What is the most constructive way to refuse a search without PC?

[RoyGBiv]

I assume you've all seen this on the news today?

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”
The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

There's just no way in Hades that I'd politely consent to being cuffed and searched in these circumstances. In front of my kids :mad:
What is the most constructive way for an armed citizen to refuse to submit to such a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I am in NO WAY suggesting to use force in this situation, just pointing out the potential for misinterpretation of being in possession of a gun.
I can imagine bad things while ID-ing myself as CC in this situation.
How do you do this delicately, to avoid having LE draw on you while they are hunting for an armed robber?

I'm sure someone will quickly point out that I am mistaken and tell me why this detainment did not violate the 4th Amendment.
Won't be the first time I've not had my facts straight. I'm all ears.

[VolGrad]

"No sir, I do not grant you permission to search me or my vehicle. Am I free to go?"
... followed by ...
"No sir, I have nothing to hide. If you feel differently please feel free to obtain a warrant. Until that time .... Am I free to go?"

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I assume you've all seen this on the news today?

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

There's just no way in Hades that I'd politely consent to being cuffed and searched in these circumstances. In front of my kids :mad:
What is the most constructive way for an armed citizen to refuse to submit to such a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I can imagine bad things while ID-ing myself as CC in this situation.
How do you do this delicately, to avoid having LE draw on you while they are hunting for an armed robber?

I'm sure someone will quickly point out that I am mistaken and tell me why this detainment did not violate the 4th Amendment.
Won't be the first time I've not had my facts straight. I'm all ears.


In a situation when the police are detaining everyone due to having some fear of a bank robbery suspect heading "That Way!!" - be polite, calm, and have all your paperwork with you.

Shut up, do not consent to any searches, and ask if you are free to leave. If you are not, ask for a lawyer.

If asked, id yourself, provide proof of your ID and just wait them out. Eventually they will kick the matter to a superior on sceen, and you will have to make your decision at that time as to how cooperative you want to be.

Just understand, your recourse is mostly judicial...and after the incident.

At the car stop, the police are in control. Period.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

From listening to the article, the police may have made a correct choice under the circumstances.

Depending on the info they had, and the risk involved, the detention may have, in fact, been reasonable, and the searches, depending on what was searched and why, may have been reasoanble as well.

Extreme case.

Don't read more into it than actually exists.

[secondstoryguy]

If your unlucky enought to fit the description of the bank robber and especially if you are wearing clothes similar to the suspect, all bets are off. Don't expect a polite responce if you disobey their commands.

[RoyGBiv]

If your unlucky enought to fit the description of the bank robber and especially if you are wearing clothes similar to the suspect, all bets are off. Don't expect a polite responce if you disobey their commands.
No description....

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

[SecondsCount]

Pull me out of the car and put handcuffs on me when I am completely innocent? I don't think so. :mad:

[ToddG]

"No, I don't consent to the search. But I certainly won't resist or even complain if you'd like me to sit on the curb while we wait for a warrant."

BTW, I said something very similar during the Beltway Sniper investigation when the feds asked me to surrender my AR voluntarily for testing. I told them no, but if they got a warrant I'd let them take it with absolutely no problem on my end.

[agent-smith]

No description....
Frankly, every time something like this happens in the future EVERY person that was detained (let alone cuffed and searched) without PC needs to sue the cop, their department, and anyone else they can sue. If enough people would do this, cops might think about actually respecting the law.

[Happypuppy]

From listening to the article, the police may have made a correct choice under the circumstances.

Depending on the info they had, and the risk involved, the detention may have, in fact, been reasonable, and the searches, depending on what was searched and why, may have been reasoanble as well.

Extreme case.

Don't read more into it than actually exists.

+1 that's the way it goes

[ummm]

We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer.

[David Armstrong]

My $.02, you don't refuse. You may withhold consent, and certainly may make an objection known, but if the officer wants to search the only alternative is to fight with him, and that is not going to go well. Heck, the officer may have PC. Just because he didn't share it with you doesn't mean it isn't there. As Mitchell said, argue about it in court.

[TCinVA]

Politely but firmly inform them that you don't consent to any searches. If you are polite and professional odds are the police will be as well.

Interesting topic, as a member of my family ended up on the pointy end of a police welfare check last night at midnight. He was polite with the officers who went banging on the door because a concerned neighbor had called in on behalf of his mother-in-law who now lives with he and his wife. He awoke to what he thought was a home invasion, (the police were trying to gain access into the house) which sadly isn't all that uncommon in the area, but because I've had some influence on him he responded by trying to figure out who was at the door rather than doing something stupid which could have made a somewhat tense situation infinitely worse.

Despite being armed and having an interaction with the police who found out he was armed rather by surprise, nobody got shot, nobody had guns pointed at them, nobody got beat up, and everyone went along on their merry way after the police were through doing their job on a perfectly legit call for service....which is how it works the vast majority of the time when law enforcement officers interact with honest citizens.

EDIT - and fighting the search is done in court after the fact, not on the scene. On the scene the uniformed officer making the stop is in control. Take no physical measures whatsoever to interfere with that or you open the door to potentially justifying the use of force against you.

EDIT 2 - the quoted situation sounds like a real cluster.

[Simon]

This type of check point has been in the courts many times in the past 50 years. If the officers have good reason to believe the law breaker(s) will pass through the check point and that every vehicle is stopped and checked,it is legal. I don,t know about handcuffing each individual, but if a judge thought the officers had reason to be concerned about public safety(officer safety) I believe he would approve. If the check point is legal, then the search would be legal also. I don,t know if all states have ruled on this, but I do know that some have and it is approved. It has also been through the federal courts and has been approved. In this case, if the robber had several routes he could have traveled, there might be cause for a court challenge. Just MHO, your attorney may have a different opinion.

