[QUOTE=mhendo]
Let’s nip this little misapprehension in the bud, shall we?
If they kept you there all day waiting for a warrant, it would be highly likely that they would be found to have violated your rights. Doper lawyers like Bricker and Gfactor and Campion* have spoken about this issue on multiple occasions, and while they have pointed out that the courts have been reluctant to specify an exact time limit for such stops, they have also noted that the courts have made clear that the police are expected to get the warrant and carry out the search within a reasonable time period.
And, if i remember their arguments correctly, they also believe that keeping someone waiting all day would be beyond a reasonable time limit, especially if the officer had no probable cause in the first place and was merely on a fishing expedition after the driver refused consent to search.
- To the above-mentioned lawyers: i’m going from memory here, based on my participation in earlier threads, and if i’ve misremembered or misrepresented your position on this issue, i apologise. Please correct me if you think i’ve got it wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Weeeellll, you’re both right.
A cop “can” keep you there all day while waiting for a warrant. It isn’t legal for him to do that, however. What’s legal is a "reasonable"time period.
Stranger’s point (may I speak for you? I may? Thanks!) simply is that if you decline a search, cops can delay you almost indefinitely. Assume that a cop does so, after several hours obtains a warrant, searches your vehicle, and comes up empty. The cop then says, “ah well, shoulda let me search. Have a nice day!”
Your recourse then for this violation of your rights is to sue the police. A couple of years later, maybe you get some cash, maybe you don’t. Who’s going to bother engaging in protracted litigation over something like this? The answer, generally, is almost nobody. So you go on to live your life, angry at cops, while this wrong goes unrighted until some bozo with more anger than sense takes on the system. (I say bozo, because really, what sane or intelligent person would voluntarily get involved in litigation?)
By contrast, assume that the cop gets the warrant, searches your vehicle, and finds something. Then, when you’re tried for whatever that offense is, you would move to exclude the item seized on the ground that you shouldn’t have been held there by the side of the road so long. Maybe you win, maybe you don’t.
So, you’re both right! (Maybe I should give up law and become a mediator?)
No; reasonable suspicion is enough. See this thread here, with particular attention to that new guy, Bricker. He acquits himself well in that thread. 