If a cop asks for your name...

[Whoracle]

Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

 

[Grammatron]

Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

Really? Where here in USA that's not the case. It must suck to live in Communist America, Communist Russia sure sucked for me.

 

[LostAngeles]

Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

I carry my IDs and such on me at all times in the event of an emergency, such as a car accident, earthquake, or stray bullet where those finding/treating me would need some identification. That's common sense, not "Communism".

Were you looking for, say, "Tolitarian"?

 

[Chad Noles]

From the source: On the Net:

The ruling: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040621hiibel.pdf

Perhaps this will answer many of your questions.

 

[shuize]

I may be repeating what has already been posted above, but I think it's an important point:

If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking....

 

[crimresearch]

"If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking...."


It never hurts to have in the report that the officer had PC, *and* got consent to search.
Redundant, but you never know when something will be excluded later in the process, so cops may ask when they are going to go ahead and search anyway.

And asking for consent to search in the *absence* of probable cause also serves another very important investigative function which may allow the officer to develop PC on the spot.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions? This is not an extension of a Terry stop; the Terry stop deals with what the cop can do, this deals with what the suspect must do. During a Terry stop, a cop can search for weapons. But can he demand that you tell him where you've hidden your weapon, and prosecute you if you refuse?

Also, if I give consent to a search, and the cop tears up my carpet, is the evidence admissable? Isn't tearing up a carpet vandalism? And isn't evidence collected by the police during a crime inadmissable? Seems to me that giving permission for a search and giving permission for vandalism are two completely different things.

 

[shuize]

"If the police are "asking" for consent, it means they don't have justification (probable cause) to search. If they have probable cause, they won't be asking...."


It never hurts to have in the report that the officer had PC, *and* got consent to search.
Redundant, but you never know when something will be excluded later in the process, so cops may ask when they are going to go ahead and search anyway.

And asking for consent to search in the *absence* of probable cause also serves another very important investigative function which may allow the officer to develop PC on the spot.

I understand your point about how police officers "develop" probable cause (like when the police ask a potential subject if they can pat him down/search his car and he takes off running -- Yippie! Automatic P.C.). But in cases where probable cause is borderline, couldn't the fact that an officer asks for consent also work against him?

Defense attorney at suppression/probable cause hearing: "Well, Your Honor, if probable cause were so obvious in this case, why'd the police even ask the suspect for consent to search? And why, as in this case, after asking and being refused consent, did they go ahead and search him anyway? Did they ever have any intention of honoring his refusal or, more likely, were they just trying to gain consent where no probable cause ever existed?"

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

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.

Wow, that is textbook abouse of police powers. Implying you might not get a speeding ticket if you consent to a search. Highly illegal.

Remember also the eternal cry of the fascist: If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed.

 

[aerocontrols]

Wow, that is textbook abouse of police powers. Implying you might not get a speeding ticket if you consent to a search. Highly illegal.

They implied no such thing.

Remember also the eternal cry of the fascist: If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed.

I always wondered what the fascists eternally cried...


edit: Do you think there is a difference between your formulation

If you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about being surveyed

and mine

Since I have nothing to hide, I do not worry about being surveyed

at least inasmuch as it speaks to how much of a fascist I am?

 

[Chad Noles]

originally posted by Art Vandelay:

What's more worrisome is the idea that police can require people to be active participants in their own prosecution. What need for a supoena, when you can just send over a cop to ask the questions?

From the ruling:

"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background,but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exist"

These people have to be suspects first,as Hiibel was.Further,....

From the ruling"

"Any person so detained,shall identify himself,but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In response to the "Why would you refuse a search?" question:

The lawyer types I've talked to put it this way. There are no conceivable circumstances in which permitting a search can benefit you. Police will imply otherwise, but the reality is that absolutely nothing good for you will ever come out of a search.

Whereas lots of bad things can happen. They can find something actionable, they can plant something actionable, or they can waste your time and damage your property and you have very little real recourse.

Thus the advice always seems to be to deny any and all requests to search your stuff.

I have a vague idea that we have fewer rights to refuse a search here in Australia, but I don't have the foggiest what the rules actually are. It's never been an issue for me, so I've never bothered to bone up on it.

