PDA

View Full Version : An officer instructs you to open your trunk.....


Wallabing
12-31-2009, 11:47 PM
Can an officer do this? Do you have to follow his instructions to open your trunk, or can you chose to deny it?

MP301
01-01-2010, 12:08 AM
It all depends....you can tell him that you do not give permission for a search without a warrant....If he has probable cause then he is going to anyway. Its always a good idea to deny permission because if it shows later that he didnt have probable cause (like when you go to court), then it invalidates the search....

Keep in mind, that if he is in position to tow your car for some reason, he gets to search it anyway to "inventory" the contents of your vehicle.

Also keep in mind that an officer can "ask" you to do whatever he wants. So if he asks and you give him permission, its a legal search..

Matt C
01-01-2010, 12:52 AM
Depends. Generally no, you can just stand there and ignore him, you don't have to say or do anything that can incriminate you. If however, you told him you have firearms in the truck then he can, under the current law which is probably unconstitutional, check to see if they are loaded. If you refuse to show them to him you can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 1:11 AM
One word answer, NO!

Gryff
01-01-2010, 1:40 AM
"I do not consent to a search of my vehicle. Am I free to go?"

Repeat until he/she takes the hint.

tombinghamthegreat
01-01-2010, 2:10 AM
NO.

berto
01-01-2010, 2:26 AM
Ask him to open his trunk. After all, you own the car.

But seriously, don't consent.

Backinblack1234
01-01-2010, 2:32 AM
Get a warrant !

bigcalidave
01-01-2010, 2:33 AM
Doesn't matter what their reason is, tell 'em to go F himself :) NEVER CONSENT...


Happy new years....
Dave

BillCA
01-01-2010, 6:04 AM
An officer instructs you to open your trunk..... Can an officer do this? Do you have to follow his instructions to open your trunk, or can you chose to deny it?

The way you've worded it says that the officer is ordering you/commanding you to open the trunk. Is this what you had in mind?

Or did you have in mind something along the line of ...
"Sir, would you open your trunk, please?"

If "ordered" to do so, I'll ask him "Is that a request or a command, officer?" Note his response. In any case, the verbal response is I do not consent to any search without a warrant. If he's ordered you to open the trunk, lay the keys on car and step clear. If it was a request, you've already denied him a search. The next step(s) becomes his burden.

Note that if you and/or your vehicle are mistaken for a criminal suspect and there are exigent circumstances¹, police may not even ask. You may be pulled out of your car in a felony stop then have your trunk opened by police before you say a word.

¹ Such as a reported kidnapping of a child or someone reporting someone putting what looked like a body in a trunk.

BiggMatt
01-01-2010, 6:11 AM
You DO NOT have the right to disobey an unlawful order.
It is your DUTY to disobey an unlawful order!

geeknow
01-01-2010, 6:35 AM
If he's ordered you to open the trunk, lay the keys on car and step clear. If it was a request, you've already denied him a search. The next step(s) becomes his burden. SIZE]

I like this. Its a simple, yet powerful play.

EGL
01-01-2010, 8:26 AM
First of all a "Happy and safe New Year" to all of the Calgun folks.

I agree I should state "I do not agree to have the vehicle inspected" but then
I am wondering whether to say anything at all though, or state my Fifth ammendment right to not incriminate myself or submit to an illegal search/seizure.:D

If you lay your keys on the trunk or hood of your car, is this an implied act of granting permission to inspect the vehicle? Also my SUV does hatch is button activated, no key function available.

After stepping clear, I think I'll leave the keys in the ignition and let him/her proceed with their "business". Also I am thinking of carrying a mini-audio recorder and inform the officer that the conversation is being recorded. Or use my cell phone video recorder.

EGL

EGL
01-01-2010, 8:28 AM
First of all a "Happy and safe New Year" to all of the Calgun folks.

I agree I should state "I do not agree to have the vehicle inspected" but then
I am wondering whether to say anything at all though, or state my Fifth ammendment right to not incriminate myself or submit to an illegal search/seizure.:D

If you lay your keys on the trunk or hood of your car, is this an implied act of granting permission to inspect the vehicle? Also my SUV hatch is button activated, no key function available.

After stepping clear, I think I'll leave the keys in the ignition and let him/her proceed with their "business". Also I am thinking of carrying a mini-audio recorder and inform the officer that the conversation is being recorded. Or use my cell phone video recorder.

EGL

CavTrooper
01-01-2010, 8:33 AM
How are you supposed to get the body in if you dont open the trunk? :eek:;)

EGL
01-01-2010, 8:57 AM
How are you supposed to get the body in if you dont open the trunk? :eek:;)

You don't do it that way.....hang 'em across the hood thingy so they don't have to bother with looking inside.:rolleyes:

snobord99
01-01-2010, 9:03 AM
If you lay your keys on the trunk or hood of your car, is this an implied act of granting permission to inspect the vehicle? Also my SUV does hatch is button activated, no key function available.

If you say nothing and do this, it could VERY easily be considered consent. It's like if they said can we come in to your house and you step aside with the door open. That's consent.

CavTrooper
01-01-2010, 9:10 AM
You don't do it that way.....hang 'em across the hood thingy so they don't have to bother with looking inside.:rolleyes:

Theres always a better way, why didnt I think of that!

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 9:59 AM
I thought by signing for your CA License that you are granting permission for any LEO to legally search the vehicle. Or at least this is what I remember when I was young and was going through all the drivers training stuff.

zhyla
01-01-2010, 10:01 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510N22VB8XL._AA260_.jpg

SteveH
01-01-2010, 10:03 AM
If he has PC to search he can open the damn trunk himself.

GrizzlyGuy
01-01-2010, 10:14 AM
Here is a great article (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/F09_VEHICLE_SEARCHES.pdf) related to vehicle searches. If the LEO has probable cause, they can legally search your trunk without a warrant.

While you should never consent to a search, note that they are allowed to force their way into the trunk in these circumstances (or have your car towed and force their way into it later). So if you know there is nothing incriminating in there and you wish to prevent them from damaging your car, you could choose to give consent or at least place the keys somewhere that they can access.

CSACANNONEER
01-01-2010, 10:22 AM
If he is hearing the banging and muffled cries from your trunk, you probably should not open it. Instead, hand him the keys and run!

Sgt Raven
01-01-2010, 10:33 AM
I thought by signing for your CA License that you are granting permission for any LEO to legally search the vehicle. Or at least this is what I remember when I was young and was going through all the drivers training stuff.


I can't believe you or anyone else would post this. Implied consent is you say you'll take a DUI test and if you refuse you'll lose your license.

POLICESTATE
01-01-2010, 10:43 AM
Here is a great article (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/F09_VEHICLE_SEARCHES.pdf) related to vehicle searches. If the LEO has probably cause, they can legally search your trunk without a warrant.

While you should never consent to a search, note that they are allowed to force their way into the trunk in these circumstances (or have your car towed and force their way into it later). So if you know there is nothing incriminating in there and you wish to prevent them from damaging your car, you could choose to give consent or at least place the keys somewhere that they can access.

That IS a great article, thanks for linking!

Bottom line is: no LEO can compel you to incriminate yourself, nor compel you to explain why you have no wish to incriminate yourself. Though they will certainly try if they think you are up to no good.

Bigballaizm
01-01-2010, 10:43 AM
Thats why I drive a twuck... :D

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 10:49 AM
I just remember signing something back in the day, couldn't remember exactly what it was consenting to. My honest mistake.

eta34
01-01-2010, 10:51 AM
Great. This thing is gonna get locked now since you guys can't follow rules. Excellent work kids!

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 10:52 AM
http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/facepalmsmiley.gif

caoboy
01-01-2010, 10:58 AM
You do not have to consent. for the poster who says to tell the officer to proceed with his business, that's giving them consent. Don't say that.

GrizzlyGuy
01-01-2010, 11:04 AM
I can't believe you or anyone else would post this. Implied consent is you say you'll take a DUI test and if you refuse you'll lose your license.

For clarity, note that you are not required to take any of the DUI tests they administer in the field. That includes blowing in the breathalyzer and the field sobriety test. In fact, you should not agree to do these things as it could end up giving them more evidence to use against you. If you are being asked to do these things, they likely already intend to arrest you.

Once you are placed under arrest, then you are required to take the DUI test back at the jail or hospital if they take you there. If you refuse, your license can be suspended. And, they can forcibly administer that test.

More info here (http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/2009/07/urgent-how-to-handle-dui-cop-or.html) and here (http://www.dui.com/dui-library/california/laws/chemical-test).

Rob454
01-01-2010, 11:05 AM
Unless you have something to hide a cop can basically say what he wants to get access. The more paranoid you act the more he is gonna be suspicious of you. ESPECIALLY late in the evening/night etc. ive been pulled over with guns in the car and the most I got asked was are they loaded. Its been my experience that unless you start acting funny/paranoid around cops they just want to write their ticket. The side of the road is not the place to sit and convince a cop of your civil rights. hes not gonna care.

Rob

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 11:06 AM
Dude, the guy posted that he couldn't believe you posted that and you call him a "fvcking douche"? Then you tell the next guy who agreed with him to "shut up". What are you, 15?

No not at all. I just don't appreciate being attacked for one single in correct post that I made. I wasn't trying to start a fight, I was merely posting what I thought was true about the DMV consent. Right out the gate the "I can't believe you posted that" comment implied the fact that somehow my comment was so far out of this world, what is wrong with me?!?!?!

Obviously I was wrong, okay got it. Could have easily pointed that out without the implied attack that Sargent made. I wasn't TOTALLY wrong, it was set straight that the consent I was thinking of was regarding a DUI stop.

Then by everyone jumping on the hater bandwagon really pissed me off. Calm down guys.

pullnshoot25
01-01-2010, 11:08 AM
Ask him to open his trunk. After all, you own the car.

But seriously, don't consent.

RAD.

In all seriousness, FLEXYOURRIGHTS.COM!

the_natterjack
01-01-2010, 11:10 AM
I just remember signing something back in the day, couldn't remember exactly what it was consenting to. My honest mistake.

No, your correct in a way. I'm not sure if it still holds but they used to be able to do some sort of safety check? or smog check? or something like that. Like they do with commercial vehicles at scales.

Anybody else remember? was it limited to the engine compartment?


BTW, be nice but don't open your trunk.

Brian

CSACANNONEER
01-01-2010, 11:15 AM
No not at all. I just don't appreciate being attacked for one single in correct post that I made. I wasn't trying to start a fight, I was merely posting what I thought was true about the DMV consent. Right out the gate the "I can't believe you posted that" comment implied the fact that somehow my comment was so far out of this world, what is wrong with me?!?!?!

Obviously I was wrong, okay got it. Could have easily pointed that out without the implied attack that Sargent made. I wasn't TOTALLY wrong, it was set straight that the consent I was thinking of was regarding a DUI stop.

