I’ve been overruled on this and I’d like to hear opinions from others.
An officer makes a valid traffic stop and the driver has a warrant for possession of paraphernalia from a different agency. While the warrant is being confirmed and the other agency is deciding whether or not they want the individual, the officer engages the driver in conversation. Eventually the conversation leads to asking for consent to search the car. The driver says yes. The driver then asks what will happen if she says no. The officer explains that he will not search the car, but he’s not out screw her and he’s a man of his word. The officer says, “I’m not concerned with a crack pipe or chore boy or something else small.” The driver then consents to the search. The agency holding the warrant declines to pick-up on the warrant at some point in this conversation.
The officer conducts the search and finds a crack pipe. The officer tells the driver that her honesty will decide whether she is released with a citation or jailed for it. The officer asks the driver if it’s hers and the driver states that it is. The driver is then issued a citation for possession of paraphernalia.
To me this is bad all around. I feel that the consent is bad based on a promise of leniency (actually a lie of leniency) and the admission of ownership is coerced.
Am I crazy? I think this bad policework at best and unethical/immoral at worst.