pcf said:
If the police have a warrant to search a safe, it's the wrong time to play tough guy. They can remove the safe from the premise and secure it.
If a safe is properly installed, the most likely option if law enforcement insists on a search is for them to call a locksmith to open it. Fine, if they are willing to spend the money to have it opened, I am willing to spend the money repairing any damage that occurs in the process.
Having it absolutely clear that the search was not consented to is worth the repair costs. In addition, refusing to open the safe will most likely put an end to "fishing expeditions" because of the time, money, and administrative approvals necessary to enter the safe. There's probably a higher standard of "probable cause" to get a spervisor to sign off on a $300 locksmithing bill to enter the safe than there is to merely claim probable cause.
pcf said:
Even if that involves pulling it out of a wall with a tow truck, or knocking it on it's side and rolling it out.
If this is possible, I suggest you get your safe properly installed. If law enforcement can get to a safe this easily, then so can the criminals.
pcf said:
Having the Police kick down a door and break a door jamb in your home, because you won't let them into a room after they've established an exigent circumstance is STUPID. You're going to end up with a broken door and getting paid squat for repairs.
I'll gladly trade the repair bills for the proof that the search was not consented to.
There's a difference between an LEO thinking he should search and an LEO establishing a real need to search to the satisfaction of a home owner or judge.
Refusing to aid in a search is not resisting, and it is not playing tough guy, it is simply exercising one's rights.
pcf said:
You need to make a rational informed decision before deciding to cooperate or not cooperate with the police.
And just about every criminal lawyer will give the rational, informed advice the same as I have. Do not forcefully resist a search, but do not consent or give aid to a search either.
pcf said:
Hindering the police from performing acts that they have the legal authority to do, can result in criminals charges,
Please cite a criminal conviction of a homeowner who merely refused to aid law enforcement in a search by opening a safe or a locked room. You can't, because a homeowner is under no legal obligation to aid in a search. The homeowner cannot actively resist a legal search, but he is under no obligation to assist.
pcf said:
Getting your car towed because you won't open your doors after the police establish probable cause is STUPID.
There may be difference between probable cause in the mind of an LEO and probable cause in the mind of the driver. Forcing law enforcement to tow or call a locksmith is worth the trouble because this effectively raises the level of proof that consent was not granted, as well as preventing fishing expeditions. The LEO will often have to justify his actions in the search to his supervisor, so if he can't articulate his reasons for the search BEFORE the tow, he'll decide it's not the best time for the search. It makes it less likely that probable cause can be determined AFTER the search, depending on what is found.
pcf said:
They call a locksmith and he ruins the locking mechanism in your door, tough. You're the one getting stuck with bill and the broken car door.
So what? Fixing a lock is cheap compared with the time and expense of a compromised position in potential legal proceedings. I have no problem spending a few hundred dollars in repair bills to have a stronger position if some trumped up charge makes it to court.
Michael Courtney