Car Search Question

[spyde12]

I just watched a video by James Yeager, "Never Allow A Police Search Part 1". Someone in the comments section brought up an interesting question and I wanted to ask here.

Let's say that I get pulled over. The officer explains the reason was because of a blown taillight (or some other traffic infraction that makes the stop legit). I present my CA DL and registration. The officer issues me a (fix it) ticket and the transaction is complete. It's my understanding that I'm no longer in a sense, "detained" because the grounds for me being pulled over have been fulfilled by both parties (I could be completely wrong).

Now let's say, instead of saying our goodbyes and getting back to our lives, the officer asks if he/she can search my vehicle. I politely decline. Then the officer explains that a K9 unit will be dispatched and it'll be arriving in 10 minutes.

So here's my question. Would the officer be within the confines of the law to keep me there (detained) until a K9 unit arrives, or am I free to go? In which case, I just need to speak up and ask.

Thanks in advanced!

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

I just watched a video by James Yeager, "Never Allow A Police Search Part 1". Someone in the comments section brought up an interesting question and I wanted to ask here.

Let's say that I get pulled over. The officer explains the reason was because of a blown taillight (or some other traffic infraction that makes the stop legit). I present my CA DL and registration. The officer issues me a (fix it) ticket and the transaction is complete. It's my understanding that I'm no longer in a sense, "detained" because the grounds for me being pulled over have been fulfilled by both parties (I could be completely wrong).

Now let's say, instead of saying our goodbyes and getting back to our lives, the officer asks if he/she can search my vehicle. I politely decline. Then the officer explains that a K9 unit will be dispatched and it'll be arriving in 10 minutes.

So here's my question. Would the officer be within the confines of the law to keep me there (detained) until a K9 unit arrives, or am I free to go? In which case, I just need to speak up and ask.

Thanks in advanced!

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

The textbook answer is that, absent any PC to suspect that contraband is in the vehicle, is that the officer lacks standing to detain you pending the arrival of the K-9.

However there are other avenues of legal standing that may exist for the officer to conduct a search of the vehicle. In your example, there is blown out taillight. It is a crime to fail to maintain the lighting equipment on a vehicle. It's a really minor crime, nobody really goes "up the river" for committing that particular crime, but it's still a crime. The officer would have legal standing to conduct a search of the vehicle to determine the condition of its lighting equipment, and to secure evidence relating to the failure of the lighting system.

Normally, no search warrant is required to search a vehicle where there is probable cause for a search. Please refer to U.S. v Ross.

[spyde12]

The textbook answer is that, absent any PC to suspect that contraband is in the vehicle, is that the officer lacks standing to detain you pending the arrival of the K-9.

However there are other avenues of legal standing that may exist for the officer to conduct a search of the vehicle. In your example, there is blown out taillight. It is a crime to fail to maintain the lighting equipment on a vehicle. It's a really minor crime, nobody really goes "up the river" for committing that particular crime, but it's still a crime. The officer would have legal standing to conduct a search of the vehicle to determine the condition of its lighting equipment, and to secure evidence relating to the failure of the lighting system.

Normally, no search warrant is required to search a vehicle where there is probable cause for a search. Please refer to U.S. v Ross.

Interesting and thank you for the case law reference. I have a follow up question.

Since it's related to the citation of a broken taillight, I understand that the officer can inspect my trunk without my permission (based on U.S. vs. Ross).

However, would this scenario play out the same if I had been cited for speeding? Would I have a leg to stand on and refuse a search; or is it one of those things where an officer will only need to be suspicious? Then that's all that's needed to negate my choice to not consent? BTW, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just want to understand and educate myself. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[CBR_rider]

Don't try to "out-think" the LEO in such a situation.... You say "I don't consent to a search" and if he says he doesn't need your consent and orders you out of your vehicle/performs the search anyway, either: he/she had legal standing and is good to go or he/she did not have legal standing and you can file a complaint/sue/etc.

[razorscs]

As of not too long ago, case law came down that officers can not prolong a detention in order to give time for a K9 to arrive on scene and conduct a sniff. Let me see if I can find the case.

Edit:
Here is an article regarding the Supreme Court ruling http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us...tops.html?_r=0

[goawayleftwing]

Like razorscs comment...Rodriguez v US is case law that deals with OP question

[spyde12]

Don't try to "out-think" the LEO in such a situation.... You say "I don't consent to a search" and if he says he doesn't need your consent and orders you out of your vehicle/performs the search anyway, either: he/she had legal standing and is good to go or he/she did not have legal standing and you can file a complaint/sue/etc.

I'm not trying to "out think" the situation. I understand that LE will do a search regardless. After reading a viewer's comment on YouTube, I was merely educating myself about something I hadn't heard of.

I've been pulled over in the past and have never been asked to search my vehicle. The interactions have always been respectful by both parties. With stories of asset forfeiture conducted during a traffic stop (non criminals), I've been less inclined to simply comply if I ever find myself in that situation. I don't carry large sums of money on me, but a large sum is subject to interpretation.

Also, I'm the type of person that exercises my rights vs. telling others that I know my rights.

As of not too long ago, case law came down that officers can not prolong a detention in order to give time for a K9 to arrive on scene and conduct a sniff. Let me see if I can find the case.

Edit:
Here is an article regarding the Supreme Court ruling http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us...tops.html?_r=0

Perfect! That answers my question. Thanks for the knowledge I appreciate it.

Like razorscs comment...Rodriguez v US is case law that deals with OP question

Bingo!
/thread

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[micro911]

If the officer has a reason to call a K-9 and do a search and can justify it, I think it is a reasonable detention until the unit arrives.

