Would you submit to a "voluntary" search?...

by Justice-One 40 Replies latest jw friends

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One

    Example....A cop pulls you over for a broken taillight or some other very minor infraction. He says he is just going to give you a warning, then says something like...."Hey, you don't have any rockets or explosives in your trunk do you?" You of course say no, then he says "mind if I look?" If you say "yes" like so many would, you have just given up some very serious rights. I actually saw this little trick used on my young nephew. Later I explained to him how he had just given the police permission to search his car without having probable cause. He did not think this was a big deal. I do. What if he had something that he did not know was illegal? What if the cop found a "roach" that the cars previous owner had left behind? He would now be screwed. He would have no hope of having the search thrown out because "probable cause" had not been met....he GAVE them permission, and GAVE away his rights.

    Personally I long ago memorized the following phrase...."Officer under the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to submit to voluntary search of my person or vehicle." Then of course ask if you are free to go.

  • betterdaze
    betterdaze

    You're right. This is the same advice my dad, a police officer, gave us when we started driving. Never concede to a car search.

    They make more arrests through broken taillights than you can imagine.

    ~Sue

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    ...."Officer under the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to sumbit to voluntary search of my person or vehicle."

    I have to agree. If you fit a profile of a criminal, especially.

    Even if you are squeaky clean, though, you are giving up a right, and it could
    hurt you. The example of some previous owner's roach is a good one. You
    can never be sure that the cop, himself, plants something. Also, a family
    member or coworker chose your car to hide something, unknown to you.

    Those are paranoid circumstances, but better to just say no.

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One

    What would you say to .... "You know I can get a warrant really easy. It will go easier on you if you just let me take look."

    Or... "Just what DO you have in the trunk? Do you have something to hide?"

    As for me, to number one...."Go ahead and get the warrant, under advice of counsel....."

    And the latter... "I only have lawful private property."

  • new boy
    new boy

    If he doesn't listen..........You could always go for that 357 mag. under your seat. Make sure its an eye shot.

  • hemp lover
    hemp lover

    I didn't realize you could say "no" until I started watching "Cops". ;-)

    If you're not doing anything illegal (or maybe even if you are) and a police officer asks to see your I.D., do you have to show it?

  • Mulan
    Mulan

    I have nothing to hide, so wouldn't object to any kind of a search. My trunk has a bottle of Febreeze in it, and a quilt. What can they do with that?

  • MinisterAmos
    MinisterAmos

    Ummmm no they CANNOT (legally) get a warrant unless there is something called probable cause.

    Blood leaking out of your trunk, stoners asking if they can get more of that weed, the K-9 going into convulsions and dying when he gets a whiff of your car are examples of probable cause.

    You driving your car down the street is not.

    Efff 'em. This isn't Great Britain or Canada.

    By the way, IF you refuse the PO can say he is calling the K-9 and that you have to wait. If you are clean you have won the lottery for false imprisonment, if you have drugs you never know, the dog could have a Vet appointment or die en-route. Never admit anything!

  • Uzzah
    Uzzah

    Minister Amos:

    Just giving you a fair chance. You were being facetious about your comment regarding Britain and Canada, right?

    I thought I had better ask before ripping you a new one.

    Uzzah - Canadian and loving it!

  • MinisterAmos
    MinisterAmos

    Just a small dig, but (on paper anyway) we 'Murricans do have more clearly defined rights than either Canada or GB, it's just that our Gov't is literally waging a war against its own citizens.

    The thing you guys don't understand is that it is becoming so opressive that we need to understand what is permitted and what is not. According to our Constitution (which Bush reportedly called "just a GD piece of paper!") we are technically protected from Governmental abuse. Of course the Goverment has a lot of lee-way to insist JUST TO THE POINT OF ABUSE and since most people have no idea what rights they still have and are so cowed by a man in uniform with guns telling them what to do that they just roll over.

    The average Canadian for example probably doesn't have to worry about being pulled over and having his/her car ripped apart at random? Guess what, it's common enough here in the US that I see it once a day and read (in our daily paper serving a community of 60,000) about random searches EVERY DAY leading to arrests and confiscation of property like cars, money and other valuables. Planning on renting a car and visiting? You'd be well counseled to follow this advice.

    Anyway Uzzah, Canada is progressive enough that it should be a model for the US on certain things.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit