A Cop dead set on illegally searching your car will certainly be willing to lie about how you gave consent, or lie about how he was overcome with the smell of marijuana.
And a jury will certainly not be taking your word over his. Assuming there’s a dashboard camera, and assuming it’s on, and assuming the footage isn’t tampered with, and assuming the cop isn’t golf buddies with the judge, then, maybe, you’ll get the search thrown out.
That’s a lot of assumptions to make, considering this cop, who surely must know such a search would be illegal, is still going ahead with it anyway. No cop is going to be an asshole, and in so doing risk hsi pension. He will be an asshole, only when he knows damn well he’s going to get away with it - something that appears to be damn easy to do.
Tell him you would like to invoke your Miranda rights (to remand silent) and call your lawyer.
Just say “I would rather you didn’t.”
Technically the cop can “force” you to do whatever he wants, since he has a gun and the power of the State behind him. At least in the immediate term. Longer term, the system is designed to try and prevent abuses of power, but that is imperfect and often involves lots of lawyers, news people and talk show hosts.
Generally, you should be polite, follow the instructions of the officer, and play dumb.
I don’t really get people who think they will get out of a police situation by antagonizing the police, being uncooperative, playing street corner lawyer or otherwise making their job difficult. If the officer is cool, your best bet is to make his job easier proving that you aren’t up to no good. If he’s a dick, trying to antagonize him is just going to give him an excuse to use the apparatus of the system against you.
Well, unless the order is to commit a crime, such as “Shoot that guy over there”. Somethings are not allowed under the “I wuz just following orders defense.” Admittedly, I have never heard of a cop giving a civilian such a order, but hey…
What if the cop is a criminal set on lying? Then you’re fucked. Welcome to “it’s not your day.” You’re still no less fucked by resisting, in fact the cop you describe is probably none too concerned about pumping you full of lead for resisting, which whatever happens to him afterward you’d rather be alive on a marijuana possession charge than dead in a morgue.
Most cops aren’t actually like that though, many will ask to search on the off hope you say yes (because most people do) and just move on if you don’t. Some will really want to search, and will make you stay there on the side of the road while drug dogs are called in (who will often provide them with PC to search the vehicle.) There actually was a recent court case about whether police could require you to wait for the dogs to arrive or not, I can’t remember how it turned out. It’s rare that a cop will go outright lawless rogue.
I have a friend who is a cop who often says this. He says he doesn’t often ask to search vehicles, but he has worked with a few who “request” to search many people they pull over for various traffic infractions. He says a large percentage of people agree to a search, even when they don’t have to, and there is no reasonable suspicion of any crime.
I am constantly amazed hen reading the paper about people who consent to searches and the cops find dope. Now, some of these searches might have been in fact conducted without consent, or at least under coercion, but I have little doubt that many people give consent because a) they don’t know any better, or b) they don’t want a confrontation with Johnny Law.
So what? None of what you say controverts the simple advice: when asked whether they can search your car, say “no.”
If they go ahead, then you might or might not be screwed. But if you say “yes”, then you’re definitely screwed, if there’s something to find (or they plant it.)
And as per the post you’re responding to, if things go awry, your best bet is in the courtroom, not arguing with the officer.
Yeah, you’re right. In addition to thinking they have something hidden well enough, it’s easy to think up examples where the driver or car owner might not know or have forgotten something. I live in a reasonable state regarding guns, but live near NY, NJ and DC. If I’m not mistaken, hollow-point ammo is illegal in NJ, and possession of most ammo is a crime in DC and NYC without a permit. I carry guns and ammo in my trunk (to go to the range) regularly, and it isn’t hard to imagine that a .22LR or 9MM round, or at least an empty shell casing, might be in my trunk somewhere. It may not be readily visible, but if you emptied the trunk and looked underneath the carpet where the spare is, there might be a stray round or casing down there. I sure as hell wouldn’t allow a search of my vehicle and risk being tossed in the pokey because there is a stray round buried in my trunk.