Then by everyone jumping on the hater bandwagon really pissed me off. Calm down guys.

He did not call you a name nor, did he personally attack you. If anything, he "attacked" your post (which was incorrect) and you took it personally. You are the only one in this thread who has violated the rules here. Now, take a deep breathe, keep it civil and we douches will still get along with you. Of course, don't get upset if another one of us douches corrects your misinformation in the future. Instead, do what I do here. Publicly admit your mistake and that the douche for correcting you.:p

eta34
01-01-2010, 11:20 AM
Actually, Chris, you were totally wrong. Consenting to a DUI test is not even close to allowing a LEO to search your trunk. Learn your rights. It is not my job to teach them to you on a traffic stop.

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 11:21 AM
Okay so now we have mixed info in this thread about consent and searches. Seeing that there are DUI suspicions and normal vehicle traffic stop searches with probable cause. What exactly is it that is being consented to when you sign for your license? Natterjack brought up something about vehicle inspections.

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 11:23 AM
Actually, Chris, you were totally wrong. Consenting to a DUI test is not even close to allowing a LEO to search your trunk. Learn your rights. It is not my job to teach them to you on a traffic stop.

But a DUI stop can turn into a search of the vehicle, correct? So in theory they could end up searching the vehicle and finding a for unknown reason a properly secured firearm in the trunk.

eta34
01-01-2010, 11:26 AM
Sure...but you stated earlier that by signing up for a license, you give consent to search your car. Any stop can lead to a search...what is your point?

CSACANNONEER
01-01-2010, 11:28 AM
But a DUI stop can turn into a search of the vehicle, correct? So in theory they could end up searching the vehicle and finding a for unknown reason a properly secured firearm in the trunk.

Every situation will be different. If the officer has PC or is impounding the vehicle, he'll search it with or without your consent. No matter what, you should not consent to the search. If he searches without consent, it might still be a legal search or it might be a violation of your rights.

johnthomas
01-01-2010, 11:30 AM
I just remember signing something back in the day, couldn't remember exactly what it was consenting to. My honest mistake.

I cant believe that you asked a question and got chastised for it. Isn't the reason for these forums to get opinions and information to help us make decisions? Is it no wonder some new people wont post for fear of reprisal from some other members?

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 11:31 AM
You just make it seem like a DUI stop and a trunk search are unrelated isolated incidents, but if you're stopped on suspicion of DUI the LEO had PC he/she can search the trunk. So wouldn't it be safe to assume that there's a loose correlation between the two? Basically don't drive drunk with a loaded and/or illegal firearm in your trunk (regardless of the intent of having the firearm in the trunk at that specific moment in time).

eta34
01-01-2010, 11:33 AM
You just make it seem like a DUI stop and a trunk search are unrelated isolated incidents, but if you're stopped on suspicion of DUI the LEO had PC he/she can search the trunk. So wouldn't it be safe to assume that there's a loose correlation between the two? Basically don't drive drunk with a loaded and/or illegal firearm in your trunk (regardless of the intent of having the firearm in the trunk at that specific moment in time).

No. They are not related. Simply because you are stopped for suspicion of DUI does not give the officer PC to search the trunk. This isn't even what you proposed earlier. You implied that officers have automatic access to your trunk since you have a driver's license.

There is ZERO correlation between the two. It sounds like you are trying to justify your earlier incorrect statement.

ChrisTKHarris
01-01-2010, 11:34 AM
No. They are not related. Simply because you are stopped for suspicion of DUI does not give the officer PC to search the trunk. This isn't even what you proposed earlier. You implied that officers have automatic access to your trunk since you have a driver's license.

There is ZERO correlation between the two. It sounds like you are trying to justify your earlier incorrect statement.

Alright whatever, I'm over it.

You're just looking to duke it out.

eta34
01-01-2010, 11:35 AM
I cant believe that you asked a question and got chastised for it. Isn't the reason for these forums to get opinions and information to help us make decisions? Is it no wonder some new people wont post for fear of reprisal from some other members?

No, it wasn't a question. It was the statement that caused the uproar. People here take personal civil rights very seriously. They are tired of their rights being abused.

Seesm
01-01-2010, 11:35 AM
no and I lock my box and I forgot the key...

"I do not consent to a search of my vehicle. Am I free to go or am I being detained?"

If you want in my "fully legal" stuff you will have to get a warrant officer.

eta34
01-01-2010, 11:36 AM
no and I lock my box and I forgot the key...

"I do not consent to a search of my vehicle. Am I free to go or am I being detained?"

If you want in my "fully legal" stuff you will have to get a warrant officer.

Again, as has been said before, there is not legal requirement to get a search warrant for a vehicle. Probable cause is all that is legally required.

CSACANNONEER
01-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Alright whatever, I'm over it.

You're just looking to duke it out.

No, he is giving you a very good (based on his profesional education and experience) opinion of how the law really works. He is a LEO who uderstands that, as a LEO, his legal ability to search your vehicle only goes so far. Of course, his legal ability to search can change as soon as PC is established.

Jicko
01-01-2010, 11:51 AM
No, he is giving you a very good (based on his profesional education and experience) opinion of how the law really works. He is a LEO who uderstands that, as a LEO, his legal ability to search your vehicle only goes so far. Of course, his legal ability to search can change as soon as PC is established.

+1

ETA is a good guy, laying out the facts.

eta34
01-01-2010, 11:55 AM
+1

ETA is a good guy, laying out the facts.

I am reporting this post to the moderators. It is slanderous and untrue.

:D

Kestryll
01-01-2010, 11:59 AM
Annd... that will end the bickering right here.

Sgt. Raven you are indeed baiting Chris, knock it off.
Not only is it against the rules and likely to get you in trouble Chris will not be able to respond for a few days.

Keep it civil or get it locked.

Maestro Pistolero
01-01-2010, 12:08 PM
. . . If you lay your keys on the trunk or hood of your car, is this an implied act of granting permission to inspect the vehicle? Also my SUV does hatch is button activated, no key function available.

After stepping clear, I think I'll leave the keys in the ignition and let him/her proceed with their "business".
EGL
If he's ordered you to open the trunk, lay the keys on car and step clear. If it was a request, you've already denied him a search. The next step(s) becomes his burden.

How about you refuse the search, put the keys in your pocket and step away? Now he's really got a burden. There is no confusing that act with tacit permission.

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 1:07 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

CSACANNONEER
01-01-2010, 1:35 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

So, you only stop liberals? I bet there are many liberatarians here who are doing nothing illrgal yet, they will not consent to a fishing trip search.

The Director
01-01-2010, 1:36 PM
NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

Wow, thanks Officer, for completely voiding the constitution of the United States in on sentence or less! :(

Repeat after me: Not consenting to a search doesn't incriminate me. That's like 4th amendment 101, man.

I will always make it hard for you to search my vehicle or premises...promise! And I can assure you of my unimpeachable character in the meantime. I find it offensive that you equate not allowing a search to "doing anything illegal".

bigcalidave
01-01-2010, 1:45 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

Wow, goodbye rights. You should really ask your chief or commander or whomever your boss is if that is the correct attitude.

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 1:50 PM
All I said was: I never ask people to open their trunk. OR search them for no reason. ( I was a law student by the way...) I also said, that I NEVER had a situatian when a person refused to be searched or open their trunk without a reason. I NEVER said that there is anything criminal about NOT letting LEO search a vehicle. I would have to have a SPECIFIC situation in order to answer that question.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 1:59 PM
Wow, goodbye rights. You should really ask your chief or commander or whomever your boss is if that is the correct attitude.

Read into things much?

He's saying in his experiance those people who told him "no" were found to have been hiding contraband after he developed PC to search without their consent.

If its the truth is says nothing about anyones rights.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 2:01 PM
So, you only stop liberals? I bet there are many liberatarians here who are doing nothing illrgal yet, they will not consent to a fishing trip search.

Sounds like he only asks for consent to search after observing things that have already rose to the level of PC to search. If he doesnt see those things first he doesnt even ask.

Sometimes we let our personal biases cloud our reading comprehension.

pullnshoot25
01-01-2010, 2:03 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

You must not be a very good officer then...

Soldier415
01-01-2010, 2:05 PM
Retracted. I misread the gentleman's post.

My sincere apologies for jumping the gun.

run8
01-01-2010, 2:12 PM
You can usually spot them because they have the Obama sticker on their car, LoL.

So, you only stop liberals? I bet there are many liberatarians here who are doing nothing illrgal yet, they will not consent to a fishing trip search.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 2:17 PM
Wow, goodbye rights. You should really ask your chief or commander or whomever your boss is if that is the correct attitude.

I have to assume that the officer knows that refusing to consent to a search cannot be used as a basis for RS or PC. However, the problem we have is that in his mind it is.

Now, I work fore a large government agency. The kind in which you need to justify every little thing you do. Give me 15 minuets and a spellchecker and I can justify dam near anything! I am sure this talent is well developed in any peace officer worth his salt, and most that aren’t.
;)

Kestryll
01-01-2010, 2:23 PM
Holy CRAP!!

How much of a problem with reading comprehension do some of you HAVE!!?!?!?

Seriously, you're so busy trying to 'nail a cop' and be 'Mr. Constitution' that you can't even understand simple English!!!

For those who think with their ego instead of their brain let's take it slowly..

I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk
He does not randomly stop people and ask to look in their trunk nor is it part of a normal car stop.

When I do there is a GOOD reason for it.
When he DOES ask something in the stop or the events leading up to it made him feel there is probable cause, also known in shorter terms as ' a good reason'.

If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there.
If a search is refused and there seems to be PC there are procedures for handling that.
If there is no PC then A) he said he wouldn't ask and B) he never said he would railroad someone over it.
You all ASSUMED that's what he said based on nothing.

NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".
No one he has asked who said 'no' was ever found to be not breaking the law.
THAT is all he said
What you heard in your mind was 'Anyone who says no is a criminal'.
Notice how the two phrases are NOT the same?


Damn people start THINKING about this crap and sop EMOTING about it.
You just blasted the crap out of someone because you were too damn reactionary to even understand what was said!!\
This kind of foolishness makes us all look dumb and is really annoying.

Seesm
01-01-2010, 2:28 PM
I almost jumped to the same conclusion... re-reading I understand what he meant... I will always say NO I do nothing illegal...

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 2:28 PM
I am very much aware of laws when it omes to a search..... If You traveling over the speed limit and pull over , show You license and registration, Why would I ever ask You to open Your trunk ???? Or search You ???? Right? ........... What is missing here , is that there is got to be a reason for a search. And that reason goes in to the police report. If I have a GOOD reason to look inside the car or a van. A good reason according to the LAW- that I will take it form there.

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 2:31 PM
Holy CRAP!!

How much of a problem with reading comprehension do some of you HAVE!!?!?!?

Seriously, you're so busy trying to 'nail a cop' and be 'Mr. Constitution' that you can't even understand simple English!!!

