Consent to search or not?

This is a discussion on Consent to search or not? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by tacman605 ...normally it would have to be quite a large amount of currency, in excess of $10,000, or some really fishy circumstances ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 100
Like Tree80Likes

Thread: Consent to search or not?

  1. #61
    Member Array MleeC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    ...normally it would have to be quite a large amount of currency, in excess of $10,000, or some really fishy circumstances on the part of the traveler in order for them to be able to take the cash but anything is possible.
    It IS NOT illegal to carry ANY amount of cash, no matter how large. Cash sums of greater than $10k must be declared when going through customs but it is not illegal to have it on/with you.
    Hopyard likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by tacmansgirl View Post
    It would probably be in whomever's best interest to go ahead and consent to the search.. It shows a little bit of maturity, honesty, and manhood if you will!!! But if you want to deny the search obviously the officer is going to think you are hiding something, and things could take the opposite of the right turn from which you wanted to begin with, so I say MAN UP/ WOMAN UP and make it easier on you and the officer!!!
    Not consenting to a search in no way means someone is immature, dishonest or not a "man" or "woman". It certainly does not mean you are hiding something either. All it means is you have a right to say no and should use it.

    Sadly, over the years many Americans have been conditioned to compromise their rights.. They have been programed to believe that if they use their rights it means you are hiding or guilty of something. If someone invokes their 5th amendment right people right away say/think "damn he's guilty".

    No one should ever agree to a search of their vehicle, home, etc. I has nothing to do with "I have noting to hide". Never agree. As far as invoking the 5th amendment goes I can see some leeway in applying it. However, one needs to be guarded in the answers they give. Think carefully how you answer each question. However, never be afraid to invoke the 5th if you feel the need. I would venture to say that for a normal traffic stop one would have no need to invoke the 5th.
    sammage likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  4. #63
    Member Array mcgyver210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesafreak View Post
    I don't believe that. Just like forums make everyone think that a problem with a certain model firearm is widespread when all you are seeing is the few negative reports and not the good ones, most of what you see on the internet concerning bad LEO's is the same. You don't see the countless LEO's doing their job correctly with good ethics on the internet, only the bad ones. Your generalization of LEO's isn't any different than when liberals generalize gun owners and concealed carry, and that sucks.
    One big reason I don't like discussions in text is the text just doesn't always come across as intended since text has no emotion in it.

    I don't believe all LEOs are bad but I do believe any LEO that covers up a bad LEOs deeds is bad even if they did nothing wrong personally.

    I also believe for every negative report made public there are many not made public because of no real proof in many cases.

    I know for sure LEOs with in car Cameras know how to manipulate them if they so choose. This is IMO main reason there are so many (Not All) that blatantly harass citizens that record them & sometimes catch them in the wrong. This argument speaks for itself in that thanks to the citizen videos more cases of abuse are made public more frequently even proving outright lying under oath in some cases.

    I firmly believe most are trained in the art of lying to deceive or trick someone into cooperation knowing full well they can LIE but you can't legally do the same. This is a problem IMO since anyone that is legally permitted to LIE is IMO someone that may decide Lying is just an accepted part of their job & no big deal. I will always hold to my belief two wrongs doesn't make a right.


    I very much believe there are more GOOD LEOs than BAD Ones even today but as the older ones retire I believe this is changing.

    I also believe there is profiling which is probably why I have had less problems with LEOs in my life so far.

    I also will not say every situation has a cut & dry approach but if I have to make a broad base decision on Consent to search, It would be Never Voluntarily consent to any search which is what I have taught my teenage son.


    I am weird in that I truly believe everyone including LEOs should earn respect not expect it. I also believe if they were at least held to an equal standard (Although I believe in a Higher Standard for all Law Enforcement) of the law when they obviously beyond a doubt cross the thin blue line they would receive more real respect from citizens. I loose more respect every-time I see one blatantly break the laws they are supposed to enforce.


    I am lucky though because in my smaller community we have a GREAT Police Dept still overall although even talking to more seasoned LEOs they worry about the rookies coming up which is scary. I am definitely not a LEO Hater & respect & admire any Good LEO.


    OH & I have asked LEO friends this same question & most say not to consent.



