Consent to search or not?

[Snatale42]

My opinion is, if they HAD a reason to search for something illegal, or actually HAD proof, you'd be in cuffs already and they'd search anyways. When they ask you there just trying to get lucky or assume you have something because there profiling. In my state they see my permit when they run my plates. whether I'm carrying or not makes no difference because my gun is legal. So what do they want to search for? Let them use probable cause, search against your will, then file a harassment complaint / lawsuit after. Most cops are ok and are actually just doing there job and not trying to bust balls. But when I come across one of those, I don't play their game.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bigredfish]

Two incidents personally have made up my mind to decline any search.

1- many years ago driving up through deep East Texas through a small town, local Sheriff pulls me over. Comes to window and asks if I know that I crossed the yellow line back in town? Speed limit is like 20 and I was sure I was under it and didn't cross any yellow lines. I say no, he asks for license etc. After checking me out he asks a bunch of questions about where I'm going (to see my kids in Shreveport), where I'm coming from (Houston where I live), what I do for a living, on and on and finally, wants to search my vehicle and trunk. I'm all of 25 or so and agree to the search as I have nothing to hide. He takes his time searching every nook and cranny of my company car. As I'm starting to wonder if this guy is about to set me up for something, a Texas State Trooper pulls up, comes over says Hi and asks what's going on, I tell him as the Sheriff continues his search of my vehicle. Trooper has words with the local and they both walk back to me and say it's OK for me to go. I've always wondered how that might have gone had that Trooper not happened to show up...

2- Just recently my Bro-in-Law was down with his family and kids visiting. He's 47 and retiring as a PA State Trooper this year. He's a very level headed and laid back guy. I asked him about search consent and his take on it. His answer: "NO. It's none of their damn business what's in your car."

[ccwillinois]

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 assume he is talking about Caroll Doctrine- it states that if an officer has probable casue for a warrant, he does not need to apply for a warrant but can go ahead and search the vehicle. I understand the reasoning behind this is the mobility of vehicles and the time it takes to get a warrant. Been awhile since criminal law but i think that is the jist

[ArkhmAsylm]

It would probably be in whomever's best intrest 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 to pick on you, TMG, but I would like to add one more point regarding your post - suppose you are on the up-and-up, have nothing to hide, & you consent to them searching your vehicle.

Let's say, through no fault of your own, as you're walking to your vehicle at some earlier point you happen to trod through the remains of some stoner's leavings - seeds, stems, maybe even a roach - & some of it gets into the tread of your shoe. You get into your vehicle &, unbeknownst to you, the material you picked up gets scraped off onto your vehicle's carpeting...do you see where I'm going with this?

While that scenario might just get you a misdemeanor ticket for possession, it will cause you alot of time & aggravation if they choose to rip your car apart because, hey, you're a stoner & stoners always have a stash! It would likely be worse if you stepped on a piece of paper or plastic that was used to hold cocaine, meth, or heroin & they found that in your car.

We shouldn't relieve ourselves of our rights just because we think we have nothing to hide. It's always in our best interest to retain those rights & learn to just say "no thanks, sir/ma'am".

[Crowman]

Moops please explain to me specifically what part of the 4th amendment the officer is attempting to circumvent? What law is he breaking? The vehicle exception did not suddenly appear yesterday, they have been on the books for years and have been tested over and over again by the courts how is this making the officer an enemy of the constitution for following the law?

What right are you exactly right are you giving up? It is not an illegal search so what part of the constitution does it violate?

Yes, we get it that officers do not need a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause. However by giving consent to search it relieves them of having to have probable cause. This can come into play if per chance things would end up in court.

You ask what right we give up. Simply put, we give up the right to say no. As you and others have stated if he has cause he does not need our permission. One way to look at it is if he is asking to search your car he is not doing so to protect and serve you.

It's OK to say no.

[tacman605]

Yes, we get it that officers do not need a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause. However by giving consent to search it relieves them of having to have probable cause. This can come into play if per chance things would end up in court.

Ok and this is not illegal, immoral, underhanded, and does not violates the constitution in anyway, shape or form.

You ask what right we give up. Simply put, we give up the right to say no. As you and others have stated if he has cause he does not need our permission. One way to look at it is if he is asking to search your car he is not doing so to protect and serve you.

If a police officer has found probable cause/evidence of a crime that ussually means you have committed or suspected of a wrongful act i.e. a criminal act not going to sunday school class. At that moment no he is not protecting or serving the criminal he is protecting and serving me and all the other folks who have not committed or suspected of a crime.

It's OK to say no

You are absolutely correct. you can say no, so you have not lost anything, nothing has been violated.

[Moops]

Moops please explain to me specifically what part of the 4th amendment the officer is attempting to circumvent? What law is he breaking? The vehicle exception did not suddenly appear yesterday, they have been on the books for years and have been tested over and over again by the courts how is this making the officer an enemy of the constitution for following the law?

What right are you exactly right are you giving up? It is not an illegal search so what part of the constitution does it violate?

You choose not to consent ok. I let him search ok. The officer is not doing anything illegal just as you are not doing anything illegal by declining.

I didn't say that by asking to search my vehicle, the officer is circumventing the Fourth Amendment. I was saying that, if I decline a search, a decent LEO will let it go at that. If, after I decline a search, he has no probable cause and still tries to search my vehicle, or threaten or intimidate me into consenting, then he would be trying to circumvent the Fourth. If not in letter, then certainly in spirit. The OP's question demonstrated the fact that there are citizens out there who don't understand that the Constitution gives them the right to say no, and it doesn't matter then what the officer says or does.

My response to TMG was that exercising our rights is the only way to protect them. Voluntarily giving up our rights for expediency is the easier on the government than forcefully removing them from us. That is why some LEOs will ask for consent, then threaten and intimidate to get it.

[tacman605]

Moops. That makes a little more sense to me now.

If the officer after being declined consent tries to bully or imtimidate then yes he is totally in the wrong, still to me if you give consent knowing you have the right to limit or stop at anytime does not mean I am giving up any right.

We each have and opinion and a choice and ours simply differ.

[mcgyver210]

There will always be arguments on this question since:

1. some no longer trust LEOs to just be looking out for them & others Safety along with the growing belief that LEOs are being turned into revenue generators & budget fixers.

2. On the other side you have some that just can't believe if you have done nothing wrong it would be a bad thing to just let a LEO do as he or she ask since they are the Good Guys after all.

3. There is also the in between people that are on the fence.

No matter which side you are on there are sides now.

[Moops]

Moops. That makes a little more sense to me now.

If the officer after being declined consent tries to bully or imtimidate then yes he is totally in the wrong, still to me if you give consent knowing you have the right to limit or stop at anytime does not mean I am giving up any right.

We each have and opinion and a choice and ours simply differ.

I think we pretty much agree. As someone who once mistakenly believed that not consenting to a search constituted probable cause, I am extra-sensitive now to people exercising that right.