Stopped By Police in Greenville Texas

[steveincowtown]

. So, why WOULD I care if the LEO searches my car?

Thoughts?

This has been posted in a long time, but you should watch it when you can. You can hear first hand from a Defense Attorney and then from an LEO himself why you should care.


[youtube][/youtube]

[speedsix]

...excellent...thanks for posting it...

[sjfcontrol]

Here is a link to the dash cam account of an officer talking his way into a search of a car, along with associated analysis by the car's owner.

Warning: there is one brief instance of foul language in the video. It too links to the "Don't talk to the cops" video.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/18/th ... en-to-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

So, basically what I'm getting here is that a search probably wouldn't be legal, but due to the probable lack of harm, nothing could be done about it and since I don't really have anything to hide I should just get over it? I've never been one to lock my cases when going to and from the range, so that brings up another question. If the cases were locked and I did not give consent for a search, can an officer demand that I unlock them?

[Shinesintx]

OP, it was well within your rights to deny the officer a request to search your vehicle...but your wife would probably have gotten a ticket.

Deny the search, get a ticket for the U turn. Comply with the officers request...and she got out of the ticket. I guess it comes down to whats best for you???

Note: These are my assumptions. YMMV

[Rex B]

A society gives up it's rights one by one. What could it hurt, I've nothing to hide?
Worked real well in Germany ca. 1930. Other examples abound.

I don't have anything to hide either, but I'll take the ticket rather than surrender a right.

[VeeTee]

Quote:
"A society gives up it's rights one by one. What could it hurt, I've nothing to hide?
Worked real well in Germany ca. 1930. Other examples abound.

I don't have anything to hide either, but I'll take the ticket rather than surrender a right."

Here's my free opinion on why nobody should ever voluntarily consent to a search:

A dirty cop. And to the LEOs in here I apologize for the turn of phrase. But surely you will acknowledge, if only to yourselves, that such people are among you, however small their numbers may be.

Let's say you give consent to a search, knowing you have nothing to hide. You pop the trunk. While he rummages around he palms a bag of marijuana or other street drug, and says "Well, what do we have here?" And proceeds to arrest you.

Is such a scenario likely to happen? No. Has it happened? Yes. Why might it happen? He doesn't like your dark hair (or your blond hair). Or your attitude. Or whatever.

But once you consent to a search you have forfeited your right to object to an illegal search and to object to any illegal substance "found" there. Under such a scenario you WILL be convicted unless you have a video or a witness to his illegal act.

Just a thought.

V

[speedsix]

...add that something may be in the car that you had nothing to do with, placed or dropped there by a valet parker, a previous owner, a person who rode with your son...that you can't see as you clean your car...but the dog can smell...if they search my old truck, it'll be because I can't legally prevent it...
...sadly enough, the LEO planting evidence is historical fact...and history does repeat itself from time to time... "Just Say No" works for me...

[VeeTee]

Quote by SpeedSix:
"...sadly enough, the LEO planting evidence is historical fact...and history does repeat itself from time to time... "Just Say No" works for me..."

Speedy,

Excellent points.

The only thing I would add is that sometimes "NO!" has to be phrased as "YES!".

Often, the request to search is phrased as "You don't mind if I search your trunk, do you?"

In such case the proper answer is "Respectfully sir, I most definitely DO mind. I certainly will not try to stop you, but I do NOT consent to a search."

V

[WildBill]

In such case the proper answer is "Respectfully sir, I most definitely DO mind. I certainly will not try to stop you, but I do NOT consent to a search."

V

I wouldn't say that. I may be over analyzing, but IMO this statement sends "mixed messages".

[Rex B]

"If you are asking to search my vehicle, the answer is no, I do not consent to any search without a warrant"

[WildBill]

Here's some posts by Jumping Frog on this topic.

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=47848&p=585269&hil ... ch#p585269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jumping Frog]

In such case the proper answer is "Respectfully sir, I most definitely DO mind. I certainly will not try to stop you, but I do NOT consent to a search."

V

I wouldn't say that. I may be over analyzing, but IMO this statement sends "mixed messages".

The essential point he is conveying is he will not consent to the search but he is complying with the LEO's orders.

That puts an arrest for failing to comply off the table. At that point, it is up to the court to determine whether the search was legal or not and whether the orders were lawful or not.

Edited: typo

[Jumping Frog]

Here's some posts by Jumping Frog on this topic.

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=47848&p=585269&hil ... ch#p585269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, I had forgotten that I posted what essentially is a lawman's version of:
- LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A STOP
- LEGAL ORDERS DURING THE STOP
- SEARCHES AND “FRISKS” OF THE VEHICLE
- FRISK
- PROBABLE CAUSE
- CONSENT
- ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES
- PROBATION/PAROLE
- SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST

Here is a case from the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (which applies to Texas) where acquittal was directed because the defendant was detained for 8 minutes by questioning unrelated to the original traffic offense.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT MACIAS, JR.

[VeeTee]

Wild Bill and Rex B

I confess!!! Your way of saying "I do not consent" is far better than what I suggested.

V