A question about getting pulled over.

[JulesMaximus]

best way to avoid the issue? don't keep anything illegal in your car.

the cops can search my car all they want... they wont find anything because there is nothing.

How do you get your blow out to your customers and hookers if you don't transport it in your car? UPS?

 

[guyver01]

How do you get your blow out to your customers and hookers if you don't transport it in your car? UPS?

cut it with 90% sugar.

then transport it in sugar containers.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

In California, the law basically says "If you're on the road, they can search any time."

 

[olds]

In California, the law basically says "If you're on the road, they can search any time."

Link?

 

[guyver01]

Link?

Not entirely accurate... but close.

California observes an “implied consent” law, which requires drivers to submit to chemical testing (such as blood, breath or urine tests) if they are suspected of DUI. In fact, when you apply for a driver’s license in California, you sign certain forms which contain your agreement to implied consent laws. Having a driver’s license is considered to be a privilege, not a right; this is part of the reason these laws are in place. Although a person can refuse a blood or breath test, this will result in the automatic and mandatory suspension of his or her driver’s license. Refusal of a chemical test may even be considered to be an admittance of guilt. In addition, even if you are found “not guilty” after your DUI trial, your license will still be suspended.

California's implied consent law is Cal. Veh. Code §23612, which provides:

(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.

(B) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.

(C) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.

(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within seven years.

 

[Zenmervolt]

It should also be mentioned that there are two "statuses" if you will. Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause. Usually they don't have probable cause just by pulling you over, unless as mentioned above, you fit the profile of a crime, but if you act finicky, or suspicious, they can do a cursory search of your passenger cabin. Driver seat, passenger seat, glovebox. If they find something particularly strange, they can escalate to probable cause.

IE: Pulled over traffic stop. Driver seems anxious, off kilt. Officer, under reasonable suspicion is allowed to search the passenger cabin. Finds several shell cases under passenger seat. That now gives him probable cause to search the trunk and the rest of the car if he so wishes.

Don't let cops push you over for no reason. Letting our rights erode just because some spineless bitch thinks the cop will get what they want no matter what and therefore spreads out to get buttfucked, doesn't have to happen. Know your rights against search and use them.

What on earth do you think you're doing here, bringing logic into this? This is the internet for cripe's sake! There's no place for legitimate analysis here!

ZV

 

[olds]

Not entirely accurate... but close.

California observes an “implied consent” law, which requires drivers to submit to chemical testing (such as blood, breath or urine tests) if they are suspected of DUI. In fact, when you apply for a driver’s license in California, you sign certain forms which contain your agreement to implied consent laws. Having a driver’s license is considered to be a privilege, not a right; this is part of the reason these laws are in place. Although a person can refuse a blood or breath test, this will result in the automatic and mandatory suspension of his or her driver’s license. Refusal of a chemical test may even be considered to be an admittance of guilt. In addition, even if you are found “not guilty” after your DUI trial, your license will still be suspended.

California's implied consent law is Cal. Veh. Code §23612, which provides:

(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.

(B) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.

(C) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.

(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within seven years.

OK. What does that have to do with searching a vehicle?

 

[guyver01]

OK. What does that have to do with searching a vehicle?

like i said... the poster was "not entirely accurate" ... driving in california does have a "If you're on the road, they can search any time." law... but it only applies to chemical testing.

 

[duragezic]

Like I said, it has nothing to do with courts, laws or anything at all. It's up to the officer whether he wants to or not. If he wants to, he will find a way.
There's no sense in babbling on about laws, statutes, fairness, justice and the American way. If they want to do it, they will, and it will be justified.
Don't you people live in the real world?

I agree. I see threads like these a lot and I think a lot of these people have never been pulled over before or asked to be searched. Sure you can say no, and they might let you on their way, but generally if they want to search they will.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

If an officer of the law pulls you over for something minor, and ask if he/she may search your vehicle, do you have a right to refuse? If you do refuse, what then?

Probably best not to have anything in your car that you would not want the police to find.

 

[BoomerD]

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-3.html

Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?

That depends on the circumstances. A key factor is whether you've been arrested. For example, the police usually would not have the right to search your automobile when you are stopped only for a minor traffic offense such as speeding. However, if the violation requires that you be taken into custody (for example, a driving under the influence (DUI) arrest or driving with a suspended license), the search generally would be permitted.

Even when an arrest is not involved, the police have more latitude to search a vehicle than to search a home. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes an automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches. The rationale for permitting warrantless searches of cars is that the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape with incriminating evidence in the time it would take police to secure a search warrant. The Court has held that a person expects less privacy in an automobile than at home. No one ever said, "A man's Chevy is his castle."


http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-1.html

Suppose a police officer wants to search my car?

