vehicle search question

[Ukraine Train]

In Ohio, when an officer runs your license or license plate registered to you it will show if you have a CCW. So, when I get pulled over and am not carrying I still tell the officer I have a CCW and am unarmed before he even runs my license. A couple times I’ve still been asked if there are any weapons in the car, even though I told him I’m not carrying. This hasn’t happened yet but let’s say I do have guns in the car. In the trunk in a case and unloaded. If the officer asks to see them (to make sure they’re being transported correctly, for example), am I obligated to let him? Or is this the same as him asking to search my car? I know I can decline consent for a search if there’s no probably cause but I don’t know if I have that right when the officer knows I have guns in the car.

 

[geekWithA.45]

An officer may, for his own safety, _cursorily_ search the driver and anywhere within immediate reach of the driver without a warrant. (Google "terry frisks")

To get into your trunk, he needs a warrant, probable cause, or your consent.

The limits of what can be done in the presence of probable cause is a lengthy discussion.

For your purposes, being an honest person behaving in accordance with the law, the key is to withhold consent, and let the officer take his own chances on a bad search.

An unscrupulous officer will basically try to tell you that if you just give him a quick peek, all will be well and you'll be on your way, but if he wants to see the arms in your trunk that you claim are unloaded and cased, HE IS FISHING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUST YOU FOR SOME OR ANY REASON.

Don't help him. In so doing, you pointlessly throw away elements that will be significant in your defense.

Incidentally, courts have generally held that withholding consent may not form the basis for probable cause.


You are not "obligated" to let him do anything.

You are obligated to show your driver's license, registration and insurance. You are obligated not to actively resist or obstruct the officer in his activities.

That means you don't give him the trunk keys, or lift a finger to help him.

Make him take you out of the car, get the keys for himself, and open the trunk with his own hands, while you politely and firmly state that you object to a search, and your consent is not given.


Furthermore, the correct response to the question "Are there any weapons/drugs/etc in the car?" is "I've done nothing wrong, I don't have anything illegal in my car."

This is true for me at all times. Even when I've got a trunkload of guns, ammo, liquor and smokes.

 

[HankB]

Never consent to a search. If he goes ahead and searches anyway, for heaven's sake don't try to physically prevent it, but never consent to a search.

The response I'd use if an officer asked to search, would be "Gee, officer, I'd like to cooperate, but my cousin's a lawyer, and if I gave you the go-ahead, I'd never hear the end of it."

Another idea I've heard requires having a car with a touch-pad entry door. If the officer has you get out of the vehicle, do so . . . but close and lock the door behind you with the keys inside. If the officer now decides he wants to search the vehicle, he has to break into it which is likely to end badly for him . . . and he knows it.

 

[Optical Serenity]

I'm constantly amazed by the odd behavior of seemingly "law-abiding citizens" here. It makes me wonder why people who claim not to break the law are so paranoid?

I'll give you an example. I'm a state LEO, and yet, I was in a friends car and we got pulled over. Well, we both had our hands visible, and when the officer approached, (who we did not know) we both just told him we were armed with firearms in the vehicle. We told him where they were, and offered to him to show the firearms to him.

Why on earth would I want to make a huge issue out of everything? I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong. Is it perhaps because you folks don't know the law? If that is the case, read up! But locking your keys in your car? Well, that is only harmful to yourself really, and absolutely insane! Haha...

Being as how you are my responsibility when I pull you over, and your safety is my concern (I'm civilly responsible for your safety till you pull off) if you were to lock yourself out of your vehicle, I couldn't leave you there, I'd have to call and have a tow truck come and tow you away at your own expense. So, why would you ever bother with that?

And 99.9% of the time, if you say "no, i'd rather not" to an officer who wants to see a firearm that you say is in your trunk (if they ask, I've never seen an officer ask, and I've been on thousands of traffic stops and thousands of times backed up officers on stops.) the officer will just let it go. If we have PC to enter, we'd just ask you to get out, and with probable cause, if you were to lock your vehicle behind you, you would be in violation of the obstruction law.

I guess one of these days I'm going to figure out why citizens who call themselves law-abiding are so paranoid?