One can also imagine that a driver is unaware that someone else who borrowed the car might have smoked or carried some pot or pills. I’ve heard of people getting in trouble for having prescription meds carried in something other than the bottle they came in.
To paraphrase Nancy Reagan, “just say no” to any and all searches.
41 shots, Lena gets her son ready for school
She says, “On these streets, Charles
You’ve got to understand the rules
If an officer stops you, promise me you’ll always be polite
And that you’ll never ever run away
Promise Mama you’ll keep your hands in sight”
The problem is ALWAYS (absent a voice recording), a cop can say or not say anything he darn well feels like saying or not saying (and so can the person he’s talking to), and then the cop can claim anything else in court.
Example: If a cop wants to search your car, how does it make a whit of difference whether you consent or not, or how the cop “encouraged” you to give your consent. Absent a voice recording, what will ever prevent him from simply claiming that you consented?
To be sure, I assume there are honest cops out there. But why should we believe there are very many of them? There doesn’t really seem to be any incentive in the system for cops to be honest.
As more and more of these encounters are being recorded, that is changing for the better. The experience in Rialto is commonly cited, where claims of police misconduct are always said to have gone way down.
I read that first article yesterday and was just about to search it up again to post it here.
The article cites (and quotes) a decision from the Oregon Supreme Court, which seems to acknowledge explicitly that there’s no knowable way for a citizen to tell whether a policeman’s order is lawful, yet simultaneously finds that a citizen is still responsible for knowing whether a policeman’s order is lawful. :smack:
In reading the various “civil rights” literature one finds on the web or in ACLU pamphlets, one point that’s made repeatedly is that the police will attempt to trick you into agreeing to whatever they want, and in fact, they are trained and skilled in doing that.
A common example is the cop who asks “You don’t mind if I search your car, do you?” If you answer Yes, that means “Yes, (I agree) I don’t mind if you search my car” and if you answer “No” that means “No, I don’t mind if you search my car.” So you have to know, the correct answer is never “Yes” or “No” but rather to speak a complete sentence: “I do not consent to a search of my car.”
Similarly, police will pull a car over and ask the driver “Do you know why I pulled you over?” According to various arguments, there is no “right” answer to this, except perhaps to answer “You tell me.”
Let me elucidate what happens in Texas when you refuse a search of your vehicle during a traffic stop.
The cop will then arrest you, as he can by law for anything aside from speeding or open container, and then your vehicle is inventoried AKA searched anyway.
Oh you say wait! I was pulled over for speeding! I can’t be arrested!
You will still be arrested and your vehicle inventoried, and you will then find you have not only a citation for speeding but also some other one like failure to maintain proper lane or some other fictitious citation that allows the arrest. It will be claimed the officer saw you veering too far during a turn etc.
This isn’t hypothetical, this is an actual case I know of. In states that allow an officer to arrest for traffic citations the fourth amendment as applies to vehicles is basically null.
I’ve always imagined that the best way to deal with an order you don’t think is lawful (or maybe isn’t an order) is to just ask explicitly
“Are you ordering me to <x>? Am I legally allowed to refuse?”
If they say it’s an order, then you do it, and argue it in front of a judge if you feel like it. If they don’t clearly say, then I imagine I’d say something like:
“I do not consent to a search (or whatever), but I will not resist.” And then get out of the way.
I’ve also heard that it’s best to answer leading questions with a polite question. Or, just silence.
“Do you know why I pulled you over?”
“Why did you pull me over?”
Is it acceptable to ask legal advice of the officer? Could you use that in court if they gave you incorrect advice? “Officer, am I legally required to consent to you searching my vehicle?”
Cops are not only allowed to lie to you, they are neither lawyers or legal scholars. I have heard cops say out of their own mouths nonsense like it is illegal for someone over 18 to not have an ID that trusting their advice is not wise.