Why we chase

[hotrodalex]

Notwithstanding James Young's penchant for auto fellatio, WRT searches, I've had the pleasure, but meh - LEO wants to search your car I have to imagine it WILL get searched it if you don't voluntarily acquiesce - it'll just mean you'll be waiting on the roadside for a dog or a warrant.

If a cop was that adamant in wanting to search my car, I would just let him. Waiting for him to get a warrant is just a waste of my time.

[Tave]

I would make him get a warrant every time.

[NomisR]

If a cop was that adamant in wanting to search my car, I would just let him. Waiting for him to get a warrant is just a waste of my time.

Yeah but then you'll just get the interior of  your car ripped out with you sitting on the side of the road to pick it up.. is that what you really want?

[sparkplug]

They can't tear your car apart. If they do that, they'll get kicked off the force or get sued. The police chief wouldn't allow that. Or at least I don't think so.

[bing_oh]

You guys are all wrong about vehicle search and seizure.

1. Requests for voluntary searches are just that...voluntary. If I had probable cause to search your vehicle, then I wouldn't be asking for consent to search, I'd be in your vehicle searching and wouldn't care how much you object.

2. Searching a motor vehicle isn't the same as searching a residence. Sometimes a search warrant is necesary, but other times I can search the vehicle because of its very nature. Courts have declaired that because of a motor vehicle's mobile nature, they frequently fall under exigent circumstance exempting them from warrant restrictions.

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

4. Chances are, if I have enough for a warrant for your vehicle (and need one), then you're probably already under arrest. Both an arrest and a warrant require the same level of proof...probable cause. In that case, I'll just put you in jail and tow your vehicle so I can search it in a controlled and safe environment.

5. Sometimes, I CAN tear the hell out of the interior of your vehicle. Apparently, you've never seen what the Boarder Patrol and DEA do to vehicles. Now, I'd better come up with something hidden in that vehicle if I do it, else I'm likely to be on the carpet doing some explaining.

Like I said earlier, you guys really need to read up on at least basic search and seizure. It's one of your Constitutional rights, after all, and you should at least understand it. Fraid I don;t have the time or space to give an entire lecture on search and seizure on here...sorry.

[sparkplug]

You guys are all wrong about vehicle search and seizure.

1. Requests for voluntary searches are just that...voluntary. If I had probable cause to search your vehicle, then I wouldn't be asking for consent to search, I'd be in your vehicle searching and wouldn't care how much you object.

2. Searching a motor vehicle isn't the same as searching a residence. Sometimes a search warrant is necesary, but other times I can search the vehicle because of its very nature. Courts have declaired that because of a motor vehicle's mobile nature, they frequently fall under exigent circumstance exempting them from warrant restrictions.

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

4. Chances are, if I have enough for a warrant for your vehicle (and need one), then you're probably already under arrest. Both an arrest and a warrant require the same level of proof...probable cause. In that case, I'll just put you in jail and tow your vehicle so I can search it in a controlled and safe environment.

5. Sometimes, I CAN tear the hell out of the interior of your vehicle. Apparently, you've never seen what the Boarder Patrol and DEA do to vehicles. Now, I'd better come up with something hidden in that vehicle if I do it, else I'm likely to be on the carpet doing some explaining.

Like I said earlier, you guys really need to read up on at least basic search and seizure. It's one of your Constitutional rights, after all, and you should at least understand it. Fraid I don;t have the time or space to give an entire lecture on search and seizure on here...sorry.

If you think you have probable cause and arrest somebody but don't find anything. What do you mean by tear apart the vehicle? Do you rip up the interior, tear out the carpet, slash the seats.

If they do that and find nothing then the authority in question would have some responsibility to compensate the suspect/accused/victim.

[bing_oh]

If you think you have probable cause and arrest somebody but don't find anything. What do you mean by tear apart the vehicle? Do you rip up the interior, tear out the carpet, slash the seats.

If they do that and find nothing then the authority in question would have some responsibility to compensate the suspect/accused/victim.