For those who think with their ego instead of their brain let's take it slowly..


He does not randomly stop people and ask to look in their trunk nor is it part of a normal car stop.


When he DOES ask something in the stop or the events leading up to it made him feel there is probable cause, also known in shorter terms as ' a good reason'.


If a search is refused and there seems to be PC there are procedures for handling that.
If there is no PC then A) he said he wouldn't ask and B) he never said he would railroad someone over it.
You all ASSUMED that's what he said based on nothing.


No one he has asked who said 'no' was ever found to be not breaking the law.
THAT is all he said
What you heard in your mind was 'Anyone who says no is a criminal'.
Notice how the two phrases are NOT the same?


Damn people start THINKING about this crap and sop EMOTING about it.
You just blasted the crap out of someone because you were too damn reactionary to even understand what was said!!\
This kind of foolishness makes us all look dumb and is really annoying.

Thank You !!!

run8
01-01-2010, 2:33 PM
I retracted my comment like a good calgunner should ;-)

But not the liberal comment, LOL

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 2:37 PM
You must not be a very good officer then...

Maybe not.... By the way, How many high risk felony stops have You done? .... In Oakland CA? I did one today, but still , its good overtime. Happy New Year !

ojisan
01-01-2010, 2:37 PM
XOvKmUeLvVY&feature=PlayList&p=48700F845211225C&index=0&playnext=1

The Director
01-01-2010, 2:40 PM
Kestryll,

Before the lesson on reading comprehension continues, I urge you to look a little closer at what he said:

NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

The implication is clearly that the people who were engaged in illegal activity typically refused a search.

Rephrased as "NO ONE NOT CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY REFUSED A SEARCH.

Therefore:

Not engaged in illegal activity = consent to search.....which led the rest of us to the inverse ...engaged in illegal activity = refuse search.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 2:52 PM
How much of a problem with reading comprehension do some of you HAVE!!?!?!?

Seriously, you're so busy trying to 'nail a cop' and be 'Mr. Constitution' that you can't even understand simple English!!!.

I for one understood exactly what he said. However.


No one he has asked who said 'no' was ever found to be not breaking the law.


If true, and he has been in his job for any reasonable amount of time, would this not lead a reasonable person to conclude that one who said no was probably breaking the law? In other words, probable cause. Any sane man would in his own mind think so. I know the court says otherwise. But you can't unthink a thought.


Damn people start THINKING about this crap and sop EMOTING about it.
You just blasted the crap out of someone because you were too damn reactionary to even understand what was said!!\
This kind of foolishness makes us all look dumb and is really annoying.

With all due respect, I think your position is just a bit on the PC side of reality.;)

Kestryll
01-01-2010, 2:55 PM
Kestryll,

Before the lesson on reading comprehension continues, I urge you to look a little closer at what he said:

NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

The implication is clearly that the people who were engaged in illegal activity typically refused a search.
No, that is what YOU are inferring from it.

The statement is that in his experience all those who have said 'No' have been breaking the law.
Nothing more, nothing less.


Rephrased as "NO ONE NOT CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY REFUSED A SEARCH.
'Rephrased', in other words taking what he said and rewording it to fit your interpretation.

Not the best method of argumentation.

Therefore:

Not engaged in illegal activity = consent to search.....which led the rest of us to the inverse ...engaged in illegal activity = refuse search.
The problem with your equation is that in order for it to be valid you have to substantially alter the one variable that matters, what he actually said.

Grant me the option to completely rephrase your argument and I can equate anything you say to molesting sea anemones by candlelight.
That's why we always need to address what was SAID, not what we wanted to hear.

West coast
01-01-2010, 3:02 PM
NO NO NO......Get warrant.

Maestro Pistolero
01-01-2010, 3:11 PM
It probably IS rare for a law abiding person to refuse a search. Very few people have a strong enough motivation (based solely on the desire to exercise a right) to endure the delay, the suspicion, and the verbal grilling that may ensue from lawfully refusing a search.

The officer's experiences make sense to me. A criminal who is hiding something is extremely motivated to prevent the search by any available means.

It also seems as if this officer is saying that he would be unlikely to request a search without any PC, or RS.I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it.

Matt C
01-01-2010, 3:23 PM
I am very much aware of laws when it omes to a search..... If You traveling over the speed limit and pull over , show You license and registration, Why would I ever ask You to open Your trunk ???? Or search You ???? Right? ........... What is missing here , is that there is got to be a reason for a search. And that reason goes in to the police report. If I have a GOOD reason to look inside the car or a van. A good reason according to the LAW- that I will take it form there.

If you saw an empty holster lying in the back seat, would that be a good reason?

The Director
01-01-2010, 3:27 PM
If you saw an empty holster lying in the back seat, would that be a good reason?

Oooooh......BWO throws down!

Wallabing
01-01-2010, 3:32 PM
If I had a NRA sticker on my rear window, would that be a good reason to search?

Kestryll
01-01-2010, 3:48 PM
If you saw an empty holster lying in the back seat, would that be a good reason?
An interesting question, does having a holster imply a weapon or is it just an accessory?

If I had a NRA sticker on my rear window, would that be a good reason to search?
This on the other hand is just trolling...

bigcalidave
01-01-2010, 3:50 PM
Well it's trolling, but it could be a valid point. Like Mythbusters, calguns style. Do LEOs consider an NRA sticker reasonable suspicion enough to start questioning about weapons during a contact?

Meplat
01-01-2010, 4:09 PM
I have been told empty cartridge cases are PC.

An interesting question, does having a holster imply a weapon or is it just an accessory?


This on the other hand is just trolling...

Meplat
01-01-2010, 4:10 PM
I would bet the answer is some might but most wont.Well it's trolling, but it could be a valid point. Like Mythbusters, calguns style. Do LEOs consider an NRA sticker reasonable suspicion enough to start questioning about weapons during a contact?

eta34
01-01-2010, 4:17 PM
I have been told empty cartridge cases are PC.

I've been told that in two weeks all AR-style rifles will be banned...

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 4:23 PM
If I had a NRA sticker on my rear window, would that be a good reason to search?

No. NRA sticker is not a reason at all. I got one on my bumper. But if a car I am about to stop comes back stolen.....Or looks like a car that was involved in a felony hit and run or looks like a car that was involved in kidnapping .....I will what I need to do, to make my job and public safe. Including searching whatever I got to search...... As long as I can put it in a report.

Also, just want to point something out. THE LAST THING I AND OFFICERS I WORK WITH ARE WORRIED ABOUT is the type of the bullet button You have or how many holes Your muzzle break got on Your M1A. Or how You transport Your guns form the range....... Thank You .

KylaGWolf
01-01-2010, 4:51 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510N22VB8XL._AA260_.jpg

Personally if I am asked if they can go in to the trunk of my car I say no and ask them to articulate the reason they want to in the first place. Then I will ask if I am free to go.

OK here is the thing. The search of a motor vehicle does not require a paper warrant to do a search since motor vehicles are considered mobile and evidence can "disappear". The officer also only needs reasonable suspicion to do the search. You can refuse to let them search if they order it but more than likely at that point you may find yourself in the matching silver bracelets and your car towed which gives them the right to look through your entire car. More than likely in this situation the officer will be able to articulate why they did the search and you won't win in court in fighting it more than likely.

Hunt
01-01-2010, 5:05 PM
If he has PC to search he can open the damn trunk himself.

can LE get away with fabricating PC? if so, all the rules are meaningless.
The only way to protect our Liberty is to find ways to expose fabricated PC.

eta34
01-01-2010, 5:08 PM
can LE get away with fabricating PC? if so, all the rules are meaningless.
The only way to protect our Liberty is to find ways to expose fabricated PC.

Can we get away with it? I am sure some have. There are legal avenues to remedy that. I have personally seen cases thrown out in court when the judge believed the officer did not have PC for a search. Many here will say it doesn't happen...it does.

pullnshoot25
01-01-2010, 5:10 PM
can LE get away with fabricating PC? if so, all the rules are meaningless.
The only way to protect our Liberty is to find ways to expose fabricated PC.

Pretty much, yeah.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 5:13 PM
can LE get away with fabricating PC? if so, all the rules are meaningless.
The only way to protect our Liberty is to find ways to expose fabricated PC.

If it were to happen the person would have cause for a civil right lawsuit. In fact I would be disturbed if the victim of such a violation of right did not seek civil remedies as well as an IA complaint.

odysseus
01-01-2010, 5:21 PM
As a general benchmark, if LE is asking for permission - it is because they can't just do it on what they have as PC. They are trying to backup in fact an assumption they are feeling with PC which you would hand them.

Your best scenario most lawyers that care about you will tell you is to simply not consent, prima facie. There might be scenarios which could benefit you from just consenting, but as a general rule, no.

As legal gun owners that are under constant politically charged legal tension with the 58 DAs of this state and a generally unfriendly LE to gun ownership and possession outside of your home, this should be your general rule.

I am pro LE and want law and order and criminals caught. My only problem with all of this in talking to people is the simple, "if you are not doing anything illegal..." conversation. If you respect personal liberty and our Constitution, you use it. LE should be proving to you that they have something, not forcing you to lay down and hand them anything under the color that you need to prove your innocence. All of us should have learned this in a basic Civics class and act accordingly in a civilized society.

kcbrown
01-01-2010, 5:27 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

Which means:


There have been situations where you had some sort of PC to do a search.
So far, when you've had such PC and the person consented to the search, you subsequently found nothing to indicate that they had done anything illegal.
So far, when you've had such PC and the person did not consent to the search, you subsequently found something to indicate that they had indeed done something illegal.


While all of the foregoing may be true, it's only a matter of time before you pull someone over, have PC to perform a search, they do not consent to it, and you find nothing to indicate they did anything illegal (or, at least, you find nothing substantially different from the other stops you've performed where they did consent to the search).

While your last statement doesn't directly imply that a person's consent (or lack thereof) modifies any standards you have for how you go about your search or how you evaluate what you find in terms of "legal" or "illegal", it doesn't leave the possibility of such modification off the table, either. Your other statements give me reason to believe that the possibility is indeed off the table (you come across as a good cop to me), but you might want to be crystal clear about this.

Matt C
01-01-2010, 5:27 PM
Also, just want to point something out. THE LAST THING I AND OFFICERS I WORK WITH ARE WORRIED ABOUT is the type of the bullet button You have or how many holes Your muzzle break got on Your M1A. Or how You transport Your guns form the range....... Thank You .

From your other posts here I believe you, but not all officers feel the same way, and we won't know which type we are dealing with until it's too late. I was curious how a reasonable (not anti-gun brainwashed) officer like yourself would respond to seeing an empty holster for a handgun in the back seat of a car if the driver refused consent to search and would not discuss what was in his car.


