Searched in the USPS parking lot!

[pravnik]

*Originally posted by pravnik *
**The short answer is that the guy doesn’t have sovereign immunity. Subject to a few exceptions, the state can’t be sued without its consent, and there’s usually no statutory consent or obligation to replace property damaged in the course of a lawful search. Still, some police force have arrangements in which they will make ex gratia payments. These are arrangements where they for whatever portion of property damage they feel like they ought to, even though they aren’t obligated to do so. This sometimes happens when they smash up an elderly widow’s house instead of the crackhouse next door. **

I should add to this: this is assuming the damage was reasonably necessary to the search. SCOTUS has said that extensive or unnecessary damage will violate the fourth amendment, even if the search was lawful and the fruits of the search not subject to supression. So if they smashed up everything in your house looking for one joint you would probably be able to sue them.

[plnnr]

This is very similar to a situation I encountered while in college.

I was on my way to a Grateful Dead concert and was stopped by a State Trooper (as were a great many folks in the vicinity of the venue). The Trooper asked me if I had any drugs in the car, to which I responded “No” (I knew there would be plenty available at the venue - no need to carry my own). He then asked if he could search my vehicle. I hesitated and he said, “Listen, if you don’t give me permission I’m going to call for the canine unit and we’ll have to tear your car apart. Why don’t you just make this easier and let me search the car.” I was sufficiently intimidated to let him search and he didn’t find anything - not so much as a lighter.

[suranyi]

I used to work for one of the national laboratories years ago, and you better believe they searched vehicles as they exited the premises. My own car was searched several times.

Ed

[pravnik]

*Originally posted by Otto *
**
pravnik
So let’s say I posted a sign of my own, in the car, stating “owner does not consent to vehicle search” or actually asserting my 4th Amendment rights. Does this overcome the implied consent of parking in the lot? Obviously it would not overcome the “special needs” argument by itself but it seems it would knock out one leg.

I reviewed the language of the sign the other day. Turns out it doesn’t say parking there equals consent. It states that entering the lot equals consent. Thing is, the sign is not visible from the street so there’s no way to know that one is “consenting” to the search until such time as the “consent” has already been given. Not to Pit this too much, but Jesus, that sucks! **

About the sign: I don’t know of any cases where somebody has tried that, so it’s hard to say. I’ll bet the goverment would argue what you did, i.e. park there, was more important to your consenting than what you said. And as you say, it wouldn’t get past the other leg of the argument.