I stress the "chances are" part of my statement. Just because I have probable cause for a search warrant doesn't mean that I'll always have probable cause for an arrest. If I have the PC for an arrest, I'll make it. If I just have the PC for the search warrant but not for an arrest before the search is executed, then I'll just get the warrant and perform the search. I don't arrest somebody before the warrant is executed with the assumption that the search will provide my PC for the arrest. I'd probably just do an "investigative detention" until I can perform the search and then go from there based upon what I find.

As for what I mean by "tear apart the vehicle," I mean exaclty what I said. Remove body and interior panels. Pull up carpeting. Open up seats. Drill into gas tanks. Pretty much everything you can imagine. This kind of treatment is usually reserved for suspected drug or weapon transporting vehicles where there's suspicion of hidden compartments, though, and are always based on search warrants. There's not, necessarily, any responsibility to compensate the owner if nothing is found if it's based upon probable cause and done in accordance with a valid search warrant. The owner could sue through civil court or negotiate with the agency for recompensation, I suppose.

[sparkplug]

If you leave a innocent motorist vehicle in a undrivable condition then that's without good conscious and you are defrauding the civil liberties of the individual.

I'm keeping Matlock on speed dial.

[hotrodalex]

I'm saying that I don't see the point in making him get a warrant. I have nothing to hide. So I'm just gonna be wasting my time sitting there waiting for him to get the warrant.

[Soup DeVille]

Notwithstanding James Young's penchant for auto fellatio, WRT searches, I've had the pleasure, but meh - LEO wants to search your car I have to imagine it WILL get searched it if you don't voluntarily acquiesce - it'll just mean you'll be waiting on the roadside for a dog or a warrant.

However, if you do voluntarily acquiesce, and something is found in your vehicle, you really have no legal recourse. If you don't allow the search, it becomes the authority's job to make sure they dot the i's and cross the t's when making the case for a 'reasonable" search and seizure.

[Soup DeVille]

You guys are all wrong about vehicle search and seizure.

1. Requests for voluntary searches are just that...voluntary. If I had probable cause to search your vehicle, then I wouldn't be asking for consent to search, I'd be in your vehicle searching and wouldn't care how much you object.

2. Searching a motor vehicle isn't the same as searching a residence. Sometimes a search warrant is necesary, but other times I can search the vehicle because of its very nature. Courts have declaired that because of a motor vehicle's mobile nature, they frequently fall under exigent circumstance exempting them from warrant restrictions.

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

4. Chances are, if I have enough for a warrant for your vehicle (and need one), then you're probably already under arrest. Both an arrest and a warrant require the same level of proof...probable cause. In that case, I'll just put you in jail and tow your vehicle so I can search it in a controlled and safe environment.

5. Sometimes, I CAN tear the hell out of the interior of your vehicle. Apparently, you've never seen what the Boarder Patrol and DEA do to vehicles. Now, I'd better come up with something hidden in that vehicle if I do it, else I'm likely to be on the carpet doing some explaining.

Like I said earlier, you guys really need to read up on at least basic search and seizure. It's one of your Constitutional rights, after all, and you should at least understand it. Fraid I don;t have the time or space to give an entire lecture on search and seizure on here...sorry.

For the audience, can you explain the concept of a Terry frisk?

[bing_oh]

For the audience, can you explain the concept of a Terry frisk?

Comeon, Soup...man up and ask "what the hell's a Terry Frisk?"

A "Terry Frisk" is based on the USSC decision Terry v. Ohio. Basically, Terry v. Ohio said that, based upon an officer's experience and observations, if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity they can stop the person and pat them down for weapons for officer safety. The pat down has to be relatively non-invasive (it's a pat down, not a dig-though-the-pockets search). Terry can also apply to "lunge area" (ie, the area that a person could get to easily to retrieve a weapon). Terry primarily applies to weapons, though an experienced officer can also get other contraband from a Terry Frisk if they can elaborate on recognizing the feel of other contraband through an outside of the clothing frisk (and experienced officer might be able to explain how they knew it was a crack pipe in a guys pocket by feel through past experience with patdowns and drug paraphernalia).