Ask why the officer wants to conduct a search. If you have absolutely nothing to hide, you could save time and effort if you simply let the search proceed. If you don't want the search to proceed, you should state clearly that you do not consent. Denying a search is not an admission of guilt. Ask courteously whether the officer has a search warrant or if you are under arrest. If the officer replies that you are under arrest, ask for an explanation.

Usually, the officer is permitted to conduct the search only if
# you consent; or
# the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence; or
# the officer reasonably believes that he must search the vehicle for his or her own protection.

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-2.html

What if a police officer insists on searching my car?

Don't interfere. You can always challenge the legitimacy of the search later in court.

 

[deadlyapp]

You're telling me we all have rights, I'm telling you they will be ignored.
I don't like that reality, and I would politely say no to an unreasonable request to search, and I would take it to court if that was ignored.
In the real world, all the officer has to do is say "he was acting suspicious" or "he made a weird hand movement" and it's all over.
For one, if you're innocent (nothing incriminating in the car) and they search it and find nothing, they will send you on your way and you won't do anything about it. If you do something about it, they will say "you were innocent, what's the big deal?". You can scream "My right have been eroded!", but then you're labelled the crackpot and ignored.
If they do find something that will get you into trouble, the court will see that you had a reason to "act suspicious" (even if untrue) and find in favor of the officer.
Of course this excludes cases that may be filed that claim racism, nationality, etc.
I totally agree that being calm and polite is the fastest way to get on your way.

This is why I have a small video camera and voice recorder setup in my car, so if need be I'll have some extra proof for myself, either way.

 

[jlee]

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-3.html

Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?

That depends on the circumstances. A key factor is whether you've been arrested. For example, the police usually would not have the right to search your automobile when you are stopped only for a minor traffic offense such as speeding. However, if the violation requires that you be taken into custody (for example, a driving under the influence (DUI) arrest or driving with a suspended license), the search generally would be permitted.

Even when an arrest is not involved, the police have more latitude to search a vehicle than to search a home. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes an automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches. The rationale for permitting warrantless searches of cars is that the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape with incriminating evidence in the time it would take police to secure a search warrant. The Court has held that a person expects less privacy in an automobile than at home. No one ever said, "A man's Chevy is his castle."


http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-1.html

Suppose a police officer wants to search my car?

Ask why the officer wants to conduct a search. If you have absolutely nothing to hide, you could save time and effort if you simply let the search proceed. If you don't want the search to proceed, you should state clearly that you do not consent. Denying a search is not an admission of guilt. Ask courteously whether the officer has a search warrant or if you are under arrest. If the officer replies that you are under arrest, ask for an explanation.

Usually, the officer is permitted to conduct the search only if
# you consent; or
# the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence; or
# the officer reasonably believes that he must search the vehicle for his or her own protection.

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-2.html

What if a police officer insists on searching my car?

Don't interfere. You can always challenge the legitimacy of the search later in court.

YMMV also depending on state -- NH is very strict on vehicle searches. Excepting consent, you'll typically see an impound / search warrant process.

This is why I have a small video camera and voice recorder setup in my car, so if need be I'll have some extra proof for myself, either way.

Check your state laws before you start doing that - depending on the circumstances, recording audio without the other party's consent can be a crime in NH.

570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;

 

[BoomerD]

This is why I have a small video camera and voice recorder setup in my car, so if need be I'll have some extra proof for myself, either way.

Make sure you obtain the officer's permission before turning on the tape...

 

[deadlyapp]

Make sure you obtain the officer's permission before turning on the tape...

In the words of our forefathers (not) "fuck it"

 

[BarkingGhostar]

If an officer of the law pulls you over for something minor, and ask if he/she may search your vehicle, do you have a right to refuse? If you do refuse, what then?

Consider the nature of your avatar I'd be wanting to search your vehicle, too.

 

[daniel1113]

NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH! The only proper response to a search request is to politely decline: "Officer, I do not consent to a search of my car or my person, but I will comply with any lawful orders."

Think about it. You have nothing to gain by consenting.

If the officer has probable cause to search your vehicle, he does not need to ask for permission (he may still do so, but it's unnecessary). He is going to search your vehicle regardless! More importantly, you leave yourself an opportunity to contest any charges that may come from the search if you can establish that the search was illegal.

