If a cop asks for your name...

[aerocontrols]

How much do you make in a year? None of my business right. Same thing here.

It's the IRS's business how much I make in a year. It's the cop's business whether I'm smuggling plastic explosive up from Mexico.

What do you get out of either situation?? OK you have nothing to hide Does that mean you want to be handcuffed standing on teh side of the road while people drive buy. After the police tear up your car and pull everything out of its place, you then get to put the crap back together. JOY!!!

That wasn't my experience in either situation. I never got handcuffed, nor did the cops tear up my car.

If you do have sonthing to hide them your hanging yourslef by ok-ing to a search.

I definitely would not consent to a search if I were carrying contraband of some sort. But I don't carry contraband.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

Are you a black guy? Sure you can gamble that being cool will get you out of trouble, its up top you to decide.

I'm not black, but we're discussing the ACLU's card, which doesn't make the distinction.

My buddy once ok-ed a search. They tore up his carpets and foudn a joint. Now the car was like 15 yrs old and the thing couldve been therefor years. He had no idea, but he was on the hook for it.

Moral to the story: You may not know that you have somthing to hide.

15 year old joint, huh?

 

[Rob Lister]

Do you really think so? So why should we even let police ask?

MattJ

I know the question was asked of another but in my opinion, we shouldn't let them ask that. They either have probable cause or they do not. If they do, they do not need your permission. If they don't, it's none of their business. At the very least they should have to inform you first that you have no obligation to allow it.

The problem is one of education. The police, to many, are an intimidating presence. Perhaps that is a necessary evil. But because they are intimidating, people feel like they have to allow something that they perhaps would not allow if they were not the police. For example, a stranger walks up and asks to look through your car. Would you let this happen?

Perhaps this is the reason for the Miranda Act. Just guessing.

 

[Grammatron]

It's the IRS's business how much I make in a year. It's the cop's business whether I'm smuggling plastic explosive up from Mexico.

Well sure it's the cops business and they can detect those explosives with out even searching the car, just like the can detect drugs or people you may be smuggling from mexico with out searching the car by scanning it or using dogs.

That wasn't my experience in either situation. I never got handcuffed, nor did the cops tear up my car.

I definitely would not consent to a search if I were carrying contraband of some sort. But I don't carry contraband.

MattJ

You don't have consent or not consent, the card simply explain what you rights are, it's up to you how much of your rights you want to give up when asked to.

It all depends of course, if there is some emergency and police are looking for something and stopping all the cars and asking questions, I will probably allow a search. If however it's a routine traffic stop and the cop just wants to search my car because he feels like it, I might just not let him.

 

[aerocontrols]

I know the question was asked of another but in my opinion, we shouldn't let them ask that. They either have probable cause or they do not. If they do, they do not need your permission. If they don't, it's none of their business. At the very least they should have to inform you first that you have no obligation to allow it.

I guess I just come at it from another angle. When the Oklahoma Highway patrol pulled me (long haired youngster with Georgia plates) over going west at the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, (and I mean at the border) the first thing I thought was "they don't want me for speeding, they're searching for drug dealers". This was pretty much confirmed when the second car showed up almost immediately after I gave consent to search.

In my view, I figure they have a hard job and they take a lot of crap from people every day, so I'm going to be as cooperative as possible. They want to search my car, I figure I'll consent but only after I calmly tell them that they're wasting their time.

They did tell me I had the right to refuse, by the way. I also knew that whether I was going to get a speeding ticket was a judgement call they were going to make before they let me go.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

Well sure it's the cops business and they can detect those explosives with out even searching the car, just like the can detect drugs or people you may be smuggling from mexico with out searching the car by scanning it or using dogs.

How long do they get to detain me while we wait for the dog, I wonder? Do you think that, should a dog arrive on the scene, my car is going unsearched? I don't. I think the dog will twitch and I'll get searched. I also think that the police are going to be a lot less friendly at that point.

You don't have consent or not consent, the card simply explain what you rights are, it's up to you how much of your rights you want to give up when asked to.

The card pretty much says "don't consent" It also says that consent now may cause a loss of rights in court later. (My original question) It seems to me that consent now causes a loss of my rights now, not later.

It all depends of course, if there is some emergency and police are looking for something and stopping all the cars and asking questions, I will probably allow a search. If however it's a routine traffic stop and the cop just wants to search my car because he feels like it, I might just not let him.

I see where you're coming from

 

[Grammatron]

How long do they get to detain me while we wait for the dog, I wonder? Do you think that, should a dog arrive on the scene, my car is going unsearched? I don't. I think the dog will twitch and I'll get searched. I also think that the police are going to be a lot less friendly at that point.

I believe it's 24 hours with out charging you.

The card pretty much says "don't consent" It also says that consent now may cause a loss of rights in court later. (My original question) It seems to me that consent now causes a loss of my rights now, not later.