[Lon]

That's crap. Someone needs to sue. No description of any kind? No race? No gender? How is that considered reliable? It paid off, but at too high a cost. Where does this stop? I like catching the bad guy as much as the next officer, but unless there is more than was in the article this is over the top.

Anyway, do what they ORDER you to do, but don't give consent. Be cooperative, but make em get a warrant. Be polite, but firm in your refusal.

[Lon]

This type of check point has been in the courts many times in the past 50 years. If the officers have good reason to believe the law breaker(s) will pass through the check point and that every vehicle is stopped and checked,it is legal. I don,t know about handcuffing each individual, but if a judge thought the officers had reason to be concerned about public safety(officer safety) I believe he would approve. If the check point is legal, then the search would be legal also. I don,t know if all states have ruled on this, but I do know that some have and it is approved. It has also been through the federal courts and has been approved. In this case, if the robber had several routes he could have traveled, there might be cause for a court challenge. Just MHO, your attorney may have a different opinion.


There is a huge difference between a checkpoint and what happened here from my understanding of the article.

[Coyotesfan97]

Interesting that the suspect was found in the last car they searched. Ive never been involved in anything like the article described. Of course it doesn't say how long after the robbery this occurred. Maybe shortly after if there wasn't a description available yet. I'm wondering if they were tracking the money and had the general location on it.

[TCinVA]

Interesting that the suspect was found in the last car they searched.

Well...don't you typically find stuff in the last place you look? *rimshot*

[Coyotesfan97]

Well...don't you typically find stuff in the last place you look? *rimshot*


Nice one! :cool:

[Leozinho]

Pull me out of the car and put handcuffs on me when I am completely innocent? I don't think so. :mad:


What would you do?



Interesting that the suspect was found in the last car they searched.

I tend to stop searching when I find what I'm looking for, too.

[ford.304]

Polite but firm means you are steadfast in not granting consent. It doesn't mean you refuse to comply with police orders. So in this case, you *will* be handcuffed, it just a question of whether you get released afterward or arrested on a failure to comply charge.

Be nice, be firm, and have your lawyer on speed dial for as soon as you're finished.

[LittleLebowski]

"No, I don't consent to the search. But I certainly won't resist or even complain if you'd like me to sit on the curb while we wait for a warrant."

BTW, I said something very similar during the Beltway Sniper investigation when the feds asked me to surrender my AR voluntarily for testing. I told them no, but if they got a warrant I'd let them take it with absolutely no problem on my end.

How did that turn out? Start a new thread if you like.

[Kyle Reese]

How did that turn out? Start a new thread if you like.

I'd like to hear this story!:cool:

[ToddG]

How did that turn out? Start a new thread if you like.

Perfectly fine. Cops understand PC and search & seizure better than a lot of lawyers. The officer in my case tried repeatedly to change my mind. But he acknowledged from the moment I first said "no" that I was within my rights and he couldn't force me to comply with his request. I allowed him to inspect the rifle in my presence, at which time he also got to see travel receipts showing I was out of town during the initial shooting spree (I was at IDPA Nationals in Mississippi, in fact). He left and that was the end of it.

[RoyGBiv]

Perfectly fine. Cops understand PC and search & seizure better than a lot of lawyers. The officer in my case tried repeatedly to change my mind. But he acknowledged from the moment I first said "no" that I was within my rights and he couldn't force me to comply with his request. I allowed him to inspect the rifle in my presence, at which time he also got to see travel receipts showing I was out of town during the initial shooting spree (I was at IDPA Nationals in Mississippi, in fact). He left and that was the end of it.

So.. how did any LE/official know to come see you when they suspected an AR was used in the shootings?
There must be thousands of AR's in the NoVA area. Did they check them all? How did they know what doors to knock on? :confused:

[ToddG]

Every purchase of a Bushmaster on the books of FFLs in Maryland and Virginia was investigated as I understand it.

[Kimura]

Ok, first I think laws vary somewhat from state to state; however, in some states an officer can handcuff you during a detention if he can reasonably articulate that it's for his safety and yours. Considering the suspect was armed and that it was likely that he was at that intersection, their handcuff detention will probably hold up in court just fine. Extraordinary circumstances. A detention is not an arrest. I wouldn't sit there and hold a conversation with them, but you're not free to go either and at that point, you don't need an attorney unless you're the guy they're looking for or you have wants and warrants out on you. In which case you do need an attorney and your detention will most likely be turning into an arrest in a short amount of time.

Regard the search; if you don't want them to search the vehicle, when they ask you,simply decline. In this case, they probably would have held you up and gotten a warrant simply because of the circumstances. Remember they're looking for someone who is armed and whom they believe is an immediate danger to society. They're not going to just let that go. And in some states, I believe they can search the part of your vehicle that's within your immediate reach without a warrant, and IIRC, this also falls under officer safety.

[Lon]

however, in some states an officer can handcuff you during a detention if he can reasonably articulate that it's for his safety and yours.

The key word is REASONABLE. What was reasonable about this whole thing? There is no firearms exception to the requirements set out in Terry v. Ohio. The state of Florida tried that and it didn't work.

SCOTUS said:


After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.

Held: An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30. Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 327. The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great-e.g., a report of a person carrying a bomb-as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability.