 

[Meplat]

In Ohio, when an officer runs your license or license plate registered to you it will show if you have a CCW. So, when I get pulled over and am not carrying I still tell the officer I have a CCW and am unarmed before he even runs my license. A couple times I’ve still been asked if there are any weapons in the car, even though I told him I’m not carrying. This hasn’t happened yet but let’s say I do have guns in the car. In the trunk in a case and unloaded. If the officer asks to see them (to make sure they’re being transported correctly, for example), am I obligated to let him? Or is this the same as him asking to search my car? I know I can decline consent for a search if there’s no probably cause but I don’t know if I have that right when the officer knows I have guns in the car.

Thankfully, in Mississippi, my automobile is considered a legal extension of my home. Still, I have been pulled over and asked whether I had a firearm in my vehicle. I've always respectfully responded "Yes Sir." and then stated "As per Mississippi law." To date, I've had a couple who did not particularly LIKE this answer, but none have demanded to search my vehicle for anything "contraband". Should they demand, I'd respectfully decline permission, but certainly wouldn't resist if they insisted as: 1. They aren't going to find anything proscribed by law anyway, and 2. If they decided to break the laws of search and siezure, then the legal onus would be on their heads. Seems most are well aware, and even respectful, of this.

 

[Optical Serenity]

1. They aren't going to find anything proscribed by law anyway, and 2. If they decided to break the laws of search and siezure, then the legal onus would be on their heads. Seems most are well aware, and even respectful, of this.

Yes, all cops I know are very well aware of the saying "fruits of a poisonous tree."

 

[Camp David]

... if you were to lock your vehicle behind you, you would be in violation of the obstruction law....

Couldn't you explain this away by saying you are nervous during traffic stop? I thought HankB's idea to lock the door rather unique and perfectly normal; hit the door locks after you open door to get out and leave keys in ignition, then close door... car is locked but you have a perfectly good reason..."I was nervous..." etc.... Good excuse and it solves almost every problem. Any policeman, judge, etc. woudl have hard time charging someone with obstruction if it was done under duress and being nervous in traffic stop is perfectly natural... Once upi are outside your vehicle and it is locked, almost everything inside is removed from police scrutiny unless they want to bust in...

I think it boils down to this: You want to be charged with obstruction or worse? Take your pick....

 

[Ukraine Train]

I think if you lock your keys in your car and the officer truly has probable cause he'll just slim jim his way in. If, on the other hand, he had no reason to search the car then all you've done is locked yourself out IMO. If you leave your doors unlocked and the officer searches your car with no probable cause or permission from you then I don't think you have anything to worry about because it's not a legal search.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I guess one of these days I'm going to figure out why citizens who call themselves law-abiding are so paranoid?

Ooooh, I don't know. Perhaps varying degrees of abuse at the hands of your fellow officers might have something to do with that.

Ever been run out of town by the cops for the egregious crime of repairing your car at the side of the road while looking disheveled and disreputable?

I have.

There's a lot of bad apples out there expending the coin of public trust the rest of y'all work so hard to earn. That's bad for everyone concerned.

 

[Optical Serenity]

I think it boils down to this: You want to be charged with obstruction or worse? Take your pick....

Well, that explains it...the "or worse" part tells me you are certainly doing something illegal inside your vehicle...What would be "or worse?" And no, most people I know, other than you, do not want to be charged with obstruction. Haha...

If you leave your doors unlocked and the officer searches your car with no probable cause or permission from you then I don't think you have anything to worry about because it's not a legal search.

Right! And that is exactly why officers don't just go around illegally searching cars. Like I've said, I've never seen this type behavior from other officers. And sure, there are bad apples out there...Just as there are bad citizens. In fact, remember, if you were pulled over to begin with, you did violate some law. Try and abide by traffic laws and shazam, you won't be stopped. I know plenty of folks (my father and brother are good examples) that haven't been pulled over since the Carter administration...

 

[pax]

In fact, remember, if you were pulled over to begin with, you did violate some law. Try and abide by traffic laws and shazam, you won't be stopped. I know plenty of folks (my father and brother are good examples) that haven't been pulled over since the Carter administration...

I went on a ride-along with a friend of mine awhile back. This is someone I'd always considered "one of the good guys" and I think he really is ... comparatively speaking.

We were driving along and he spotted a run down looking car and swung in behind it. He was giving me a running commentary of what he was doing, and he explained, "Trashy cars almost always have trashy people inside. Let's just follow him awhile."

I asked, "You're going to pull him over?"

Friend replied, "Probably in a few minutes. There isn't a car on the road that can't legally be pulled over if a reasonably good cop watches 'em for a minute or two. Hey, look, he's got a dirty rear license plate, I could pull him over to tell him to wash it."

