I just read this whole thing. Ccwolfe, You done right, but I wouldnt get all bunged up over it. I cant fault the guy for trying. After all he has probably found lots of people who will aid him in his job. I also don't think anyone who submits to a warrentless search of ANY of their property is "whoring out" the Constitution. I think they are foolish to do so, but thats it. I Never allow a search, period end of song. Why should I? Besides, when a judge tells you never ever do it, its a good idea to take heed. I once submitted to a search of my saddlebags. The officer spent ten minutes telling me that he could run me in for the "drug parapharnalia" he found. What was it? A piece of leather with feathers and beads on it and an alligator clip at one end. I had won it at a carnival an hour earlier. So I argued with him and beins I'm a big Ol' boy he called for backup, at wich time someone higher up than him came and smoothed over everyones ruffled feathers, and told me the officer was right. He also told the officer that they wouldnt be taking me in. Lesson learned. If they ask to search I guarantee they will be looking for something.
So.. I went to the border to shoot today.
- Thread starter ccwolff
- Start date
- Status
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Cops ask pretty much anyone they come into contact with if they can search their car. This is because criminals are generally pretty dim bulbs and will usually consent even if they have a half-ton of crack and a dead body in their trunk. I have had a few ask me if they could search my car over the years and I have always said no as politely as I could phrase it. Usually you just have to wait a few minutes for the K9 unit to show up, they walk the dog around your car and then you can leave...
Except, of course, for the one time that the cop handcuffed me, tossed me in the back of his car and proceeded to search my car anyway. I would not have been angry if he had probable cause or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, but the goof actually had the gall to tell his supervisor that I had consented to the search when I complained.
Of course he did not find anything, but that did not make me feel any better about the situation. I filed a complaint, but his car did not have a "dash-cam" so as far as I know nothing ever came of it as it was my word against his.
You were right in refusing the search and had the luck of dealing with a normal, by-the-book cop. I hope your luck holds and you don't have to go through the agrivation of dealing with a ham-fisted geek like I did.
Except, of course, for the one time that the cop handcuffed me, tossed me in the back of his car and proceeded to search my car anyway. I would not have been angry if he had probable cause or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, but the goof actually had the gall to tell his supervisor that I had consented to the search when I complained.
Of course he did not find anything, but that did not make me feel any better about the situation. I filed a complaint, but his car did not have a "dash-cam" so as far as I know nothing ever came of it as it was my word against his.
You were right in refusing the search and had the luck of dealing with a normal, by-the-book cop. I hope your luck holds and you don't have to go through the agrivation of dealing with a ham-fisted geek like I did.
jeff_troop
New member
what kind of lives are you guys leading?? i have never had a cop ask me to search my car or home or whatever. has it occured to any of you that you may be looking suspicious? you might want to modify your behavior if cops are a constant problem for you. perhaps be a little more discreet at least. the way some of you act on here i would understand why some cop might want to see what's up in your trunk 
Because the vast majority of the time, lawful behavior doesn't garner special attention by the police. Its when you're doing something thats either blatantly unlawful or something thats skirting the line or at least appears that way.
For example, I was helping out a former employer when he was in the middle of moving locations. We were working late at night on a weekend in a business park, moving boxes and things into his truck. A black and white rolled by and asked us what we were doing, talked to my boss for a bit, said they were having problems in the area with break-ins, said good night and left. According to the standards that you and others here have been saying the cops behavior was an outrage. My actions were perfectly legal and yet he had the gall to approach me and ask me questions. What a power hungry overbearing jerk
I'd be willing to bet that the people on this thread that complain about "overbearing" cops are the same ones who always complain about how cops are never around when the crime is actually being committed, and only show up when its over.
Not every cop is bullying or overbearing. However, he has no idea who you are or what you do. Its the height of arrogance to think that an LEO should know who you are or what you are doing, and complete fantasy that he shouldn't be able to ask questions when he thing there might be a problem.
Rationalization
What fatuous nonsense, especially from one who now claims to be an attorney with trial experience. Here's an example of cops not interfering with "lawful behavior" for you, counselor:
While waiting for my case to be re-called after the judge heard my Motion to Dismiss in chambers, another irresponsible cop from the same rogue department was testifying in yet another illegal search and seizure case. This Blue Knight testified that:
1. He was cruising a parking lot on private property;
2. He noticed an SUV at the edge of that lot, which contained other vehicles.;
3. He looked at the SUV and found NO EVIDENCE of break-in (and specifically testified that he found NO broken glass, NO popped locks and NO jimmied doors);
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the car was parked in a lot and had NO damage and he had received NO stolen vehicle reports for such an SUV, he called the plate in; THEN
5. FAILED TO WAIT for a response to his query and SEARCHED THE VEHICLE.
Oh - the query came back with no hits.