Granted, this is not talking specifically about a traffic stop and the informant was anonymous. But the informant gave SPECIFIC information about who was carrying the gun. Not a general description (if it can be called that) like in this case.

In Michigan v. Long, SCOTUS said:


Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons

Once again, the key word is REASONABLE.

As far as a getting a search warrant for a car in this situation, I would hate to be the Officer/Detective asking a judge or magistrate for a warrant in this situation. I can see it now:

Officer: Your Honor, I am seeking a search warrant for this vehicle as part of a bank robbery investigation.

Judge: Based on what grounds?

Officer: Well Your Honor, it's like this. An informant called us and said the bank robbers were in a vehicle stopped at the corner of X and Y.

Judge: So this vehicle you want a search warrant for contained individuals matching the description given to you by the informant and the vehicle in question matches the description given to you by the informant?

Officer: Not exactly.

Judge: Not exactly?

Officer: Well, there were 19 cars stopped at that intersection. We stopped them all. The driver of this particular car refused to give consent, so we want to search his car.

I can only imagine what the Judge's response to that. Some of the Judges I've got search warrants from would either laugh the Officer out of his chambers or dress them down spectacularly and then have their bailiffs basically throw them out of his chambers.

If this happened in my AO, I imagine the evidence would get suppressed in a heart beat.

[TCinVA]

Every purchase of a Bushmaster on the books of FFLs in Maryland and Virginia was investigated as I understand it.

Yup. 'Twas a scary time for a dude who happened to be driving through Ashland Va with an AR and a few thousand rounds in the trunk heading to a carbine class.

[Coyotesfan97]

I tend to stop searching when I find what I'm looking for, too.

Yeah it was poorly phrased upon reflection. To be accurate the suspect was in the 19th car out of the 19 they searched. If they had started with his car there wouldn't even be a story.

This is just speculation but I think they knew the money was in one of the cars but it couldn't be pinpointed safely without pulling people out of cars. Im guessing but I don't think there was an informant involved.

I've never been involved in a 19 car high risk stop and I'm thinking there is information they are not revealing for opsec. Like Mitchell said I think this is a unique case.

[Coyotesfan97]

Yup. 'Twas a scary time for a dude who happened to be driving through Ashland Va with an AR and a few thousand rounds in the trunk heading to a carbine class.

I got to drive to Las Vegas shortly after 9/11 for HK Subgun courses. I had an MP5 and two thousand rounds of 9mm in the trunk. They had a checkpoint set up before you reached the dam. I know the feeling you speak of even though I had LE credentials in my pocket.

[Kimura]

The key word is REASONABLE. What was reasonable about this whole thing? There is no firearms exception to the requirements set out in Terry v. Ohio. The state of Florida tried that and it didn't work.

SCOTUS said:



Granted, this is not talking specifically about a traffic stop and the informant was anonymous. But the informant gave SPECIFIC information about who was carrying the gun. Not a general description (if it can be called that) like in this case.

In Michigan v. Long, SCOTUS said:



Once again, the key word is REASONABLE.

As far as a getting a search warrant for a car in this situation, I would hate to be the Officer/Detective asking a judge or magistrate for a warrant in this situation. I can see it now:

Officer: Your Honor, I am seeking a search warrant for this vehicle as part of a bank robbery investigation.

Judge: Based on what grounds?

Officer: Well Your Honor, it's like this. An informant called us and said the bank robbers were in a vehicle stopped at the corner of X and Y.

Judge: So this vehicle you want a search warrant for contained individuals matching the description given to you by the informant and the vehicle in question matches the description given to you by the informant?

Officer: Not exactly.

Judge: Not exactly?

Officer: Well, there were 19 cars stopped at that intersection. We stopped them all. The driver of this particular car refused to give consent, so we want to search his car.

I can only imagine what the Judge's response to that. Some of the Judges I've got search warrants from would either laugh the Officer out of his chambers or dress them down spectacularly and then have their bailiffs basically throw them out of his chambers.

If this happened in my AO, I imagine the evidence would get suppressed in a heart beat.

Ohio v Terry was a detective conducting a search of someone based on the fact that people were acting suspicious. While he was right, still not the same thing. The Miami incident you're citing doesn't look like it includes anything other than someone carrying a concealed weapon. Again, not the same thing. Here's why; first, the Colorado LEOs were chasing an armed robbery suspect. Not just someone that was reported to possibly be carrying a concealed firearm, which at least where I'm from is a misdemeanor (I don't know what the law is in Florida), but someone that used a gun in the commission of a felony against persons. The situations you're citing were based on; first, suspicious behavior and second, the possibility a crime may have been committed. The guys in Colorado had an actual crime committed and a serious one at that. Weights of the crimes are different. Circumstances are different. Again, extraordinary circumstances. Also, since they're not stating their source or information, we have no way of knowing what was given to them or the credibility of it. If the credibility gets challenged in court, we'll see what a judge thinks about detaining the people in the nineteen cars. Until then, I assume it was as they said, credible. And I assume this because they caught the guy exactly where he was reported to be.

[Lon]

According to the Chief, the end justifies the means (last sentence).
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/05/suspect-in-aurora-bank-robbery-is-former-high-school-music-teacher/

[TCinVA]

According to the Chief, the end justifies the means (last sentence).
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/05/suspect-in-aurora-bank-robbery-is-former-high-school-music-teacher/

Courts are notorious for not believing that the ends justify the means. I have a feeling jurists would have a much different view of the actions the department took in that event. It would be interesting to see what they would say...

