PSA When a cop asks if he can search your car

[Red Squirrel]

Glad cops arn't like this in Canada. Went on a camping trip recently, I had tons of crap in my car, included AXES and KNIVES! I imagine that would be jail time in the states to be driving around with that. Assuming they don't publicly execute you instead.

Actually with Bill C-51 it's just a matter of time till it gets bad here too. There actually was an arrest done recently down south for a guy who had a knife on him.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Since I have that paper, I had been stopped a few times but none of the cops asked to search me or my vehicle. Just recently, I was stopped because I did not wait for several second at a stop and the cop pulled me over but he was nice, told me his name, badge number, who he was, the reason why I was being pulled over, asked for my ID and insurance + registration, ran my plate and then told me to have a nice day. Nice fella and very professional, if only more cops were like him.



It is just a formal form of "HELL NO" to the search request from a cop of my vehicle or my person but with niceness.

I will keep say no and no and no but no yelling or screaming or be combative, and of course no sudden movement of body. IIRC, I do have a right to decline a search on my body or my vehicle unless the cop has a search warrant.

WRONG!!!! The cops can search you, your car, or your home without a warrant, anytime they choose to. There are legal loopholes that allow them to do so.
And BTW, those really aren't *YOUR* children.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

JUST SAY NO! http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...k-doughnut-glaze-for-meth-20160727-story.html

You don't need a PSA for this. If anything, there should be a clear PSA...... NEVER consent to ANY_FUCKING_THING that could POSSIBLY, MAYBE, POTENTIALLY incriminate you for anything. Jesus fuck I thought that was obvious by the age of 12?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

WRONG!!!! The cops can search you, your car, or your home without a warrant. There a legal loopholes that allow them to do so.

While that is correct under "probable cause", declining the request to search the car in the first place keeps you open to pursue legal action. For example, even if they find something unrelated (drugs, alcohol, etc...), you can still file a lawsuit under the premise that they did not have a probable cause to conduct the search in the first place.

If you consent, however... you just threw that away.

 

[Red Squirrel]

When you deny you also show that you might be hiding something, then they can use that as probable cause and they will search you anyway.

It does not really matter what the laws say when in a confrontational situation with a cop. It's not some piece of paper somewhere that is going to stop them from violating you. Cops don't follow the law, they ARE the law. This is displayed time and time again by all the police brutality videos that come out on a daily basis. Kind of makes you wonder how bad some unrecorded situations get.

 

[HumblePie]

When you deny you also show that you might be hiding something, then they can use that as probable cause and they will search you anyway.

It does not really matter what the laws say when in a confrontational situation with a cop. It's not some piece of paper somewhere that is going to stop them from violating you. Cops don't follow the law, they ARE the law. This is displayed time and time again by all the police brutality videos that come out on a daily basis. Kind of makes you wonder how bad some unrecorded situations get.

Legally speaking that is incorrect. Exercising your rights through denial can never legally be called probable cause by a police officer any where in the United States. It's myths like this which cops love because many in the public believe this to be true and thus don't exercise their rights.

In this day and age always assume, unless you specifically know the cop you are interacting with, that the officer you are in an interaction with is doing their best to "catch" you at having done something illegal to bust you with. That mentality has been bred into that vast majority of cops in today's society.

An officer has to state the probable cause reason to start a search of your vehicle if they don't have a warrant. ALWAYS. Refusal to consent to search can never be given as the probable cause.

 

[jlee]

if the tests are inadmissible in court why do persecutors rely on them? a savvy lawyer should easily get them thrown out.

Most people getting busted for drugs don't have the resources to obtain a savvy lawyer.

 

[jlee]

WRONG!!!! The cops can search you, your car, or your home without a warrant, anytime they choose to. There are legal loopholes that allow them to do so.
And BTW, those really aren't *YOUR* children.

I disagree and I would like to see your source.

 

[NesuD]

WRONG!!!! The cops can search you, your car, or your home without a warrant, anytime they choose to. There are legal loopholes that allow them to do so.
And BTW, those really aren't *YOUR* children.