On the other hand, if the officer does not have probable cause, you are giving him carte blanche access to your vehicle, and anything he finds inside can be used against you.

It's that simple.

 

[Zargon]

saying NO to a consentual search will never ever hold up in court as probable cause or reasonable suspicion that will allow the police to search your car.

if you are polite and noncombative to the officer, you are fine. In 90% of the US, you will be on video and audio being polite and nonsuspicous leaving any officer who feels like being a dick zero room to infringe your rights.

 

[Meghan54]

YMMV also depending on state -- NH is very strict on vehicle searches. Excepting consent, you'll typically see an impound / search warrant process.



Check your state laws before you start doing that - depending on the circumstances, recording audio without the other party's consent can be a crime in NH.

The exception to that would be if an officer, during a traffic stop, informed the driver that he/she (the officer) is audio/video recording said stop. Once that statement is given, the officer then would have no cause to deny the driver to also audio/video record the events/traffic stop. After all, implied consent can be seen as being given by the officer when he/she said he/she was recording.....

 

[Tim]

Consider the nature of your avatar I'd be wanting to search your vehicle, too.

Cool. You won't find any purple drank here, bro.

 

[NetGuySC]

my brother consented to a search once when he was driving a rental car out of state, when the police finished the search and left, the seats of his car were sitting on the grass beside the interstate.

He was stopped locally, police asked to search and he refused. They searched anyway stating they had probable cause because he was a white man driving in a black neighborhood. The police searched, found nothing and left. My brother filed a complaint and submitted an FOI for the all related paperwork and video of the stop. One officer was terminated (he had more issues than just this one stop) and a second office was suspended for a week.

I will never consent to a search. You should very respectfully decline allowing a search of your vehicle and try to make sure you are in front of the police car when you very respectfully decline to allow the search so to get it on video.

 

[ShawnD1]

You refusing makes him/her suspicious, and there's your "probable cause". Case closed. It doesn't matter what's supposed to happen or what the laws are.

Cops love people that are this stupid.

if you are polite and noncombative to the officer, you are fine. In 90% of the US, you will be on video and audio being polite and nonsuspicous leaving any officer who feels like being a dick zero room to infringe your rights.

Cops also love it when people are assholes
"Fuck you, pig. I know my rights! You can't search this car!"

My brother filed a complaint and submitted an FOI for the all related paperwork and video of the stop. One officer was terminated (he had more issues than just this one stop) and a second office was suspended for a week.

This is important. The previous people who filed complaints may think he got away with being a dick, but their complaints contributed to a person being fired. If you really are dicked around, file a formal complaint so it's on record.

saying NO to a consentual search will never ever hold up in court as probable cause or reasonable suspicion that will allow the police to search your car.

I don't even know why cops ask for a search. If the guy says yes, he could always say in his official statement (after he's been arrested) that he did not consent to a search. Then a judge or lawyer or batman asks the cop if there was probable cause. No probable cause and the guy says he did not give consent and you do not have any record of him giving consent? Sorry but we need to throw this out.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You refusing makes him/her suspicious, and there's your "probable cause". Case closed. It doesn't matter what's supposed to happen or what the laws are.

That's BS. Exercising your 4th Amendment right is not "probable cause". If you refuse and the cop doesn't have probable cause, and they don't get a warrant to search your vehicle, then anything found in the search is not admissible in court. Case closed. Probable cause must be something substantial, like an open container, etc..

The police are trained to ask you a question such as:

Cop: "Do you have anything in your car I need to know about"
You: "No"
Cop: "Well, if you don't have anything to hide then you won't mind if I look through your car"
You(most people): "not at all"
What you should SAY: "officer, I do mind if you search my car, and no I don't have anything to hide"

After that, they must get a warrant to search your car. This is how I understand it. Also, don't be an asshole to law enforcement and they (9 times out of 10) won't give you a hard time. Just don't give them a reason to.

 

[yhelothar]

Or they can just search your car without even asking. That's what happened to me. The cop told me to get out of my car, then patted me down, and had me get into the backseat of his cruiser while he searched my car.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You can say and they might even agree to it. I have denied access and was let on my way. Didn't even bring the dog over.

Your rights are yours.

Is this a common occurrence in other parts of the country? I've never had a cop hassle me as much as some of you seem to be hassled nor has anyone ever asked if they could search my car.

I got pulled over once years ago for doing a burnout down a street in Manhattan Beach, cop had me get out of the car and give me a quick field sobriety check (which I passed) and told me he could cite me for exhibition of speed but he gave me a ticket for failing to signal a turn instead and he never asked to search my car.