"Can I look in the vehicle?" wife & kids present

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's so much simpler just to say no. I promise you that you will lose any argument about constitutional law and how it's interpreted in that court on the side of the road. And from some of the responses here a lot of you guys will lose in court too.

For crying out loud, if you are asked to consent to a search just say no.

One of you legal geniuses look up some court decisions dealing with coercion in consent searches. Once you educate yourself on how things really work, then you'll be qualified to post in this thread.

Someone said internet legal advice was worth what you paid for it. I submit that unless you have a free internet connection and are using a borrowed computer and someone else's electricity,and figure your time is worth nothing, much that has been posted in this thread is worth even less then you have invested in it.

Jeff
 
There was a time when I got pulled over four times in the same week.
First time…
Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: No.
Cop: You weaved a little bit back there.
Me: Someone was tailgating me with high-beams on. (It was the cop.)
Cop: Can I search your car?
Me: No.
He ordered me out, put me through a field sobriety test, I passed and was free to go.
Second time…
Cop: Where are you headed?
Me: Work
Cop: Can I search your car?
Me: No.
He ordered me out, put me through a field sobriety test, I passed and he said he pulled me over because a taillight was out. I replaced the bulb right there and was free to go.
Third time…
Cop: License, registration and proof of insurance.
I gave them to him.
Cop: Can I search your car?
Me: No.
He ordered me out and I asked him to please call his supervisor. He did. The supervisor showed up, I noted his name and told him this was the third time I’d gotten pulled over that week and the field sobriety tests were becoming my nightly aerobics. He laughed and asked the cop what he pulled me over for. The cop took him aside out of my hearing range. They exchanged words. I saw the cop turn bright red. The supervisor told me I could go and went back to the cop. It looked like the cop was getting chewed out as I left.
Fourth time…
Cop: License, registration and proof of insurance, please.
I gave them to him.
Cop: Can I search your car?
Me: No.
Cop: Do you have any weapons in your car?
Me: Why?
Cop: Well, you have an NRA sticker on your car.
Me: Is that a bad thing?
Cop: (silence)
He ordered me out and I told him I’d told (cop supervisor) just last night that these sobriety tests were becoming my nightly aerobics. He handed me back my paperwork and let me go. Those fishing expeditions ended, and subsequent pullovers for legitimate reasons (speeding) have not yet resulted in requests to search my car.
 
Of course he can force you to open it or open it himself if he has the appropriate suspicion. He does not ever need a warrant to search a car, EVER. That's been the law for well over 50 years, so anyone who says this doesn't have the first clue about the law.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Nemoaz, please get off your high horse. The cop requires probable cause to search your car. I never said he needs a warrant. A Terry frisk of your person does not require probable cause. Therefore, a Terry frisk does not include the authority to search your car or to force you to open it for him. If your car is locked, he requires PC to force you to unlock it.

Of course you aren't free to leave. You have been detained for a speeding violation or whatever.
Click to expand...
Wow. I'm afraid you've just damaged your credibility severely. Asking whether you are being detained is absolute standard practice, and should be the question you keep coming back to. I'm no expert, but you really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

--Len.
 
For crying out loud, if you are asked to consent to a search just say no.
Click to expand...
Jeff, several of us on this thread have consistently given the same advice you're giving. The rest just go to show that the urge to try and win a battle of wits with the cop that pulled you over is so irresistible that many people will gladly risk arrest for the chance to give it a try.

--Len.
 
true story:

"May I search your vehicle?"

"No."

"Are you hiding something?"

"No, Sir. I just feel that if we don't exercise our Constitutional rights we might forget that we have them."

"OK."
Click to expand...

I done exactly this on several occasions. With the same result.

Just say "no."
 
Of course you aren't free to leave. You have been detained for a speeding violation or whatever.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's that "whatever" that's the problem.

A number of police departments in Louisiana have been caught acting as carjackers doing fraudulent civil forfeitures based on stops for "weaving", etc. Strangely, it's mostly Blacks and Hispanics doing the "weaving". Strangely, NONE of them seems to have had drugs, drug residue, etc.

If the cop can't cite any probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, you ARE free to leave. If he holds you or searches without consent anyway, well if he wants to dig a hole for himself, I'm all for handing him the shovel. I'll probably get a new car and a couple of guns out of it.