I suppose those who have the money to buy nice cars, and the money and time to keep those cars clean and well-maintained, would not draw that kind of police attention. But driving while poor isn't a violation of the motor vehicle codes. And my friend is not the only policeman who's ever told me that he could pull over any car on the road for a legal violation, if he watched them for a minute or two -- I've heard that so often, from so many different LEOs, that I almost believe someone must be teaching it in academy.

pax

 

[Optical Serenity]

But Pax, the fact is, your friend didn't say "lets just pull him over for no reason."

Your friend saw them violating the law, and stated he had legal grounds to stop the car. Don't like the law that says your license plate has to be unobstructed and lit up with two clear light bulbs? Write your state congressman and have them change it! But until then, it is a violation. Do I ever go out looking for unlit license plates? No...but, a good 40% or so of the cars out there I get behind do not have their plate bulbs working.

Its not "driving while poor." Its someone who 1. Does not care about their vehicle enough to make sure it is in compliance with the law. and/or 2. Someone who doesn't know...

And well, I make sure I check all my lights, tires, etc. when I drive. If you cannot afford to get light bulbs for your car or a rag to make sure your plates and lights are not obstructed, then you shouldn't drive.

 

[Gunpacker]

Optical Serenity, maybe some folks just don't like others going through their personal possessions. Even with nothing embarrassing or illegal to hide, just the question of "can I rummage through your possession to make sure that you don't have something to be arrested for?" is highly intrusive. If one has broken a traffic law, and done nothing else wrong, why should they be searched? A search of a person's vehicle is a personal search.
I know that my vehicle is out of my possession at times, teen age drivers in the family, and I know that they sometimes have other people in the car. Either I do a thorough search with a drug dog (that I don't have), or there is a remote possibility that something is in my car that I don't know about. Why should I have to take that risk when I have done nothing wrong to warrant a search?
If something were to be found in the car, I would be personally responsible for it, and could be charged with a felony. Now I understand that possibility exists at all times, but taking a chance on it happening without cause is a remote risk that I would rather not chance.
The "if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" statement does not always hold true, and it is intrusive and rude to ask to search without cause.
How would you feel if a strange cop came by occasionally and asked to search your car to see if he could find something to arrest you for? Assuming that you could not tell him you are "on the job". Also assuming that you knew that he was from a dept. renowned for not cutting any slack for a fellow cop.
A search is not a "nothing" if you are on the receiving end, no matter how innocent you are.
I have known cops that cavalierly make BS arrests to make their numbers look good, with the attitude that it is no big deal for the arrestee. Well it is a big deal to most, costing enormous amounts of legal fees, and putting a black mark on your record that can never be erased. Is it any wonder that I get nervous when a cop stops me for anything?

 

[pax]

Optical Serenity ~

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.

It is literally impossible to obey all umpteen zillion vehicle codes in effect in every jurisdiction in America. If a cop doesn't pull you over on any particular occasion, it's because he didn't want to do it for whatever reason -- not because he couldn't have figured out a legal way to do it.

And that, right there, is why law-abiding good citizens should never consent to a search. Because you're a good person and you know you haven't done anything wrong, you figure, why not let 'em look? But when you were driving along, you probably knew your vehicle was in compliance with all the vehicle codes, too.

pax

 

[Optical Serenity]

I know that my vehicle is out of my possession at times, teen age drivers in the family, and I know that they sometimes have other people in the car. Either I do a thorough search with a drug dog (that I don't have), or there is a remote possibility that something is in my car that I don't know about. Why should I have to take that risk when I have done nothing wrong to warrant a search?

So you are saying that it would be ok for you to have a felony amount of drugs or whatever else in your car simply because you did not know it was there? Perhaps you should be concerned with what you or who your children are putting in your vehicle.

I'm not saying its ok to go around asking to search people's cars. What I am saying is that you all are talking about a very small number of incidents. I have worked on a traffic enforcement unit, and you would be surprised... Sometimes you will go weeks (thousands of cars stopped) without ever asking to search someone's car. In fact, its even less than that. About the only time you look through someone's car is when you arrest them for whatever charge (DUI, driving while license suspended, etc) and you have to inventory their car prior to the impound. During the inventory you find drugs, or whatever, and well...thats a legal find.

