Pull someone over for no reason, which is now permitted, then all the officer has to say is he thought he saw something when he approached the vehicle.

Also, IDK but can't you just find a reason to impound the car if someone refuses consent? If you refuse a request by an officer they just become more suspicious.

 

1) This ruling did not make it legal to stop the car for no reason. There has to be a reason but this ruling allows a misinterpretation to be the reason. In this case there was a taillight out but there was a misinterpretation about that being illegal. You cant just say "I'm going to stop that car because I feel like it."

 

2) No you cannot just "find a reason" to impound the car. It is a citizens right to refuse a search unless there is probably cause. My criminal justice professors taught me never to agree to a search even if you think you have nothing to hide.

 

The only recourse for an officer if you do not consent is to call a drug dog to sniff around the outside of the car. BUT he better have that drug dog there within minutes or else it becomes false imprisonment for him to keep you there.

Don't drive around with drugs, illegal guns, dead bodies, a rolling meth lab, warrants, etc..., and you have nothing to worry about if you get pulled over.

1) This ruling did not make it legal to stop the car for no reason. There has to be a reason but this ruling allows a misinterpretation to be the reason. In this case there was a taillight out but there was a misinterpretation about that being illegal. You cant just say "I'm going to stop that car because I feel like it."

 

2) No you cannot just "find a reason" to impound the car. It is a citizens right to refuse a search unless there is probably cause. My criminal justice professors taught me never to agree to a search even if you think you have nothing to hide.

 

The only recourse for an officer if you do not consent is to call a drug dog to sniff around the outside of the car. BUT he better have that drug dog there within minutes or else it becomes false imprisonment for him to keep you there.

 

Evidence obtained by dogs is going the way of polygraph in terms of admissibility. Dogs are too easily influenced by their handlers.

Don't drive around with drugs, illegal guns, dead bodies, a rolling meth lab, warrants, etc..., and you have nothing to worry about if you get pulled over.

At the same time, you shouldn't lose 4 hours of your day dealing with an overzealous cop.

So, I'm confused. In some threads, we're told to just do what the officer says and even if you get arrested, it'll be alright in the end. In this one, we're being told NOT to consent to the search.

So, I'm confused. In some threads, we're told to just do what the officer says and even if you get arrested, it'll be alright in the end. In this one, we're being told NOT to consent to the search.

 

What good comes from consenting to a search?

What good comes from consenting to a search?

 

I don't know. Doubtful anything. But what happens if you don't? A

I don't know. Doubtful anything. But what happens if you don't? A

 

Really nothing. They cannot search your vehicle without probable cause or consent. No consent does not equal probable cause.

I don't know. Doubtful anything. But what happens if you don't?

 

A police officer has to have either the owner's permission to search a person's vehicle, a warrant, or probable cause to do so.

 

If an officer pulls you over and you refuse to allow for a search of your vehicle, they CAN do a warrantless search without the owner's permission, but will then have to prove to a judge that they had probable cause for the search. (What happens when the officer makes a "reasonable mistake" in determining that they had probably cause? Are we back to our "mistake of law" situation where the officer gets the benefit of the doubt for being close-but-no-cigar when it comes to their interpretation of law?)

 

Also, one of the BGP barristers can clarify here, but I believe that after police officer has stopped you and you have refused a voluntary search of your vehicle, they can force you to wait while they call and try to obtain a warrant for a search.

Edited December 19, 201411 yr by Colonels_Wear_Blue

A police officer has to have either the owner's permission to search a person's vehicle, a warrant, or probable cause to do so.

 

If an officer pulls you over and you refuse to allow for a search of your vehicle, they CAN do a warrantless search without the owner's permission, but will then have to prove to a judge that they had probable cause for the search. (What happens when the officer makes a "reasonable mistake" in determining that they had probably cause? Are we back to our "mistake of law" situation where the officer gets the benefit of the doubt for being close-but-no-cigar when it comes to their interpretation of law?)

 

Also, one of the BGP barristers can clarify here, but I believe that after police officer has stopped you and you have refused a voluntary search of your vehicle, they force you to wait while they call and try to obtain a warrant for a search.

 

As to your last point, my CJ professors said that is the case. However, they can only hold you there for a reasonable amount of time (10-15 minutes) before they have to let you go. So they have to get that warrant rather quickly.

 

^At least that is how I remember it from a few years ago.

Here's what I had to say about it in another discussion I had about this on Facebook:

 

To me, the danger of this decision is made much simpler were you to remove the bag of coke that was found in Heien's car from the scenario. What if there is no criminal act involved - at all?

 

In that scenario, you have a police officer pulling someone over without any laws having been violated, and then after having stopped an individual who isn't clear on their 4th amendment rights, that officer tears through the persons car for 30 minutes to find nothing but gum wrappers and some loose change. Now that guy (who broke no laws) has to put everything back in his car, and might end up having to take a rear end chewing at work for showing up 30-45 minutes late, and might have something go down on record in his personnel file for showing up late at work as well. And what instigated the whole thing? A police officer who, in the eyes of the law, did absolutely nothing wrong by incorrectly pulling that person over for not having violated any laws.

 

What if the vehicle owner in question is an hourly worker at his job, and he's now almost an hour late for work? Then the officer has literally taken money out of that guy's pocket - for not having violated any law in the first place.

 

What happens if the officer incorrectly determines that he had just cause and searches the guy's car - to find nothing?

So' date=' I'm confused. In some threads, we're told to just do what the officer says and even if you get arrested, it'll be alright in the end. In this one, we're being told NOT to consent to the search.[/quote']

 

You can politely exercise your rights if you want. Most police expect that these days most likely.

 

There's a difference in saying "no sir, I do not consent to a search" and fighting police, arguing with police etc.

 

If you refuse and the officer demands to search or tells you to get out of the car, I'd do it. Just because the officer is asking doesn't mean they don't already have a legal reason to search you or your vehicle.

You can politely exercise your rights if you want. Most police expect that these days most likely.

 

There's a difference in saying "no sir, I do not consent to a search" and fighting police, arguing with police etc.

 

If you refuse and the officer demands to search or tells you to get out of the car, I'd do it. Just because the officer is asking doesn't mean they don't already have a legal reason to search you or your vehicle.

 

So, despite having the right to decline consent, the police may still be able to detain you and search without your consent?

So, despite having the right to decline consent, the police may still be able to detain you and search without your consent?

 

Yes, assuming the police cannot justify probably case, any defense attorney worth a nickle will have all evidence of a crime found in the search thrown out in the trial leaving the prosecutor no case and therefore will most likely drop all charges.

So, I'm confused. In some threads, we're told to just do what the officer says and even if you get arrested, it'll be alright in the end. In this one, we're being told NOT to consent to the search.

 

Do not consent to the search but if the officer isn't fazed by you not consenting to the search, trying to stop him/her is not a good idea. Just let the search happen knowing nothing found is admissable in court.