And I have a good criminal defense lawyer on tap too. He owes me a bunch of favors for computer work.

Deanimator's rules one more time:

I hate bullies.
I hold grudges.
I have absolutely no sense of proportion.

I don't care how hard his job is. This isn't Egypt. He wasn't drafted into it. If he can't do it right, he should find another... with outside assistance if necessary.
 
READ THIS SITE:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/traffic_stop_scenario

If the cop has PC he has enough for a warrant.

If he doesn't have PC then saying you need a warrant to search my car is fine. Yeah the cop most likely will say he doesn't need a warrant to search your car which you can ask ok what is your probable cause?

The thing is if he is asking he doesn't have it.

If his PC isn't strong enough for a warrant later and you didn't consent all the stuff he finds in your car can't be used against you.

So yes they do need essentially the level of a warrant to search your car.
 
Deanimator said:
I hate bullies.
I hold grudges.
I have absolutely no sense of proportion.
Click to expand...

"You've got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday."

Comment must be interpreted in context. It may be helpful to know that Inigo Montoya is my favorite character in the movie.
 
My word! I can't believe that there are some here who would just consent to the search to make their lives easier. I cannot imagine foregoing a CONSTITUTIONAL right in order to make my life easier. Even if, me, my wife, my kids, and my dog end up in jail, I'm going to refuse consent. Some of you really need to need to read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It won't take long and there are copies posted all over the internet. Good grief people.

Don't ever argue with the police! They are given wide discretion to conduct investigations and you'll lose almost any roadside argument. Save the arguing for court, that is where it belongs.

As far as refusing consent, they'll still probably search you if they really want to, but you're preserving your right to challenge the search in court should any charges be brought against you.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that to many police officers "lots of talking" = lying.

A simple, polite but direct; "No, I do not consent to a search." Is more than enough.

If the cop is crooked, a bully, or thinks you're the guy that just knocked over a bank he's going to search your car whether you want him too or not and there will not likely be any legal recourse afterward. Period.

Telling a cop "No." is like putting a cheap padlock on the shed in the back yard ... its only going to stop the honest cop.

There is no magic phrase that will shut down a determined cop that thinks he's right (especially when he's wrong and/or a bully).
 
I think we should all just be honest...

Yeah, sounding like a rude know-it-all douchebag would probably have negative results. You must be an expert.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha!!!

Anyway.

I just think we should all be honest. That's all one can do in life. If a cop asks me if I consent to a car search, I will: tell him the truth (which is NO, I do not consent to search). There's no word game I can play to make him not search my car. I can only do my civic duty and reply "no" to the question. The rest is up to him really. I would never suggest rolling over and kissing a$$ to avoid harassment, just reply truthfully "no" 'cause it's all the protest you can present in that situation.
 
Quote:
Telling a cop "No." is like putting a cheap padlock on the shed in the back yard ... its only going to stop the honest cop.

Thread over, discusion closed IMO.
Click to expand...


To me, it isn't a question of whether you are going to get searched or not. Let's face it, there is NO right, no law, and no policy that would prevent a unlawful LEO from doing exactly what they want to do. Hell, what is preventing an unlawful LEO from just shooting for the fun of it?


The answer is consequences. The consequences of performing an illegal, unwarrented search without consent is that anything that may turn up from that search is inadmissable as evidence against you. For the sake of those suggesting corruption in LEO's, that would ALSO include something "planted" in your vehicle by said unlawful LEO.


The hingepin is PROVING that you did not give consent. We always talk about the proper way to handle request like searches, and we are real good at asserting our rights. Many of us express distrust for overzealous LEO's, and on some occassions I've been on of them. However, the same persons expressing distrust and advocating standing up for rights also expect that a judge would take their word over the officer's in a question of whether consent was given. These same persons also expect that the officer's dash cam is all the proof they need.

My opinion is that if you are going to assert ANY Right, you better have your own independant recording device. For 15 years, I've never gone into a supervisor meeting without one in order to protect myself. I do not see why this would be any different. As long as the other person-- including the LEO-- is aware that you have a recorder going, there is no way it would not serve as evidence as to whether or not you gave consent.


-- John
 
"mind if i look in your vechicle?"
"mind if i pee in your shoe?"
Click to expand...

HOPPY590 - Please let me know when you are going to use that line as I will drive a reasonable distance to watch the fun begin.