No you are wrong in the sense that yes they can claim probable cause and search but then they have to prove their probable cause or anything found in the search is inadmissible in court. If they find nothing they still have to prove their probable cause or it becomes an illegal search and a civil rights violation opening them up to civil actions. So while yes a cop can just say the words probable cause and search there actually has to be real provable probable cause or it is an illegal search. Most cops don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Legally speaking that is incorrect. Exercising your rights through denial can never legally be called probable cause by a police officer any where in the United States. It's myths like this which cops love because many in the public believe this to be true and thus don't exercise their rights.

In this day and age always assume, unless you specifically know the cop you are interacting with, that the officer you are in an interaction with is doing their best to "catch" you at having done something illegal to bust you with. That mentality has been bred into that vast majority of cops in today's society.

An officer has to state the probable cause reason to start a search of your vehicle if they don't have a warrant. ALWAYS. Refusal to consent to search can never be given as the probable cause.

What he said and what I said...

While that is correct under "probable cause", declining the request to search the car in the first place keeps you open to pursue legal action. For example, even if they find something unrelated (drugs, alcohol, etc...), you can still file a lawsuit under the premise that they did not have a probable cause to conduct the search in the first place.

If you consent, however... you just threw that away.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

I disagree and I would like to see your source.

OK, YOU! "Most people getting busted for drugs don't have the resources to obtain a savvy lawyer." Today 10:33 AM

 

[jlee]

OK, YOU! "Most people getting busted for drugs don't have the resources to obtain a savvy lawyer." Today 10:33 AM

Still waiting for your source of these "legal loopholes."

 

[Ruptga]

Still waiting for your source of these "legal loopholes."

He's getting at the practical loophole that exists because so many people don't know the law and can't afford anyone that does. It's rolling the dice, but a cop can bluff their way around all kinds of legal restrictions that way, and the odds are even more in their favor if they're on a first name basis with the local judiciary.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Legally speaking that is incorrect. Exercising your rights through denial can never legally be called probable cause by a police officer any where in the United States. It's myths like this which cops love because many in the public believe this to be true and thus don't exercise their rights.

In this day and age always assume, unless you specifically know the cop you are interacting with, that the officer you are in an interaction with is doing their best to "catch" you at having done something illegal to bust you with. That mentality has been bred into that vast majority of cops in today's society.

An officer has to state the probable cause reason to start a search of your vehicle if they don't have a warrant. ALWAYS. Refusal to consent to search can never be given as the probable cause.

Problem is, lot of cops don't actually follow what the law says when it comes to those type of details. You don't comply with them, you're getting tased, shot or beat up and that's the end of it. Then they'll try to erase any video evidence but even with video evidence they won't really get in trouble.

One trend I've noticed is people that get stopped with no stated reason. They just go apeshit on the victim when they're simply asking why they're being stopped.

 

[Pantoot]

Still waiting for your source of these "legal loopholes."

"I smelled marijuana"

 

[Ruptga]

Still waiting for your source of these "legal loopholes."

"As I approached the suspect's vehicle I recognized through my eleven years of training and experience as a law enforcement officer the smell of marijuana."

ftfy

 

[blankslate]

But, of all people, shouldn't cops recognize glaze from donuts?

This is an astute question... the cop who cannot identity a donut ingredient is obviously an alien imposter and should be vivisected on the spot.


____________________

 

[runzwithsizorz]

He's getting at the practical loophole that exists because so many people don't know the law and can't afford anyone that does. It's rolling the dice, but a cop can bluff their way around all kinds of legal restrictions that way, and the odds are even more in their favor if they're on a first name basis with the local judiciary.

jlee is just being coy. He knows full well what I was talking about, and knows I could put up HUNDREDS of videos, and info to support my claim. It doesn't matter weather the the incident was legal or not, the outcome is the same for most, unless you have $$$$$!
You have no rights! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPSzZOkHszo