A change of Scenery: Searches & Seizures

Read the link supplied:

"ECOs are given a broad range of authority to conduct warrantless searches to enforce the law."

This is pretty openended, as you will see:

"As police officers, ECOs must enforce the general criminal laws of the State, often including those pertaining to the consumption and sale of alcohol."

You could have a field day with this one alone.

kenny b
 
You are reading way too much into that, some would say that all LEOs have a " broad range of authority to conduct warrantless searches"; Carroll, Terry, Inventory, Plain view, Consent, Incident to Arrest, and so forth. No where does it say that these officers are exempted from these, indeed it indicates that these officers have the same authority as any police officer.

I wouldnt sweat it, I dont think that there is a conspiracy of game wardens to usurp the Constitution. ;)
 
I appriciate everyones responses. Have been in this discussion with my dad for a week or so now. He just honestly believes if you refuse to be searched, that the police will MAKE a reason, and do it anyway, on top of heaping any charges on you they can think of.

He also thinks that if you ask if you are under arrest, and the police tell you no, that you will be arrested if you try to leave. That the police can 'detain' or hold you "for ANY reason" for up to x hours. I guess he just comes from a different time where police were more likely to abuse their powers?
 
ECOs are given a broad range of authority to conduct warrantless searches to enforce the law. They may:

earch without search warrant any boat or vehicle of any kind, any box, locker, basket, creel, crate, game bag, package or any container of any nature and the contents of any building other than a dwelling whenever they have cause to believe that any provision of this article or of any law for the protection of fish, shellfish, crustacea, wildlife, game or protected insects has been or is being violated, and to use such force as may be necessary for the purpose of examination and search. (ECL §71-0907(4)(b).)

Sendec, I agree that the above pretty much covers what any police officer would be able to do regarding vehicles. Where this makes an apparent leap above what any police officer can do is: "any box, locker, basket, creel, crate, game bag, package or any container of any nature and the contents of any building". I most certainly can not search any container of any nature, and especially not a building based on cause to believe. You would have to have consent, a warrant, an arrest or exigent circumstances. Cause to believe would never cut it for any police officer and that search would be thrown out so fast it would have a vapor trail.

If an ECO sees me out on the stream with a creel and has cause to believe that I have more than a limit of fish in my creel and he approaches me he is conducting a Terry stop, yes? Then, if he has casue to believe that I may be armed he may pat down me down for weapons only.(Ny State does not recognize plain feel doctrine) Absolutely nowhere that I know of, other than in the law above, does it say that he can search my creel without consent, a warrant or incident to arrest. I say again, there must be case law about this.
 
AN unfair equation:

LEO needs probable cause to search vehicle or person; failure of subject to grant permission for search = probable cause. Probable cause is a highly subjective term that is roughly translated as " just because I felt like it". After all, if you have nothing to hide, you`ll roll right over,won`t you? JMHO folks.
 
failure of subject to grant permission for search = probable cause.
Click to expand...
:eek:


Not consenting to a request for a search does not equal probable cause. Any LEO that thinks that, or citizen for that matter, needs to do some reasearch.
 
You may want to check your state's driver's license regulations. Professional drivers such as myself are told up front when we get our CDL that by signing it we are giving "implied consent". In other words, any time we are behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle we acknowledge that we may be stopped and searched without cause or suspicion. I am not certain if this power extends to regular LEOs or just the DOT officers. It may be possible that some states have the same policy towards regular licenses.
 
What you're consenting to is a sobriety test, not a search. If your CDL states that by signing it you've consented to a search I'd really, really like to see it (or at least a GA DMV mention of it).

I just realized that sounded condecending and I wanted to clarify that I'm just shocked and curious. :p
 
Last edited:
Up here I think a full growed bear can search if you are in yer truck. not when in a pass. vehicle. That ol' DOT man got some funky regs.
 
just politely decline.....


if your feeling ballzy say "I will allow you to search my car as long as i get to search your squad car"
 
Have been in this discussion with my dad for a week or so now. He just honestly believes if you refuse to be searched, that the police will MAKE a reason, and do it anyway, on top of heaping any charges on you they can think of.
Click to expand...
Point out to your father that a LEO who would fabricate probable cause would also fabricate and plant other evidence during the search.