...but the irony of our society is that the innocent, honest people who got stopped and cuffed probably won't hold it against the police while the guilty man's attorney will likely make quite an issue of possible 4th amendment violations.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

This site is an interesting resource for this question.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

[Joe Mamma]

Moderator edit: Stay on topic please.

[Tamara]

I can see it now:

Officer: Your Honor, I am seeking a search warrant for this vehicle as part of a bank robbery investigation.

Judge: Based on what grounds?

Officer: Well Your Honor, it's like this. An informant called us and said the bank robbers were in a vehicle stopped at the corner of X and Y.

Judge: So this vehicle you want a search warrant for contained individuals matching the description given to you by the informant and the vehicle in question matches the description given to you by the informant?

Officer: Not exactly.

Stop and think about how the cops could have "reliable" information that the bank robber was at that intersection without having a physical description of the robber or the getaway vehicle.

It's pretty obvious if you ponder on it for a moment or two. ;)

[Al T.]

It's pretty obvious if you ponder on it for a moment or two.

Wow! The Physic Hotline really does work! :D

You know, without a feel for the possible destinations out of the intersection, it's tough to MMQB the decision. I can think of several here were that would be appropriate and several where it would not. Difference, IMHO, containment or lack there-of for the four (at least) routes.

[Coyotesfan97]

Stop and think about how the cops could have "reliable" information that the bank robber was at that intersection without having a physical description of the robber or the getaway vehicle.

It's pretty obvious if you ponder on it for a moment or two. ;)


Hmmm and have enough cars right in the immediate area to do that :confused:

[Tamara]

I'm assuming that there was a bogus bundle of bills with a GPS transmitter, and the monitoring company was relaying the location of it through the APD dispatcher. "It's stopped right now at the corner of 5th & Elm."

Think about it: If it were an eyewitness calling in, they'd have a license number or at least the color and type of vehicle, or a description of the robber's clothing.

It's the only possible way they could know where he was, but nothing about what he or his ride looked like.

[BLR]

I'm assuming that there was a bogus bundle of bills with a GPS transmitter, and the monitoring company was relaying the location of it through the APD dispatcher. "It's stopped right now at the corner of 5th & Elm."

Think about it: If it were an eyewitness calling in, they'd have a license number or at least the color and type of vehicle, or a description of the robber's clothing.

It's the only possible way they could know where he was, but nothing about what he or his ride looked like.

If that's the case - cool! Simple solution where 4th A rights don't need to be bent even a little, or expose the rest of the drivers to a potential high ammo volume cops and robbers shootout.

Set up a road block, let one car go through at a time. Watch the tracker move. Arrest at your leisure. Of course, hind sight is always 20:20.

[cclaxton]

The key word is REASONABLE. What was reasonable about this whole thing? There is no firearms exception to the requirements set out in Terry v. Ohio. The state of Florida tried that and it didn't work.

SCOTUS said:



Granted, this is not talking specifically about a traffic stop and the informant was anonymous. But the informant gave SPECIFIC information about who was carrying the gun. Not a general description (if it can be called that) like in this case.

In Michigan v. Long, SCOTUS said:



Once again, the key word is REASONABLE.

As far as a getting a search warrant for a car in this situation, I would hate to be the Officer/Detective asking a judge or magistrate for a warrant in this situation. I can see it now:

Officer: Your Honor, I am seeking a search warrant for this vehicle as part of a bank robbery investigation.

Judge: Based on what grounds?

Officer: Well Your Honor, it's like this. An informant called us and said the bank robbers were in a vehicle stopped at the corner of X and Y.

Judge: So this vehicle you want a search warrant for contained individuals matching the description given to you by the informant and the vehicle in question matches the description given to you by the informant?

Officer: Not exactly.

Judge: Not exactly?

Officer: Well, there were 19 cars stopped at that intersection. We stopped them all. The driver of this particular car refused to give consent, so we want to search his car.

I can only imagine what the Judge's response to that. Some of the Judges I've got search warrants from would either laugh the Officer out of his chambers or dress them down spectacularly and then have their bailiffs basically throw them out of his chambers.

If this happened in my AO, I imagine the evidence would get suppressed in a heart beat.

Not every jurisdication would have this contemporary or professional view of the request for the search. In many smaller counties the judges and the police and the prosecutors know each other personally and if Officer Joe tells Good Ole' Judge Roy that he needs to search it, Judge Roy is gonna allow it....The Supreme Court is a long way from them.

CC

[JodyH]

Not every jurisdication would have this contemporary or professional view of the request for the search. In many smaller counties the judges and the police and the prosecutors know each other personally and if Officer Joe tells Good Ole' Judge Roy that he needs to search it, Judge Roy is gonna allow it....The Supreme Court is a long way from them.

CC

1983 violations and remedies can bring the SC directly to Bubba's doorstep and wallet despite local connections.

I know of at least one East Texas good ol boy town bankrupted by civil rights lawsuits.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

[Mitchell, Esq.]

1983 violations and remedies can bring the SC directly to Bubba's doorstep and wallet despite local connections.

I know of at least one East Texas good ol boy town bankrupted by civil rights lawsuits.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

You call it bankrupted...

I call it reformed.

[theycallmeingot]

my brother got pulled over late one night on his way to work. (a late night janitorial job). he was pulled over by 5 or 6 cars, where they drew down on him and jerked him out of the car and searched it. They questioned the shotgun shells in his trunk, though there was no weapon of any kind. After uncuffing him, they informed him he fit the description of a gas station robbery suspect. It was only later, that he read in the paper that the suspect was a WOMAN, specifically with a tramp stamp, driving a red pickup. he is, of course, a man, and drives a white acura.

who's judgement determines whether or not they had "reasonable" cause to search without permission and/or warrant?

i have a feeling the answer to the situation is he shouldn't have been treated that way, but since they happened to not find anything, no harm, no foul and nothing to be done about it?

