deleted
I’m sure GFactor will be around soon with the court cases (I think I hear him now). You are talking about a car stop. Your stop was never consentual since your only other option would be to commit a felony and flee. If you have been stopped by the police it is because they had probable cause for the stop. The courts have allowed some leeway when it comes to further investigation. There is time allowed between when you are stopped and when the stop becomes an arrest. In between you are not free to go. There is no way to say how much time that is, the courts have been reluctant to define it in numbers. It just has to be a reasonable time as the circumstances allow. If you asked, “I’m I free to go,” I would have no trouble saying no. My investigation is continuing just as when I asked for your license and other personal information. You don’t have to talk or consent to a search but if you interfere or try to leave you will be arrested for Obstructing.
I have usually seen it happen when there is a better than usual chance for emotion or other factors will weigh against the defendant.
Sure, the stop for the speeding ticket isnt consentual. A car stop for a traffic infraction should end as soon as the ticket is signed. Sure, there is some leeway, but waiting for the drug-sniffing dogs is hardly part of the traffic stop.
Correct. Although a dog sniff is not a “search,” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the initial detention cannot exceed the scope of the initial stop. That is, if they can get a dog there is a reasonable tiome, while they’re running your license, writing the summons, and getting your aignature on it, then they can sniff your car. But they can’t have you sit there for three hours waiting for a drug dog. There’s no “bright-line” rule that lays out how many minutes you may be delayed, but the key element is “reasonable.”
I would go out on a limb here and say the second biggest one aside from your right to remain silent is having your car searched without a warrant. I’ve seen so many people standing on the side of the road while a cop rooted through their car that it was pathetic. So yeah, that’s my story and I’m stickin with it…
Here’s a thread: Can police detain a suspect who isn't under arrest? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
Pretty much what I said but I think you said it clearer. There have been rulings where a relatively short period of time was found to be too long. There have been rulings when a much longer period of time was ruled to be reasonable. If there is nothing to go on other than a speeding charge then the reasonable time would be short. If there is more there to raise the suspicion level then more leeway is given for the officer to conduct an investigation.
Your car is not your home. There are many more circumstances that can lead to your car being searched without a warrant and without consent than your house. In many cases that may change from state to state. For example New Jersey tends to be much more strict than SCOTUS allows.
GFactor you’re late. I didn’t see it, did that thread have the cites for those SCOTUS cases that involved time and investigative detention? I know there are a couple of big decisions on that but I can’t remember the names (can’t get to my reference materials from here).
As was said it depends on what is found to be reasonable. On most traffic stops it would not be reasonable to wait for a dog. In some it would. That is not your call when sitting in the driver’s seat. That is an argument that will be settled with the judge.
::Sloshes out of the car and downs a bottle of tequila in front of the officer:: 
There’s another thread that I didn’t find in which I think I cited some other cases. But I’ve got a couple of articles and a case from the other thread:
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/detentions.pdf (great discussion of the cases)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ut/cases/appopin/worwood121505.pdf (while courts acknowledge that the precise point at which an investigative detention becomes a de facto arrest is not clear, an important factor in determining when an arrest has occurred is whether the degree of intrusion is not “reasonably related to the facts and circumstances at hand.”)
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=462&issue_id=122004 (implications of moving suspect)
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm
Thanks for all the responses. I see that there’s a lot of focus on the right to remain silent and not consenting to a search.
Any more answers along these lines?
Anything about speedy trials?
Speedy trials get waived, but that’s usually done by defense counsel for strategic reasons. It’s often “waived” in the sense that the defendant intentionally extends the time in which the prosecution has to take him to trial by asking the court for more time to prepare for trial. Most jurisdictions simply don’t count that time against the speedy trial clock, but I’ve seen some court orders that suggest the court had the defendant waive any speedy trial objections in order to get additional time. Also Tom Delay waived the statute of limitations in his case. The Volokh Conspiracy - Why Did Tom Delay Waive the Statute of Limitations?:
There are some formal procedural requirements that often get waived, too. For example, defense counsel frequently waives the reading of the charges and, unless there’s a reason to request it, preliminary examination–that just gives the prosecution a chance to test out its witnesses.
I love these threads. Someone will inevitably say “But if I’m innocent of the crime, I have no reason to not cooperate! It makes me look guilty!”
No, it doesn’t- the cops will tell you that, but they will be lying. Not getting a lawyer only makes you look stupid and easy to catch, like the gazelle with the limp.
“May I ask you some questions?” No.
“May I look in your vehicle?” No.
“May we come in?” No.