So tell us, learned counsel, what "suspicious behavior" did a perfectly normal vehicle parked in a perfectly normal spot exhibit which justified this cop's unwarranted and warrantless search?
Make it good............
OH - MY Motion to Dismiss was granted and the resulting lawsuit against the town and its cops is now in Federal court. I expect a companion case to follow. This town has a well-documented history of abuse, proven by the settlements its paid before the cases get to trial.
Maybe later I'll tell you about how one of its cowboy cops shot up a parking lot to apprehend that most dangerous of criminals, an accused bad-check passer. Despite firing 10+ shots at close range, he MISSED HIS TARGET. Even better, the cretin amazingly didn't hit anyone else, despite being in a mall parking lot, next to a highway and the on/off ramp of the interstate. The cop then tried to cover his incompetent ass by filing ADW/Vehicle charges against the alleged check bouncer. Said charges were DISMISSED a couple of weeks later........
But no; it's all OUR fault that the cops want to search us..........:barf:
What fatuous nonsense, especially from one who now claims to be an attorney with trial experience. Here's an example of cops not interfering with "lawful behavior" for you, counselor:
While waiting for my case to be re-called after the judge heard my Motion to Dismiss in chambers, another irresponsible cop from the same rogue department was testifying in yet another illegal search and seizure case. This Blue Knight testified that:
1. He was cruising a parking lot on private property;
2. He noticed an SUV at the edge of that lot, which contained other vehicles.;
3. He looked at the SUV and found NO EVIDENCE of break-in (and specifically testified that he found NO broken glass, NO popped locks and NO jimmied doors);
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the car was parked in a lot and had NO damage and he had received NO stolen vehicle reports for such an SUV, he called the plate in; THEN
5. FAILED TO WAIT for a response to his query and SEARCHED THE VEHICLE.
Oh - the query came back with no hits.
So tell us, learned counsel, what "suspicious behavior" did a perfectly normal vehicle parked in a perfectly normal spot exhibit which justified this cop's unwarranted and warrantless search?
Make it good............
OH - MY Motion to Dismiss was granted and the resulting lawsuit against the town and its cops is now in Federal court. I expect a companion case to follow. This town has a well-documented history of abuse, proven by the settlements its paid before the cases get to trial.
Maybe later I'll tell you about how one of its cowboy cops shot up a parking lot to apprehend that most dangerous of criminals, an accused bad-check passer. Despite firing 10+ shots at close range, he MISSED HIS TARGET. Even better, the cretin amazingly didn't hit anyone else, despite being in a mall parking lot, next to a highway and the on/off ramp of the interstate. The cop then tried to cover his incompetent ass by filing ADW/Vehicle charges against the alleged check bouncer. Said charges were DISMISSED a couple of weeks later........
But no; it's all OUR fault that the cops want to search us..........:barf:
I don't claim to be anything. I am an attorney. You're just miffed because you made a wrong assumption and got egg on your face.
In that situation, nothing. But you aren't addressing the argument. You're doing the same thing that the anti-gun crowd does. Because somewhere some person misused a gun we should ban them all. Because there are some bad cops, all police are out to get us. Its a fallacious argument and doesn't wash.
In every profession you will find those who abuse power and authority. Cops do it, teachers do it, attorneys most certianly do it. Just because you can find a bad apple however doesn't mean that its fair to condemn the whole group.
In the original situation here, a BP agent approached an unknown person who was armed in the middle of nowhere. With these facts, you honestly expect him not to ask questions? Give me a break.
We pay these guys to do a job. We pay these guys to find and stop criminals. I've got news for you, criminals sometimes drive nice cars, shoot nice guns, and wear nice clothes. They aren't relegated to a single economic or social class.
Since its clear you don't work in the DA's office let me tell you that you would be shocked at how many criminals actually consent to searches. It happens all them time, mainly because many crooks are stupid and are under the impression that if they don't consent they will be hauled in.
Bottom line, there were no violations of any kind here, the officer wasn't abusive or overbearing, and he didn't step over the line. He was perfectly within his rights to ask to search, and probably obligated to given the circumstances of the situation and what he had probably encountered in the past.
If anything, this is a perfect example of how the system of supposed to work. And yet somehow all of you are still "violated". While you mull this over let me break out the wine and cheese.
The DNA issue is totally off topic. I'm sorry I brought it up. (Actually, I think azurefly brought it up!) (But, the backlash against DNA sampling IS pure technophobia, and I hold that there's nothing to worry about.)
In fact, I can't really remember what we were talking about...
Anyone?
In fact, I can't really remember what we were talking about...
Anyone?
I think people are confusing an encouragement to never consent to a search as an assertion that merely asking to search is overbearing and abusive, and I don't think anyone's saying that.
