40 years? hah. Prohibition is 82 years past and yet they made Lubbock no longer a dry county just a few years ago.
They say don’t talk to the cops. Does this mean the optimal move here when the cops want to “hear your story” after they pull you over is to spam the “are you going to write me a ticket, am I under arrest or free to go?” statement over and over again?
Like I said, IMO the idea that consent is generally freely given in such situations ignores the vast differences in “power” between the cop and the civilian.
Talk to the cops - who are under no obligation to be truthful to you, and you could get yourself in trouble. But not much of an alternative when refusing to cooperate has the result of pissing the cop off.
As a general rule, yes - if a cop stops you or comes to your door, you are generally best served by saying as little as possible and ending the conversation as quickly as possible. Sucks to say that, but it is my firm opinion based on some little thought ans research into such issues over the past couple of decades as a lawyer and judge.
It was common for even white males to get three years in prison for one joint in Texas back in the 70’s … she was lucky, uh?
The local news here also reports a lot of traffic stops that find marijuana in the trunk. What’s strange is that it is always on the same corridor of hwy 5 here in Northern California. Lots of traffic back ups down 405 way in Southern California with lots of camera’s at every entrance for traffic control.
I wonder if the powers that be have been reading lips, plus I think (no in fact I know) that there are so many undercover people that all they have to do is txt a license plate and it is a done deal. The only way anyone gets away with dealing drugs around here is because the county jail is already over crowded.
Recent news reports describe an uptick in stops in states neighboring Colorado, of cars with non-CO license plates travelling away from CO. I’m sure they are all speeding or have busted taillights or something…:rolleyes:
FWIW, this isn’t legal. The courts have found that even though the police can do a dog sniff without probable cause, they can’t prolong a traffic stop to wait for one to arrive.
Don’t have the caselaw before me, but my understanding/recollection is that it depends on various factors, including how long it takes to get the dog there. But I admit I may be mistaken. I suspect “prolong” is an ill-defined term.
And, as the cop disappears into his car with your license and proof of insurance to do who knows what with his computer and radio, I’m not sure he/she is obligated to tell you exactly what they are doing and how long it will take. How many stopped motorists have the stones to go knock on the cruiser window and ask them to speed it up a bit? 
A quick skim suggests this is a decent discussion of several relevant aspects. Would be a good starting point for anyone seeiking to delve deeper.
Of course, whether it is legal or not for a cop to hold you in the middle of nowhere for hours until the dog arrives, there is nothing prohibiting him from untruthfully saying he could do that, in order to persuade the civilian to consent.
Of course, I’m not saying all cops are dishonest, or that all civilians should fear cops in all situations.
Hell, I’ve been a lawyer for 30 years and a judge these past 5, and have been pretty interested in constitutional speech, search, and privacy law (tho those are not my profession.) And even I find interaction with police stressful, and am unsure of exactly what I must and need not do in all of the various possible settings in which I might interact with police.
If I lack such certainty and confidence despite my education and background, it is a pretty safe bet that the average citizen is even less well equipped.
The SCOTUS ruling on the case you linked to above was issued yesterday. If there is not reasonable suspicion of another crime, a stop can’t be prolonged to wait for a dog to sniff the vehicle, even if the dog is already on the scene. They defined “prolonging” as anything beyond the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was originally made.
[QUOTE=Notorious RBG]
An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But…he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.
[/QUOTE]
That still shifts the controversy to what is a “reasonable suspicion.” In the cited case, acting nervous and declining a search was insufficient for two trial judges and was not addressed by SCOTUS. Here’s more in-depth analysis if you’re interested.
Minor traffic stops are for this very reason. The cops want to talk to you. If you smell like alcohol, or there’s weed on the seat, BINGO!
What if the cop’s partner had the dog sniff while the records were being run. Is that constitutional?
Yup. Illinois v Cabelles.
Anecdote time: Many, many years ago I went out to a bar after work. While driving home to Howard County, MD afterward I spotted a Howard County police officer waiting on the side of the road just after I got off I95. I knew I would get pulled over as my right brake light was out (wiring issue, was going to repair it that weekend).
I stop, get the usual interaction, I explain the brake light (and why I had not fixed it yet), then got the question: “Sir, have you had anything to drink tonight?”
I think it was a sign that I was of rational thought on my part because I said nothing, looking at the officer, for a full minute as he awaited a reply. After the minute he said “Be careful driving home tonight.” and let me go. He was up my rear end the mile it took to get home, and I was scrupulous in my attention to the law. I gave no further probable cause beyond the taillight.
To be clear I am sure I would have passed any field sobriety test, I just didn’t want to even play that game.
Also it did act as a great learning event, as today I rarely drink and never drive if I have. Too much to lose if I mess up.