# Police Interrogations **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 7, 2022, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024 "2022-02-07T03:01:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/301 "2022-02-19T14:52:38Z")
But I am not a police officer. As Joe Citizen can I even formulate what a probable cause is? ISTM probable cause is whatever I happen to think it is since I am not educated in the law. Do you have to abide by my guess at the law? ---
**Author:** ![mjmartin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@mjmartin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmartin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/302 "2022-02-19T14:53:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Where did those cases make a distinction and why would they? Nice job trying to shift the burden of proof. You are making several positive claims: -a citizen can make an arrest based on the smell of marijuana because of federal law. -in such an arrest, the citizen has a right to search anything, including a trunk, because an officer would be entitled to do so. -a state officer can stop being a state officer and effectuate a citizens arrest under these circumstances. -then, if he finds evidence of a state crime, use the evidence he found as a private citizen in a state law charge. You made the claims. It requires more evidnexe than “thats the law”. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/303 "2022-02-19T14:55:36Z")
That is a good reason why any citizen should be sure that he or she knows that what he has is probable cause and not get himself in big trouble. > [@mjmartin](#): > > a citizen can make an arrest based on the smell of marijuana because of federal law. > -in such an arrest, the citizen has a right to search anything, including a trunk, because an officer would be entitled to do so. > -a state officer can stop being a state officer and effectuate a citizens arrest under these circumstances. > -then, if he finds evidence of a state crime, used the evidence he found as a private citizen in a state law charge. It’s really basic, but as you keep insisting, I will be back with cites to this very basic idea of law. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/304 "2022-02-19T14:59:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is a good reason why any citizen should be sure that he or she knows that what he has is probable cause and not get himself in big trouble. I think without a Citizens Arrest law you are correct. I think a Citizens Arrest law gives legal cover in case they are wrong. Otherwise, what does the law do? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/305 "2022-02-19T15:00:54Z")
Especially for the part where an on-duty officer can suddenly stop being a police officer for the purpose of doing something that his/her employer has forbidden. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/306 "2022-02-19T15:05:00Z")
Not just a random employer, the employer with general police power! ---
**Author:** ![mjmartin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@mjmartin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmartin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/307 "2022-02-19T15:07:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It’s really basic, but as you keep insisting, I will be back with cites to this very basic idea of law. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts must have missed some of the cases you’re going to show us. "In the second case, the SJC rejected two reasons offered by the Commonwealth to justify a vehicle search based upon the odor of unburnt marijuana: (1) that the search was necessary to prevent the driver from smoking marijuana while driving and (2) that the search was authorized because possession of even less than one ounce of marijuana remains a criminal offense under federal law. In regard to the first argument, the SJC noted that the smell of _unburnt_ marijuana did not suggest a likelihood that the driver would smoke marijuana and drive unless the police intervened to stop him. To the contrary, the court found that the fact that the smell was of unburnt marijuana more likely demonstrated that the driver was _not_ smoking while driving. The SJC recognized that were it to accept the Commonwealth’s flawed argument, “it would necessarily follow that police could search any vehicle containing sealed bottles of alcohol, based upon a potential risk that the driver could open a bottle and begin drinking while driving.” The SJC also pointedly dismissed the Commonwealth’s argument that the search was justified to enforce a federal prohibition of possession of small amounts of marijuana. The court emphasized that “given the clear preference expressed in the 2008 initiative that police focus their attention elsewhere, Federal law does not supply an alternative basis for investigating possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.” ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/308 "2022-02-19T15:10:14Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > > [@Loach](#): > > > > Since there is no probable cause for an arrest go ahead and find the case law supporting “Citizen’s Search.” The common law practice of citizens arrest covers felonies witnessed by the citizen. It does not grant them constitutional exemptions to investigate the possibility of crime. > > > > The rest is just as ridiculous but I’ll leave it be > > Not at all. Basic law says that you don’t have to rule out any lawful action. If you smell alcohol on a guy’s breath, maybe he had two beers for lunch, but maybe he is under the influence. You can investigate. > > You keep repeating what your state law is. I am suggesting that law is unconstitutional. The Biden DOJ agrees with me about a similar situation with MO and WV gun laws. I’m not talking about state law. I’m talking about the basic legal differences between using the term probable cause when talking about arrests and probable cause when dealing with searches. There is no citizens search. There are systems of laws granting police greater powers to investigate than private citizens. There is no statutory or even common law right for citizens to search private property of other citizens. The concept of citizens arrest when witnessing a felony does not cover searching anyone even if you kinda think there might be a felony. