Today, in the United States, the strong majority of people carry a video camera with them at all times.
These are likely to be extremely low probability events. More generally, the U.S. suffers from over-attention to unimportances and unlikelihoods — there are many examples of this (political hijacks about public restrooms, focus on silly #FakeNews, the exaggerated concerns that lead to gun obsession, etc).
This may be good advice in a majority of cases. But giving this advice to a black in some jurisdictions might put the person in grave physical danger. I think most or all of those proudly saying ‘No’ in the thread are white men.
But point 2 could be another example of point 1. Unjustified killings by the cops are rare statistically. They just arguably should be rarer and it might be reasonable to devote considerable public attention that they aren’t rarer and/or racial disparity between a rare rate for blacks and a rarer one for whites.
Even for police use of force (much more common than killings, obviously) this 2016 NYT article quoted a study showing that 46 per 1,000 arrests of blacks involved force v 36 per 1,000 arrests of whites. There are many more arrests of blacks per capita and presumably traffic stops too, but the appropriate metric for ‘grave physical danger’ on being stopped/arrested would be per stop. And the raw stat also doesn’t make any adjustment for whether force was necessary. But assuming the necessity for force doesn’t vary by race of suspect, the rate is only somewhat higher for blacks. Again ‘why should it be at all?’ is a valid discussion, but not a huge difference in that study.
I don’t see how your belief as stated in 2 is a lot different than somebody else’s belief that a third person leaving drugs in your car is a serious concern. Neither one is obvious statistically. Your belief might be true ‘in some jurisdictions’, a very elastic qualifier potentially. But a concern about somebody else having left their drugs in your car could also be likely enough to worry about depending what kind of people ride in or otherwise have access to your car.
It depends on many things where cross country am I? how rural is it?
I’m a black woman. I usually travel alone. If I ever do go driving across country again, I will pick up some kind of way to film/stream from my car - because while I don’t want to consent and I know the “correct” option is to refuse to consent, I’m much more interested in staying alive than in being correct. And so, if I get any kind of feeling that refusing to consent will result in death or serious bodily injury, I consent because that’ll probably result in less physical harm than not consenting. Being in a hurry isn’t a consideration.
This is excellent information. Bricker has given an ironclad reason never to consent.
Agreed. When I started this thread, I was thinking that I’d consent because it’s easier. But Bricker’s post persuades me that’s not a great idea.
I’m also thinking about what other people said about normalizing nonconsent. As a middle-aged middle-class white guy who teaches elementary school, I’m about as safe as a person can get from cop violence; I face very little risk from refusing consent, and if my polite nonconsent can help a cop understand that it’s not license for a beat-down, that’s little enough on my part.
“Do you have a warrant, officer? No? Then I think I’m just gonna go.”
Yup, never consent, and be clear, concise and very polite. Offer no anger or attitude, period.
And if they try to keep you there, ask, over and over as often as necessary, “Am I being detained?” If they say no, “Then I’d like to leave now”. If they say yes, ask under what charges you are being detained.
I don’t currently drive so the only way I could see this happening to me would be in a rental car. I do remember getting pulled over on a business trip one time. I was at an airport hotel and was driving around looking for an open place for dinner around 11 pm. I know the areas around airports often have some sketchy areas and some cop pulled me over thinking I was looking for drugs, the whole process took less than ten minutes and he directed me to an open Waffle House a couple blocks away. If he had wanted to search the car, I would have agreed, reminding him that it’s a rental and I’d just picked it up an hour or so ago. I"m not going to fight for my privacy rights when I’m tired and hungry. Like other have said, if the cop is determined to fuck with me, they’ll find a way to do it. I really don’t think that applies to 99.99% of cops. I think they can tell the difference between a business traveler looking for a late night meal and someone that you see on COPS who gives evasive answers on why they’re driving around late at night and doesn’t have a valid driver license.
I would, and have, said no. As for the follow-up ---- if I was third or twenty-third in a long line of cars (so clearly you are stopping EVERYONE) I may reconsider. But that would depend on my mood at the given moment.
Why WOULD I let him search my car? If he had a valid reason, he’d do it without asking permission and could justify his actions to a judge.
If he’s asking permission, he knows he’s got no valid cause to search my car.
You certainly can ask what charges are involved, but the police are under no obligation to answer you.
It is useful to establish whether or not you’re being detained. Often, police will dodge answering that question directly. So I recommend, “Am I free to go?” And if the officer does not answer, you might add, “OK, so I’m free to go. Thanks,” and see if you’re contradicted. But don’t descend into a mindless repetition of “Am I free to go?” One negative answer is enough to establish the detention exists, and it’s at that point that the officer must have at least reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, which is enough to justify a brief investigative detention to confirm or dispel that suspicion. But he doesn’t have to supply it to you, right then. He will, however, need to have it for later, so establish that a detention is happening early and then just wait.
In the case of traffic stops, of course, it’s obvious that the stop begins as a detention, but what the police are trained to do is complete the stop, return your paperwork, tell you you’re free to go, and then immediately start a new line of questions. This allows them to piously claim that the detention had ended and the encounter has now transformed itself into a new, consensual encounter, in which you’re answering questions because you want to, and consenting to searches because you want to.
If you’re free to go, go. If you’re unsure, ask. And never consent to a search.
And for God’s sake, if you’re arrested, the only thing out of your mouth (other than name/address/DOB and other routine booking questions) should be, “I haven’t done anything wrong and I absolutely want to speak to an attorney before saying anything else.”
I, too, failed to read the OP’s condition of “having no contraband in your car” … so I really don’t know whether I’d consent to a search under that condition as it would be strictly hypothetical … under realistic conditions I would eagerly allow the police to search my rig, throw the officer’s thought process into a tail spin and have him disdain the time and effort …
If the police want to search your rig, they’re going to search your rig … it’s fine that five years hence the appeals court throws out the evidence, but that’s a hell of a long time to spend in jail waiting racking up a quarter million dollar legal bill … sometimes it’s cheaper to pay the fine than to hire a lawyer … and if you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime …
So, according to what several people have said:
You shouldn’t say “no” because that could lead to big trouble. But you shouldn’t say “yes” because that could lead to big trouble. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. So what’s the “correct” answer to the OP’s question?
The one I gave.
Fuck no. If Barney Fife wants to go fishing, he should go find some water.
I don’t give a crap about their heroin smuggling concerns. I’d say no. You got me thinking, however, about when I might consent. All I came up with is the cop telling me that there’s a missing child and they’re looking for a car that matches mine, and asks to take a quick look in the trunk. I’d probably fall for that, and let them have a peak so they can go back to finding the real car with the child in it.
“No - it would be a waste of your time and mine. And it would be very wrong of me to waste the time of a valued public servant.”
“I never have had - nor will have - anything to do with heroin smuggling. Because searching my vehicle will in no way contribute to the suppression of heroin smuggling, it would be wrong to consent.”
That’s what I would do as well, Question: Is one obligated to tell the officer that she is being recorded?
Any time a thread about police procedures / searches comes up, I just scan through to look for the Bricker response. Thanks for sharing your expertise so often and so well