I believe in Ohio I have to advise the LEO I am carrying in any encounter in which I am carrying. I believe I also have the right to deny a request to search my car. What the LEO does then is beyond my control.
 
I should have probably clarified in my original post that I have never been pulled over before in my life, so I have no experience of what to do. Hence my posting in order to get others opinions.

As someone thankfully pointed out, there were few answers to the "got any weapons in the vehicle?" question. In my mind replying, "why are you asking if I have weapons in the vehicle?" is somewhat childish, I can't see good coming from it. But maybe "yes there are locked, unloaded firearms" is good unless followed with "and a legal length folding knife, that is not a weapon, and a tire thumper that is not a weapon, and a fixed blade knife used for fishing that is not a weapon" and so on.

Point taken though, about the likelihood of being stopped anyway. I'm just some middle aged guy with a vehicle full up with wife and kids.
 
But maybe "yes there are locked, unloaded firearms" is good
Click to expand...

This thread has run its course, but since you missed it the first time, by admitting you have firearms in your vehicle (even if you claim they are unloaded) you have immediately given the officer PC to search in California. See penal code 12031(e).
 
The one, and only answer, is and always will be "no"

If he persists, ask if you are free to go. If he orders you out of the car smile and nod like a good little subject, get out, and stand on the side of the road phone to ear with your lawyer telling him your car is being searched without probable cause and no consent or warrent.

What I find to be total BS, is that you supposidly have the right to refuse a search if there is no probable cause or warrent. Yet that exact refuseal is now allowed as probable cause. It is total BS and needs changing.
 
The simple answer is "I'm sorry, I do not consent to a search."

The answer to a question about weapons is " I am transporting a legally owned firearm in complete accordance with Federal law. Here is a copy if you are not familiar with the law."

Since the law specifically requires the firearm(s) to be locked up and unloaded, a statement that you are transporting in accordance with the law does not offer any excuse to search the vehicle without your consent. Assuming that you actually are meeting the law (if you're not, do NOT say that you are), there is and can be no evidence of a violation within the officer's field of perception. He will have no probably cause on which to obtain a warrant, and a Terry stop/search (for officer safety) must be based on a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts ..." He may claim to have suspicions, but what will his clearly articulable facts for that suspicion be -- that you stated you were in complete compliance with Federal law?

They'll search the car anyway, of course.

Lupinus said:
The one, and only answer, is and always will be "no"
Click to expand...
You really want to be careful on the "Just say 'no'" stuff. Notice the way the request was phrased in (I believe) the original question: "Do you mind if I search your car?"

This is, in fact, one of the ways police are trained by some academies to ask the question. They don't do it that way to be polite. They do it because the natural, one-word response of someone who is nervous and doesn't want a search is "No!" But in reply to that question, "No" becomes "No, I don't mind if you search my car." This is why those who have advised stating "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle" worded it that way. It is unambiguous, and it is not open to mind games according to the way the nice officer asks the question in order to lull you into giving an answer that's the opposite of what you think you are saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I am a lawyer, although not a crminal lawyer. I took that Constitutional class and dimly remember that there was a difference between searching the trunk and searching the interior, although what the exact difference and why eludes my memory. I could refresh my memory, but then I would forget again.

Then again, if a police officer requested to search the Honda Odessey Minivan with my three kids and wife in it, I would look him in the eye, and ask him why, and really mean it. That police officer better have a really good reason for forcing me to unload three kids on the side of the road, especially in the hot Arizona sun in Summer. And he better be able to articulate his reasons, otherwise I am going to ask him to send over a superior to discuss this with me. If he were to articulate a good reason for his desire to search, I may let him voluntarily. If he forces the issue, well I certainly am not going to force the issue right there, but I will utilize the system to ensure that his superiors know what he is up too.

In the end though, every officer I have encountered with the kids and the wife has been totally uninterested in searching the minivan, probably because I blend into the surburban scenery perfectly.
 
I used to believe in consenting & taught my boys that way. A few years back my youngest was pulled over & consented to a search. The DPS officer went through everything in his car, page by page for over an hour. That changed my opinion & my advice. I have several LEO friends & believe most are decent people, but I will not agree to a search without a warrant ever again.
 
