Nope...not on MY life...
This is a discussion on Poll: Would you consent to a search during a routine traffic stop? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; No, nothing to hide, but I know my rights too....
No, nothing to hide, but I know my rights too.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
I have had my truck searched once. I was stopped for speeding. The officer checked me for DUI. I was terrified being only 21 at the time and wondering if I might be over the limit even though I didnt think that I was. Anyways, they checked through my stuff in the truck and found that there was a half empty bottle of vodka in my backpack (remnants of another night). Given that it was in the back seat and sealed in a bag they didnt do anything. I was booked though because I was so scared the cop thouhgt I was drunk. I consented to the seach because I was scared. I had a BAC of .oo1! Guess I was just wasted! The guy had the nerve to curse in front of me when I was released because he thought he had me.
I wish I had the mind to say no to the search. Cop or not, I don't believe in people looking through my stuff without a good enough reason. I know it's a job but...stay out of my life and I will stay out of yours!
Really erks me. I live a good life and I hate having people look throught my shizzat when I havent done anything more wrong than drive too fast!
So, my answer is no, I would not consent to a search. Why me? What did I do wrong?
Benjamin Franklin once said, "he that would supplant a little liberty for a little safety deserves neither".
If you got hooked up on a DUI, your truck would have been searched anyway, that wasnt a consent search.
Did you actually get arrested, or did they just use a PBT in the field to determine your BAC?
"Just blame Sixto"
Absolutely, no reason not to.
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
I said no just on principle. Often officers will ask to search with no real cause, if the subject agrees they don't need one.
I knew a CHP officer who would ask: "Got any drugs, guns, knives, nuclear bombs in the car?"
Subject would hear "nuclear bombs" and say "Heck no!"
Officer would then ask "Mind if I check?"
Subject would only think about the Nuke part and say "Go ahead"
You would be amazed at the stuff he found.
"I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
Either our cops are darn good fishermen or our criminals are idiots for consenting. Probably both are true.
I don't like "possession laws." I think they are bad law/policy in general and too many non-violent offenders go to jail; often for too long.
It was common when I was young (two million years ago) for big city cops to plant weapons. While I think most cops are far far more educated about procedure and professional nowadays, I've always had a fear of "the plant" in the back of my mind.
Maybe I watched too much TV; but back then Joe Friday was squeaky squeaky clean and the NYC cops (well see the movie Serpico).
An officer just needs to know where and when to wet his line fo success. I see no need to plant evidence, there is plenty of arrests to be made without doing that.
"Just blame Sixto"
I do not know, if they are going to hold you until they get a warrant then you may be in for a long wait.
The wait, to be of any value to law enforcement, can't be too long. I don't recall the specifics, but we had one a while back where the dog was 30-plus-minutes away. That one exceeded "reasonable" and the Court dismissed. I'll see if I can find the motion and order and provide more detail. In brief, if I'm pulled for a civil traffic offense, there's a reasonable period of time I can be delayed for a citation issue before I need to be cut loose. Unless of course, there's some plain view boo-boos or pot smoke drifting out my windows. In those situations the dog is moot.
And what's your lawyer supposed to say later? Shut up? Sorry...can't un-ring the bell.
True. And in fairness, SIXTO makes his decisions roadside, in a pretty brief span of time. I have a heck of a lot more time to analyze, research, second-guess, and evaluate every single step or action that he took during that stop. If additional LEO's get involved, that's also to my advantage. The more stories I have to compare, the more inconsistency that can potentially arise.
How many cases do you make between the time you make mine, and the time I subpoena you for deposition? Dozens? Hundreds? You know that in 98% of these cases we're not going to trial. What do you have to refresh your recollection when depo time comes? Your narrative. Heck, I've been through every syllable. A dozen times or more. The video? I've watched every frame. Over, and over. And, depending on circumstance, I probably know more about what's in your personnel file than you do. I've made a public records request. If it's a DUI case, I've already gotten the Intoxilyzer 5000 records for the past year or more.
I'm pro LEO, I just want it done right. When I get the discovery on a case, I pretty much know if it's a winner or a piece of $hiat. The overwhelming majority...I repeat, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of LE officers I've dealt with in the past 15-years are stellar individuals. It's the "technicalities" that throw a wrench in the spokes. As complex as our system has become, it's amazing to me we convict anybody. Hell, we plea 90-some-odd percent.
Our system is set up to favor the defendant. I don't hesitate to admit that. When it comes to breaks, the arresting officers get few. In fact, the arresting officers get hit with everything we can conceive of.
Great post Mr. Gibson. You type the truth. That is why it is so important for me to have all my ducks lined up, and why my signature line is important to me.
I thought we were odd in the counties that I work, I would say that 90% of our convictions are the result of a plea.
"Just blame Sixto"
Touche! I don't know where "In the shadows" is, exactly, but you're right on. The great majority of our cases plea...and that's a salute to law enforcement. Keep on dotting those "i's" and crossing those "t's." I have no problem whatsoever confessing what I look for in these cases. Most LEO's, and no offense is intended, but MOST LEO's won't modify their procedures to accomodate what I'm gonna go after. I've got more than a few investigators right now that I can pretty much destroy their cases if they use a "confidential informant." And they won't change their procedure. And every time we attack them, we win. Think "veracity."