The problem is this: searching your vehicle 4-5 times a day won't reduce crime, will it? You're not a criminal. Believe me, I DO understand what you are saying, and I DO believe that you are saying it with nothing but the best intent. The problem is that this is the same pretzel-logic used by gun-control advocates to argue that society would be made safer if the law-abiding would willingly submit to further infringements, without addressing the fact that their new infringements won't disarm criminals, only the law-abiding.chuck j wrote:I am certainly not advocating terry searches but I understand the amount of criminal things going on out there . I would be willing to be searched several times a day if it would thin the bad guys out . I drive a 4 cylinder SUV , usually wear overalls I don't look like I have two nickles to rub together and got two spoiled house dogs with me . I hand them a CHL and commercial DL they go back to the cruiser and background check me . Then they just tell me to have a nice day . I honestly don't think they stop many people just for fun . This video shows TOTALLY WRONG police behavior .
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So we are back to the difficult choices that police have to make......and this is why they get paid more than I do. But the ONE choice they are not allowed is to make is the choice to violate their oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution. In order for them to remain within the confines of that oath, they MUST meet the minimum standards of Terry. So, unless you are driving drunk or recklessly, or waaaay too slow (35mph on the interstate), or speeding, or failed to use your turn signal to indicate a lane change, there is an obvious safety issue with your vehicle, or something like that, then they have ZERO reason to pull you over. And once they pull you over, (with, or without good reason) the fact that they don't like your tatoos or the length of your hair is NOT an articulate reason to search your vehicle without your permission. They have to be able to SEE something (a crack pipe, a bag of weed, a severed human finger, etc.) in plain view as they look through your window, or smell alcohol on your breath, or some other easy to articulate indicator of criminality. "I didn't like the cut of his jib", or "my spidey sense was tingling" are NOT acceptable in a court room as articulated reasons for rousting your car. They are acceptable reasons for the officer to step up his/her vigilance and to begin looking for reasons to search, but they are not in and of themselves a reason for a search.
Like you, I am a guy who is inclined to cooperate with police in most instances. But I have my own issue with Terry violations. In 1970, TWO YEARS after the Terry decision was handed down, I was in a car driven by a friend, with two other friends, that was pulled over in El Monte in SoCal by LA Co Sheriff deputies, at about 10 p.m. We were on our way home from a party at another friend's house. The driver had broken no laws, and the deputies never even gave us a reason for why they had pulled us over. No tickets were issued. In other words, this was a catch and (maybe) release fishing expedition. We were guilty of nothing more than being 3 long-haired guys and a girl in a car at 10 p.m. After they rousted all of us (and they body searched the woman, without a female officer present), they literally tore the seats out of the car and left them on the sidewalk. They found nothing......because there was nothing to be found. When I politely and respectfully asked one of the deputies - there were about 4-5 of them in on this thing - if they could help us to get the seats back into the car, because we were just kids and we didn't actually know how to put the back seats back together again, his answer was "would you like to take a trip to jail?" On what trumped up charge I have no idea. His answer and his attitude were pure malice, like he was sure that we were getting away with something, when in fact, it was HIM that was getting away with being arrogant. But his answer scared the me - because I most certainly did NOT want to take a trip to county jail (which is operated by LA Co Sheriffs, and which had been under investigation at the time for excessive behavior by jailers.....and the entire department had a reputation for being mean and violent).
I was 18 years old. I didn't know anything back then about the law, or my rights, and I was NOT in a position to challenge 4 or 5 law-breaking deputies on what I thought they could do to me, on a dark street at 10 p.m. That old saying—"nothing good happens after 10 p.m."—well at least back then, and with the LA Co Sheriff's office, it was often the case that nothing good happened after 10 p.m. because the LA Co Sheriff's deputies were involved in it. I remember one friend who was rousted by them. He was a clean kid, not a drug user, and he was arrested for a bag of weed the officers planted on his car when they could find nothing else on him.
So I am of this mind: I love that I have a good police department in my town, and they they have appeared to be - so far as I can tell - aboveboard and honest in all of their dealings with the public. I believe that an orderly society is a desirable thing, and I believe that good policing is part and parcel of having an orderly society. But I ALSO believe that when an officer violates Terry Stop standards because he or she cannot articulate a clearly defined and defensible reason for a search, then that officer's behavior has crossed over into the criminal, and there is no room for criminals on the police force.
When srothstein said above,
srothstein (a retired LEO I might add) wrote:My advice is to not give consent for a search, just as I do not advise speaking to officers more than necessary after a shooting. But it is just my opinion. I also note that in the real world it is often less trouble to consent or talk than it is to stand on your rights. I have problems with this but I recognize the real world and its implications.
I am inclined to agree. I agree with all of it, including the part where he said, "in the real world it is often less trouble to consent or talk than it is to stand on your rights." I am self employed, and so I have some leeway with my time. Thus, if I am on my way to a scheduled meeting with a paying client, then whatever answer gets me out of there ASAP so I can make that meeting is what I am going to do - even if that means submitting to a search. Similarly, as a worship leader, whatever gets me out of there so I am not late to church is what I am going to do. But if I have no particular place to be, then I am going to stand on my rights and force the officer(s) to articulate a reason for searching my vehicle without my consent. As with you, they are not going to find anything. I don't use drugs, so they won't find anything. I'm not a thief, so they won't find any stolen property. My carrying of a firearm is accounted for by my CHL. I keep my vehicle registration and inspection current. I keep it in good working order. The only window tint is from the factory. My car (a 2002 Nissan Pathfinder SE) is bone stock, has no loud exhaust, or booming speakers (which is a pet peeve of mine fit for its own thread), does not blow smoke out of the exhaust pipe, does not have bald tires. I have no prison and/or gang tattoos. I have no criminal record.
And as srothstein outlined in his excellent post, police have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place. I don't drive in such a manner as to give police a reason to pull me over. I have a clean driving record. In short, no cop in his or her right mind would have any reason to be suspicious of me or my vehicle. Therefore, any cop who tries to subject me to a Terry search is not in his or her right mind. So whether or not I cooperate with that search is going to be entirely driven by balancing a stand for my rights against my need to be elsewhere soon.
But even if I consent to a search, it isn't going to be with a smile, and I'm not going to end the encounter with that most STUPID of responses to this kind of abuse: "Thank you, officer (unspoken: for having abused my rights)."
) and I would be curious to know if his observations parallel mine. I acknowledge that this is in part because criminals have sought to use those same technologies to both increase their own "productivity" and to defend themselves against law enforcement's intrusions into their affairs. The fallout out though is that the rest of us who are law-abiding end up being negatively affected in our own transactions with law enforcement. It is also part of my thesis that as the law-abiding increasingly feel these incremental violations of their rights by law enforcement, the relationship between the law-abiding and law enforcement becomes increasingly adversarial. And that is bad for an orderly society.
Kinda.