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/309 "2022-02-19T15:22:53Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > There is no citizens search. I’m curious (really asking): If I make a citizens arrest and, while waiting for the police, I search the person and rummage through their car will anything I find be allowed as evidence or, because I did it (Joe Citizen) is that all now going to be thrown out in court? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/310 "2022-02-19T15:25:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is a good reason why any citizen should be sure that he or she knows that what he has is probable cause and not get himself in big trouble. > > > [@mjmartin](#): > > > > a citizen can make an arrest based on the smell of marijuana because of federal law. > > -in such an arrest, the citizen has a right to search anything, including a trunk, because an officer would be entitled to do so. > > -a state officer can stop being a state officer and effectuate a citizens arrest under these circumstances. > > -then, if he finds evidence of a state crime, used the evidence he found as a private citizen in a state law charge. > > It’s really basic, but as you keep insisting, I will be back with cites to this very basic idea of law. It is really basic. All of what mjmartin cites are things that you have claimed. All are completely untrue. Point by point. No one can arrest someone on smell of marijuana alone. Not a citizen. Not a police officer. Not the DEA. The smell may be used (subject to differences in state case law and statutes) by law enforcement as probable cause for a warrant less search. The 4th amendment makes warrantless searches unconstitutional. Various case law grants a motor vehicle exception to the 4th amendment to _law enforcement._ Not to private citizens. As stated above any 4th amendment exemptions are granted to law enforcement only. Being a law enforcement officer is not something that can be shed on a whim during the middle of an investigation. It doesn’t matter what sort of mental gymnastics you are doing, what matters is the suspect sees you in uniform, with your police car and gun. You are an agent of the state and not a private citizen. The last one is a ridiculous concept. It makes zero sense even if we didn’t have a law specifically prohibiting that for the above reason. At no point in the middle of an investigation can I become a private citizen. At no point will something that is legal in my state be used as evidence of a state crime. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/311 "2022-02-19T15:36:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Loach](#): > > > > There is no citizens search. > > I’m curious (really asking): > > If I make a citizens arrest and, while waiting for the police, I search the person and rummage through their car will anything I find be allowed as evidence or, because I did it (Joe Citizen) is that all now going to be thrown out in court? I can’t say definitively one way or the other. I wouldn’t want to take that to court. Chances are very good that it will be thrown out. The courts look to see if the citizen was acting as an agent of the state. The police will certainly try to use the evidence but the court will look at the circumstances. The citizen has no 4th amendment exemptions. If he purposely searched the car to help his citizens arrest it will most likely be thrown out. If he went into the car because he was a curious dumbass it’s possible the evidence might still be allowed. Evidence found on private property without a warrant by private citizens usually hinges on that agent of the state designation. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/312 "2022-02-19T16:18:48Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You come up with the idea that he smells like weed so you can search as a private citizen enforcing federal law. Does he smell like burnt or unburned marijuana? Because unburned might provide PC for possession, but that’s a misdemeanor under federal law. If he smells like burned marijuana, _maybe_ you’d have PC for DUI, but that’s not a federal crime. And seriously, it doesn’t work for an officer to say they switched to being a private citizen, and then switched back to being an officer when he finds a body in the trunk. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/313 "2022-02-19T16:51:43Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Does he smell like burnt or unburned marijuana? > > Because unburned might provide PC for possession, but that’s a misdemeanor under federal law. > > If he smells like burned marijuana, _maybe_ you’d have PC for DUI, but that’s not a federal crime. > > And seriously, it doesn’t work for an officer to say they switched to being a private citizen, and then switched back to being an officer when he finds a body in the trunk. But we’re back to the very very basic premise of citizen’s arrest. And the argument is going in circles. > [@Loach](#): > > No one can arrest someone on smell of marijuana alone. Not a citizen. Not a police officer. Not the DEA. The smell may be used (subject to differences in state case law and statutes) by law enforcement as probable cause for a warrant less search. This. If you are to citizen’s-arrest someone for possession of marijuana, you must see them _possessing_ it. Not smell it - that’s not evidence of possession, it may have been a lingering smell. It may be a passenger (If so, which one do you arrest? Who is violating the possession law?) Inference of a crime is not sufficient. (I.e. “why else would a black person be in our neighbourhood, and why else would he be running now?”) You must have actual evidence that you _did_ see a crime happening. See possession. Just the same - Not “I think he looks intoxicated”. Police have the special powers that allow them to examine further a possibly impaired person. You do not. It basically boils down