All I'm saying is, there seems to be a huge paranoia among us gun types. Personally I don't get it...I have been on the receiving end of traffic stops and personal searches in the past...No big deal. No I didn't particularly want to be stopped, but who does? But I understood why it was happening.

And that, right there, is why law-abiding good citizens should never consent to a search. Because you're a good person and you know you haven't done anything wrong, you figure, why not let 'em look? But when you were driving along, you probably knew your vehicle was in compliance with all the vehicle codes, too.

Pax, I agree with you, I never said people should consent to a search. But yes, i do believe people should make sure their vehicles are in compliance. Those laws were not made for people to get stopped. There is a reason equipment laws are on the books, and almost always its so that your vehicle is safer. In the case of the tag, I can't tell you how many times I've been looking for a stolen vehicle and can't see tags..

 

[WillBrayJr]

I'm leary of being around cops, thank Michigan for that. I have been stopped for carrying geroceries home from Wal-Mart in my backpack. The officer asked what was in my backpack and I showed him, than I asked him if everyone was a career criminal. The point is that I stayed calm, wasn't doing anything illegal because I had absolutely nothing to hide.

A few years ago in Michigan I was under suspicion for breaking into a gunstore. The State Police showed up and I asked why the officer was there and he said to talk to me. I said oh great now what did I do and how much trouble am I in this time. Again I knew that I didn't do anything so I stayed calm and hope he didn't arrest me. I can tell you after a bad experiance a couple years before my body wan'ted to haul @$$ out the back door and run like hell.

 

[Molon Labe]

GeekWithA.45 hit the nail on the head.

I used to trust LEOs. But no more. I have met one too many rogue cops. It's sad to say, but I now assume an LEO is dishonest and unscrupulous unless proven otherwise.

Here's what you should do when you get pulled over:

1. Never ever ever, under no circumstance, should you consent to a search. Never. Ever.

2. You are under no obligation to answer questions. When asked if you have any firearms in the vehicle, for example, simply answer, "Am I free to go?"

3. Ask "Am I free to go?" every three minutes.

4. Never ever ever, under no circumstance, should you consent to a search. Never. Ever. Under. Any. Circumstances.

 

[ball3006]

In my CHL class....

the instructor made us repeat "give the officer your CHL along with your driver's license"..........If ever asked if my vehicle can be searched, I reply no. If asked why I reply "I bought this truck used and am the third owner"........I was stopped on my bike a few years ago and was asked where the gun was and not to try to touch it........he tried to bust me for no helmet. Texas had repealed the helmet law 4 years previously. Talk about behind the times. He started to write the ticket when I pointed out the state helmet exempt sticker on my license plate.......duh......chris3

 

[pcf]

Talk to a lawyer, a real lawyer. Depending on where you live the ACLU usually holds "conventions" where lawyers opine on different aspects of the legal system, and/or help you find a lawyer to explain the laws of your state at little or no cost.

Don't lock your keys in the car, that's flat out stupid, the vehicle will be towed as abandoned, and you will be charged with towing and impound fees, and as a bonus the police get to inventory your vehicle. You can also be cited for abandonning a vehicle and not having it towed. Moreover, most officers are now forbidden from using slimjims, because of side impact airbags, you get the added bonus of paying for a locksmith to open your doors. That runs in the neighborhood of $500 and you have no legal recourse.

Edited: Don't ask if you can leave every three minutes, ask once after 20 minutes and drop it. Asking every three minutes is going to piss the cop off, and give him a reason to look for reasons to hold you longer. It's universally held that 20 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to be stopped, if he doesn't let you go after 20 minutes and has no reason to hold you, it needs to be resolved in a court room.

You have a right against self incimination. If asked, you do have to identify yourself, or you're going to get arrested. There're are many questions that you have to answer, or your going to shoot yourself in the foot. There are many you should answer, or you're going to shoot yourself in the foot.

Being rude and obnoxious is a good way to turn a quick stop into a much longer one.

 

[Optical Serenity]

GeekWithA.45 hit the nail on the head.

I used to trust LEOs. But no more. I have met one too many rogue cops. It's sad to say, but I now assume an LEO is dishonest and unscrupulous unless proven otherwise.

Here's what you should do when you get pulled over:

1. Never ever ever, under no circumstance, should you consent to a search. Never. Ever.

2. You are under no obligation to answer questions. When asked if you have any firearms in the vehicle, for example, simply answer, "Am I free to go?"