Not planning to call you wrong here either way, actually just wondering.

jasilva
01-01-2010, 5:31 PM
I've been asked, stopped for speeding(late for my grandmother's 90 b-day party) with my entire family with me. CHP motor officer asked me to step out of my truck and talk to him on the shoulder of I-80(my truck is tall and the officer was short and couldn't see into floor/seating area), while speaking to him he asked me if I had anything illegal in my truck (NO) and if I minded him searching (told him he absolutely did NOT have permission to search) he gave me the if there is nothing illegal why won't you let me search crap (told him he had no cause nor right to search) we had a staring match for a couple minutes until he backed down. I got the ticket, but then I would have gotten it anyway as I was speeding. I'm clean cut, middle age with 3 daughters and my wife with me and yet this officer went fishing on me. It happens better know your rights and be prepared.

Super Spy
01-01-2010, 5:33 PM
Say "Can I see your warrant? Please" When he fails to produce one, restate "I do not give permission to search"

SteveH
01-01-2010, 5:33 PM
As a general benchmark, if LE is asking for permission - it is because they can't just do it on what they have as PC. They are trying to backup in fact an assumption they are feeling with PC which you would hand them..

No.

One of the topics i teach is narcotics investigations. I tell everyone to always ask for consent before searching a person or place, even if you have PC.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 5:34 PM
I've been told that in two weeks all AR-style rifles will be banned...

I was driving through a county island within our city on a very busy very narrow street. I pulled off the road in front of brother’s house and was going to stop if he were home. He wasn’t so at the first opening I pulled back onto the road and went on my way. When I pulled over there was a city PD car right behind me. He continued on until he crossed back into the city and pulled over. As soon as I crossed the line and went by him he jumped in behind a turned on the light. He told me he thought I had pulled over just to get him off my tail and he thought that was suspicious. He asked the old; “Do you have anything I should be concerned about.”

Me: “No.”

He; “Step out of the vehicle please”.

Terry search,

He: “mind if I look around the vehicle.” (Jeep Waggoneer)

Me: “No.”

Vehicle and brief case searched.

I told him that I had not pulled over to avoid him and that I was just checking to see if my brother was home, and what his address was. I’m sure he checked out the address and it came back to the same last name as mine. Eventually he thanked me for being co-operative and told me to have a nice day.

After that I asked: “What would have happened if I had said no to the search.”

He said: “I would have searched the vehicle anyway; I had probable cause when I saw the empty .22 shells rolling around in the back of your Jeep.”

I can’t say it was enjoyable but the whole thing was reasonably polite and civil all around.

So, was I slickerd.

Matt C
01-01-2010, 5:38 PM
No.

One of the topics i teach is narcotics investigations. I tell everyone to always ask for consent before searching a person or place, even if you have PC.

Indeed, consent is better than PC or some other justification, and you would still have that to fall back on.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 5:39 PM
From your other posts here I believe you, but not all officers feel the same way, and we won't know which type we are dealing with until it's too late. I was curious how a reasonable (not anti-gun brainwashed) officer like yourself would respond to seeing an empty holster for a handgun in the back seat of a car if the driver refused consent to search and would not discuss what was in his car.


Not planning to call you wrong here either way, actually just wondering.

As a trainer i would tell the cops to remove the driver from the vehicle, do a limited terry frisk of the driver and passengers compartment, but not the trunk and then carry on with the reason they stopped the car.

You got what you need for a terry frisk. a lawfull detention (the original traffic violation) and a reasonable suspision there is a handgun hidden on the person or in the car (the empty holser). Add to that Matt's uncooperative driver wont say if there is or is not a gun to go with the holster in his pocket or under the seat (adding a little fear/danger)...I don't think any court is going to say a limited terry frisk is unlawful in that situation. So sort that out then get back to the original business at hand.

But i don't personally think you have PC to get into the trunk. Terry frisk only at that point.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 5:40 PM
Interesting! I would think it would have to be really blatant for the judge not to go with it.


Can we get away with it? I am sure some have. There are legal avenues to remedy that. I have personally seen cases thrown out in court when the judge believed the officer did not have PC for a search. Many here will say it doesn't happen...it does.

Matt C
01-01-2010, 5:41 PM
As a trainer i would tell the cops to remove the driver from the vehicle, do a limited terry frisk of the driver and passengers compartment, but not the trunk and then carry on with the reason they stopped the car.

You got what you need for a terry frisk. a lawfull detention (the original traffic violation) and a reasonable belief there is a handgun hidden on the person or in the car (the empty holser). Add to that Matt's uncooperative driver wont say if there is or is not a gun to go with the holster in his pocket or under the seat...I don't think any court is going to say a limited terry frisk is unlawful in that situation. So sort that out then get back to the original business at hand.

I don't think that would be unreasonable. I'm more interested in ap3572001's opinion as he seems like an "average" cop.

artherd
01-01-2010, 5:53 PM
If I had a NRA sticker on my rear window, would that be a good reason to search?

NO. Estep v. Dallas County (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0110967pv2.pdf), 310 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2002) - An NRA sticker on a pickup-truck is not enough to justify a search of the truck for a gun.


"The contention that a citizen poses an immediate danger because he possesses a key chain containing mace, camoflauge gear, an NRA sticker, and does not answer questions in exactly the manner the officer desires is not suspicious enough behavior to justify a Long “frisk” of a vehicle. Thus, the search violated the Fourth Amendment."

Furthermore, the cop screwed up so badly that Qualified Immunity was pierced:

"In our view, the constitutional violation in this case is clear-cut and obvious. No reasonable police officer could have really believed that a search was constitutional under the circumstances presented."

His partner was also found liable for simply standing there and knowingly letting the search happen.


Note this is a Federal 5th District US Court of Appeals finding.


Also note:

It is well-settled that a police officer may conduct a protective search of a vehicle based on a reasonable suspicion that there is a weapon in the vehicle. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983). Reasonable suspicion is a belief "based on 'specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts'" indicate that "the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons." Id. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)). An officer's suspicion is judged using an objective standard: "the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger."

artherd
01-01-2010, 6:08 PM
Can we get away with it? I am sure some have. There are legal avenues to remedy that. I have personally seen cases thrown out in court when the judge believed the officer did not have PC for a search. Many here will say it doesn't happen...it does.

We need to see those people go to prison, not just get the case thrown out.

odysseus
01-01-2010, 6:10 PM
No.

One of the topics i teach is narcotics investigations. I tell everyone to always ask for consent before searching a person or place, even if you have PC.

That's largely a procedural point, as mentioned one that can help if a case develops for the officer. However that doesn't dissuade from my original point from the perspective of the person being asked. If the person doesn't consent and officer truly has PC in their understanding, the search is carried out anyway despite not having consent.

IrishPirate
01-01-2010, 6:12 PM
enjoy
6wXkI4t7nuc

artherd
01-01-2010, 6:18 PM
I NEVER said that there is anything criminal about NOT letting LEO search a vehicle. I would have to have a SPECIFIC situation in order to answer that question.

It's also not useful in the calculus to establish cause to search. Invoking one's rights may not prejudice same.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 6:22 PM
So, what I am getting is, it does not really mean anything one way or another if an officer asks permission to search. If he has RS or PC or whatever the threshold is, he will ask anyway just for reinforcement, it can’t hurt to ask. On the other hand if he has a hunch with no RS or PC he will also ask and there is no way to tell the difference.

Likewise a criminal with something to hide and a law abiding civil libertarian will both say no, and no conclusion can really be drawn as to which is which.

What I would like to know from our CalGuns LEOs is; what would you consider a polite and respectful, non-confrontational, way to refuse permission to search. If you are going to ask and some of us are going to refuse we can at least do it nicely.

ap3572001
01-01-2010, 6:22 PM
From your other posts here I believe you, but not all officers feel the same way, and we won't know which type we are dealing with until it's too late. I was curious how a reasonable (not anti-gun brainwashed) officer like yourself would respond to seeing an empty holster for a handgun in the back seat of a car if the driver refused consent to search and would not discuss what was in his car.


Not planning to call you wrong here either way, actually just wondering.

Very tough question.... I need more. Why I stopped the car? --- Is the most important one.

Matt C
01-01-2010, 6:45 PM
Very tough question.... I need more. Why I stopped the car? --- Is the most important one.

Speeding or stop sign violation, minor infraction.

bigcalidave
01-01-2010, 6:45 PM
Very tough question.... I need more. Why I stopped the car? --- Is the most important one.


Why, Erratic driving, as usual :) Isn't that the reason most commonly used when they just want to pull someone over for how they look? I've been pulled over for "driving a Honda" more times than I can count. No illegal equipment, no PC. When they ask for my license and reg and I ask why they pulled me over, more often than not it's for "erratic driving".. BS. btw.

KylaGWolf
01-01-2010, 6:50 PM
We need to see those people go to prison, not just get the case thrown out.

Agreed. Its the bad ones like that give other LEOs problems in dealing with people.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 6:57 PM
LOL! I have ben stopped numerous times for suspicion of DUI. Never had to take the FST breathalizer or any thing. Once they see my eyes and talk to me they realize that my philosophy of driving is that if you are in your own lane you can weave as much as you want!:D






Why, Erratic driving, as usual :) Isn't that the reason most commonly used when they just want to pull someone over for how they look? I've been pulled over for "driving a Honda" more times than I can count. No illegal equipment, no PC. When they ask for my license and reg and I ask why they pulled me over, more often than not it's for "erratic driving".. BS. btw.

snobord99
01-01-2010, 8:09 PM
Indeed, consent is better than PC or some other justification, and you would still have that to fall back on.

I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand. THEY DON'T ASK ONLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE PC. THEY ASK TO COVER THEIR *** IN CASE JUDGE DECIDES THERE WAS NO PC.

VW*Mike
01-01-2010, 8:50 PM
Personally guys, IMO, its not worth the hassle. If I know all my stuff is legit, and I'm not breaking any laws, I learned at a young age to just be courteous to police officers and they will respond in kind. I have never had this bite me in the ***. I have a few friends that are LEO, and they are just doing their job.

I got pulled over by Irvines finest in my bright blue GTI with a throaty exhaust and nice OZ wheels for a tail light out. I was probably 25 at the time, scruffy beard, ball cap on, tinted windows. He asked me if I had anything illegal in the car and if he could search it. I said "No I do not have anything illegal but your welcome to see for yourself" at which point he told me to fix my lights and have a good night.

If I would have given him a hard time, he would have given me a hard time in return, and for what? Because I was going to try and one up him, or prove a point? Yes I know my rights. yes I know they have no right to search without a probable cause or warrant. They can make up a probable cause, search your car, and make a mess of it for no reason and tie up an hour of your time. I have learned to pick my battles, as the old saying goes "The tree that bends with the storm survives, the trees that resist, are up rooted" This is my personal opinion based on my experience, your results may vary.

bigcalidave
01-01-2010, 9:06 PM
Personally guys, IMO, its not worth the hassle. If I know all my stuff is legit, and I'm not breaking any laws, I learned at a young age to just be courteous to police officers and they will respond in kind. I have never had this bite me in the ***. I have a few friends that are LEO, and they are just doing their job.