    Again I never have claimed to be good at writing so I still may not be getting my intended meaning across.

  5. #64
    Member Array Stirling XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Stirling I must have missed the story but normally it would have to be quite a large amount of currency, in excess of $10,000, or some really fishy circumstances on the part of the traveler in order for them to be able to take the cash but anything is possible.
    If I didn't see the dashcam footage, I wouldn't have believed it either.

    Like I said, it was years ago, maybe 15 or more. It was on something like Dateline, Primetime or 20/20. They actually showed dashcam footage of one incident. Average family, couple of kids under 12, in a station wagon on their way to Disney World. Everyone was polite and friendly. The driver didn't have any temper tantrums or cuss at the officer (at least until after the money was confiscated). It seems like the amount of cash was under $1,000 which might be typical "vacation cash" for some people. (I realize most people now use credit cards.) Nobody was charged or accused of committing a crime, but the money was confiscated. I don't know if this practice still occurs. I have a feeling that exposing it on national television probably brought it to an end.


    My point is that while you believe you aren't doing anything illegal, some things could be interpreted differently than what you think. And you may have to hire a lawyer to prove otherwise.

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers in America do a good job and are not over zealous. Are there "bad", "nasty" officers of course there are. One can only hope they never have an encounter with one (unless you are a "bad guy" . There is good and bad in everything.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by MleeC View Post
    It IS NOT illegal to carry ANY amount of cash, no matter how large. Cash sums of greater than $10k must be declared when going through customs but it is not illegal to have it on/with you.
    Your are correct in your belief that carrying large sums of money is not illegal. To get around that her in Oklahoma and also in Texas what they do is if they find a large sum of money on you they will ask you to sign a waiver allowing them to keep the money threatening to arrest you if you do not sign. If you refuse they will sometimes claim probable cause stating that the owner was nervous leading them to believe that the money was earned illegally.

    Michael

  8. #67
    Member Array mcgyver210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Stirling XD View Post
    Years ago I saw a news story about cops that would stop families on their way to Disney World. They would give them a ticket or warning for speeding and ask to search their vehicle. They weren't breaking any laws so they would consent. The LEO would go through bags and luggage and find the families vacation cash. The LEO would say to them, "I believe you are going to use this cash for the purpose of buying illegal drugs so I am confiscating it. Enjoy the rest of your vacation. You're free to go." And getting that money back was nearly impossible.

    Carrying a large amount of cash on vacation is not a crime. Stashing it in a sock in your suitcase is not a crime. But that didn't stop the LE from taking peoples' money.
    This has a name in my area, "Policing for Profit" Which is another big reason not to give voluntary consent for a search.

    There was very recently a full scale investigation started by a investigative reporter. It didn't end well for the departments involved & in most cases wasn't really mistakes either. Only way to really stop this is to make it so that the Police don't get to keep any recovered property for their use. It is just too tempting for budget stretched departments.

  9. #68
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by MleeC View Post
    It IS NOT illegal to carry ANY amount of cash, no matter how large. Cash sums of greater than $10k must be declared when going through customs but it is not illegal to have it on/with you.
    Thank you for posting that. You beat me to it. Sadly, there are too many misunderstandings about that even, or especially,
    among those who should know better. The presence of money is proof of nothing and is not by itself illegal.

    There are plenty of rich or eccentric folk, or rich and eccentric folk, who carry way too much for their own good; but that is their right.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #69
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,478
    Quote Originally Posted by LongJohn6284 View Post
    can they arrest you for not allowing a search?

    i would think no, but after reading through this topic it seemed like some people were saying that when they did not consent they were taken into custody
    No. You cannot be arrested for not allowing a search. Probable cause gives rise to the officer's lawful authority to arrest you. Relying on your constitutional rights does not give rise to probable cause. In other words, probable cause, if it exists, will be established by facts other than your failure to waive your constitutional rights.


    If failure to waive could give rise to probable cause, then the following scenario would be lawful:

    You trip on a crack in the sidewalk.

    Officer: Hi. I noticed you stumbled a bit while you were walking. I think you may be on drugs. I'd like to search your person. Do you consent?

    You: Officer, I know you are trying to do your job, but I do not consent to a search.

    Officer: Well then you're under arrest.

    Crazy, huh?

