Legal advice on search and seizure

L

leedesert

New member
I saw a disturbing episode on COPS the other day and wondered what the individuals right were.
A narcotics officer (woman) patrols the Fort Lauderdale Airport and does random bag searches. After indentifying herself she asks if she can check their bags to look for illegal drugs. Everyone said yes until this one guy. He orrigionaly said yes but when he saw that shee was emptying out his belongings on the floor, making an embarassing seen, changed his mind and said no. She now pulled everything out of the bag and dumped it on the floor while asking "are you saying you want me to stop". He asked what right do you have to do this and said yes I want you to stop. She stood up, begins read him his rights, and went for his wrist to handcuff him. He pulled away and she quickly jumped behind him pulling his arms back into a lock. From this point forward the guy messes up and struggles with her, other cops jump in to subdue him, he's under arrest and in another of his bags they find a gun and personal use drugs.

My question here is if I was walking in the same airport, and a narcotics officer asks to search my bags for drugs, do I have to comply even there is no probable cause? What if I'm late for a flight and don't want to be delayed.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
My attorney has advised me that I do not have to comply with any request, to search my bags, my person, or my car, and that I can revoke that permission at any time.

The fictional cop was out of line; a real cop should have stopped searching when the permission was revoked. Of course, TV cops always find drugs and (horror) a gun, proving that (1) TV cops are always right, (2) TV cops are even less likely than real cops to care about citizens' rights and (3) TV writers are always pushing the idea that only criminals have guns.

Note that I said "request". There are times when an officer can search without permission, specifically when there is reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed, or after an arrest.

There have been some serious concerns that drug law enforcement may totally eliminate all civil and constitutional rights. That is one reason I can't totally support all the "anti-drug" measures being touted as a "cure" of the problem. "It's only the druggies" may be the equivalent of "It's only the Jews" in 1930's Germany.

Jim
 
My intent was to find out whether or not I have a legal leg to stand on if I say no. I don't feel I need a reason to say no. Or at least a reason to provide them with.
Now on the other hand, if this was common knowledge, most people would say no.

On this particular episode, the narcotics cop was randomnly picking people. A grandmother, young, old. Of course the one guy they show who says no they later show had drugs.
What also troubled me was up to the point where he said to stop searching he was a perfect gentleman. When he said to stop she started reading him his rights. Under what grounds does she have to arrest someone because they don't want to be searched?

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16



[This message has been edited by leedesert (edited September 08, 1999).]
 
Actually, this is a very good question, and I doubt if anyone including the cops know the answer..

Consider profiling: there are profiles for folks who might be carrying a lot of cash ("drug dealers")....and there undercover agents at airports who spot these people, search and confiscate cash when found.
Maybe technically you have the right to refuse...but they will make life miserable for you. You'll miss your flight or appointments, they will arrest you and waste your day. Redress in a court of law is long, tedious and expensive, and "they" always appeal if they lose. They pretty much seem to have enacted into "de facto" law the adage "If you have nothing to hide, you'll consent"

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Not sure about where you all are, but profiling is illegal in California. The Feds use it allot, but I think most states cannot use profiling as cause.
 
When returning from Korea a few months ago, I fit "the profile": 30ish, alone, black leather jacket, black pants, two very portable bags, and a hastily-issued passport (recieved just two days before the trip) (this last item was the prime tip-off for them). "Come this way, sir..." They went thru everything, including my pockets & shoes.

During the search, I wondered about rights & laws & practicality regarding all this. Maybe they had no right; maybe they "asked" and I didn't realize it (questions can be very subtle). Ultimately all those noble causes didn't matter: I had a final flight to catch in 30 minutes, and they would be more than happy to take the next 5 hours bickering fine points of Constitutional law. They "won" and did the search (nothing found - gee, maybe most people are LAW ABIDING! but I digress).

[If nothing else, I had the debatable entertainment of watching someone else get collared (guards: "we know that's not your real name...help yourself here..." suspect: <silence> ).]

And such is the way rights are lost. Convenience vs. rights. Consent to search or miss the flight. Disarm or lose the job. Court is the prosecutor's day job, while court upends your life for a month or more. Accept the National ID card or don't drive. Until, suddenly, the convenience isn't enough...but I digress and verge on a rant.