I got pulled over by Irvines finest in my bright blue GTI with a throaty exhaust and nice OZ wheels for a tail light out. I was probably 25 at the time, scruffy beard, ball cap on, tinted windows. He asked me if I had anything illegal in the car and if he could search it. I said "No I do not have anything illegal but your welcome to see for yourself" at which point he told me to fix my lights and have a good night.

If I would have given him a hard time, he would have given me a hard time in return, and for what? Because I was going to try and one up him, or prove a point? Yes I know my rights. yes I know they have no right to search without a probable cause or warrant. They can make up a probable cause, search your car, and make a mess of it for no reason and tie up an hour of your time. I have learned to pick my battles, as the old saying goes "The tree that bends with the storm survives, the trees that resist, are up rooted" This is my personal opinion based on my experience, your results may vary.

And yet next time you are being polite he may take you up on your offer, start looking through your car, and find something you didn't know you had or didn't remember having! Or maybe a friend of yours stashed something under your seat. If you don't exercise your rights, you won't care when they take them away.

Edit to add: Or you could fall victim to some unknown new law, where something you were sure was legal to possess suddenly isn't anymore.

It really wouldn't be that bad if he took just a little bit of your blood to test, would it? I mean really, whats 30 seconds with a needle in your arm vs an hour discussing why you thought there was still a constitution. Just bend with it... Gotta make sure you aren't DUI... Wouldn't want to give HIM a hard time.

Matt C
01-01-2010, 9:08 PM
Personally guys, IMO, its not worth the hassle. If I know all my stuff is legit, and I'm not breaking any laws, I learned at a young age to just be courteous to police officers and they will respond in kind. I have never had this bite me in the ***. I have a few friends that are LEO, and they are just doing their job.

I got pulled over by Irvines finest in my bright blue GTI with a throaty exhaust and nice OZ wheels for a tail light out. I was probably 25 at the time, scruffy beard, ball cap on, tinted windows. He asked me if I had anything illegal in the car and if he could search it. I said "No I do not have anything illegal but your welcome to see for yourself" at which point he told me to fix my lights and have a good night.

If I would have given him a hard time, he would have given me a hard time in return, and for what? Because I was going to try and one up him, or prove a point? Yes I know my rights. yes I know they have no right to search without a probable cause or warrant. They can make up a probable cause, search your car, and make a mess of it for no reason and tie up an hour of your time. I have learned to pick my battles, as the old saying goes "The tree that bends with the storm survives, the trees that resist, are up rooted" This is my personal opinion based on my experience, your results may vary.

So I guess you don't own an OLL? OR you don't take it out of your house? Or maybe you just refuse to believe "that it could happen to you" and an officer could arrest you for a legally configured weapon? If it's the latter, you are really just naive.

In any case, you really can't be sure of what is in your vehicle, what might have fallen from a passenger or mechanics pocket etc.

Gryff
01-01-2010, 9:42 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

But the question is...what will you do when you find that person who refuses when you don't have PC? Some officers will deal with it rationally, while others will turn into bullies at having their authority disputed.

It's like someone wrote in another thread about being cited for having an unlocked shotgun in their truck...the DA threatened to up the charges to a felony if the person tried to fight the misdemeanor charge. Some officers have a tendency to respond similarly.

Definitely NOT saying that all cops are this way. But there are some that don't handle being told "no" very well.

Meplat
01-01-2010, 10:06 PM
So I guess you don't own an OLL? OR you don't take it out of your house? Or maybe you just refuse to believe "that it could happen to you" and an officer could arrest you for a legally configured weapon? If it's the latter, you are really just naive.

In any case, you really can't be sure of what is in your vehicle, what might have fallen from a passenger or mechanics pocket etc.


This is all true and my allegiance is to liberty and the constitution and I read these threads and resolve to do my duty in the future. Then I get pulled over and the guy is so nice and I don't want to be a jerk, and I've been getting stopped for 46 years and have never, really had a problem. I have a driving record that read like Chinese pornography until turning over a new leaf about five years ago, so I have had way more than my share of interaction with LE. I’ve gotten some tickets I didn't think were fare, but I have only run into one genuine Ahole in 46 years. The cops around here are pretty good, pretty reasonable, and I generally DON'T have anything to hide. When I weigh the trouble I have not had over all these years against the distaste for suddenly becoming confrontational it's awfully tempting to go along to get along.

Do I need re-hab?

greg36f
01-01-2010, 10:15 PM
I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand. THEY DON'T ASK ONLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE PC. THEY ASK TO COVER THEIR *** IN CASE JUDGE DECIDES THERE WAS NO PC.

A++++++ 100%

greg36f
01-01-2010, 10:26 PM
So, what I am getting is, it does not really mean anything one way or another if an officer asks permission to search. If he has RS or PC or whatever the threshold is, he will ask anyway just for reinforcement, it can’t hurt to ask. On the other hand if he has a hunch with no RS or PC he will also ask and there is no way to tell the difference.

Likewise a criminal with something to hide and a law abiding civil libertarian will both say no, and no conclusion can really be drawn as to which is which.

What I would like to know from our CalGuns LEOs is; what would you consider a polite and respectful, non-confrontational, way to refuse permission to search. If you are going to ask and some of us are going to refuse we can at least do it nicely.

Give a reason. Of course it's not required, but it's one of those social nicesities (sp) that grease civil discourse.

I'm sorry officer, but I will not give you permission to search my car. I have nothing to hide, but I belive in protecting my rights.

It's hard to argue with someone who is being polite and respectfull.

Most officers are looking for good solid cases on real bad guys.....Not going after to tax paying, law abiding citizens.....

Meplat
01-01-2010, 10:40 PM
Thank you. I have heard a ton of advice on here but not sure I have ever gotten any from the other side of the window, so to speak.


Give a reason. Of course it's not required, but it's one of those social nicesities (sp) that grease civil discourse.

I'm sorry officer, but I will not give you permission to search my car. I have nothing to hide, but I belive in protecting my rights.

It's hard to argue with someone who is being polite and respectfull.

Most officers are looking for good solid cases on real bad guys.....Not going after to tax paying, law abiding citizens.....

SVT-40
01-01-2010, 11:40 PM
The easiest way to avoid the whole situation is make sure your vehicle is legally equipped and obey the traffic laws. Then you will rarely have to be confronted by this situation.

For the answer to the question "What do you tell the nice LEO when he asks for permission to search, and you do not want him to search?"

Think first about why he is asking.

Is there anything about you or your car which may lead him to believe there could be something illegal in your car? Are you being friendly and not acting like a jerk? Are you dressed like a gang type? Is your car neat and clean inside? Do you have a valid license, registration and proof of insurance? Ect.

If you want to refuse, how about tell him the real reason you don't want him to search. Which for me would be something like this.

"Officer there is nothing illegal in my car so a search would be a real waste of both your time and mine. I need to be on my way so I can be on time to an appointment at (insert where I was going). Thank you for asking though".

Nothing confrontational just a good reason which most LEO's could reasonable understand and believe, coming from someone who is acting calmly and not going off and spouting chapter and verse about their rights and get a warrant.

You could also ask in a non confrontational way why he wants to look in your car?

Something like, Excuse me officer, but can I ask you why you want to search my car? I'm just curious as I have never been asked that before?

A cops whole job is to look for "bad guys" so traffic stops are one way to look. Very few "normal" traffic stops lead to actual arrests, but some do. The LEO may just be in the habit of asking. Usually younger officers who have not yet really gotten good at spotting "bad guys" may ask everyone for permission to search.

They may just have gotten in the habit of asking.

On the NRA sticker thing. If I had to pull over a car with a NRA sticker I always told the driver thanks for supporting a great American organization. Many times I gave such drivers the benefit of the doubt and gave them warnings as long as they were reasonable people. Most, if not all were very reasonable.

welchy
01-01-2010, 11:41 PM
I can't believe you or anyone else would post this. Implied consent is you say you'll take a DUI test and if you refuse you'll lose your license.

That only applies if you are placed under arrest.

five.five-six
01-01-2010, 11:54 PM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO".

that is pretty darned presumptive, did they teach you that in the academy?


I say no, and I have nothing illegal...


here's one for you, when I am on my way to the range, I keep my handgun in a biometric safe the only way to open it is with my thumb print... how much problems is that going to cause me if an office wants to inspect my firearm?


I would rather just not find out

Ron-Solo
01-02-2010, 12:08 AM
There's just way too much paranoia out there for my tastes.

philobeddoe
01-02-2010, 12:26 AM
To you guys who are advising giving a reason to the officer, I think you've gone mad, and to the LEO who is saying no one who's done nothing wrong ever says no, I hope you're kidding.

The lawman cannot search your trunk.

The lawman will need a warrant to search your trunk.

You may decline consent to search to your trunk.

You need not and should not give a reason.

Yes, if you are arrested, you car may be towed or impounded, and now the lawman will "inventory" search your vehicle ... and that may lead to additional charges if you've got something illegal in the trunk, because this is not an illegal search.

The lawman may be persuasive and he may be tricky ... sitting you in his car, saying "I'm just putting you in here because I can't watch you and search your trunk at the same time, I'm going to search your trunk now ok?"

Well, you're detained, and if'n you say "ok," well now you've consented to a search.

"No sir, I do not consent to a search. Am I free to go?"

Well, he's either going to cut you loose, or he's going to arrest you.
Maybe he's got grounds to arrest you, maybe he doesn't, and maybe he will anyway ... but he's going to persuade you to get into that trunk.

"No sir, I do not consent to a search."

He may want to do his wingspan search of the car now, but ... you're in the back of the cruiser, so even that is suspect.


Don't give reasons, don't give explanations, invoke your rights, if you're arrested request a lawyer, and don't set your keys on the deck ... that's consent.

artherd
01-02-2010, 12:36 AM
There's just way too much paranoia out there for my tastes.

Ron- Perhaps you could give us suggestions on how to tactfully, respectfully, yet firmly exercise our 4th amendment rights during a traffic stop?

kcbrown
01-02-2010, 12:37 AM
There's just way too much paranoia out there for my tastes.

That may be. But it would probably serve us all well to address the reasons that paranoia exists.

sb_pete
01-02-2010, 12:52 AM
Personally guys, IMO, its not worth the hassle. If I know all my stuff is legit, and I'm not breaking any laws, I learned at a young age to just be courteous to police officers and they will respond in kind. I have never had this bite me in the ***. I have a few friends that are LEO, and they are just doing their job.

I got pulled over by Irvines finest in my bright blue GTI with a throaty exhaust and nice OZ wheels for a tail light out. I was probably 25 at the time, scruffy beard, ball cap on, tinted windows. He asked me if I had anything illegal in the car and if he could search it. I said "No I do not have anything illegal but your welcome to see for yourself" at which point he told me to fix my lights and have a good night.

