Police stop behavior

[sjfcontrol]

I agree that it might not be the best thing to say, but an LEO construing this as a blanket consent is wrong and illegal. Thinking that it is not a lie is inconceivable to me. A person can revoke their consent to search at any time and can attach conditions to their search, such as requiring a warrant or presence of an attorney.

Let me pose a question. Let's say you needed some money and said "Hey Wild Bill can you give me $20". And I said, "Yes, as long as you pay me back." You would say that I was lying if you didn't pay me and I said that you owed me $20? Is this playing games?

Hmm, I would like to hear that (that you can revoke your permission to search) from either a leo or preferably a lawyer. My bet is it isn't true. Otherwise, when they start to tear your car apart, everybody would revoke permission.
The thing is, by saying "Yes, if...", you're playing games with the officer. If you mean NO, say NO. Then it's not subject to interpretation.

And it really DOESN'T make any sense to say "Yes, if you get a warrant.", since if the officer has a warrant, he doesn't need your permission anymore. And he knows that. Therefore the statement is not only subject to interpretation, but is irrelevant.

[wgoforth]

I agree that it might not be the best thing to say, but an LEO construing this as a blanket consent is wrong and illegal. Thinking that it is not a lie is inconceivable to me. A person can revoke their consent to search at any time and can attach conditions to their search, such as requiring a warrant or presence of an attorney.

Let me pose a question. Let's say you needed some money and said "Hey Wild Bill can you give me $20". And I said, "Yes, as long as you pay me back." You would say that I was lying if you didn't pay me and I said that you owed me $20? Is this playing games?

Hmm, I would like to hear that (that you can revoke your permission to search) from either a leo or preferably a lawyer. My bet is it isn't true. Otherwise, when they start to tear your car apart, everybody would revoke permission.
The thing is, by saying "Yes, if...", you're playing games with the officer. If you mean NO, say NO. Then it's not subject to interpretation.

And it really DOESN'T make any sense to say "Yes, if you get a warrant.", since if the officer has a warrant, he doesn't need your permission anymore. And he knows that. Therefore the statement is not only subject to interpretation, but is irrelevant.

No, I take it to me "I want to cooperate with the law, and so do you. So if you have a search warrant, feel free to." I find it hard that Tom Gresham would have missed that point if it were so obvious. My kids ask me if they can go play, I say "Yes, if you get your work done." It's not a word game. My question was simply do we tell them to search without a warrant or ask for one essentially.

[sjfcontrol]

We are not talking about you talking to your kids, or me trying to borrow money. We are talking about interfacing with the law, in a situation that could have significant results.

However, don't let my opinions sway you. If you feel that it makes sense to play word games, which is what I would consider that response if I were the officer, then by all means go ahead. I'd sincerely like to know how it works out. Particularly if you happen to get a grumpy LEO.

Its amazing to me with all the talk on this forum regarding "aggressive DAs", that people think it's cool to play "Yes means No" games.

And yes, they DO need to have probable cause to get a warrant. So if it is just a fishing expedition, they will eventually let you go without a search. (Unless they want to make something up. Happen often? I don't know. But I'm SURE it has happened.)

And the argument that you have nothing to hide is a fallacy. You don't know if you've got anything to hide. Has your vehicle EVER been used or accessed by anybody other than yourself? Your teenage kids? The mechanic that changed your tires? Buy it at a police auction? (shudder!) When was the last time you looked under the spare tire in the trunk? Or inside the door panels, for that matter.

I'm not saying you need to be rude. But a simple "Officer, I respectfully refuse permission for any searches." is sufficient. And refusal of permission is not probable cause for a search.

[WildBill]

I came across an old [2005] UNT study about car searches in Dallas that showed that 94% of drivers agreed to have their vehicles searched. The study also showed than in Austin, when drivers were given consent forms to sign, the number of consent searches declined 63%.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2 ... nt-to.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also ran across this blog written by a Texas defense attorney.

http://www.texascriminallawyerblog.com/search_siezure/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wgoforth]

I came across an old [2005] UNT study about car searches in Dallas that showed that 94% of drivers agreed to have their vehicles searched. The study also showed than in Austin, when drivers were given consent forms to sign, the number of consent searches declined 63%.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2 ... nt-to.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also ran across this blog written by a Texas defense attorney.

http://www.texascriminallawyerblog.com/search_siezure/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Always remember that 98.2% of staistics are made up on the spot 80% of the time

[srothstein]

I agree that it might not be the best thing to say, but an LEO construing this as a blanket consent is wrong and illegal. Thinking that it is not a lie is inconceivable to me. A person can revoke their consent to search at any time and can attach conditions to their search, such as requiring a warrant or presence of an attorney.

Let me pose a question. Let's say you needed some money and said "Hey Wild Bill can you give me $20". And I said, "Yes, as long as you pay me back." You would say that I was lying if you didn't pay me and I said that you owed me $20? Is this playing games?

Hmm, I would like to hear that (that you can revoke your permission to search) from either a leo or preferably a lawyer. My bet is it isn't true. Otherwise, when they start to tear your car apart, everybody would revoke permission.
The thing is, by saying "Yes, if...", you're playing games with the officer. If you mean NO, say NO. Then it's not subject to interpretation.

And it really DOESN'T make any sense to say "Yes, if you get a warrant.", since if the officer has a warrant, he doesn't need your permission anymore. And he knows that. Therefore the statement is not only subject to interpretation, but is irrelevant.