“Is there anything you’d like to tell us?” No.
“Do you know why we stopped you?” No.
“We can clear this whole thing up in just a few minutes if you answer some questions.” No.
Lawyer up, early and often. As hubby always tells clients, the only thing he can’t change is your fucking statement to the cops. SHUT UP. My husband was a DA before he went over to the other side, and he saw some shit over the years that made him want to stop practicing law altogether, from suspects, cops AND lawyers. 
Your fly is open, officer.
To expand on this, discovery can take a long time - if you have an expert testimony, you’ll usually have to depose the expert. That takes a while to schedule, particularly if it’s someone like an ER doc.
If you are deposed, you have the right to read the deposition transcript prior to notarization by the court reporter, but I’ve never heard of anyone who didn’t waive reading in a civil setting. I imagine it’s more common in criminal settings.
All good advice except here. If the PD has not read you your rights, ie if they are treating you as a witness as opposed to a suspect, you should be as helpful as possible.
While we’ve got some knowledgeable lawerly types around, if the police ask to search / tell you they are going to search do they have to tell you on what grounds? This is in a reasonably amenable setting, not in hot pursuit or face down on pavement type setting.
i.e Officer says - I have reason to suspect you have committed a crime (articuable suspision). Please step away from the vehicle so I can search. Can I request / demand within my rights to know what triggered his reasonable suspicion (and record answer on my cell phone)? Or is his simply invoking reasonable suspicion enough in itself (and have him justify in court later).
If he refuses to say what triggered the suspicion and I then resist the search, what would the outcome evenutally be? I know that if he genuinely does have suspicion he does not have to ask, and that my consent absolutely does not enter into the equation, and that if I resist I am in trouble, so that is not the question.
To make clear - I say, “yep officer - search all you wish, if you tell me why you want to first”
He replies, “I have reason to suspect you of a crime - step aside”
What would the courts think if I then resisted the search (in the process “technically” assaulting the officer)?
On the same note, if a crook drives the same model and make car as mine and it is common (eg White Taurus) is this enough in and of itself for "reasonable suspicion? And if not, just how rare would the car need to be before it is… 'cause I can imagine that a Lime Green Lamborghini Diablo is rare enough that it would certainly qualify 
Depends on the situation- if I have volunteered that I am the witness to a possible crime, I might speak to a cop without my lawyer or my husband (my other lawyer) present. Then again, I might not.
No you don’t have to be told. That is an argument that will happen later during a supression hearing, not at the scene. If you resist the search you will be arrested for Obstructing the Administration of Law (or something similar depending on where you live). If you “technically” assault the officer you will “technically” be arrested for Aggrevated Assault on a Police Officer.
Having the same make and model car of a suspect could be enough for an investigative stop (depending on the particular factors in the case). How far that investigation goes also depends on the circumstances.
You do have the right to examine the Search warrant, if they have one. Mind you, they often start searching while you are reading. I’d think that asking to make sure the warrant applies to you or that address is a reasonable request before they start tearing things up. Police do make mistakes.
You don’t have to be told a thing.
Either the officer has legal justification to search your car without your consent or he doesn’t. If he has legal authority, then he doesn’t need your consent and will search your car no matter what you say. If he doesn’t have justification to search your car, then he might tell you why he wants to search, but only as a way to convince you to consent to the search. The cop might phrase his request for consent in such a way that you are under the impression that agreeing to the search is a formality. If he doesn’t need your consent he might possibly try to get your consent anway just as a backstop in case of some late legal wrangling, but he doesn’t have to.
If a cop tells you he’s going to search your car, you cannot prevent him from doing so. Your only course of action is to say “I don’t consent for you to search my car.” Absolutely nothing else, you don’t have the right to resist arrest just because you’re innocent or they didn’t have a warrant or you don’t think they’ve got a reason to search you.
If the cops don’t have the legal authority to search you without your consent and they search you anyway, that evidence can be thrown out by your attorney. Later. Much later. But if you throw a punch at a cop because he’s illegally searching your car, your attorney isn’t going to be able to get that punch thrown out. It doesn’t matter that the cop was wrong to search you, you still don’t have the right to “resist” the search, or “‘technically’ assault” the cop. You’ll be in a big mess of trouble.
Although all this is true, there is other recourse your attorney and you have “later” other than getting the evidence thown out. Lawsuits, complaints, even possible criminal charges.
But yes, basicly there is nothing you can do at all but make a verbal protest no matter what the cops are doing to you, no matter how legal or illegal it is. Only “Later” do you have recourse.