The "plain sight" rule is well-established and reasonable, and I don't think anyone has a real problem with it, or with a cop checking out potentially suspicious activity such as unloading an office late at night.
What would be a problem, if it happened, would be a cop refusing to heed denial of consent and searching without a warrant over the objections of the subject. But that's certainly rare, I should think.
The "plain sight" rule is well-established and reasonable, and I don't think anyone has a real problem with it, or with a cop checking out potentially suspicious activity such as unloading an office late at night.
What would be a problem, if it happened, would be a cop refusing to heed denial of consent and searching without a warrant over the objections of the subject. But that's certainly rare, I should think.
Misstating the position
NO; it is your misrepresenting my opinion that will not wash. I do NOT object to police asking reasonable questions, including a request to search. What I not merely object to, but find disgusting, are those who think we should CONSENT to searches, samples, etc. merely because we "have nothing to hide."
As has already been pointed out, this puts the citizenry in the untenable position of having to prove INNOCENCE. It is the duty of the state to prove GUILT and obsequiousness disguised as "cooperation" subverts that principle. Certainly an officer of the court should comprehend that.
I don't. (my borther's a retired detective sergeant). I defy you to provide any quote of mine to that effect. I don't condemn "the whole group;" neither will I give it carte blanche to conduct wholesale incursions of my rights, privacy and property merely to expedite its ostensible functions.
AGAIN, his asking questions is not an issue. His repeated attempts to obtain permission to search is the issue and I support the OP's denying that permission. Grasp the distinction.
Stupidity NEVER surprises me. What IS clear is that you are newly-minted and did not update your profile. I'm guessing that, being new and an obvious supporter of - how to put this charitably - "active policing" - you ARE in the DA's office.
IF so, you are even more well-placed than I am to see the abuse of power, including the warrantless searches such as I described. At least be honest enough to admit it, instead of misstating positions and rationalizing abuses.
NO; it is your misrepresenting my opinion that will not wash. I do NOT object to police asking reasonable questions, including a request to search. What I not merely object to, but find disgusting, are those who think we should CONSENT to searches, samples, etc. merely because we "have nothing to hide."
As has already been pointed out, this puts the citizenry in the untenable position of having to prove INNOCENCE. It is the duty of the state to prove GUILT and obsequiousness disguised as "cooperation" subverts that principle. Certainly an officer of the court should comprehend that.
I don't. (my borther's a retired detective sergeant). I defy you to provide any quote of mine to that effect. I don't condemn "the whole group;" neither will I give it carte blanche to conduct wholesale incursions of my rights, privacy and property merely to expedite its ostensible functions.
AGAIN, his asking questions is not an issue. His repeated attempts to obtain permission to search is the issue and I support the OP's denying that permission. Grasp the distinction.
Stupidity NEVER surprises me. What IS clear is that you are newly-minted and did not update your profile. I'm guessing that, being new and an obvious supporter of - how to put this charitably - "active policing" - you ARE in the DA's office.
IF so, you are even more well-placed than I am to see the abuse of power, including the warrantless searches such as I described. At least be honest enough to admit it, instead of misstating positions and rationalizing abuses.
Mind if I join this tinkling contest? I only have a litle bit of tinkling to do...
It's a personal choice. If somebody else consents to a warrantless search, and gets cased up for phony "drug paraphenalia", that's his problem, not mine or yours.
I agree. The cop's just doing his job, and by saying "No", I'm doing mine as an independent citizen of these fine United States.
In my experience, that simply not true. You will usually "garner special attention" because you are doing something that appears illegal. Or you may just be doing something that's out of the ordinary. Sometimes cops just get bored, and badge-happy. Maybe you just like to wear your hair too long, or chose parents with the wrong skin color...
It's a personal choice. If somebody else consents to a warrantless search, and gets cased up for phony "drug paraphenalia", that's his problem, not mine or yours.
I agree. The cop's just doing his job, and by saying "No", I'm doing mine as an independent citizen of these fine United States.
In my experience, that simply not true. You will usually "garner special attention" because you are doing something that appears illegal. Or you may just be doing something that's out of the ordinary. Sometimes cops just get bored, and badge-happy. Maybe you just like to wear your hair too long, or chose parents with the wrong skin color...
One of the things that the 4th amendment gives us is choice. We have the ability to choose to consent to a search or choose not to consent to a search. It is the very action of choosing that is the exercise of that right, regardless of which way we choose.
Choosing one method over the other does not subvert the right involved. It is merely the exercise of choice.
Now, if you all look down at that glass of water you are holding, you will see that it has taken on a distinct yellow hue....
Choosing one method over the other does not subvert the right involved. It is merely the exercise of choice.
Now, if you all look down at that glass of water you are holding, you will see that it has taken on a distinct yellow hue....
- Status