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

[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/2012/06/0...music-teacher/

[TCinVA]

According to the Chief, the end justifies the means (last sentence).
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/0...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!

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

[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.