Here is the scenario: you are driving alone across country (US) and in a rural area you get pulled over for having a faulty tail light. The officer explains this and then asks to search your vehicle. Do you say yes?
Pretty simple question, but I would like to add some caveats:
[ul][li]You know for a fact there is no contraband in your car.[/li][li]You know for a fact you have done nothing illegal (besides the tail light) in the past year or more.[/li][li]You are not in a hurry to be anywhere.[/li][/ul]
For myself, in these circumstances I would definitely say no. If I was in a hurry, I might consider saying yes, but would probably still say no.
Follow up questions:
For those of you that say yes, why would you let police search your stuff? Would you support a program where police search your car on a regular basis (or if this scenario regularly occurred)?
For those that say no, if the officer explained that heroin smuggling is an epidemic in their county and so they are attempting to search everyone, would this sway you in any way? (This would not sway me and I would be disturbed and probably report it to the state or the feds.)
I would love it if dopers who work with law enforcement or the legal system commented on their decision making process for this scenario.
I would probably say “no” and live-stream on FB. I have attorneys in my friends list who would LOVE to see an illegal search.
But the reality is that in a lot of places, they take a “no” as “proof” that you have some contraband in the car, and they request a warrant from Judge Bubba, who approves it, and then they “find” some drugs in your vehicle. (ETA: or at least this was the case when I was young and LEOs were interested in the contents of my vehicle. These days, I could probably get away with driving along holding a severed head out the window, I look so middle-class and boringly normal)
ETA2: I would state that the opioid epidemic is tragic, and I sympathize with the work that LEOs are doing and the toll it must take on them as first responders, but that as a nation with specific laws, I can’t agree to a search of my vehicle without a warrant. Polite, kind, and supportive of his/her job requirements.
Not just no, but hell no. My cellphone is mounted on my dash. By the time I’m pulled off the road with my four ways flashing, I’ve started video on the phone, flipped to face me.
I’ve taught my kids to be respectful, but to never consent to a search. A cop friend helped by explaining to them why they should never consent (he was in uniform).
In real life, the one time I said no to a search my reply was respected. The cop finished running my license and registration and sent me on my way.
Today, now that I’m old and wise, no. However, I have in the past. As an uninformed teenager, the cops sure can be persuasive about how if you only just “cooperate”.
I would like to think I’d say no outright, but I question whether my guts would enable that. Being in a hurry or not wouldn’t be my main concern. If my daughter was in the car me, my immediate concern would be protecting her. Too many black people have been beaten, killed, and/or utterly debased when resisting bad cops, and I’m not so naive as to think I couldn’t earn the same fate. I would not subject her to that trauma if could I help it.
What I could see myself doing is filming the encounter with my phone using my Marco Polo app so that shit would go straight in the cloud. On video, I would politely ask the cop why my car needs to be searched. I would then say that I am not giving consent to a search, but I will remove myself from the car (along with my kid, if she is with me) so that the cop can do anything within legal bounds without me getting in the way. If they then search my car, I got that shit on tape and thus, have the means to follow up as necessary.
I said yes before I read the options like knowing I had no contraband in my car. That’s exactly why I would let them, they wouldn’t find a damn thing to incriminate me.
I’ve seen videos recently of cops finding things that were not there originally. Planting evidence happens. It was one of a multitude of reasons my cop buddy used as reasons my kids should never consent to a search.
If they’re bent enough to plant evidence in your car, they’re probably bent enough to toss the evidence on the ground at your feet and claim it fell out of your pocket.
My answer would have to depend mostly on the officer’s demeanor. If he’s hostile and aggressive and scary, I’ll cooperate with him. If he seems good-natured, or merely neutral and professional, I’d be more likely to assert my rights.
Gains : officer might allow you to go on your way after the search sooner.
Losses :
Your stuff might be damaged if the ‘search’ involves disassembly.
The officers might plant something illegal.
Someone else you had in your car might have left something illegal.
As it turns out, the drug cartels might have secretly hidden drugs in your car if you were in Mexico recently.
The officers might steal any cash you have.
Maybe you have some supplement you bought at GNC that is now illegal. A mattress with the tags removed. An empty beer bottle underneath the trash in the floorboards. (“open container”)
Deny Search :
Gains : If the officer persists with an illegal search, that search can be challenged in court. In order to perform a search legally, officer must produce probable cause and it hold up in court. It takes the officer time to get permission.
Losses : You might have to wait while they get the drug dog, and then manufacture evidence by signaling the dog to alert, and then they search your car totally legally, leading to the same losses as a search plus you had to wait for the sham of a dog to be used.
Sounds realistic on both points. I think probably the same for me but I’m at a stage and appearance where it’s just hypothetical and very unlikely to happen in real life.
