I did, he asked me if I knew he sold drugs, I said if he did he never sold any to me. Finally he said ‘He’s out, huh?’ and I said I didn’t know what he was talking about, and he said if he ever saw me in that neighborhood again he would pull me over and search me again. That kinda sucked because I live in the same neighborhood. Two days later I was pulled over and arrested for DWI with a BAC of .03. The breathalyzer results were so obviously skewed that I got it dismissed (they made me blow in it 4 times without changing the filter to get a result over .10) but it still cost me a job and about $2000 in various expenses (lawyer fees, court costs, getting truck out of impound). If I was poor I probably would have ended up in jail for 30 days as retaliation for me not having any drugs for them to find.
In general, private cops are simply schmoes with guns and badges, and their actions do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. On the other hand, campus police may not simply be rent-a-cops, but special officers who are granted police power by law on university property.
Drug dogs’ reactions can create probable cause, but cannot, on their own, sustain a conviction. So while I guess it’s possible that an unscrupulous officer could train his dog to “react” and thus gain cause to search, the efficacy of this is questionable - since, if there really are drugs there, the dog will really react anyway. If there are not drugs present, the dog’s phony reaction doesn’t seem to help the officer much – what fruits does he expect the search to yield? He suspects stolen artwork, uses the dog’s phony reaction to get cause, and finds the missing Monet?
I suppose anything is possible - but this seems high-risk/low-yield for the officer.
A question about training the dog to bark, scratch, whatever on command… Are there any records kept about the number of times that the dog gives the cop “probable cause” and the search then turns up nothing? It would seem that if I were busted by the trained dog, I would want to know if the dog barks at everything, and therefore the cop really doesn’t have “probable cause.”
I would think maybe I would argue that if they <i>don’t</i> keep these records, the cop has nothing tangible to base his assumption of “probable cause” on.
Security, the Wakenhut type, have no powers or authority over you at all- even if you are tresspassing. The most they could do is force you to leave. That is it. Thing of any security as “the owner of the property”. They are basically in control of the property in the same way that you are in control of your house. They can tell people to leave, and they can stop people was breaking shit and spray painting the walls or stealing, etc. Just like you can do on your property.
The problem is that a lot of security guards do not realize this and they think they have some kind of power. They cannot search you no matter what. It doesn’t matter if you are carrying a bag leaking cocaine and a bloody knife is sticking out of your back pocket. They can not detain you and they cannot search you. You can always leave and you can even lie to them . If for some idiotic reason you give them CONSENT to do a search and they find a huge ass baggy of pot, they cannot do anything about it. If they try to confiscate it, they are now in possession of drugs and can be arrested themselves. So if they take your pot, you can take it back from them and tell them you are leaving now… there is nothing they can do.
There are a few instances where they can actually hold you and wait for the cops to get you. But this power does not come from their security badge. Every person has the power to perform a citizen’s arrest on felonies they witnessed, and certain misdemeanors like shoplifting, derauding an innkeeper (running out on your check at a restaraunt). There is nothing special about security.
A VW Van? Man alive! The only thing they might suspect you of packing is Viagra or some cardiac medicine.
Retsin2000: Why did you stop me officer?
Officer: Well sir. It’s just I’ve never seem a working one of these outside of an auto show and my Dad used to tell me how he had one way before I was born. Is it true it’s got an air cooled engine.
Retsin2000: Sigh… Yes. Is that all? Don’t you want to get a drug dog and search the van or something?
Officer: Oh no sir! Dog might scratch it up and it’d be terrible to damage an old classic like this. I was just curious about it. You’re free to go.
The dogs are very accurate, though some are better than others. The dog handlers keep very detailed records off all training and actual searches. Once the dog is recognized by the courts as accurate, an alert alone can provide probable cause to search or obtain a search warrant. One false hit and the dog’s reputation could be shot. No K-9 handler I know would take that chance.