[Mjolnir]

Frankly, every time something like this happens in the future EVERY person that was detained (let alone cuffed and searched) without PC needs to sue the cop, their department, and anyone else they can sue. If enough people would do this, cops might think about actually respecting the law.

Yep, but not likely to happen nowadays.

[cclaxton]

Yep, but not likely to happen nowadays.

Sometimes a call or visit to talk to the Police Chief or Department Leadership might get the same results without costing the taxpayers and the complainant any money. Or, going to the city or county council and exerting influence that way.

There's more than one way to get this changed. Often a lawsuit is the first thought when it should be the last thought.
CC

[Ed L]

In some states, like TX for example, you are required to inform the police officer that you have a CCW and are carrying whenever they stop you (assuming that you are carrying). This would add another level of complexity to the issue.

On the occasions that I have been stopped, I typically state something like, "Officer, I have a CCW and am carrying. How do you wish me to proceed at this time?" I try to do this while keeping one hand on the steering wheel and presenting my CCW license & driver's license with the other.

[voodoo_man]

This is not meant as a jab anyone, but does anyone on here actually believe that the average person on the street knows or understands what PC is?

I have sat in court rooms where after charging the jury the judge gets a few notes asking him/her to clarify PC and explain it in a "simple way."

Do not even get me started on how some people perceive PC to be.

[ToddG]

By its very nature PC is difficult to define and demarcate. It's a judgment call which is then reviewed by different people with different jobs, different experiences, different levels of legal knowledge, etc. And like any rule with a fuzzy line, people on both sides will try to push a little too far in hopes of gaining ground.

The way I had it explained to me by an AUSA while I was at USAO-DC has always stuck with me: "It's probable cause. It's not possible cause, and it's not definite cause."

[voodoo_man]

By its very nature PC is difficult to define and demarcate. It's a judgment call which is then reviewed by different people with different jobs, different experiences, different levels of legal knowledge, etc. And like any rule with a fuzzy line, people on both sides will try to push a little too far in hopes of gaining ground.

The way I had it explained to me by an AUSA while I was at USAO-DC has always stuck with me: "It's probable cause. It's not possible cause, and it's not definite cause."

I agree, what is PC in my opinion can not be in yours - all how you perceive the events.

Around here we use a few different definitions, personally I prefer this one:

Facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable and prudent officer to believe that a crime has or will be committed.

Of course that is just a broad definition, sort of like saying Occam's Razor means "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."

There is always a deeper, more complex definition - but it all begins with the person who is interpreting the information.

[JodyH]

Most constructive way to refuse a "fishing" search.
Officer Friendly: "Can I search your vehicle?"
JodyH: "I do not consent to searches, am I free to go?"
:cool:

btw: even if the Officer has the PC to search, I'd still say " I do not consent to the search of my vehicle." loud enough to be heard on the dashcam and by the officers.
That way if somewhere down the road my lawyer finds a way to get the search tossed out, I have the "consent" angle covered as well.

Officer NotSoFriendly: "I am going to search your vehicle because I believe XXX is located in it."
JodyH: "I do not consent to the search of my vehicle."
Officer NotSoFriendly: " I have PC and don't need your consent."
*weeks go by*
Judge: "I find that the search was illegal and all evidence is suppressed, unless the defendant consented to the search."
:cool:

Officer NotSoFriendly: "I am going to search your vehicle because I believe XXX is located in it."
JodyH: "I do not consent to the search of my vehicle."
Officer NotSoFriendly: " I have PC and don't need your consent."
JodyH: "OK, I guess since you say you have PC, you can search my car."
*weeks go by*
Judge: "I find that the search was illegal and all evidence is suppressed, unless the defendant consented to the search."
Officer NotSoFriendly: "Why yes your Honor, he did consent to the search."
:mad:

[LittleLebowski]

I bought a digital voice recorder. Not because I plan to get pulled over but just in case. Helps everybody.

[Lon]

I have sat in court rooms where after charging the jury the judge gets a few notes asking him/her to clarify PC and explain it in a "simple way."


By the time a jury gets it, it should be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", not PC. Their job is not to decide if the officer had PC to make the arrest/search, that's already been done by the judge by the time the jury hears the case. If the judge is asked that question, he should make it clear to them what their job is, not what they think it should be.

[JodyH]

I bought a digital voice recorder. Not because I plan to get pulled over but just in case. Helps everybody.
I have a Android record app that records to cloud storage.
That way, even if my phone is taken from me I have the full recording.

[JodyH]

By the time a jury gets it, it should be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", not PC. Their job is not to decide if the officer had PC to make the arrest/search, that's already been done by the judge by the time the jury hears the case. If the judge is asked that question, he should make it clear to them what their job is, not what they think it should be.
Jury nullification... how does it work?

[ToddG]

Jury nullification... how does it work?

The issue of whether an officer had PC for a search should never even arise before a jury. As such, it's difficult to imagine many circumstances in which a jury might even question it.

[David Armstrong]

Jury nullification... how does it work?
In a simple format, jury nullification works by the jury deciding the law should not apply in this particular case. In other words, the jury gets to decide not only the guilt of the defendant but also the use of the law itself. The PC of the officer really isn't part of it. Personally I think it is one of the greatest rights of the citizenry and think it should part of all jury instructions.