[Soup DeVille]

Comeon, Soup...man up and ask "what the hell's a Terry Frisk?"

A "Terry Frisk" is based on the USSC decision Terry v. Ohio. Basically, Terry v. Ohio said that, based upon an officer's experience and observations, if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity they can stop the person and pat them down for weapons. The pat down has to be relatively non-invasive (it's a pat down, not a dig-though-the-pockets search). Terry can also apply to "lunge area" (ie, the area that a person could get to easily to retrieve a weapon). Terry primarily applies to weapons, though an experienced officer can also get other contraband from a Terry Frisk if they can elaborate on recognizing the feel of other contraband through an outside of the clothing frisk (and experienced officer might be able to explain how they knew it was a crack pipe in a guys pocket by feel through past experience with patdowns and drug paraphernalia).

I could have explained it to them, as an add-on to your post, but it would have been less convincing. My understanding is that an officer can search, without a warrant, any area within the car that a suspect could "lunge to" and retrieve a weapon.

[bing_oh]

I could have explained it to them, as an add-on to your post, but it would have been less convincing. My understanding is that an officer can search, without a warrant, any area within the car that a suspect could "lunge to" and retrieve a weapon.

Terry originally applied to the search of a person for weapons (the original case involved two guys walking around casing a bank to rob it), but the courts have recognized the need to check "lunge area" because of the frequency of hidden weapons. I stress weapons in all of my posts about Terry because that's what Terry searches are for...weapons. They are not evidentiary searches, though evidence can sometimes be produced from Terry searches.

We could also get into Terry Stops, aka investigative detentions, which was the other big part of the Terry v. Ohio ruling.

[GoCougs]

However, if you do voluntarily acquiesce, and something is found in your vehicle, you really have no legal recourse. If you don't allow the search, it becomes the authority's job to make sure they dot the i's and cross the t's when making the case for a 'reasonable" search and seizure.

That's a fairy tale. One's best bet IMO is to buck up and admit to what you've got, and hope the system takes it easy on you.

[Soup DeVille]

That's a fairy tale. One's best bet IMO is to buck up and admit to what you've got, and hope the system takes it easy on you.

Then your opinion is worth less than the time it took me to read it.

[bing_oh]

Then your opinion is worth less than the time it took me to read it.

Comeon, Soup. We were having a civil discussion, here. If you want to debate Coug's opinion, then do it. Don't just make smartass one-liners.

Besides, Coug's opinion holds merit. Maybe other officers are different, but I don't just ask for permission to search at random. I always have a reason for asking. Refusing might just encourage me to dig deeper. As for holding out hope that I'll leave an i undotted or a t uncrossed, it's pretty unlikely. Search and seizure is an officer's bread and butter. I know search and seizure law better than most of the local defense attorneys...I have to, since I don't have a week to spend in the local law library researching it like they do before making a decision.

[Soup DeVille]

Comeon, Soup. We were having a civil discussion, here. If you want to debate Coug's opinion, then do it. Don't just make smartass one-liners.

Besides, Coug's opinion holds merit. Maybe other officers are different, but I don't just ask for permission to search at random. I always have a reason for asking. Refusing might just encourage me to dig deeper. As for holding out hope that I'll leave an i undotted or a t uncrossed, it's pretty unlikely. Search and seizure is an officer's bread and butter. I know search and seizure law better than most of the local defense attorneys...I have to, since I don't have a week to spend in the local law library researching it like they do before making a decision.

But, I'm good at smart assed oneliners, especially with Cougs. Anyways, if you know for certain that the car you're in is 100% clean, there's probably little risk, but there is still some. According to your own post, if an officer does tear apart the car and do the full no-holds barred search, he'd better uncover something.

Besides, Coug's interpretation is based on expecting leniency if anything should be found, which also implies an officer would be unduly harsh on anyone who did actually dare to assert their rights. If the officer is a professional (which most are), neither answer is going to make much difference. If the officer is not, then the chances fo them making a mistake are also greatly increased.