Well forgoing Tmy's example...what if your friend/acquaintance/someone who was in your home, has left something of that was either used in a crime or is illegal to poses. You consent, unknowingly, and then they find it and not only do you not know how you got it but now you are unable to prove it does not belong to you in the first place. I realize it's rather extreme example but weirder things have happened.

I see where you're coming from

I'm a somewhat private person and I don't like people going through my belongings when they have absolutely no reason to.

 

[aerocontrols]

I believe it's 24 hours with out charging you.

Actually, that's a little hard to believe, but if true, I doubt that making them get a dog is the right thing to do.

Well forgoing Tmy's example...what if your friend/acquaintance/someone who was in your home, has left something of that was either used in a crime or is illegal to poses. You consent, unknowingly, and then they find it and not only do you not know how you got it but now you are unable to prove it does not belong to you in the first place. I realize it's rather extreme example but weirder things have happened.

If someone in my home has left behind an object like that, I want it found and removed. I wouldn't let the cops go on a fishing expedition, but if they say 'hey, we think your friend bob may have stashed a murder weapon at your place' I'm going to let them in to check it out. I don't have any friends I like well enough that our friendship would survive their leaving contraband in my house without my permission.

I'm a somewhat private person and I don't like people going through my belongings when they have absolutely no reason to.

Yeah, me neither. But you (and the card) are acting as if the correct course of action is to always tell the cops to get lost. Unless you cannot, because they have a warrant or probable cause. I'm still of the opinion that if you haven't done anything, it's best to cooperate. (and my experience thus far bears that out) After all, if the cops are very persistent they're going to detain you and get a dog or a warrant in any case. Plus, I want them to be able to do their jobs.

MattJ

 

[Grammatron]

If someone in my home has left behind an object like that, I want it found and removed. I wouldn't let the cops go on a fishing expedition, but if they say 'hey, we think your friend bob may have stashed a murder weapon at your place' I'm going to let them in to check it out. I don't have any friends I like well enough that our friendship would survive their leaving contraband in my house without my permission.

You are missing the point. In my example your friend "Bob" has left something in your place with out your knowledge. So, let's say he stashed a pound of cocaine under the couch. Police looking for something completely unrelated find it, you're charge with possession and intent to sell.

Yeah, me neither. But you (and the card) are acting as if the correct course of action is to always tell the cops to get lost. Unless you cannot, because they have a warrant or probable cause. I'm still of the opinion that if you haven't done anything, it's best to cooperate. (and my experience thus far bears that out) After all, if the cops are very persistent they're going to detain you and get a dog or a warrant in any case.

MattJ

So let them waste their time. Maybe that will teach them to bother people.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yeah, me neither. But you (and the card) are acting as if the correct course of action is to always tell the cops to get lost.

More to the point, they are telling the cops, "If you don't have any reasons for searching me, then there's no reason you should."

The position that "They can search me because there isn't a good reason they shouldn't" has burden reversed. "There doesn't seem to be any harm in it" is a very poor reason to support ANY government action. The question that needs to be asked is, "Why should they do it?" NOT "Why shouldn't they?"

I have some questions, though. Suppose the cop asks if he can search the car. What can I happen if I start asking him questions, like "What for?" "Why do you think I might have that?" etc? Will he rough me up for being a smart-a$$ (even if I am sincere in my questions - for example, asking, "Is there any reason that you think there might be drugs in my car?" "No? Then, no, I don't think you should search my car.")


If he is legitimately searching the car for stolen money from a band robbery (because it matches the description of the getaway car, for example), but finds drugs, can it be used against you?

 

[aerocontrols]

You missing the point. In my example your friend "Bob" has left something in your place with out your knowledge. So, let's say he stashed a pound of cocaine under the couch. Police looking for something completely unrealted find it, you're charge with posession and intent to sell.

I think we've entered the realm of the ridiculous. Perhaps you have different sorts of friends than I.

So let them waste their time. Maybe that will teach them to bother people.

They're not just going to waste their time. They're going to waste mine as well. And they'll probably come back with the intent of 'tearing up my ride/house' once they get a warrant.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

More to the point, they are telling the cops, "If you don't have any reasons for searching me, then there's no reason you should."

The position that "They can search me because there isn't a good reason they shouldn't" has burden reversed.

I didn't really think that this was in any doubt. I don't think the legal burden should be reversed, but I still can't see why an individual with nothing to hide shouldn't consider the possibilty that by letting the cops search, the ticket goes away, or we don't sit here by the side of the road waiting 3 hours for a dog to show up, etc.

I have some questions, though. Suppose the cop asks if he can search the car. What can I happen if I start asking him questions, like "What for?" "Why do you think I might have that?" etc? Will he rough me up for being a smart-a$$ (even if I am sincere in my questions - for example, asking, "Is there any reason that you think there might be drugs in my car?" "No? Then, no, I don't think you should search my car.")


If he is legitimately searching the car for stolen money from a band robbery (because it matches the description of the getaway car, for example), but finds drugs, can it be used against you?