to - if you arrest someone as a private citizen, you had better have incontrovertible knowledge of the crime. I would presume if you tackle someone, tie them up, and then proceed to search their car and find evidence, as a private citizen - you are still guilty of assault and restraint, since you had no grounds for the initial “arrest”. Whether the resulting evidence is entered into court for the arrestee, you are also still guilty of illegally entering the vehicle, and the trunk. (As to the “jumping a serial shooter” scenario - I always wonder about those cop shows where a firefight breaks out. Note that almost all Hollywood shows, the “police” are plain clothes or undercover, sometimes actually have a shirt that says FBI or POLICE like the sort any Joe Schmoe can buy from a street vendor - I always imagine that in gun-happy USA some helpful private citizen will drag out their gun and engage in a peripheral firefight, resulting in killing either the private citizen or a police officer. IIRC there was a case in NYC several years ago where police responding to a call killed a plain clothes black officer in a similar scenario.) ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/314 "2022-02-19T17:51:19Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > But we’re back to the very very basic premise of citizen’s arrest. And the argument is going in circles. Yes, that was my point. Thanks for spelling it out more. And I agree with the rest of your post. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/315 "2022-02-19T18:29:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I see that most posters don’t like the concept of a citizen’s arrest, but it is a thing, and yes, if you arrest the occupant of a vehicle, and you have probable cause to believe that evidence of his crime is located in his car, then case law holds you can search the entire car. I didn’t make this up. Show us a case where this was done during a Citizen’s Arrest. You still seem to be unclear as to how a Citizen’s Arrest works, despite the links previously provided. Also, can you give an example of when a police officer has _ever_ switched over to using a Citizen’s Arrest while on duty because it allowed her/him/them to do something not allowed while on duty? How does that work, btw? Does the officer call in in the middle of the shift and tell dispatch, “I am temporarily resigning as a police officer for about a half an hour-I’ll give you a call back when I am ready to resume my duties.”? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/316 "2022-02-19T18:34:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “I am temporarily resigning as a police officer for about a half an hour-I’ll give you a call back when I am ready to resume my duties.” Hey, it worked for Det. Stan Wojciehowicz. 😉 'Course, he only went for a very long walk. ---
**Author:** ![mjmartin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@mjmartin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmartin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/317 "2022-02-19T18:46:04Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Where did those cases make a distinction and why would they? > [@UltraVires](#): > > Belton…Gant. just two controlling cases. I had a chance to review Belton and Gant. I’m not sure why you would list then as supporting anything about a citizen’s right to search a vehicle. “Accordingly, we hold that when a POLICEMAN has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” From Belton. “Yes, under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court held that POLICE may search the vehicle of its recent occupant after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.” From summary of Gant case. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/318 "2022-02-19T18:47:23Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I see that most posters don’t like the concept of a citizen’s arrest, but it is a thing, and yes, if you arrest the occupant of a vehicle, and you have probable cause to believe that evidence of his crime is located in his car, then case law holds you can search the entire car. I think that would be… what’s the legal term… ah, yes… ‘ultra vires’. 😁 ---
**Author:** ![mordecaiB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mordecaib/32/7725_2.png) [@mordecaiB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mordecaiB)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2022, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/319 "2022-02-19T19:29:03Z")
@UltraVires , what is it that you are aiming for in this thread? This forum is for factual answers, which you have been given by various posters many times. All you do is dismiss them and then bring up yet another hypothetical situation that is soon debunked. You are all over the place in this thread. Lawyers are often lauded for their concise arguments. Could you narrow down your point to a single thing? I’m not a lawyer or a LEO and even I know the difference between enforcement of federal and state laws. It’s not really that difficult of a concept. I suspect @Loach is not the only one reading this thread that will be injured from banging their head on the wall. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2022, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024/320 "2022-02-20T03:47:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Where did those cases make a distinction and why would they? So, since this would be such a cool police tool, please gives us the hundreds of cites where they did so. In CA, Citizens arrests are only valid if - **California Penal Code 837 PC** _allows a private person to make a **citizen’s arrest** of a perpetrator who commits a [misdemeanor](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/misdemeanor/) in a citizen’s presence, or commits a [felony](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/felony/) and a citizen has reasonable cause to believe the perpetrator committed it._ So, since possession of weed is a not a federal felony, you would have to actually see them smoking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-interrogations/959024.md?page=17)