[bing_oh]

Besides, Coug's interpretation is based on expecting leniency if anything should be found, which also implies an officer would be unduly harsh on anyone who did actually dare to assert their rights.

Actually, I took it as implying that a jury, prosecutor, or court would be partucularly harsh on a subject who appeared uncooperative. Juries traditionally show little sympathy for anyone who appears to be deceptive. Prosecutors are much less likely to give favorable plea conditions to someone who was uncooperative. Judges tend to give harsher sentences to people who fail to show remorse through their actions. Someone who impedes a saerch that later produces fruits of a crime could be viewed as any of these.

[Soup DeVille]

Actually, I was implying that a jury, prosecutor, or court would be partucularly harsh on a subject who appeared uncooperative. Juries traditionally show little sympathy for anyone who appears to be deceptive. Prosecutors are much less likely to give favorable plea conditions to someone who was uncooperative. Judges tend to give harsher sentences to people who fail to show remorse through their actions.

If I have a lawyer worth half a shit, whether or not I submitted to the search should be inadmissable, since denying an officer a voluntary search is well within my rights.

[bing_oh]

According to your own post, if an officer does tear apart the car and do the full no-holds barred search, he'd better uncover something.

That's an interesting implication that you're making...

[Soup DeVille]

That's an interesting implication that you're making...

You can't tell me that such things have never happened, can you? I'm not making a blanket accusation or saying that its a common occuurence, but the possibility of it is there.

[bing_oh]

If I have a lawyer worth half a shit, whether or not I submitted to the search should be inadmissable, since denying an officer a voluntary search is well within my rights.

Just because you're within your rights refusing to submit to a search doesn't mean that the jury never hears about the refusal. There are plenty of suspects who refuse to speak to me during an investigation, for example, and they're well within their rights to do so. But the jury still gets to hear how I brought them in and gave them the chance to talk to me and they refused. It's part of outlining the course of the investigation to the jury and will be admitted.

[bing_oh]

You can't tell me that such things have never happened, can you? I'm not making a blanket accusation or saying that its a common occuurence, but the possibility of it is there.

No, I'm not saying it's never happened nor that it won't happen again the the future. But your implication is at least mildly insulting and rather inapproprate considering that the conversation is about legal precidence related to search and seizure. If you want to talk about what might happen if some corrupt cop wants to search your vehicle, then how the law applies really doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Soup DeVille]

No, I'm not saying it's never happened nor that it won't happen again the the future. But your implication is at least mildly insulting and rather inapproprate considering that the conversation is about legal precidence related to search and seizure. If you want to talk about what might happen if some corrupt cop wants to search your vehicle, then how the law applies really doesn't mean a damn thing.

Don't take it as an insult, but as a simple statement. The question at hand is whether or not one should allow a voluntary search of one's vehicle, even if one is unaware of the presence of anything illegal in it.

How did it come to pass that LEOs have so many laws concerning what they can and cannot do in the first place? If you were an infallible, always trustworthy, always law-abiding, and always well intentioned breed, we would have no needs of search and seizure laws, or really any laws at all constraining your actions.

Unfortunately, you're all human, and thus the people at large have seen that it is necessary to enact laws which protect themselve not only from criminals, but from those that we employ to protect us against the criminals as well.

This should not be taken as an insult, but a simple fact of your daily routine that the public at large does not give their trust completely and without reservation.

[GoCougs]

Then your opinion is worth less than the time it took me to read it.

But worth at least the time it took you to respond to it, eh?

No harm intended, I'm just infusing a does of ying. I still think that if acquiesce whilst you knowingly have some baddies the chance that at some point you may net a goodwill break is better than the chance that refusing the search will net you a procedural break.

[Soup DeVille]

But worth at least the time it took you to respond to it, eh?

No harm intended, I'm just infusing a does of ying. I still think that if acquiesce whilst you knowingly have some baddies the chance that at some point you may net a goodwill break is better than the chance that refusing the search will net you a procedural break.

Granted, if you're out and out "ridin' dirty," you're going down no matter which way you swing it.