Well, I am a lawyer, although not a crminal lawyer. I took that Constitutional class and dimly remember that there was a difference between searching the trunk and searching the interior, although what the exact difference and why eludes my memory. I could refresh my memory, but then I would forget again.
Click to expand...

I'm a 98 grad of a top 30 school. The matter was settled about 15 years ago. I'm at home now and don't have the cite. But I can search for it tomorrow if you wish. EDIT: settled in 1991, Chadwick was the old case that protected a locked area, and Acedvedo overruled it: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1990/Acevedo.htm

There are quite a few more cases explaining the nuances, but I don't have access to anything but google type research here.

I'm much better with holdings than case names. Many things elude my memory, but I've done enough suppression hearings that the basics are well etched in my thick skull. Frisk= reasonable suspicion of weapons and includes passenger compartment including unlocked areas, but not the trunk or locked containers. Search= equals pc and includes the entire car including locked trunks or containers.

Sigh. Nemoaz, please get off your high horse. The cop requires probable cause to search your car. I never said he needs a warrant.
Click to expand...

High horse? I don't ride horses, and I'm trying to help. Moreover, that wasn't directly in response to you, There have probably been a few dozen posts about "getting a warrant." And I will repeat again that there is never a time that anything in your automobile (assuming it's mobile, not a RV that is immobile) will require a warrant. If you demand one, you only look foolish. If try to impede the officer because you think you have the right to one, you won't like the results.

A Terry frisk of your person does not require probable cause.
Click to expand...

Nope, it requires reasonable suspicion. But it does include the authority to search anything within the passenger compartment.

Therefore, a Terry frisk does not include the authority to search your car or to force you to open it for him. If your car is locked, he requires PC to force you to unlock it.
Click to expand...

Michigan vs. Long. They may pull you out of the vehicle, then frisk the passenger compartment.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_1032_ZS.html

Again, there are more specific cases that I cannot research effectively here at home. However, turning around and locking the car won't diminish the officer's ability to frisk the passenger compartment at all. And I think the goverment would argue that YOU caused the damage by trying to lock the officer out of the passenger compartment.

Wow. I'm afraid you've just damaged your credibility severely. Asking whether you are being detained is absolute standard practice, and should be the question you keep coming back to. I'm no expert, but you really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You can have whatever opinion you want, but the officer will probably tell you, "You aren't free to leave." And it is not going to help you. You have probably been detained for a minor traffic offense or detained due to reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offense. Once the officer tells you aren't free to leave, it affects your rights not a whit unless he tries to extend the detention for a long period of time. No lawyer or judge can say exactly how much time that is, but delays of over an hour (waiting for a canine to arrive) have been upheld as legal temporary detentions.

I used to believe in consenting & taught my boys that way. A few years back my youngest was pulled over & consented to a search. The DPS officer went through everything in his car, page by page for over an hour. That changed my opinion & my advice.
Click to expand...

I suspect something more was at work. Maybe your son was an a-hole or particularly suspicious or maybe the cop was just an a-hole.

One thing to remember: you can limit the scope of your consent ("Look officer, I didn't say you can tear anything up or make a mess of my car" or "I didn't think this would take more than a few minutes. I've got to go. I am rescinding my consent"). It may or may not help depending on what suspicion the officer has.

EDIT: here's an outline, probably made by a first year law student, with basic propositions that might be useful to those who wish to learn more. http://currentstudents.law.miami.edu/outlines/crim_pro_out.html I found many similar references by searching "criminal procedure outline"

It's really late, so I will spell check and edit more tomorrow. Forgive me for the first draft nature of this.
 
Last edited:
Michigan vs. Long. They may pull you out of the vehicle, then frisk the passenger compartment.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/h...3_1032_ZS.html
Click to expand...

Yikes... that's a horrendous and egregiously bad decision by the SCOTUS. From your link (I assume this is a summary):

The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them. Pp. 1045-1052.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Virginia and 4th Amendment.
Replies
6
Views
590
David Park
D
Larenegade
  • Locked
Carry in Vehicle in state of Florida
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
CDignition
C
W
  • Locked
Can an employer search your vehicle?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
5K
Westicle
W
S
  • Locked
Question about carrying a firearm in my vehicle. (TX)...I mean should I inform...
Replies
2
Views
406
TexasRifleman
T
M
  • Locked
concealed carry + Minor traffic stop
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
7K
pernicus
P
Back
Top