 

[aerocontrols]

In response to the "Why would you refuse a search?" question:

The lawyer types I've talked to put it this way. There are no conceivable circumstances in which permitting a search can benefit you. Police will imply otherwise, but the reality is that absolutely nothing good for you will ever come out of a search.

I've already laid out the ways in which permitting a search benefitted me. In one case I avoided what most likely would have been a trip down to the police station to answer a few questions. In another case I probably avoided a speeding ticket and possibly (depending on whether the police had a dog on call or not) avoided waiting for some lengthy time in the back of a squad car for the dog to arrive. Let me go on:


And then once the dog arrives, I would have had unfriendly police searching my car. If the dog had twitched funny, they would have had probable cause to go into my car, and my earlier recalcitrance may have resulted in their having no incentive not to make a mess. This was a trip home for Christmas, and my trunk was filled with (already wrapped) presents. Would the dog have gone for the presents? There was food in some of them. It would have been less than fun to re-wrap the presents.

Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

MattJ

 

[Tmy]

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

How nice of them to profile and harrass you. Last I looked, driving on the interstate wh out of state plates and long hair does not equal probable cause for squat. The war on drugs has destroyed our personal rights. Its like the Cpnstitution flies out the window as soon as you hop in your car.

 

[Tmy]

Lots of speculation about what could happen, but more likely than the Oklahoma Highway Patrol planting evidence in the vehicle of a cooperative traveller.

MattJ

Why not. Your whole example is based on the cops violating the law and your fear of reprisals. Why not take the next step and just plant somthing. Or maybe theyll just rough you up a bit and send you on your way.

I dont beleive they have the right to call a dog into a simple traffic stop wh/o having some kind of probable cause.

 

[aerocontrols]

Why not. Your whole example is based on the cops violating the law and your fear of reprisals. Why not take the next step and just plant somthing. Or maybe theyll just rough you up a bit and send you on your way.

I don't see how they violated the law. Explain it to me.

I'm sure cops in your universe rough up cooperative polite citizens all the time. One presumes that police who have no problems planting something would similarly have no problems testifiying that I gave consent to be searched. It hasn't been my experience that cops are like this, but if they were I doubt my refusal to allow them to search would make much of a difference one way or another.

I dont beleive they have the right to call a dog into a simple traffic stop wh/o having some kind of probable cause.

You think they need probable cause to get a dog? If they have probable cause, they don't need a dog.

MattJ

 

[Tmy]

I don't see how they violated the law. Explain it to me.

MattJ

From your example I assumed you were pulled over for doing nothing wrong. Which the police are not allowed to do. I couldnt tell if you were speeding or if you implied that they'd just claimed speeding as pretext to the pullover.

As for the dog part. If your pulled over for speeding the most they can do is give you a speeding ticket. THey cant hold you all day to arrange a dog, lie detector test, or hit you up for a donation to the Police fund.

 

[aerocontrols]

From your example I assumed you were pulled over for doing nothing wrong. Which the police are not allowed to do. I couldnt tell if you were speeding or if you implied that they'd just claimed speeding as pretext to the pullover.

Here

In another case I cooperated because the cops had me on a speeding violation and I figured if I consented to the search I wouldn't get a ticket.

When I said they had me on a speeding violation, I meant that they pulled me over for speeding, and that I was speeding.

As for the dog part. If your pulled over for speeding the most they can do is give you a speeding ticket. THey cant hold you all day to arrange a dog, lie detector test, or hit you up for a donation to the Police fund.

I believe you're incorrect. The advice offered here would appear to back me up.

MattJ

 

[crimresearch]

"While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the “minimal” additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa’s argument that a “search incident to citation” is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive...
...The judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
Knowles v Iowa
http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/knowles.html

I guess the US Supreme Court justices haven't gotten the benefit of the extensive legal education to be gained from television shows and internet forums.

 

[billydkid]

Here, here...

Communist America makes you carry your papers on you at all times.

Ain't it the truth. Now what was it we were supposed to hate so much about communism? They were awful, I guess, because they were a communist police state. We are ok because we are a capitolist police state.