srothstein wrote:TxFire,
The question of informed consent is not present for LEO's on searches like it is for medical treatment. I don't have to tell them anything about their right to refuse consent under the law, and can use tricky phrasing (like "mind if I look inside?") to get consent. The only requirements so far are that I cannot use force to get consent, including things that might look like force to a confused and innocent crook. I cannot call for the Swat team to be standing there in full gear when I ask if the crook will consent to a search, nor can I stand there hitting my hand with a nightstick or positions like that that are threatening.
But I can mislead people into almost anything. About the only lie I cannot use is the old, I will go down and get a warrant anyway if you do refuse" line, since that has been taken by the courts as coercion now. The easiest way is to act friendly and ask if there is anything in the car I should be aware of that could hurt me. You can even make it joking like asking if they have a machine gun in their pocket or something like that. After they say no, you ask if they mind if you look inside, just to satisfy yourself on it. The suspect will almost always consent thinking you are friendly and just worried about your safety, but by law he has just consented to a search of the car.
The "mind if I look inside?" line is tricksy. If they answer only "yes" or "no" it could be taken as consent (e.g. - "yes, you may look" or "no, I don't mind"). If stopped and asked this, it might be best if you answer with clarity (e.g. - "I do/do not not mind" or "Yes, I object" or whatever). I'm not recommending for or against a search (although in my case you'd likely find lots of old french fries & such under the back seats - my kids aren't the neatest & I haven't had a chance to clean the car lately...
). What I'm trying to suggest is that you communicate in clear sentences and not just monosyllables.