Will I do? When asked for consent, you may grant it as unlimited or you may grant a limited consent (for example, you can search the passenger area but not the trunk). You may also revoke consent at any time.

The trick is that the SCOTUS has always ruled that your assertion of your rights must be unequivocal and clear. If you say "yes but", it may be taken as not clear. If you stop the search, you must also be clear. So I always advise people to be clear and state "I am not giving consent for any searches" or words very similar to that. Anything less may not be clear and this also communicates that you ar ento interfering with what they do if they search anyway.

This also goes for talking. If you just say nothing, they can keep asking you questions for as long as they want (most recent case on this was this exact problem). If you answer some questions, you can be questioned. You must say "I am not answering any questions without my lawyer present" or words to that effect.

The best advice is to get with a good attorney and get to know him before you come across this type of situation, then do what he advises. You don't need to put him on retainer (though it is not a bad idea if you can afford it), but you should know who you will call when something does happen.

[Running Arrow Bill]

Hands on wheel. DL & CHL & Insurance cards on the dashboard. Light on at night. Be pleasant and comply with all requests. No sudden moves.

If you have absolutely nothing to hide, they let them search. If you have a "weapon" in your vehicle, inform them in advance (for their and your safety). Don't go "legal" on them and give them cause to check you out further.

JMO

[speedsix]

...and if, then, they want to follow you home and search your home...if you have absolutely nothing to hide....I don't think so...and I was one...DON'T give up your rights...DON'T roll over to their whim...we must remind them they work for us...not on us...politely but firmly say NO...

[sjfcontrol]

Will I do? When asked for consent, you may grant it as unlimited or you may grant a limited consent (for example, you can search the passenger area but not the trunk). You may also revoke consent at any time.

The trick is that the SCOTUS has always ruled that your assertion of your rights must be unequivocal and clear. If you say "yes but", it may be taken as not clear. If you stop the search, you must also be clear. So I always advise people to be clear and state "I am not giving consent for any searches" or words very similar to that. Anything less may not be clear and this also communicates that you ar ento interfering with what they do if they search anyway.

This also goes for talking. If you just say nothing, they can keep asking you questions for as long as they want (most recent case on this was this exact problem). If you answer some questions, you can be questioned. You must say "I am not answering any questions without my lawyer present" or words to that effect.

The best advice is to get with a good attorney and get to know him before you come across this type of situation, then do what he advises. You don't need to put him on retainer (though it is not a bad idea if you can afford it), but you should know who you will call when something does happen.

Of course, Steve! You'll do nicely!

I'm quite surprised about the versatility of giving search permission. So, I could say, for example, "You can search the entire car, except for the hand-rolled cigarette paper in the open pack of Winston cigarettes in the left-hand side of the glove box"? Wow!
Seriously, if you limit the search, you're telling them where the interesting stuff is.

Unless....
It would be an interesting experiment in mis-direction. If the contraband is under the back seat, tell them they can search everything except the trunk. They would then know that it's the trunk that is of interest, and only give the rest of the car a cursory look, hopefully missing the back seat. If they then manage to get a warrant, the subsequent search of the trunk would find nothing.

What you said about being clear is what I was getting at. If you don't want them to search, don't start off by indicating they can.

[sjfcontrol]

Hands on wheel. DL & CHL & Insurance cards on the dashboard. Light on at night. Be pleasant and comply with all requests. No sudden moves.

If you have absolutely nothing to hide, they let them search. If you have a "weapon" in your vehicle, inform them in advance (for their and your safety). Don't go "legal" on them and give them cause to check you out further.

JMO

Complying with "legal" requests does not include giving permission.
I've already pointed out that you don't necessarily know if you have anything to hide. And I also am continuously surprised at how jealously gun people protect their 2nd amendment rights, and then turn around and propose giving up their 4th. Would you also propose allowing them to search your home "if you have nothing to hide"? How about body-cavity searches? How about a blood/DNA test?

[Shoot Straight]

Complying with "legal" requests does not include giving permission.
I've already pointed out that you don't necessarily know if you have anything to hide. And I also am continuously surprised at how jealously gun people protect their 2nd amendment rights, and then turn around and propose giving up their 4th. Would you also propose allowing them to search your home "if you have nothing to hide"? How about body-cavity searches? How about a blood/DNA test?

Bingo! If it's legal and reasonable, they don't need your permission.

And before anyone resurrects the strawman, refusing to consent is not the same as resisting.

[gigag04]

A consent search (minus PC w/ exigent circumstances or warrant) can be revoked, or limited in scope.

[TimAustinTX]

I was reading a blog entry by a new (3 months on the job from what I remember) and young sheriffs deputy who said it was his preference and department policy to disarm for even a simple traffic stop.

Having been pulled over by a lone Trooper in a rural area and he didn't even flinch about it me carrying it seems odd that a department would want to put there officers and the citizen in danger by trying to disarm them.

My question is has there ever been a case of a CHL holder shooting an officer during a traffic stop?

Tim

[sjfcontrol]

I was reading a blog entry by a new (3 months on the job from what I remember) and young sheriffs deputy who said it was his preference and department policy to disarm for even a simple traffic stop.

IMHO -- that is not legal. He MUST have an articulable reason to disarm. He must feel you are a threat to yourself, him, or another. Otherwise he has no reason to disarm. Not to argue with him in the field, but I'd write a letter to his superior if he stopped and disarmed me without cause.

[speedsix]

...some use the power given to them to serve...themselves...