[ToddG]

Personally I think it is one of the greatest rights of the citizenry and think it should part of all jury instructions.

Agreed 100%. Nonetheless, in many (all?) jurisdictions it is not even an allowable argument by the defense.

[JodyH]

I've been on a jury as the Police officer read his arrest report and described the scene and his actions in court.
The means of obtaining evidence goes a long way towards the weight I as a juror assign to that evidence and the credibility I give to the Officers testimony
If it sounds to me like it was obtained under less than Constitutional means (even if a judge OK's it), I as a juror am free to ignore it.
Hence jury nullification.

[voodoo_man]

Its interesting here because all this talk implies you have something illegal that you do not want to the officer to find.

How many criminals or potential criminals are reading all this now?

BTW, PC or no PC, I have seen "inevitable discovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_discovery)" work. Feel free to not consent all you want.

Things are not always black and white.

[David Armstrong]

Agreed 100%. Nonetheless, in many (all?) jurisdictions it is not even an allowable argument by the defense.
Yes, which is why I make it a point to spend one full day's lecture on it for each class each semester, trying to spread the word. Of course, I also make it a point to tell them not to mention the idea during the selection process unles specifically asked!:cool:

[ToddG]

Its interesting here because all this talk implies you have something illegal that you do not want to the officer to find.

You're kidding, right?

The 4th Amendment is for Americans, not just criminals.

[ford.304]

Its interesting here because all this talk implies you have something illegal that you do not want to the officer to find..

More that it implies that I don't want a random stranger pawing through my stuff, tossing my laptop bag on the pavement, messing up the organization of my trunk, finding my strange fetish equipment, my adult diapers, the suspiciously cocaine scented (because all money is cocaine scented) $2,000 cash I brought along to buy my friend's AR, or the ammunition stash in the backseat large enough to rob the local bank or last me a day at the range. I'd really just rather he tell me that my headlight's burnt out and let me go along with my day.

Privacy is a real thing for all sorts of reasons other than legality. And that's not even getting into the "my daughter's idiot boyfriend dropped his weed in the backseat" or "my wife borrowed my car but I forgot to take my gun out of the glove box" level of accidental illegality.

[JodyH]

Its interesting here because all this talk implies you have something illegal that you do not want to the officer to find.

How many criminals or potential criminals are reading all this now?
So you wouldnt mind if I dropped by your house later and tossed the place would you?

In 2012, we're all criminals or potential criminals. It's the nature of the legislative beast.

I find your suspicion of people who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures troubling. Expected, but still troubling.
The fact that many in law enforcement think the same way you do encourages me to push back even harder.

[Lon]

I find your suspicion of people who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures troubling. Expected, but still troubling.
The fact that many in law enforcement think the same way you do encourages me to push back even harder.

Many of us have a healthy respect for the 4th Amendment.

[ford.304]

Many of us have a healthy respect for the 4th Amendment.

And I am so incredibly appreciative of that. Wish everyone did.

[ToddG]

Let's please not paint LE with a broad brush. The reason extreme stories get press is because they are rare and extreme. There will be "bad" members in any group or profession.

I've met far more cops who'd tell you to refuse an unwarranted search than those who'd get upset when you refuse consent by orders of magnitude.

[voodoo_man]

I have never in my time on the job ran into a "normal" or "law abiding" person that required me to search their vehicle or ask for it. The only people I have ever had to search vehicles of are criminals.

A normal person has no reason to "fear" a search because they have nothing that will get them locked up. You want to search my car officer? By all means, get a warrant, if you do not need a warrant then by make sure you document your PC well because a complaint is coming next and possibly a civil rights suit. I have never been sued or got a complaint for a search because its always been a criminal who has been on the receiving end.

When normal people, law abiding citizens, start thinking that the proper course of action is to deny and stone wall the police during an investigation, the red flags start flying high.

But of course those on here who are not police officers will give the "blah blah blah trust" bit while waiving their Constitution in the air, the police officers on here will shake their heads in shame.

[JB326]

I have never in my time on the job ran into a "normal" or "law abiding" person that required me to search their vehicle or ask for it. The only people I have ever had to search vehicles of are criminals.

A normal person has no reason to "fear" a search because they have nothing that will get them locked up. You want to search my car officer? By all means, get a warrant, if you do not need a warrant then by make sure you document your PC well because a complaint is coming next and possibly a civil rights suit. I have never been sued or got a complaint for a search because its always been a criminal who has been on the receiving end.

When normal people, law abiding citizens, start thinking that the proper course of action is to deny and stone wall the police during an investigation, the red flags start flying high.

But of course those on here who are not police officers will give the "blah blah blah trust" bit while waiving their Constitution in the air, the police officers on here will shake their heads in shame.

Very well said. I don't make a practice of randomly searching the cars/ persons/ houses of "normal", law abiding citizens. It is a waste of my time and there's to do so. If I'm asking to search, I've most likely already got a good idea of what I'm going to find.

[ToddG]

But of course those on here who are not police officers will give the "blah blah blah trust" bit while waiving their Constitution in the air, the police officers on here will shake their heads in shame.

Just as I asked the non-LEOs not to bunch all LEOs into one group, I'm going to suggest you do the same in terms of both private citizens and LEOs. Turning this into an "us vs them" isn't going to help any situation.

Your personal experience is valuable but not universal. I've already given one example that happened to me, personally, of LEOs wanting to seize my property without PC. So yes, it does happen. This thread is for law abiding people who wonder what the appropriate action is when faced with that situation. No more, no less.