Methinks:
- Be legal always. If they _do_ search, make sure they'll not find anything illegal.
- _Politely_ ask if you have a choice.
- Provide a "that would be inconvenient..." if legitimate. (The lady in the video should have been met with "what? right here in the hallway? when I have a plane to catch?")
 
Jim, your attorney should also have told you to never consent to search, as mine has and says to make a point of letting everybody know that I would never consent to search. Later if the cop says consent was granted the testimony will be very suspect.

If asked to consent to search.
1) be polite, respectful, and calm in response to all questions
2) keep all responses to the absolute minimum
3) deny consent then immediately ask if you are free to go. If they pull the if you were innocent you would let us search line say, 'My attorney has advised me to deny all requests for any search, no matter how intrusive. May I go now.'
4) if they tell you that they are going to search anyway ask to see the search warrant
5) if no warrant ask for a written notice of probable cause.
6) ask that the search be video taped
7) ask that the supervisor be present during the search
8) take written or audio notes, I carry a little micro cassette recorder, be sure to include date, time, location, and make note of the officers name and badge number (don't ask for it just look at his chest).
 
Jim Keenan,

That was a real cop.

ctdonath,

Customs routinely violates the civil rights. They get sued routinely. Their position is that it is the cost of business.

Unfortunately I no longer trust or respect LE on any level except that of an individual that has proved him or herself to not be a facist thug. Oh how grand the Drug War is :(.
 
People entering this country from outside the boundries can be searched without consent or a warrant. This is one of the many exceptions to the fouth amendment rights. But, I believe this only applies to U.S. Customs agents. So if he was on an international flights into the U.S., his rights weren't violated.
 
Customs is routinely sued. Most recently from the profiling, illegal detention, and cavity searchs of black females wearing loosefitting clothes.
 
In a Claire Wolfe column in World Net Daily, I ran across a reference to two US Supreme Court decisions regarding search and seizure. The lawyer carries printed copies with him in his car at all times.

1. Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 (1979). <A HREF="http://laws.findlaw.com/US/443/47.html]http://laws.findlaw.com/US/443/47.html[/URL" TARGET=_blank>

2. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 US 648 (1979). http://laws.findlaw.com/US/440/648.html</A>

If these URLs don't work, go to [url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com"]http://www.worldnetdaily.com and go to the archives. It's last week's Clair Wolfe column...

However: Having a gun and drugs in this particular location--couldn't that be called, "Terminal Stupid"? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Checked; URLs work.

:-), Art

[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited September 09, 1999).]
 
Never, ever give consent. You are asking for possible big trouble. Consider the following: You and a causal business acquaince are driving across town one evening and you need to stop at a grocery store to pick up a few items. He says he's in no rush and will wait in your car while you pop-in to the grocery. Lines are a little long and it takes longer than you thought. While waiting for you in your car he decides to do a couple of lines but just as he's got them laid out a police car pulls up next to your car. Your buddy drops everything on your floorboard and tosses a baggie under his seat. LEO sees nothing and goes into the store for a day old donut. Just then you return to your car and proceed to tell your passenger how sorry you are that took so long. As you leave your parkimg space the LEO returns to his car and leaves following behind you. You drive your buddy to his home with the LEO following you all the way. You are unconcerned but your passenger is a twit as he keeps watching the car following you. Unknown to either of you the LEO lives two blocks down the same street as you passenger. The next morning any one of a thousand things happen and you end up being asked "You don't mind if I search your car?" Being Mr. Pure-as-the-driven-snow you say "Sure". Take it from there.

RKBA!
 
Not quite Groundlevel. If you consent to search, the consent may be withdrawn at any time and the search must immediately cease. If during the time consent was given some material may have been discovered thereby giving probable cause for the search to continue even if permission had been withdrawn.
 
Must be that nasty "application of the law" variance in different jurisdictions. I thought the change of mind/permission only applied to questioning and requesting a lawyer. I've always seen the application to searching a vehicle or baggage as once the barrier is breached with permission then the search can continue.

Apparently I'm wrong, not the first time. So, lock your luggage and never give permission.
 
NEVER give consent. Merely state (courteously)that you would rather not have anyone going through your personal belongings.They may proceed anyway, but they may be neater.
As an added note, any time that you are read your rights, tell them NO , you do not understand them. As this post has showed, most people truly DO NOT understand their rights under the law. Even if they try to either explain, or repeat them, be courteous, but do not indicate that you understand.

It is also a good idea to confirm whether you are

A. Suspected of something

B. Being charged with something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top