I want you all to know that you cannot be arrested simply for refusing to show ID (an operators lic, if you are 'operating", yes). So, you do not have to answer any questions, or show any ID, and they police cannot give that as the sole reason for considering your behavior susp. They also cannot search you, altho they can “frisk” you.
Next, if you are “detained”, you are either free to go, or “under arrest” (as opposed to being ARRESTED ie charged with a crime). So, if they stop you (note, in a traffic stop, they can stop you long enuf to give a citation, for example)
after exchanging pleasantries, if they are taking to0 long, say “I am free to go, now, right?”. If they say no, then ask “Am I under arrest?”. If they say “no”, then say, “Then i am free to go”, and begin doing so (slowly, and without provocation). The Supreme Court has said that a 'stop" is for all intents & purposes, an arrest. Thus, if they “detain” you, and you confess to something, but no “miranda” warning has been given, it is inadmissable. But if you are not “detained”, ie you are free to go, then they can (usually) use what you say aginst you.
In this case, i would complain to the College, and cc to the Grand Jury, and to the ACLU.
Danielinthewolvesden, what you say does not jibe with what I see on COPS all the time where people are not under arrest and yet are not free to leave. And they try the same game you are proposing: “either I am under arrest or I am free to leave” and the officer says something to the effect of “you are detained while I conduct my investigation”. How can they do this all the time on national TV if it is illegal?
regarding ID, I am quite sure you are required by law to have a driver’s license if you are operating a motor vehicle. In most states I believe you would also be required to show the car registration and even proof of insurance.
Even if you are not operating a motor vehicle, if a cop asks to see ID, I guess you can say you are not carrying any but that may give him reason to detain you until he ascertains who you are. Taking the attitude of “i refuse to show it to you” is not going to help resolve the situation in harmony.
The drug dogs I’ve seen in action were a freaking joke. They had a demonstration when I was still in high school that showed the ‘powers’ of the drug dog and all it did was embarrass the officer. They planted two HUGE baggies of pot in the gym, and walked the first dog around. The first dog kept pausing at the baggie, but never indicating anything, and then would just walk on. He never found the second baggie after circling the gym three times. The second dog, they kept leading back to the first bag, and waiting, and finally, after about five times, he indicated. But that was stupid, because they kept taking him back there over and over. Uh, how does this show the dog’s skill? If there’s pot in a vehicle, you don’t know where it is, so it doesn’t help to have a dog that can’t find it without direction. The second dog didn’t find the second bag of pot, but the first one did after about two more passes.
Man, that demonstration sucked. The cops should be ashamed of themselves. They said that one of the dogs was ‘getting old’ that why it couldn’t find anything well, and the second dog was ‘not used to the handler’ because they’d only been together 8 months. GIMME A FREAKING BREAK! They SUCKED. I can’t believe a dog like that can be used for probable cause. A crying infant would do a better job!
Oh, I forgot to mention. They took the dogs around to lockers and cars in the parking lot later that day. In the demonstration they said the people would hang beef jerky or something in the locker with a note that said “haha, fooled you!” How did they know this if it didn’t work? Simple. It did work. That’s how they know people did this. Out of a couple hundred lockers, they found one small smattering of dust and seeds. I know for a fact at least 10 people had something illegal in their lockers. And as for the cars, they indicated on like 3, but the kids who owned the car didn’t give up their keys, and the cops didn’t hassle 'em about it, they just gave them a lecture. Thing is, I know these cars didn’t have anything in them, but some of the other (non discovered) cars did! SHEESH! Talk about crappy!
Homer I am not sure what your point is, except that those dogs maybe were not very good. I do not think any intelligent person will deny that dogs are very effective in detecting smells and are very successfully used in searching for drugs, explosives, vegetables (by customs officials), missing people, people buried under rubble etc. They are used all the time very effectively.
I’m pretty sure that’s what BillyBoy was stopped for. A townie on campus at night, “just walking around.” My guess would be that the police thought he was there, “on business.”