Don't turn it into something else.

[JodyH]

Listening to the scanner for the past few years in a small west Texas town.
Probably 1/3 of the city and Sheriff dept. traffic stops end up in searches.
Very few arrests.
That tells me that a lot of normal people are getting tossed, PC or consent I don't know.
But I do know they do a LOT of searches.

[voodoo_man]

Just as I asked the non-LEOs not to bunch all LEOs into one group, I'm going to suggest you do the same in terms of both private citizens and LEOs. Turning this into an "us vs them" isn't going to help any situation.

Your personal experience is valuable but not universal. I've already given one example that happened to me, personally, of LEOs wanting to seize my property without PC. So yes, it does happen. This thread is for law abiding people who wonder what the appropriate action is when faced with that situation. No more, no less.

Don't turn it into something else.

Obviously its not universal, there are LEO's from the west coast who think we do things ass backwards, and we think the same of them. Around here, its very universal. The rookies learn quickly that asking a normal law abiding citizen if they could search their vehicle ends with a senior officer getting on their ass quickly.

The issue with personal opinions when dealing with police and searches is that you do not know what that officer thinks or has knowledge of during the interaction. You can sit there and make any sort of rationalization to whatever end you want, you still do not know what that officer had in mind when he was doing what he was doing.

Have I had to stop people and detain them (lawfully) because they matched flash information for a felony that just occurred? Yes, it happens ALL the time, do I go into full blown search mode? Not unless they give me reason to. The criminals are very easy to pick out for an experienced officer.


Listening to the scanner for the past few years in a small west Texas town.
Probably 1/3 of the city and Sheriff dept. traffic stops end up in searches.
Very few arrests.
That tells me that a lot of normal people are getting tossed, PC or consent I don't know.
But I do know they do a LOT of searches.

This is normal and not necessarily a lot of normal people getting searched. The amount of stops an officer can make on an average day will amaze most people. The experienced, veteran officer, will only make the stops which will yield something more often than not. It happens sometimes that the criminal POS knows how to hide something really well (and fully expects us not to rip his panels off and go under his hood) or he's just not carrying that specific moment. O'well, toss him back and catch him another day.

[MDS]

But of course those on here who are not police officers will give the "blah blah blah trust" bit while waiving their Constitution in the air, the police officers on here will shake their heads in shame.


Wow, dude. I want to thank you for being out there enforcing the law and risking your safety in pursuit of my own. But a) it's your Constitution, too - if we don't defend it when it doesn't seem necessary for a good cop like you and most of your brothers, it won't be available when we do need it for the rare bad cop.

And b) you're just as human and fallible as I am - despite your obvious good faith, you could screw up my life as badly as the most incalcitrant bad cop ever conceived.

If you think these strictures shouldn't apply to you - if you think your judgment is infallible enough that I should meekly trust my life to it - then we can just agree to disagree about that. Fortunately, the law in this great country provides me with some protections against your possible bad judgment, and it doesn't require your permission for me to avail myself. I'd never physically stop any kind of search, but I may choose to decline consent politely and firmly.

[BLR]

I have never in my time on the job ran into a "normal" or "law abiding" person that required me to search their vehicle or ask for it. The only people I have ever had to search vehicles of are criminals.

A normal person has no reason to "fear" a search because they have nothing that will get them locked up. You want to search my car officer? By all means, get a warrant, if you do not need a warrant then by make sure you document your PC well because a complaint is coming next and possibly a civil rights suit. I have never been sued or got a complaint for a search because its always been a criminal who has been on the receiving end.

When normal people, law abiding citizens, start thinking that the proper course of action is to deny and stone wall the police during an investigation, the red flags start flying high.

But of course those on here who are not police officers will give the "blah blah blah trust" bit while waiving their Constitution in the air, the police officers on here will shake their heads in shame.

With all due respect to Todd - it really is an "us vs. them" situation. It just happens that the "them" is not the individual officer, rather the policy makers and administrators and to a degree the legislators. At least in my opinion.

But that isn't the point of my post. The above post is very disconcerting because it illustrates the disconnect between law enforcement and "citizens." I quoted citizens because (as has been stated on every gun forum extant) unless you are active duty military (and you are not, if you are going about the searches pertaining to this thread) you are a citizen too and it is your job to first ensure our constitutional rights are not infringed, second to "fight crime." I only restate it because it helps illustrate my point. I'm reading the above post, at first blush, as somewhat Machiavellian in slant. That is a dangerous and slippery slope for a public employee - and doubly so for a law enforcement agent. It would serve you well to read some of the work by our founding fathers, not just the more popular quotes like B. Franklin's.

This really should not be taken lightly by officers or potential officers, and highlights a huge deficiency in your education and training. You are given a tremendous amount of authority and trust by the country. Even small breaches of this trust results in long lived scars and misgivings. You might want to keep that in mind. Especially when proffering posts like this. How much damage do you inflict by a questionable search? You say you have not done this, which I will accept at face value. But how many happen every year? You would do well to consider your perspective on this more carefully.

At least this is my opinion on the matter, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Bill

[ford.304]

This is normal and not necessarily a lot of normal people getting searched. The amount of stops an officer can make on an average day will amaze most people. The experienced, veteran officer, will only make the stops which will yield something more often than not. It happens sometimes that the criminal POS knows how to hide something really well (and fully expects us not to rip his panels off and go under his hood) or he's just not carrying that specific moment. O'well, toss him back and catch him another day.