Two specific incidents in my own life come to mind immediately though.

The first, when I first brought home the Cadillac, I got pulled over on the way. Although I owned the car at the time, I was less than 100% certain about whether or not something contraband could have been left in it, at least in trace amounts. Its happened, there was a thread on a VW forum not too long ago where the new owner of a bus found pounds and pounds of pot in his floorboards when he cut them out for a restoration.


The second, I know a friend who got booked (and eventually released) for possesion of a short-barelled shotgun. it was legal, but the arresting officer measured from the wrong location on the weapon. He also transposed a couple of numbers in the serial number and tha brought up the wepaon as stolen. He had voluntarily complied with the search.

[bing_oh]

Don't take it as an insult, but as a simple statement. The question at hand is whether or not one should allow a voluntary search of one's vehicle, even if one is unaware of the presence of anything illegal in it.

How did it come to pass that LEOs have so many laws concerning what they can and cannot do in the first place? If you were an infallible, always trustworthy, always law-abiding, and always well intentioned breed, we would have no needs of search and seizure laws, or really any laws at all constraining your actions.

Unfortunately, you're all human, and thus the people at large have seen that it is necessary to enact laws which protect themselve not only from criminals, but from those that we employ to protect us against the criminals as well.

This should not be taken as an insult, but a simple fact of your daily routine that the public at large does not give their trust completely and without reservation.

There's one law regarding search and seizure...it's the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The "laws" you're referring to are actually case law handed down by various courts...in other words, they're interpetations of the Fourth Amendment under different given scenarios. Such interpetations can come about even when the officer involved was correct in his actions (see Terry v. Ohio, where the officer's actions were ruled as proper under the Fourth Amendment). So, implying that the girth of case law is in place because of officer impropriety is incorrect too.

Insulted by your insinuations of not (I am, but quite franky I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it tonight), it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If the officer was unscruplious enough to lie about what he found during a consent search, then what makes you think that he wouldn't just say that the item was in plain view, arrest you for it, and search the vehicle incident to that arrest?

Assuming improriety makes the whole conversation pointless, as someone can easily skirt the law with knowledge and deception. You're smart enough to understand that, which indicates that you're just taking shots to take shots. If that's accurate, it's rather disappointing...this was becoming a productive and educational thread for people unfamiliar with their rights regarding search and seizure.

[Soup DeVille]

Asuming impropriety is a long ways from assuming the possibility of impropriety. Just as most traffic stops happen without incident, its the poor officer who doesn't take reasonable precautions in case the next traffic stop doesn't go so well, the flipside of that is that a prudent citizen would take reasonable precautions of the same type.

And yes, the fourth amendment is there quite simply because the people as a whole do not completely ( or did not as the case may be) trust their appointed officials (in this case, the federal government) with complete and unchecked authority. All the case law that stems from that is there simply to clarify what is and what is not reasonable. The unavoidable implication here is that the government, and agaents acting for that governemnt, are quite capable of being unreasonable.

And no, I'm not taking shots just to take shots.

[bing_oh]

Asuming impropriety is a long ways from assuming the possibility of impropriety. Just as most traffic stops happen without incident, its the poor officer who doesn't take reasonable precautions in case the next traffic stop doesn't go so well, the flipside of that is that a prudent citizen would take reasonable precautions of the same type.

And yes, the fourth amendment is there quite simply because the people as a whole do not completely ( or did not as the case may be) trust their appointed officials (in this case, the federal government) with complete and unchecked authority. All the case law that stems from that is there simply to clarify what is and what is not reasonable. The unavoidable implication here is that the government, and agaents acting for that governemnt, are quite capable of being unreasonable.

And no, I'm not taking shots just to take shots.

Then what's the point in this turn in the conversation? If an officer is willing to lie, then your rights under the Fourth Amendment...and whatever objectives, legally correct or not, you might voice to that officer on the scene...mean absolutely jack shit. You seem to be missing the simplest of points: refusing a consent search to prevent officer impropriety wouldn't work because an officer willing to act improperly wouldn't ask for consent.