I think these questions are aimed at me, but I'm no expert. I'm fairly certain that cops can't rough you up for being a smart alec, however.

MattJ

 

[Grammatron]

I think we've entered the realm of the ridiculous. Perhaps you have different sorts of friends than I.

Yes I did say it was an extreme and therefore unlikely examples and no I do not have those kinds of friends. I'm merely pointing out what an apparently harmless search can lead to.

They're not just going to waste their time. They're going to waste mine as well. And they'll probably come back with the intent of 'tearing up my ride/house' once they get a warrant.

MattJ

As Tmy pointed out they can tare up your ride even if you give them permission.

 

[rockoon]

Well sure it's the cops business and they can detect those explosives with out even searching the car, just like the can detect drugs or people you may be smuggling from mexico with out searching the car by scanning it or using dogs.

Since I am alergic to dogs, I definately have a problem with dogs in my car. Do I have the right to refuse a canine search?

"Humans please"

 

[crimresearch]

"After all, if the cops are very persistent they're going to detain you and get a dog or a warrant in any case."

Mmmmm, for just a speeding violation? They probably aren't.

If everything is above board with that particular department and officer, they're going to follow the Constitution, and the relevant Supreme Court decisions, which do NOT allow for car searches based on ***nothing*** more than speeding.

If they want to do a random dog sweep, they will have the dog there, if they have enough PC to sign an affidavit for a search warrant, they will, but the scenario as described (speeding stop, followed by request to search based on nothing) just isn't going to fly in any legitimate jurisdiction.

If the ONLY reason you are stopped is for speeding, you get a ticket. End of story.
And *merely* refusing a blind request for a search after receiving a ticket is not probable cause for getting a dog, or a warrant.

Add in *other* factors, and of course you will be more likely to get other results.

Soooo...

Basic common sense, do what you are told, answer reasonable questions relevant to identity, say 'No Thanks, am I free to go now? if you feel that you have gone from a routine encounter, to being a suspect, shut up if you are told anything other than 'Why yes, you are free to go', and have Johnny Cochran's number in your wallet.'

 

[billydkid]

furthermore

How much do you make in a year? None of my business right. Same thing here.


What do you get out of either situation?? OK you have nothing to hide Does that mean you want to be handcuffed standing on teh side of the road while people drive buy. After the police tear up your car and pull everything out of its place, you then get to put the crap back together. JOY!!!

If you do have sonthing to hide them your hanging yourslef by ok-ing to a search.

Furthermore, if the police have good and reasonable suspicion to search your car or house or whatever they are free to do so with or without your permission, they simply have to present their reasons to a judge and he has to give them a warrant. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right and noone should be willing to give up that right simply because a cop arbitrarily decides he wants to search you. If a cop has good reason for believing he should search he can do so.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: furthermore

Furthermore, if the police have good and reasonable suspicion to search your car or house or whatever they are free to do so with or without your permission, they simply have to present their reasons to a judge and he has to give them a warrant. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right and noone should be willing to give up that right simply because a cop arbitrarily decides he wants to search you. If a cop has good reason for believing he should search he can do so.

That's why I'd want to ask him why he wants to do the search. As you say, if he really has good reason to suspect something, then he is going to be able to do it anyway. If his only reasoning is because it is convenient because he has me stopped, then that is no better than randomly stopping someone on the road and searching them. We wouldn't allow that, so why should we put up with a random search just because he pulled me over for a speeding ticket?

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: furthermore

That's why I'd want to ask him why he wants to do the search. As you say, if he really has good reason to suspect something, then he is going to be able to do it anyway. If his only reasoning is because it is convenient because he has me stopped, then that is no better than randomly stopping someone on the road and searching them. We wouldn't allow that, so why should we put up with a random search just because he pulled me over for a speeding ticket?

Asking cops questions like that will only label you a smarta$$ and get get them pissed off. It's not unheard of for them to "find" something on you you didn't have under such circumstances. Not recommended!
Frickin' drug war.

 

[evil sutko]

Re: furthermore

Furthermore, if the police have good and reasonable suspicion to search your car or house or whatever they are free to do so with or without your permission, they simply have to present their reasons to a judge and he has to give them a warrant. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right and noone should be willing to give up that right simply because a cop arbitrarily decides he wants to search you. If a cop has good reason for believing he should search he can do so.

That's why this decision is a load of BS. The Court made it very clear in the Terry case that they were reluctantly adding to the power of the police, but for the very good reason of protecting cops from imminent danger.

In a Terry stop, they can basically pat you down for weapons only. If they find a big bag of drugs, then it's not admissible unless they can get a warrant or find probable cause.

This decision is troubling, because it sets a bad tone for the enemy combatant cases, and for future rulings on personal rights.

 

[Grammatron]

Here's a question about the case.

Let's say you are a homeless guy who never appeared in the "system." You refuse to say your name and they give you a fine; how do they know who to fine?