If I would have given him a hard time, he would have given me a hard time in return, and for what? Because I was going to try and one up him, or prove a point? Yes I know my rights. yes I know they have no right to search without a probable cause or warrant. They can make up a probable cause, search your car, and make a mess of it for no reason and tie up an hour of your time. I have learned to pick my battles, as the old saying goes "The tree that bends with the storm survives, the trees that resist, are up rooted" This is my personal opinion based on my experience, your results may vary.

Yeah, I thought that once - I was 20... $230 in tow fees, $20 in "processing fees", a court case, and some confiscated property later, everything was even back to normal. F that.

Be nice with cops. Be courteous. Be calm, Be reasonable. But do not consent to searches of your property. There may be things you didn't know were there (things left by passengers possibly, or maybe you're under 21 driving a parent or room-mate's car and there is a groceries bag with a bottle of wine in the trunk). There may be things you didn't know were illegal due to new laws, different jurisdiction, or other reasons. There may even be things that ARE legal that the officer thinks are not legal - this is a real fun one to deal with.

If they go on to execute a search based on PC or a warrant anyways, so be it. But the reason they asked, as BWO and others have explained, is because, should the PC or warrant be found legally wanting, you still gave consent and whatever they find is still admissable. A LEO may be a great guy/gal, but a traffic stop is still a legal encounter. Our legal system is still an adversarial one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_process#Adversarial_legal_process). You have to keep that in mind. The officer is covering his butt by asking for consent, and with good reason. Keep that advantage on your side though - don't give consent.

sb_pete
01-02-2010, 1:01 AM
To you guys who are advising giving a reason to the officer, I think you've gone mad, and to the LEO who is saying no one who's done nothing wrong ever says no, I hope you're kidding.
...
Don't give reasons, don't give explanations, invoke your rights, if you're arrested request a lawyer, and don't set your keys on the deck ... that's consent.

Sure, but I tend to think that a common reason people let officers search their cars in the first place is that they committed some minor traffic infraction and they hope that by complying as much as possible, they might prevail upon the officer's human side (as opposed to official capacity) to let them off with a warning. I can say from personal experience that this is unwise. That said, I see no reason to be a jerk about telling the officer that I don't consent to a search. On the contrary, it's a good moment for small talk. You can be relatively sure that if you got pulled over for 72 in a 65 or a tail light out, etc and the officer asks to search the car and you stonewall him or her, you'll be getting that ticket. If you casually decline consent to a search and strike up a conversation, maybe you humanize the event and get off with a warning. Stranger things have happened.

416stroker
01-02-2010, 1:06 AM
Depends. Generally no, you can just stand there and ignore him, you don't have to say or do anything that can incriminate you. If however, you told him you have firearms in the truck then he can, under the current law which is probably unconstitutional, check to see if they are loaded. If you refuse to show them to him you can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.



If you ignor him you can be charged with a misdemeanor ask me how I know.

greg36f
01-02-2010, 1:15 AM
That may be. But it would probably serve us all well to address the reasons that paranoia exists.

I have no idea why so much paranoia exists....As a 20 year LEO, my preferred target is not a taxpaying, law abiding, legal citizen......You are not even on my radar........You have guns, great, so do I, get over it.........When I walk up to your car and you have reg, Lic. and insurance, I'm like, "This was a waste of time" and I'm already out of there.....Looking for a real bad guy (there are lots out there).

Act all angry and hostile, and I'm like,"What the heck"....There must be something more here, then I my look a little further.......

I'm human and doing a necessary job,,,Realize that and we can move on,,,,,We do not have to be advosaries (SP, I know,but spell check cannot seem to help me here)........

kcbrown
01-02-2010, 2:09 AM
I have no idea why so much paranoia exists....As a 20 year LEO, my preferred target is not a taxpaying, law abiding, legal citizen......You are not even on my radar........


You don't do traffic stops? You've never done traffic stops?

The vast majority of people who are stopped for traffic violations are taxpaying, law abiding (except possibly for traffic violations :D), legal citizens.

More importantly, those people generally do not represent a significant danger to the public.

I've gotten pulled over for an expired license plate before. As it happens, it hadn't expired, I had just forgotten to put the Magic Year Sticker on it that suddenly makes the car and its owner Safe. That means the computer knew my license plate wasn't expired even though the Magic Sticker wasn't on it. Was I a danger to the public? Was I someone that would have been on your radar?

I was obviously on the radar of the officers that pulled me over. I treated them with courtesy (as I try to treat everyone I meet) and they let me go with just an admonition to put the sticker on. I've no complaints about the stop itself, except for the fact that it happened at all. Cops have (or at least should have, in my opinion) more important things to worry about than trivia like plates that lack the proper Magic Sticker.



You have guns, great, so do I, get over it.........When I walk up to your car and you have reg, Lic. and insurance, I'm like, "This was a waste of time" and I'm already out of there.....Looking for a real bad guy (there are lots out there).
Good. So why did you pull me over to begin with? If I was doing something that posed a real danger to the public then you've got good reason to. Otherwise, just pulling me over was a waste of your time, wasn't it?

Even speeding isn't a danger to the public if it's done properly (as with anything, it all depends on the circumstances). Many speed limits are rather arbitrary. But people get pulled over for that all the time. Is that not a waste of time on the part of the cops who are doing traffic duty?



Act all angry and hostile, and I'm like,"What the heck"....There must be something more here, then I my look a little further.......
I can't comment on what makes a good indicator of something like this being worth investigating, but regardless I am of the belief that one should treat everyone, including police officers, with courtesy. Treat them the way you want them to treat you.

And hopefully, you're of that mindset as well.



I'm human and doing a necessary job,,,Realize that and we can move on,,,,,We do not have to be advosaries (SP, I know,but spell check cannot seem to help me here)........I completely agree. We do not have to be adversaries. More importantly, we shouldn't be adversaries. We should be friends. Our adversaries are the bad guys -- the criminals who violate our rights. They're not just your adversaries, they're ours (the public's) too.

While your job description might be to "enforce the law", it seems to me that it really is (or should be) to "protect the rights of the people". One of the ways to do that is to get the rights violators (a.k.a. bad guys) off the street.

And that includes the cops who violate our rights, too, don't you agree?

The paranoia on the part of the citizenry comes as a result of the actions of those cops who violate the rights of the citizenry. We citizens can't really do much about them, but maybe you good cops can. We good citizens would love to help however we can (at least, this good citizen would).

pullnshoot25
01-02-2010, 2:12 AM
I have no idea why so much paranoia exists....As a 20 year LEO, my preferred target is not a taxpaying, law abiding, legal citizen......You are not even on my radar........You have guns, great, so do I, get over it.........When I walk up to your car and you have reg, Lic. and insurance, I'm like, "This was a waste of time" and I'm already out of there.....Looking for a real bad guy (there are lots out there).

Act all angry and hostile, and I'm like,"What the heck"....There must be something more here, then I my look a little further.......

I'm human and doing a necessary job,,,Realize that and we can move on,,,,,We do not have to be advosaries (SP, I know,but spell check cannot seem to help me here)........

Interesting.

Just to help you out, it is "adversary." Sometimes Google or whatever doesn't catch everything :)

pullnshoot25
01-02-2010, 2:16 AM
Just throwing it out there for you guys to read, an actual honest-to-goodness exercise of the 4th and 5th amendment WITHOUT THE PARANOIA!

Though the officer was a dork for not knowing the law (*sigh*) he did at least understand the 4th amendment.

It ain't but a tomahawk thing (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/06/it-aint-but-tomahawk-thing.html)

philobeddoe
01-02-2010, 2:23 AM
Sure, but I tend to think that a common reason people let officers search their cars in the first place is that they committed some minor traffic infraction and they hope that by complying as much as possible, they might prevail upon the officer's human side (as opposed to official capacity) to let them off with a warning. I can say from personal experience that this is unwise. That said, I see no reason to be a jerk about telling the officer that I don't consent to a search. On the contrary, it's a good moment for small talk. You can be relatively sure that if you got pulled over for 72 in a 65 or a tail light out, etc and the officer asks to search the car and you stonewall him or her, you'll be getting that ticket. If you casually decline consent to a search and strike up a conversation, maybe you humanize the event and get off with a warning. Stranger things have happened.

I am in no way advocating being a jerk to a police officer
I am solely addressing the issue posed ... the officer's "request" to search the trunk, or in the broader sense, the officer's "request" to search the car

you can be polite, you can smile when you say "No."

the last time i declined consent, it went something like this, AFTER the question "do you know why I'm pulling you over?," "no I do not."
Then it was, "step out of the car," and bam ... I'm cuffed.

LEO "I'm going to search your car now, ok?"
ME "No."
LEO "If you haven't done anything wrong, why can't I search your car?"
Me "You do not have my consent to search my car"
LEO "I'm going to arrest you"
Me "You should feel free to do whatever you feel you need to do, but you do not have my consent to search the car"
LEO "So I'm going to search your car now, ok?"
Me "If I'm under arrest, then you should feel free to exercise whatever authority to which you feel entitled, but you do not have my consent to search the car"

That's when I ended up in the back of the cruiser, under arrest, and he searched my car ... quite thoroughly in fact.

I left out the part of the conversation where he told me if I was worried about a search because I had a little marijuana, he didn't care about that. Yeah right, I actually laughed out loud at that point.

A half hour later, after the LEO had sniffed every tape cassette case, dvd case, sandwich bag, coffee cup, water bottle ... he came back, and asked me some questions about a folding knife I had in the car

... why do I have it? What do I do with it? Do I know it's illegal?

My only response was "what knife?"

Then complimented me on how clean I kept my car, apologized for the delay, we made some small talk about him immigrating to the US (he was Russian) and he released me. Must have been catch and release night.

What's my point? I don't have one, other than I declined consent, and he managed to detain/arrest me anyway ... and I'm sure he could have found a reason to take me and the car if he wanted to do so, but I invoked and preserved my rights, and had it ended badly for me, a lawyer would have everything he needed to make it right.

There's no reason to argue with a LEO. He's going to do his job as he interprets it, not as I interpret it. But he has his job, and I have mine ... to protect my rights, by invoking them at the scene, and preserving them for the record in the event of consequent legal action.


I cannot account for everyone who has been in and out of my car, I do my best to have an accurate inventory, but between my kid and his friends, dates, co-workers, friends, valets, the wash/detail guys ...

If anyone wants to search my car, I do not consent,
anyone wants a statement, my response is silence, as is my right.
My lawyer will do my talking for me, should it become necessary, and I hope it does not.

GrizzlyGuy
01-02-2010, 6:21 AM
Just throwing it out there for you guys to read, an actual honest-to-goodness exercise of the 4th and 5th amendment WITHOUT THE PARANOIA!

Though the officer was a dork for not knowing the law (*sigh*) he did at least understand the 4th amendment.