  11. #70
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,354
    -
    I'd rather give up my time to preserve my rights, so the answer would be no. I'm also with Eagleks on the locking your car if you have to exit business. I'll take the 5th for any unreasonable questions beyond that.
    mcgyver210 likes this.
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

  12. #71
    New Member Array MuchoUno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    13
    I will not consent. My blanking personal property is not at the disposal of some bully with a badge who happens to assume that I've done something wrong simply because I exceeded an artificial speed limit arbitrarily set up for the purpose of revenue generation.
    mcgyver210 and Moops like this.

  13. #72
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,816
    Never,ever,ever,ever,ever consent to a search. Not now, not today, not tommorrow.

    Man up and say "no".
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #73
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Well all I can say is if you are dumb enough to sit on the side of the rode for 2,3,4 hours while someone goes through your stuff that is on you but I do find it hard to believe. Obviously you gave consent for whatever reason and afterward, sitting there for several hours, you did not complain nor follow up in anyway as someone at some level would have stepped in and said they can't do that but again you gave consent.

    Their is a big difference between asking for consent to search a vehicle and asking someone to "drop their drawers" but I guess some are not smart enough to know the difference.

    There are people on a daily basis who are stopped on a traffic stop and asked for consent. They are read a document stating that they "DO NOT HAVE TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH" but yet sign anyway knowing they have 25 pounds of weed in the trunk but I guess they were tricked into it somehow or figure the officer will not notice the big bundles.

    People do stupid things guys it happens everyday. If you don't want to consent, don't. If you loan your vehicle out to someone you don't know and trust, take it to a garage where the mechanic may leave something in there or you are worried that your girlfriend left drugs in the car you have bigger problems in life than this and really need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

    The simple fact remains that the officer is within his legal right to ask for consent, period. You are within your legal right to refuse, period. It is a personal choice nothing more nothing less but everyone has a story "One time at band camp my friends, third cousin's, sisters, daughter.......................


    If as in your original post you state that they arrest me without probable cause, seize my vehicle without probable cause, search it with no warrant, and then i have to pay bond, I will consider the bond a very very small investment because by the time I am done suing them for everything their department has, I will be a very very rich man.
    mcgyver210 likes this.
    "The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."

  15. #74
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Gents you are correct it is not illegal to carry large amounts of cash did not say that, said it looks funny but whichever.

    Chris not quite following but if what you are referencing to is if you refuse to sign a citation you can be taken in, car towed and so on what are you going to sue for? You have refused to sign a legal promise to appear and were taken in to post a cash bond. Your vehicle would be towed, if that is policy, and would be inventoried or searched incidental to arrest none of which needs probable cause at that point so what are your damages? You are the one who refused the promise to appear the officer merely followed established procedures.
    Now if you are referring to the situation where the driver of car 101 is "punished" by given a citation and having to post bond simply because he did not give consent you are correct but I imagine a procecutor would drop the case well before court if he bothered to look at it.

    If I remember correctly you are in some form of LE this is pretty basic stuff here. You might want to hit the books again.

    Again don't confuse Terry stops or anything else in regards to searches with vehicles they are two seperate animals and different laws apply. If you dont want to consent don't it is up to you entirely. PEF in your scenario or whatever you call it the officer would not have to ask nor would you or could you refuse the search under the rules for a Terry stop you are trying to morph everything together under one umbrella which won't work.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  16. #75
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't understand what you just wrote. Are you saying that he can search if he thinks he has the ability to get a warrant,
    or are you simply saying he can get one on the phone? Or are you saying that if he thinks he can get one on the phone,
    he doesn't need to bother?
    I'm saying that an officer needs probable cause to get a warrant. He also needs probable cause to search under the warrant exception that we call "readily mobile conveyance."
    tacman605 likes this.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

concealed carry letter stating i do not consent to search

,
concealed gun, consent, search
,
consent searches discussion questions
,

consent to search at military base

,
does conceal and carry give permission to search
,
does my ccw give concent to search
,
does my concealed carry give concent to search
,
i consented to search am i screwed?
,
i dont consent to searches result
,
meaning of i dont consent to searches
,
oklahoma concealed carry give permission to search house
,

refuse consent to search

Click on a term to search for related topics.