TexasCHLforum.com

People have been pulled over for simple things that do not amount to a hill of beans. i.e. the license plate bracket obscuring the top of the word Texas on the license plate. Once the traffic stop has began the officer smells what he believes to be marijuanna. In fact it is the pollution from one of our great refinaries or similiar.

Do you give conscent to search?

Nothing to hide. CHL holder and no weapon in the car.

I might have nothing to hide, but if he has to ask then he has no probable cause to search either. I voted no.

A right unexercised is a right lost.

No consent given.

Depends on how I feel about the whole stop. I don't do drugs or run any kind of contraband, including possessing weapons in prohibited areas. So I can't see where I would have anything to hide. But I am also well aware that a cop needs probable cause to search, and that if he has to ask it means that he doesn't have it.

But I could see myself consenting if I felt that the cop was respectful and/or articulated some reason for wanting to do it.

But in most cases I would not consent. If the cop wants to detain me while he calls in a dope sniffing dog, he'll just be wasting his own time as well as mine. There's no way he's gonna get anything out of the stop except a traffic violation no matter what he does.

No way! No consent.

Nothing to hide is a BAD argument. Let's just put cameras everywhere including inside your home and the gov't will monitor you. I mean...you don't have anything to hide, so what does it matter?

If he's willing to tell me what he's searching for and why, odds are he'll get consent and save himself some trouble. Otherwise, he's going to have to do it without consent.

No.

If he/she has to ask, then the officer is planning on a fishing expedition. I don't fish, but if I did I'd prefer to choose my own fishing buddies.

I believe once he "smells what he believes is marijuana" he does not need your consent. Maybe one of the lawyer types can answer that. He can always search what is in your immediate reach without permission.

Edited: Forgot - I would not ever consent to a search if I have a choice

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Depends on how I feel about the whole stop. I don't do drugs or run any kind of contraband, including possessing weapons in prohibited areas. So I can't see where I would have anything to hide. But I am also well aware that a cop needs probable cause to search, and that if he has to ask it means that he doesn't have it.

But I could see myself consenting if I felt that the cop was respectful and/or articulated some reason for wanting to do it.

But in most cases I would not consent. If the cop wants to detain me while he calls in a dope sniffing dog, he'll just be wasting his own time as well as mine. There's no way he's gonna get anything out of the stop except a traffic violation no matter what he does.

This is my position as well.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I would be inclined to give consent.

Here are a couple reasons:

1. I have nothing to hide.
2. I have tremendous respect for the cops that risk their lives on the street.
3. I have a natural inclination to comply with LEO requests when they are made, unless compliance would put me in danger. (If I have a real problem with the way something was handled, it can be sorted out later with the department - not in the heat of the moment.)

I understand the idea of exercising your rights and refusing on the principle of the thing. but I also believe that just because you have the right to do something, it isn't always the right thing to do.

I would rather let him search and satisfy whatever "gut feeling" he may have had, and be done with the stop in 10 minutes and have him back out looking for bad guys, than refuse consent and keep him and other officers tied up for an hour if he presses the issue.

"Officer, my cousin/spouse/mother/neighbor is an attorney, and if she heard that I gave consent to a warrantless search, I'd never hear the end of it."

Now I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV. But, a friend of mine is and his advice is NO! The way he explained it is this....

As an owner/driver of a vehicle, you become responsible for anything inside the car as far as the police are concerned.
HIS BEST CASE SCENARIO: You give consent and nothing is found. You are free to go.
HIS WORST CASE SCENARIO: You give consent and a couple of say hydrocodone tablets are found between the seat cushions. Now the truth could be your aunt Myrtle spilled her prescription two years ago when you took her to the drug store. But guess what? You now own the burdern of proving why you have a controlled substance in your possession without a prescription.

Can I account for everything and everybody who has ever been in my vehicle? Better question is do I want the burden of HAVING to account for it?

Something to think about...

I agree with frankie the yankee, even if he is a yankee.(grin)

I will never consent to a search during a traffic stop. I do not agree with fishing expeditions.

I drive rentals when I travel - by the end of this year it will be for 40 weeks. I often examine the cars for "stuff" missed by Avis. I certainly do not want to consent to a search not knowing who rented the car previously.

I was searched by refinery security tonight when I arrived to work. I still cringe when this happens. I get really annoyed even though it is their right to do so. The refinery I am currently at has drug dogs and supposedly one that hits on gun powder. Supposedly they have caught hunters during deer season.

*sigh*.

Anygunanywhere