It ain't but a tomahawk thing (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/06/it-aint-but-tomahawk-thing.html)

LOL! How were you carrying the tomahawk when you went into the stores? In your hand, or did you have a belt sheath? I've got to try that one someday. :D

snobord99
01-02-2010, 8:46 AM
I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it. If a person say's "NO" , I take it from there. NO ONE WHO WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ever said "NO"
that is pretty darned presumptive, did they teach you that in the academy?


I say no, and I have nothing illegal...


I think you (and everyone who thinks he said something wrong) ignored a huge part of his statement. Namely, the part where he says "I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it."

You may always say no and you may have nothing illegal, but this only creates an issue if you were asked in the first place. The problem is that most are presupposing that they were asked in the first place and he's clearly indicating that he doesn't ask everyone even if he had no reason to. Of course, I assume you don't give them reason to ask ;).

juicemansam
01-02-2010, 9:06 AM
I have been told empty cartridge cases are PC.

Oh geez... I always find a spent cases in the pockets of my pants and sweaters, as well as in my sweater's hood, after visiting the range. I wouldn't be surprised to find one stuck in the fold of my beanie one day.

SteveH
01-02-2010, 10:14 AM
I have no idea why so much paranoia exists....As a 20 year LEO, my preferred target is not a taxpaying, law abiding, legal citizen......You are not even on my radar........You have guns, great, so do I, get over it.........When I walk up to your car and you have reg, Lic. and insurance, I'm like, "This was a waste of time" and I'm already out of there.....Looking for a real bad guy (there are lots out there).

Act all angry and hostile, and I'm like,"What the heck"....There must be something more here, then I my look a little further.......

I'm human and doing a necessary job,,,Realize that and we can move on,,,,,We do not have to be advosaries (SP, I know,but spell check cannot seem to help me here)........

Most non-traffic cops triage their stops like this. Its just effective time management. Dont spend 10 minutes with the soccor mom when you are looking for car thieves and drug dealers.

Lagduf
01-02-2010, 10:32 AM
Ron- Perhaps you could give us suggestions on how to tactfully, respectfully, yet firmly exercise our 4th amendment rights during a traffic stop?

This is something I would like to know as well, particularly relating to if an officer asks the following question:

Where are you going/Where are you coming from?

-The above is the only thing I've really had an officer ask me during a stop and it's something that has always bothered me. I'm never headed or coming from anywhere of consequence, but it's still something the LEO simply doesn't need to know, and i've always felt a little violated when asked such a question. I'm not paranoid or anything, I've just always been a private person who felt like people didn't need to know my business.

This has been discussed numerous time before in this thread and others, but I too would like to know how to respectfully decline to answer the following questions and exercise my rights if an LEO asks:

Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?
May I search your vehicle?

Also, I drive a vehicle with no trunk. I lock all my firearms in cases and store them behind the back seat. For security reasons I always have a blanket covering items in the back of my vehicle to dissuade lookey-loos from knowing whats in the back of my vehicle.

It's pretty obvious the intent of the blanket is most likely to hide something from plain view. Would this constitute any kind of RS or PC for a search of my vehicle? (I'm guessing no.) I would like to know how to respond, respectfully, if an LEO asked "What's under the blanket?"

five.five-six
01-02-2010, 10:33 AM
I think you (and everyone who thinks he said something wrong) ignored a huge part of his statement. Namely, the part where he says "I am an officer and I never JUST ASK people to open their trunk. When I do there is a GOOD reason for it."

You may always say no and you may have nothing illegal, but this only creates an issue if you were asked in the first place. The problem is that most are presupposing that they were asked in the first place and he's clearly indicating that he doesn't ask everyone even if he had no reason to. Of course, I assume you don't give them reason to ask ;).


it comes down to the whole misidentification thing... I was part of the GB when BWO's life was destroyed over a misidentification... and like I said, you can't get to my guns without MY fingerprint or a band saw... it could be a little awkward at best if i have a jumpy LEO that want's to inspect my guns

no thanks

CSACANNONEER
01-02-2010, 10:51 AM
Sounds like he only asks for consent to search after observing things that have already rose to the level of PC to search. If he doesnt see those things first he doesnt even ask.

Sometimes we let our personal biases cloud our reading comprehension.

I retracted my comment like a good calgunner should ;-)

But not the liberal comment, LOL

I will take the high road too. I apologize for my appartent lack of reading comprehension. I'd retract my comments too (except for the liberal one) but, I think I got lucky in how I worded them.

GrizzlyGuy
01-02-2010, 11:41 AM
This has been discussed numerous time before in this thread and others, but I too would like to know how to respectfully decline to answer the following questions and exercise my rights if an LEO asks:

Here is my suggestion (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3551753&posted=1#post3551753) on how to handle it. "I do not consent to a search" is the standard answer for any requests to take a look at or examine any of your property (or person).

1GooDDaDDy
01-02-2010, 1:27 PM
Read it and weep folks, it all just might be too late.

From Monday, June 15, 2009
Our Rights are Suspended by Mayor Cedric Glover (http://www.conservativedrink.com/blog/2009/06/our-rights-are-suspended-by-mayor.asp)

And to help push it along.

(http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/01/01/obama_executive_order_alters_your_legal_protection s?page=full&comments=true#comments) Obama Executive Order Alters Your Legal Protections (http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/01/01/obama_executive_order_alters_your_legal_protection s?page=full&comments=true#comments)
With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425
Friday, January 01, 2010 by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown at Townhall

But, I'm sure we'll all sleep better tonight just knowing we're in the capable hands of our elected officials.

No worries...right fellow CalGunners?

Not Over.

VW*Mike
01-02-2010, 7:28 PM
Some of you guys have a serious paranoia problem. Go get a tinfoil hat. the BATF isn't parked out infront of your house in a pizza delivery van. Your internet connection is not routed thorough the Pentagon and monitored. You think all the cops are out to get you and lock you up. They aren't. They have better stuff to do then tear law abiding citizens cars apart and arresting people for stupid stuff. I wish some more LEO's on here would speak up.

Hypothetical:
So you don't let them search your car. They figure your hiding something. They get a warrant, make up PC, find your OLL, some weed that fell out of your friends pocket, blow, whatever. They arrest you. It goes to trial, a jury trial where the D.A. rails you AND your lawyer up and down saying "If you had nothing to hide, why did you refuse to let them search your car?" That looks real good to a jury, even better when your lawyer appears to back pedal and wax poetic on the bill of rights.

If anyone here drives around with a banned substance, guns, whatever and don't abide by the law, thats their problem and choice.

First off, I never drink and drive. I had a good friend killed by a drunk driver.
If I ever did get pulled over on suspicion, I would just co-operate. Why not. I have nothing to hide. I would draw the line at a needle sticking, but would do a breathalizer and field test, but that would never happen, I'm because I would be stone sober and they wouldn't waste the time.

As far as anything else illegal, I have too much to risk, career, house, etc. I don't use any drugs. Do not hang out with anyone that does.

I have an OLL, it carries a CGF Flow chart with it, in a locked case, in my trunk with a BB and a 10 round mag in the well.

If I happen to be carrying it, I will state that I have nothing illegal in my car, then tell them to piss off on a search. This is the only time I would do this as stated earlier, they can push and get a warrant, or lie for PC and I will get my gun back in court.

If they want to go further then that, fine. My car is as sterile as an operating room floor, the only items kept inside of it on a regular basis is an iPod, garage door opener, registration and insurance. I could give Fcukall if they want a look.

Flame me if you want, IDGAF. I'm off to go fire up the BBQ and make some chicken and watch a movie with the wife. Not dwell on someone elses opinions that like to get all huffy and and call me stupid which they would only do sitting on a computer and not to my face.

Ron-Solo
01-02-2010, 8:11 PM
You can be polite and not consent to a search. Use common courtesy and I'll do the same. If I have probable cause, I will search anyway, because there is a reason for it. A warrant is seldom needed on vehicles.

Asking where you are coming from is a simple way to determine what type of person you are dealing with. If I know you're coming from the east, and you say west, something is up. Doesn't mean it's criminal, but it is a puzzle piece. If you say mind your own business, that will alert me that you might have something to hide, and I'll look at the pieces of the puzzle a little closer. Still might be nothing, but sometimes the pieces add up. Not all bad guys wear a little black mask and carry a bag with $$$ on it. One of the most dangerous individuals I dealt with was wearing a suit and tie.

artherd
01-02-2010, 8:19 PM
I have no idea why so much paranoia exists...

CGF itself exists because Law Enforcement as a whole cannot read and understand California Firearms Law.

As a 20 year LEO, my preferred target is not a taxpaying, law abiding, legal citizen......You are not even on my radar........You have guns, great, so do I, get over it.........When I walk up to your car and you have reg, Lic. and insurance, I'm like, "This was a waste of time" and I'm already out of there.....Looking for a real bad guy (there are lots out there).

Act all angry and hostile, and I'm like,"What the heck"....There must be something more here, then I my look a little further.......

I'm human and doing a necessary job,,,Realize that and we can move on,,,,,We do not have to be advosaries (SP, I know,but spell check cannot seem to help me here)........

It's good to remember that there are good people on BOTH sides of the window in 98% of all cases.

Unfortunately, the people at CGF do a necessary job as well. In-fact, we do the same job as you, we work to see the courts uphold the law.

Matt C
01-02-2010, 8:20 PM
Some of you guys have a serious paranoia problem. Go get a tinfoil hat. the BATF isn't parked out infront of your house in a pizza delivery van. Your internet connection is not routed thorough the Pentagon and monitored. You think all the cops are out to get you and lock you up. They aren't. They have better stuff to do then tear law abiding citizens cars apart and arresting people for stupid stuff. I wish some more LEO's on here would speak up.

You can rant all you want about how paranoid everyone is. I HAVE had a surveillance van parked outside my house because I posted pictures of my legal guns on the internet, I HAVE had the SWAT team tear my car, house, yard, and every damn thing else in my life apart because they were on some damn witch hunt, I HAVE spend nearly a month in one of the worst lock-ups in this country with every kind of scum imaginable, I HAVE been accused of crimes I did not commit, both in court and on network TV in attempt to vilify me, had BATF make up lies about the guns I owned and claim I was selling machine guns, had detectives follow and interrogate people close to me, and most important, and what you probably can't even understand, I have had to witness the anguish that event caused my family. Oh, and I was a damn LEO.

As for the rest of your post, you obviously have no idea what you talking about, have no idea what can (and can't) said as an argument in court, and you are living in a fantasy world if you think no one has ever been falsely accused or that it can't happen to you.

I'm not calling you stupid, I don't even know you, but you sure as hell are drinking the blue kool-aid.

Seesm
01-02-2010, 8:22 PM
When Ben, Gene, Bill and a few others speak I listen... :)

artherd
01-02-2010, 8:29 PM
Hypothetical:...They arrest you. It goes to trial, a jury trial where the D.A. rails you AND your lawyer up and down saying "If you had nothing to hide, why did you refuse to let them search your car?" That looks real good to a jury.

