The thing that bothers me is the part about officers finding a large amount of cash in your car and seizing it as some vague “evidence” of possible wrongdoing, which means you have to jump through hoops to get it back (seeing as to how you were never actually charged with anything). Why would you keep a large amount of cash in your car and not on your person? Is it a lower bar for them to search your person? I had something like a thousand dollars on me on vacation, but it was always on my person (not that we ever got stopped for anything).
I don’t think $1,000 would raise many eyebrows. $5,000 or more might.
I am guessing $1000 might well raise questions these days.
I’ve driven to the notary with $12,000 to buy a boat, and I’ve driven from the notary with $8,000 after selling a boat.
Having cash in your possession is not illegal.
If it’s 10 crisp $100 bills, I doubt it. If it’s a rubber-banded brick of crumpled up ones, fives, tens, and twenties, maybe.
If your car matches the description of a suspected abductor’s vehicle, I strongly suspect they won’t be asking for your consent.
Depends on the state (and appeals court jurisdiction - I think) that you’re in.
If the police ask you “do you have any cash in the vehicle?” or something along those lines, I’d recommend not answering in the affirmative.
Short Version - What Bricker said. I’d rather have my lawyer spring me from jail in the morning because I pissed off a cop than give away my legal defense of an illegal search if it ends up going to trial.
According to my own lawyer, there are only three sentences you should ever say to a cop. The first is “I do not consent to any searches.” The second is “Am I free to go?” The third is “I can’t answer that question without my attorney present.”
Is it really an option? You mean I can say “No”, and the cop will just say he’s sorry he bothered me, and wave me on?
Of course.
He might try multiple times. “If you don’t have anything illegal, then what’s the problem?” But the answer to that question is simple:
“I’m sorry, officer, but my privacy is very important to me, so I do not consent to a search.”
Pleasant, friendly, and firm.
I would not consent simply because I see no upside in doing so.
mmm
Random question this made me think of:
Do they just need the consent from the driver or the owner? If I’m the passenger in my car and my friend is driving, do they need my friend’s consent or mine?
I believe it is the operator’s consent. It would be the same as if you were sitting at home while your friend is driving your car. If you have consented to allowing your friend to drive your car, then he has the ability to consent.
Though, that would be interesting, if someone steals your car, could they “consent” to a search. IOW, you have contraband in your car, it gets stolen and pulled over by the cops, they search and find contraband. Would that be a legal search? IANAL, but I would think so, but it may be easier making the “it’s not mine” claim if the car had been out of your possession, and in the possession of criminals.
Now I’m wondering what happens if the driver and the owner give opposite answers.
Nope.
When I go on cross-country road trips, I tend to bring along everything but the kitchen sink. I’m not letting anybody dig through all of my gear without a warrant. I had to miss out on visiting Cape Canaveral National Seashore in 2002 because they were searching every car coming in–apparently a security measure due to an impending launch.
ISTM, I’ve read “horror stories” of vehicle searches, in which it was noted that any occupant of the vehicle can give consent – or at least, the cop requesting the search took it that way.
So they can badger a passenger to give consent (“Look, son, you can make this easy on yourself or you can make it hard on yourself”).
(ETA: The theory being, apparently, that the driver is most likely the owner and the passenger is most likely not the owner, so the passenger would have less reason to object to a search and can more easily be badgered into consenting.)
Can our resident legaldopers comment?
You don’t find kitchen sinks just anywhere and everywhere out on the road. If I were you, I’d take that along too.
These days I would not consent. When I was young I let police officers search my car a few times and gave them cash on two occasions. Both men explained that it was a kind of service they do, so I didn’t have to go downtown and wait until morning to pay the speeding ticket.
A web search turns up a number of forum discussions, including a ten-year-old exchange on something called “The Straight Dope Message Board”. What I glean from what I have read is that the police, out there alone on the dark shoulder, rely on “apparent authority”. If a person seems to have the authority to provide consent, that is sufficient, whether or not that person actually does.
IANAL, but SCOTUS held, in Fernandez v California (2013), that:
This WaPo article gives a good bit more reader-friendly summary.
That case concerned a residence, but I’d be surprised if some flavor of that logic didn’t extend to vehicles too. If you’re present, sitting in the driver’s seat, and you tell the police they cannot search your vehicle, but a passenger in the back seat pipes up and says, “well, I don’t mind if you search”, I suspect the fruits of that search would not be admissible, at least not in a trial where you’re starring as the defendant.
However, if you tell the police “no”, then park the car and run into the store, leaving your wife in the passenger seat, and the police approach her and convince her to grant consent, there’s an excellent chance the fruits of that search would be admissible.