Just because a LEO asks to do the search does not mean he wants to do the search. He may be following the instructions of an overbearing supervisor. The LEO might even appreciate your refusal, because he feels you are an upright citizen, but he has to ask anyway.
 
Let's start with the basics:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

-4th Amendment, Constitution of the United States

The right to be secure in your personal dwelling and belongings has been defined by much more than the somewhat broad interpretation used by some people. The questions concerning scope and substance of searches has been answered by several dissertations of the Courts throughout the years; notably, evidence that is illegally obtained being inadmissible in Court (Supreme Court of the United States. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. US, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) and Mapp v. Ohio, appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961); evidence that is illegally seized (Supreme Court of the United States. Weeks v. US, 232 U.S. 383 (1914); search incident to arrest (Supreme Court of the United States. Chimel v. California (1969), certiorari
to the Supreme Court of California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) and the extension of the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to places of temporary and transient dwelling (Supreme Court of the United States. Minnesota v. Olson, certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, 495 US 91 (1990).

Simply put, you have every right to decline a search of your vehicle. If the officer can articulate a reason based on probable cause that a crime has been/is being/will be committed, and that the evidence of such crime is within your automobile then they can detain you and secure a search warrant.

Be advised, though, that gaining a telephonic search warrant is fraught with peril for the officer. Should it be found that the officer secured the warrant in bad faith, severe disciplinary action--up to and including in some cases dismissal and the pressing of criminal charges--can be imposed. And, I don't care WHAT the individual officer thinks. If they can not articulate probable cause they had better NOT even think about searching you OR your vehicle.
 
I had pointed out to me by an Officer that in some cases because you have a signed consent form or permission form the person that can even get thrown out and is not 100%. In the police tactics class I was in for the Homeland Security Degree I am pursuing. Even if you consent to a search a person still has the right to stop the search at anytime.
 
Powderman,

Absolutely no need to obtain a search warrant "If the officer can articulate a reason based on probable cause that a crime has been/is being/will be committed, and that the evidence of such crime is within your automobile then they can detain you..."

...and search without a warrant every single part of your vehicle, including any containers, locked trunk, locked glove box etc... that could contain the object of the search. See Carroll v U.S
 
I've refused a search before (edited: The way I had it written, it was plural, it was only a single time). They made me do the field soberity test (it was about 8am in the morning, no booze on my breath, and was in uniform :confused: .

It was one of those "I'll make your life hell for a couple of minutes".

And I have a question for the LEO, have you ever had a person be able to say the alphabit backwards? I thought that was just a "tv" test but this guy asked me to do so. I told him that I could barely do it forward, let alone backwards.

He did have one of those roadside testers and that was the last test. Could have saved about 10 minutes of mine, and his, time if he would have done that first.

Wayne
 
Scenario:

You are pulled over by LEO. Lets say that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that caused the stop, other than you were speeding. After verifying all of your info, and all your papers are in order, you are asked if you would mind if your vehicle were searched? What would you do?

Here are the points we differ over.

1) I say that to politely decline to be searched is perfectly within your rights. My father says that by refusing the search, you will MAKE the police suspicious, and give them more reason/desire to search. He says if you refuse the search, you can and will be arrested, and you will get searched anyway. His thoughts are if you have nothing to hide, give up your RIGHTS, let them search, and be on your way, because if you don't, you'll piss them off, and not only will you get searched anyway, but posibly charged with other things, detained, arrested, ect. He said it is completely useless to NOT COMPLY COMPLETELY with the police because you can't win, and they can and will make your life hell for trying to be a "tough guy", and not obey them to the letter.