No they won't - it is a matter of well-settled law that invoking your rights may not be used as evidence against you. I would suppress that before trial.

First off, I never drink and drive. I had a good friend killed by a drunk driver.
If I ever did get pulled over on suspicion, I would just co-operate. Why not. I have nothing to hide.

Because sober or not when they arrest you for signs of DUI they will search your vehicle incident to arrest, find your OLL, and charge you with a Felony. Maybe they never charge you with the DUI once they get you back to the station and are forced to take a certified breath/blood test.

$50k and 6 mos later you'll probably get everything back, and have all charges dropped. Or $25k in you'll be offered a plea to something you didn't do.

I am not slinging hyperbole here, CGF defends INNOCENT PEOPLE from trumped-up charges more often than I can count. It happens, it happens A LOT.

artherd
01-02-2010, 8:36 PM
Oh geez... I always find a spent cases in the pockets of my pants and sweaters, as well as in my sweater's hood, after visiting the range. I wouldn't be surprised to find one stuck in the fold of my beanie one day.

Spent or unspent ammunition *MOST CERTAINLY IS* PC for a search for weapons both federally and under PC12031(e)!


Police your brass.

anthonyca
01-02-2010, 8:55 PM
Some people will never learn or have empathy. The only way they will understand is for the something like this to happen to them.

Is there any recourse against anyone in your case? You seem very well adjusted considering what they put you through. Even if your case is rare there is NO excuse for what they did.


You can rant all you want about how paranoid everyone is. I HAVE had a surveillance van parked outside my house because I posted pictures of my legal guns on the internet, I HAVE had the SWAT team tear my car, house, yard, and every damn thing else in my life apart because they were on some damn witch hunt, I HAVE spend nearly a month in one of the worst lock-ups in this country with every kind of scum imaginable, I HAVE been accused of crimes I did not commit, both in court and on network TV in attempt to vilify me, had BATF make up lies about the guns I owned and claim I was selling machine guns, had detectives follow and interrogate people close to me, and most important, and what you probably can't even understand, I have had to witness the anguish that event caused my family. Oh, and I was a damn LEO.

As for the rest of your post, you obviously have no idea what you talking about, have no idea what can (and can't) said as an argument in court, and you are living in a fantasy world if you think no one has ever been falsely accused or that it can't happen to you.

I'm not calling you stupid, I don't even know you, but you sure as hell are drinking the blue kool-aid.

Matt C
01-02-2010, 9:08 PM
Some people will never learn or have empathy. The only way they will understand is for the something like this to happen to them.

Is there any recourse against anyone in your case? You seem very well adjusted considering what they put you through. Even if your case is rare there is NO excuse for what they did.

I'm not really sure how to answer that, except to say that the state doesn't like to punish itself, and so there is little practical recourse. You just have to pick up the pieces and move on, which I have. It just irritates me to see accusations of "paranoia" in a discussion about taking precautions to avoid being placed in a similar situation.

k1dude
01-02-2010, 9:29 PM
You can rant all you want about how paranoid everyone is. I HAVE had a surveillance van parked outside my house because I posted pictures of my legal guns on the internet, I HAVE had the SWAT team tear my car, house, yard, and every damn thing else in my life apart because they were on some damn witch hunt, I HAVE spend nearly a month in one of the worst lock-ups in this country with every kind of scum imaginable, I HAVE been accused of crimes I did not commit, both in court and on network TV in attempt to vilify me, had BATF make up lies about the guns I owned and claim I was selling machine guns, had detectives follow and interrogate people close to me, and most important, and what you probably can't even understand, I have had to witness the anguish that event caused my family. Oh, and I was a damn LEO.

As for the rest of your post, you obviously have no idea what you talking about, have no idea what can (and can't) said as an argument in court, and you are living in a fantasy world if you think no one has ever been falsely accused or that it can't happen to you.

I'm not calling you stupid, I don't even know you, but you sure as hell are drinking the blue kool-aid.

WOW! I don't even know what to say to your post. It's incredible that this stuff can happen. I know it can, I've experienced LEO's lying like crazy about my insignificant little traffic incidents. So I can imagine how they distort law and reality when it really counts. But to experience prosecutorial misconduct to your extent is one of my worst nightmares. And you lived through it. I am so sorry for your experience and admire your resilience. It reminds me of those Duke kids and the hooker with the out-of-control DA back east. Take care man.

odysseus
01-02-2010, 9:48 PM
Why not. I have nothing to hide.

:rolleyes:

This is the never ending saga of a conversation about, politely and calmly, expressing your civil liberties and someone saying, I don't do that for "I have nothing to hide." So the reflexive inverse is, "only the guilty hide behind these rights". If you don't want to, then don't. Why rant on here about why people are somehow weird or paranoid in your world for believing in and exercising them? From people in the middle of the fight for the RKBA, I don't know why there is this cognitive dissonance with some.

You go ahead and make your choice. As for me, I will simply just be a citizen that always tests the power of law when directed at me with the protections I inherently possess.

rcpilot_971
01-02-2010, 9:52 PM
.

From a legal standpoint, the safest way to handle police questioning is to not answer their questions at all. You could remain completely silent, but saying something like this will likely make the encounter go better: 'Hey officer, I know you're just doing your job, and I respect that. By law I'm not required to answer any of your questions, and I'm not going to, and I hope that you respect that as well'.

So if you tell a LEO this is he just going to go OK have a nice day I dont think so

Maestro Pistolero
01-02-2010, 10:15 PM
From a legal standpoint, the safest way to handle police questioning is to not answer their questions at all. You could remain completely silent, but saying something like this will likely make the encounter go better: 'Hey officer, I know you're just doing your job, and I respect that. By law I'm not required to answer any of your questions, and I'm not going to, and I hope that you respect that as well'.

So if you tell a LEO this is he just going to go OK have a nice day I dont think so

I followed this whole thread and I didn't get that anyone was saying that. The challenge, especially if you have an OLL that the average, uninformed LE could confuse with an assault weapon, is to refuse an unwarranted search in the most concise, polite manner possible. This may give you a legal basis to challenge an illegal search in court.

rcpilot_971
01-02-2010, 10:22 PM
I followed this whole thread and I didn't get that anyone was saying that. The challenge, especially if you have an OLL that the average, uninformed LE could confuse with an assault weapon, is to refuse an unwarranted search in the most concise, polite manner possible. This may give you a legal basis to challenge an illegal search in court.

Just asking what the LEO next move is going to be if you tell him you are not going to answer his questions I dont think he will just let you go

10fcp
01-02-2010, 10:56 PM
What contitutes PC. Would an empty shell casing in the bed of your truck or on the floor board? I keep my rifles in a case in the extra cab of my truck when I travel to the range. If pulled over do I have to open the case for them? That's the same as letting them search your vehicle kind of. I always have walked the straight and narrow but I shoot quite a bit and of coarse my guns are in a locked case in my cab(even my rifles) We all know cops don't know the law, judges do. 5 different cops will give you 5 different answers on what makes an AR legal or not. Is there something in writing from the DOJ that clearly states what's CA legal. I think they purposely define these things so you need an attorney and a colledge degree to understand.

pullnshoot25
01-02-2010, 11:44 PM
So umm.... how many of you guys DIDN'T take civics in high school?

Meplat
01-03-2010, 12:22 AM
So, what kind of candy and cigarets do you like. So we can send you some in the slammer.:p



Some of you guys have a serious paranoia problem. Go get a tinfoil hat. the BATF isn't parked out infront of your house in a pizza delivery van. Your internet connection is not routed thorough the Pentagon and monitored. You think all the cops are out to get you and lock you up. They aren't. They have better stuff to do then tear law abiding citizens cars apart and arresting people for stupid stuff. I wish some more LEO's on here would speak up.

Hypothetical:
So you don't let them search your car. They figure your hiding something. They get a warrant, make up PC, find your OLL, some weed that fell out of your friends pocket, blow, whatever. They arrest you. It goes to trial, a jury trial where the D.A. rails you AND your lawyer up and down saying "If you had nothing to hide, why did you refuse to let them search your car?" That looks real good to a jury, even better when your lawyer appears to back pedal and wax poetic on the bill of rights.

If anyone here drives around with a banned substance, guns, whatever and don't abide by the law, thats their problem and choice.

First off, I never drink and drive. I had a good friend killed by a drunk driver.
If I ever did get pulled over on suspicion, I would just co-operate. Why not. I have nothing to hide. I would draw the line at a needle sticking, but would do a breathalizer and field test, but that would never happen, I'm because I would be stone sober and they wouldn't waste the time.

As far as anything else illegal, I have too much to risk, career, house, etc. I don't use any drugs. Do not hang out with anyone that does.

I have an OLL, it carries a CGF Flow chart with it, in a locked case, in my trunk with a BB and a 10 round mag in the well.

If I happen to be carrying it, I will state that I have nothing illegal in my car, then tell them to piss off on a search. This is the only time I would do this as stated earlier, they can push and get a warrant, or lie for PC and I will get my gun back in court.

If they want to go further then that, fine. My car is as sterile as an operating room floor, the only items kept inside of it on a regular basis is an iPod, garage door opener, registration and insurance. I could give Fcukall if they want a look.

Flame me if you want, IDGAF. I'm off to go fire up the BBQ and make some chicken and watch a movie with the wife. Not dwell on someone elses opinions that like to get all huffy and and call me stupid which they would only do sitting on a computer and not to my face.

artherd
01-03-2010, 1:20 AM
What contitutes PC. Would an empty shell casing in the bed of your truck or on the floor board?

Yes. United States v. Richards (http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/1189), 967 F.2d 1189, 1193 (8th Cir. 1992)

(noting that presence of .22 caliber shells inside a suspect's vehicle supported an officer's reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contained a weapon)

I keep my rifles in a case in the extra cab of my truck when I travel to the range. If pulled over do I have to open the case for them?

Only if you tell them that there is a firearm in the case. Then under PC12031(e) they may require you to open it. Refusing is a crime.

pullnshoot25
01-03-2010, 1:23 AM
LOL! How were you carrying the tomahawk when you went into the stores? In your hand, or did you have a belt sheath? I've got to try that one someday. :D

In the belt, I have a blade protector as well.

Working on a frog for it...

Kestryll
01-03-2010, 1:34 AM
Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of Calguns having a reputation of being anti-cop.
There are some very legitimate concerns and issues with LEO interactions on the part of gun owners but the constant antagonistic attitude of a small but vocal group here make it next to impossible to have anything but an adversarial relationship with LEAs.
Some here seem to think that being a gun owner means treating police like they were the enemy and that kind of attitude is not only stupid it's harmful to what we are working so hard for.

It's getting old and tired very quickly and it's not helping us in any way.
A good percentage of what passes for 'discussion' here regarding law enforcement is nothing more than piling on and bashing and it's starting to annoy me.