3. Ask "Am I free to go?" every three minutes.

4. Never ever ever, under no circumstance, should you consent to a search. Never. Ever. Under. Any. Circumstances.

Is this how you would want to be treated as an LEO trying to do your job? I doubt it. I treat people with a huge amount of respect and courtesy, and you would be surprised (actually, by your standard probably not) to see how they respond. My question of "Hi sir, how are you today?" gets answered with "I'm fine you d**khead" more often than you would think. Of course, by your standards thats probably ok.

Most of the time, when I do a traffic stop if the person is courteous and shows me the same respect I show him, I just give a warning. But sometimes, people are so busy with your type attitude, that they simply don't give us the opportunity to say "sir, we are trying to prevent accidents, so please be more cautious and stop at that stop sign back there next time." Instead, they will interrupt you and be rude. I don't know about you, but I was raised to treat everyone with respect, especially someone who I know is just trying to do their job.

I'm a long time 2nd Amendment fan and a huge gun "type." I'm also an LEO...With all that being said, I sure hope that most gun types are not that rude. Its a bad representative of our hobby.

Perhaps up north you guys have had bad experiences... my advice, move south. Down here when we see a GA firearms license we get excited and we're most interested in what cool gun you are carrying. Not because of anything other than our interest in guns.

And PCF, while I agree that talking to an attorney is good..You can always just read the law yourself.

Also, I really don't think the Anti-2nd Amendment ACLU is a good resource for our hobby.

 

[Molon Labe]

Optical Serenity:

Why is refusing consent to a search considered "rude"? It is not rude. As mentioned, I distrust an LEO unless proven otherwise. Refusing consent to a search is simply a way of protecting myself from rogue cops, of which there are many.

 

[HankB]

But locking your keys in your car? Well, that is only harmful to yourself really, and absolutely insane! Haha...

If you take the time to actually read my "insane" post, you'll notice that I specified this as a possible option if your car had a touch-pad entry door.

YOU can get back into the car at any time. And since you're standing right there, it's in no sense abandoned. (Office Fife: "That's right, Your Honor, the car was abandoned. I didn't pay any mind at all to what the owner standing right next to it was saying, 'cause I know better than he does.")

If there's VISIBLE contraband - bales of marijuana, kiddie porn on the seat, sacks of cash stained by a dye packet, open bottle of Jim Beam, whatever - the officer has PC to break in anyway. (After arresting and cuffing you.) And he won't be asking you for permission to go on a fishing expedition - he won't have to.

If there's NO VISIBLE contraband, he's going to have a very difficult time establishing PC as to why he broke in, especially if there's nothing to be found. Politely declining permission for a search isn't PC for a search. (And no, I'm not going to cuss out the LEO or anything rude, I'm going to be unfailingly polite, even as I decline permission for a search - see my original post.)

As for obstruction, I believe the officer will have a very difficult time proving such against you just because you don't open a locked vehicle for a search when there's no visible contraband and he has no warrant. Where's the PC?

And well, I make sure I check all my lights, tires, etc. when I drive. If you cannot afford to get light bulbs for your car or a rag to make sure your plates and lights are not obstructed, then you shouldn't drive.

Good for you - we're in general agreement here. But I've lost count of the number of police cars I've seen on the road with a burned out headlight, burned out tail light, cracked windshield, etc. Not to mention tailgating, speeding w/o lights or siren, failures to signal a turn, etc. But somehow, it never seemed like a good idea to flag them down and tell them they shouldn't be driving.

 

[Gordon Fink]

So, when I get pulled over and am not carrying I still tell the officer I have a CCW and am unarmed before he even runs my license. A couple times I’ve still been asked if there are any weapons in the car, even though I told him I’m not carrying.…

What are you doing to get pulled over so frequently?

~G. Fink

 

[71Commander]

Optical Serenity ~

You're a perfect example of why I would not consent to a search of my vehicle.

If i'm not hiding anything, I shouldn't have to prove it to you. Don't like it, impound it.

 

[rbernie]

In Texas, the law says that I must identify myself as a CHL holder when ID is requested by an officer. In my experiences with Texas state troopers, when they encounter a CHL they are trained to ask you to tell them if you have a weapon within reach, but they also pointedly tell you that if you do they don't want to see it and that you may not retrieve it. Seems to be a common-sense policy, and one that makes both parties pretty comfortable.

I've never had any officer ask to search my vehicle, and I have no intention of saying yes if asked. I'm also polite and respectful, and that's always served me well. YMMV.