I’m not blindly pro-police by any means, but I think it’s possible the risk of police manufacturing evidence against people they stop is overblown by many orders of magnitude by some people. That doesn’t mean people should consent to searches, but I tend to think cops planting evidence is possible but very unlikely, and as you say once you assume they are out to screw people like that why not just say they found it without even looking in the car?
It’s not scientific but if you’ve watched ‘Cops’ at all over the many years it’s been on
a) the people they pull over virtually always consent to searches. Could it really be the producers cut out a large number of cases where they don’t? I doubt it though can’t prove it.
b) they have illegal stuff the great majority of the time, though sometimes not.
Somewhat paradoxical, but besides arguing it’s not a scientific experiment…like I already said (but it’s the kind of statement that tends to get ignored in responses ) does anyone really think it’s grossly unrepresentative?
IOW by and large the police seem to be able to find plenty of suspicious* people to stop they can both expect to submit to searches and with a good probably of finding contraband. So back to practicality, refusing searches is probably practically most applicable to people where the cops will find something, without having to plant it, with due respect to OP’s scenario. Just saying, if the general pattern was the police stopping people and getting refused or then seldom finding anything the few times not refused then it would be, to me, more plausible to have the view that cops planting evidence in random people’s cars was actually common.
Anecdotally the one time, long ago, I was in a vehicle pulled over and cops wanted (and driver consented to) a search, there was weed. Hip looking young people (even if hanging out with squares like me) often had/have weed, and it was then almost always and usually still now in most places illegal. That cop didn’t do anything BTW, not much weed, but our stuff strewn all over. That’s another reason not to consent.
*of violating laws such as they are. Some people will question whether having weed where it’s illegal should be, others would question why ‘unregistered’ guns should be illegal where they are, etc.
I wouldn’t even pull over in that scenario. All alone in the dark, in a rural area with a stranger who might be a good guy or a bad guy? What I would do is call 911, put my hazards on and slowly drive until I came to an area with other people, pull over and stop and accept whatever legal punishment came my way for not immediately stopping.
Is that the wrong thing to do? Probably. But I think that is what I would do.
I used to have this same mentality “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide” until I realized that cops are just people, some good and some bad. Some will angrily arrest you, while their complicit buddies stand around and watch, for not violating a hospital patient’s rights.
I answer no, partly because I don’t trust the officer to not mess with me in some way, but largely because if they push it and get a warrant or probable cause, they still aren’t going to find anything.
The way I see it, saying “no” gives them reason to believe that you are guilty, because only a guilty person would say no to a search. If more people that have nothing to hide refuse to consent to a search, then that is not an assumption they can make anymore.
The only time I’ve consented to searches of my vehicle is when I have been crossing international borders, and in that case, you kinda do need to let them do so if they want to, if you want to continue on your way.
Of course, I’m a white guy pushing middle age with no criminal history, so that puts me in a more privileged position when it comes to the police than a minority teen that has had some legal encounters already.
At no time and under no circumstances would I give police permission to do shit, much less search me, my vehicle or my domicile. Get a warrant or fucko off.
My answer is no on principal. I have nothing to hide but that is irrelevant to the rules of privacy. If an officer feels a legal need to invade my privacy than a court order is the proper avenue to pursue.
Yes. If the cop is going to do something illegal or damage my car what I say won’t matter. Since I have nothing to hide I’d just say yes.
It doesn’t matter much in this hypothetical but if it was state trooper in most states I wouldn’t even stop to think about it. If it’s a local guy I’d take a moment to consider but in this hypothetical I don’t see a point in saying no.
No way I’d consent. IF a cop was going to plant evidence, he’d probably do it whether I consented or not.
At the very least, I don’t want to have to put everything in my glove compartment/console/trunk back just the way I had it because they don’t know how it fits when they pull it out.
“Cops” is a TV show. Writing up warnings &/or tickets doesn’t make for very exciting TV. I have never seen someone who gets pulled over for some minor traffic violation not get arrested (unless they run & get away) on that show. As someone who does video (other things) I can tell you there’s tons of raw video that ends up on the cutting room floor for one reason or another:
[ul]
[li]Not that exciting.[/li][li]Not a great shot, technically. Maybe shooting into the sun, poor lighting at night, rain drops on the lens, etc.[/li][li]Too long for the segment.[/li][/ul]
What the show shows is realistic but it is very skewed in that the majority of traffic stops are a warning/ticket & everybody moves on. Most people don’t have warrants. Most people don’t have drugs &/or illegal weapons out in plain sight. Most people don’t get arrested when they get pulled over.
No, not without a warrant. I don’t have anything to hide, but I’d refuse on principal. I’m opposed to illegal search and seizure. I know they can use a drug sniffing dog on probable cause, but I like to think that I’m not threatening enough for the police to plant false evidence.
) does anyone really think it’s grossly unrepresentative?