2) He also maintains that if an officer decides to randomly question you for whatever reason, and you decline to answer his questions, that he can and will arrest you. I told him that I believe it is perfectly legal not to answer questions, if you so choose, and ask if you are under arrest for anything. If the officer says no, then you are free to leave. My father says if you try this, you WILL be arrested, or detained, just for being a "smart-a@@".

I know I haven''t explained everything fully, but please someone help me out one way or the other on this issue. Preferrably LEO's or legal peoples?

My dad is under the simple impression to comply no matter what, or you will be forced to comply anyway, you have no choice, you can't win against the police, and anything they want to do to you they will, and you only make it worse by 'fighting' it.

Now, this is not intended as an anti-LEO thread. I am a law abiding citizen who complies with law enforcement any way I can. But I am interested in what the LAW ACTUALLY IS, reguarding these issues.
Click to expand...

LEO in TN
1. A request to search is just that, a request. You do not have to comply with a request. If the officer has probable cause to search your vehicle, he does not request, he searches. (By the way, we discussed this at the academy, and it is more often criminals who left officers search than innocent civilians.) A simple "No, sir. Not at this time" answer is fine. If the officer then goes ahead and searches your car/arrests you, you own him. Your attorney will have a field day, if he's any good at all.

2. You are correct. An officer can stop and talk to you or ask you questions. And you can also decline to stop and talk/answer. If you are under arrest, you will be read your rights, and then you don't have to talk either. And by definition, if you are not free to leave at any time, you are being detained by Law Enforcement, and must be read Miranda.

Now, are there jerks out there? Sure. Will some officers become suspicious if you don't let them search? Probably. Will it cost you time and money if you get a jerk? Yes. Unfortunately there are cops out there that think Joe Citizen has to do anything and everything they say. If this happens to you, hopefully you can help remove these bad examples from the overwhelmingly good group of professionals out there.
 
Please repeat after me:

No poly, no waiver, no statement. No poly, no waiver, no statement.

Let's extend this to include: No search without a warrant.

If you are stopped and the nice officer asks you if he can search your vehicle, politely decline. If he continues to press the issue, ask if you're being detained or under arrest. If not, ask if you're free to go.
If he continues to request permission for a search, decline the request and demand that he apply for and obtain a warrant before searching your vehicle.
This puts the onus on him to articulate to the court on a sworn affidavit that there is evidence of a crime being concealed within your vehicle/home/property.
In the meantime gather all the information on the officer including name, badge#, and agency they work for for possible legal action in the event you are somehow coerced into giving permission for a warrantless, unfounded search.
 
Yeah,Yeah

I know what rights we`re supposed to have...I also know that saying things like that to a cop on a back road in Alabama is likely to backfire on you at 2:00 a.m. Luck of the draw and politeness are the tools that can prevent a burned out headlight from turning into a really nasty interlude. Heaven help youj if you actually exceeded the speed limit or something or were driving a friend`s vehicle. Worst case scenario might even involve some knots on your head incurred while `resisting arrest`.
 
Absolutely no need to obtain a search warrant "If the officer can articulate a reason based on probable cause that a crime has been/is being/will be committed, and that the evidence of such crime is within your automobile then they can detain you..."

...and search without a warrant every single part of your vehicle, including any containers, locked trunk, locked glove box etc... that could contain the object of the search. See Carroll v U.S
Click to expand...

Two questions on this. Does the officer have to tell me why he's searching or can he simply say "Get out of the car, I'm searching it." without telling me? I'm just confused if "articulate a reason" means to me or just to the judge when it goes to court.

Also, I've always heard that even with a warrant it's illegal for an LEO to open your mail. Thus, if I have a sealed box in my car with stamps and such on it and there's no indication by a K9 that it contains drugs, is it safe?

I've googled and I've searched the USPS website but I've never found anything concrete. I've also heard conflicting reports from a variety of cops and postal employees. I'll continue searching and I hope this second part wasn't offtopic in any way, I just wondered if y'all had any knowledge/experience/comments/ritual incantations on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top