So if you find anything, obviously he's guilty. But if you don't find anything, then obviously he's still guilty, he's just hiding it well...

Please think about how that sounds.

Look, I know that cops know their neighborhoods. If you just let every cop walk out and drag out every sonofabitch they knew was crooked based only on their say so, they'd pick up the majority of the bad dudes around. But cops aren't infallible, and there's a reason we have the process and protections that we do. Among other things it's too easy to start saying "this dude looks/dresses/talks like the guys I bust every day, he must be guilty."

You don't have to be a criminal. You just have to have the wrong combination of signals to make officer friendly *think* you are a criminal. And that (combined with the fact that decent folk have plenty of reason to not want a stranger looking through their stuff) is what this thread is about.

The goal of this thread is "how do I do that without being an asshole to the officer I'm speaking with, who obviously (if he wants to search my vehicle) *mistakenly* thinks I might be a criminal?" If you're saying that isn't useful then you're either saying that people shouldn't get to value their privacy, or that officers never make mistakes.

[voodoo_man]

Thanks for the overload in responses, I will not be responding to each one since I have said what I needed to, I am not going to explain the concepts in extreme details.

I will only say that you guys are taking it out of context. The big bad police officer is not going to stop you for a motor vehicle violation and then try their best to ruin your life. It simply does not occur at the rate anyone thinks it does. I have personally NEVER seen anything like what you guys are talking about occur to a law abiding citizen. Think I am bullshitting all you want, its the truth. The jail-birds, the criminals, the drug dealers and the dregs of society are what I, and all those like me are after.

You know what we call stopping a working-class person around here?

A waste of time. You get nothing by stopping them, you get nothing by writing them a ticket, you get no criminals off the street, you get no guns or drugs off the street, nothing. A complete waste of time.

Why would I waste my time to begin with and then on top of everything is not going to happen (mentioned in the line above) I still want to search?

Talk about completely pointless actions, and you guys are sitting here thinking of "constructive ways" to refuse a search. Maybe we should be talking about getting priorities in correct order.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Officer NotSoFriendly: "I am going to search your vehicle because I believe XXX is located in it."
JodyH: "I do not consent to the search of my vehicle."
Officer NotSoFriendly: " I have PC and don't need your consent."
JodyH: "OK, I guess since you say you have PC, you can search my car."
*weeks go by*
Judge: "I find that the search was illegal and all evidence is suppressed, unless the defendant consented to the search."
Officer NotSoFriendly: "Why yes your Honor, he did consent to the search."
:mad:


No.

You didn't.

If the police didn't have the right to search your vehicle, but informed you they did (either by warrant or PC), and based on that information from the police you did not interfere with the officer, you can not have consented.

Your consent needs to be freely given.

It can be stupidly given - but must be freely.

If the cop tells you "Look, the whore is lying, I know you didn't take her back to your place last night, handcuff her to the bed, assault her and cut her...I just need to go through the motions and take a look in the bedroom, then I'm gonna go back and tell my boss we are barking up the wrong tree..."

So you say "OK, go take a look. You go, see their isn't any blood in my room..."

And the cops go in, look around and find what they were looking for, for real...which was the smell of pot being smoked...POOF. Bo-Ya. They have a consent entry to the premises and probable cause for the possession of drugs...

That's your dumb consent being given.

HOWEVER...

"Police Officer. I have a warrant to search your premises. Let me in."...or something to that effect indicating they have the right to enter and search - and you obey them...That is NEVER on your consent.

Consent based on the belief the police have warrant or other assertions of right is no consent at all.

No warrant/PC and 'consent' based on the police telling you they have such is an illegal search.

Now...If they tell you "You want me to get a warrant? Fine. I'll get one. You are going to make me do this the hard way? I have to do paperwork, you WILL be sorry...or we can just do this the easy way, and I'll understand...what do you want to do?"...and you say, "Um...OK...you can check..."

Well.

You didn't have to consent, but you did.

[voodoo_man]

^^quit given away all the cool tricks.

:D

[Jac]

I didn't realize lying was such a cool trick...:rolleyes:

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Come on...it's not like anyone reads that inter-web thing.

Just be thankful I don't tell HAM radio operators about these tricks or everyone would know about it in no-time!

[MEH]

You know what we call stopping a working-class person around here?

A waste of time.

Round here it's called revenue raising.

[voodoo_man]

I didn't realize lying was such a cool trick...:rolleyes:

Well aren't you witty one.

The police are allowed to lie to you, fyi.

[Odin Bravo One]

My favorite past time for cops who think they are too cool is to grant consent to search.

Everything EXCEPT the glove box.........

Then I get my entertainment listening to them trying to coax their way into consent for that glove box, and watching the wheels spin in their heads. Looking through the little opening, using that flashlight, working it hard to find that PC that they now KNOW much be inside to get in there and make their big bust.........

[F-Trooper05]

That's hilarious^^^

[voodoo_man]

My favorite past time for cops who think they are too cool is to grant consent to search.

Everything EXCEPT the glove box.........

Then I get my entertainment listening to them trying to coax their way into consent for that glove box, and watching the wheels spin in their heads. Looking through the little opening, using that flashlight, working it hard to find that PC that they now KNOW much be inside to get in there and make their big bust.........

Never had someone try that...but there is no "except" column on a consent form. If someone said that and I had pc to search id just confiscate their vehicle and have it taken apart and put back together by our search guys.

The funny part would be the 3 months they would wait for their vehicle back.

[Jay Cunningham]

I have probable cause to close this thread.