[Petro6golf]

An officer cannot prolong the detention longer than is necessary for him to do his job. IE, your stopped for a tail light violation. The officer either needs to warn you, cite you or find other pc to prolong the detention. The officer cannot have you sit around for 45 minutes while he figures out what to do.

If your stopped and receive a cite then basically the stop is complete and your free to go. If he comes back and asks to search and you tell him to pound sand the stop is basically over. Doesnt mean you can just drive away mid sentence but you would have a decent argument in court that he violated your fourth amendment rights by prolonging the detention more than is necessary.

Remember, everyone here seems to be worrying about cops searching their stuff and getting into vehicles. If your clean cut, have all your paperwork in order and arnt bothering anyone or being a dick then more than likely your going to get a warning or a cite and be on your way. out of the dozen or so people I talk to on a daily basis while at work I maybe search one and thats cause I think I can find dope or a reason to take you to jail cause you look like a drug user or a dirt bag. I have no urge to rummage through joe blows car just cause I have consent to do so. Were busy and ive got calls pending and paperwork to do and have other things to do than randomly ask if I can search your vehicle just because I can. It would be uneventful, boring and a time waster. Just my two cents.

[spyde12]

If the officer has a reason to call a K-9 and do a search and can justify it, I think it is a reasonable detention until the unit arrives.

I would agree.

An officer cannot prolong the detention longer than is necessary for him to do his job. IE, your stopped for a tail light violation. The officer either needs to warn you, cite you or find other pc to prolong the detention. The officer cannot have you sit around for 45 minutes while he figures out what to do.

If your stopped and receive a cite then basically the stop is complete and your free to go. If he comes back and asks to search and you tell him to pound sand the stop is basically over. Doesnt mean you can just drive away mid sentence but you would have a decent argument in court that he violated your fourth amendment rights by prolonging the detention more than is necessary.

Remember, everyone here seems to be worrying about cops searching their stuff and getting into vehicles. If your clean cut, have all your paperwork in order and arnt bothering anyone or being a dick then more than likely your going to get a warning or a cite and be on your way. out of the dozen or so people I talk to on a daily basis while at work I maybe search one and thats cause I think I can find dope or a reason to take you to jail cause you look like a drug user or a dirt bag. I have no urge to rummage through joe blows car just cause I have consent to do so. Were busy and ive got calls pending and paperwork to do and have other things to do than randomly ask if I can search your vehicle just because I can. It would be uneventful, boring and a time waster. Just my two cents.

The times that I've been stopped have always been routine and lasted <10 minutes (although it felt like time slowed down quite a bit). I've been issued warnings or citations within a 15 year span (in my teens and early 20's). I understand that my behavior (fidgeting and/or sudden movements, the way I address the officer, being respectful/disrespectful etc.) will influence the way the stop is conducted. I never give LE a reason to even want to search my vehicle and I don't plan on breaking that streak

There's a lot of good feedback from the LE community and you've mentioned several good examples and made valid points. Thank you for sharing.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

Interesting and thank you for the case law reference. I have a follow up question.

Since it's related to the citation of a broken taillight, I understand that the officer can inspect my trunk without my permission (based on U.S. vs. Ross).

However, would this scenario play out the same if I had been cited for speeding? Would I have a leg to stand on and refuse a search; or is it one of those things where an officer will only need to be suspicious? Then that's all that's needed to negate my choice to not consent? BTW, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just want to understand and educate myself. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

If the traffic stop were for speeding only, it would be a very different situation.

Speeding is a crime (just like operating a vehicle with a burned-out taillight), but I cannot think of any evidence relating to that crime that would be secured through a search.

The most important point is that we need a source of legal standing to detain folks, and we also need a source of legal standing before we can undertake intrusive searches. Quite often, the source of standing will also dictate the extent of a search that can be done. There are a great variety of sources of that needed standing. A good LEO is going to be conversant in the case law that provides standing, and they'll have some facility at applying that standing to the field situations that they encounter. At the same time, a good officer will be able to recognize when the needed standing is lacking.

Mere suspicion alone doesn't really provide any standing to do anything. Once that rises to "Reasonable Suspicion". the officer gains some legal standing to do some things (detain for investigation and do a limited "Terry" type of search). If the higher "Probable Cause" standard is met, then a "Ross" search of a vehicle can be undertaken, and a more intrusive personal search can be conducted.

There are also some searches than can be undertaken on administrative and/or "special needs" grounds that do not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The whole field of search and seizure law is really complicated, and rapidly changing.

But there a couple of important points to remember if you are the person being contacted by an officer:

1) It's OK to assert you rights. We get that. No professional officer is going to be bothered if you politely state "I don't want to consent to any searches." Our curiosity will be picqued, but that's OK.

2) The RC and PC standards are based on the information available to the officer. There is no requirement for the officer to share his/her knowledge of the RC or PC for their actions. At the same time, we don't show our cards to the folks we play poker with either. As a result, you probably cannot make an informed judgement as to whether an officer's conduct was reasonable or not. The first real opportunity you have to learn the knowledge that an officer possessed is at your preliminary hearing or PC 1538.5 hearing.

3) Because of this "lack of knowledge" issue, it's generally futile to argue about a detention and/or search in the field. If you believe, on the basis of information available to you, that the officer's actions are unreasonable, the best course of action is to clearly state your lack of consent. If the officer believes they have sufficient legal standing, they'll conduct the search or detention on a non-consensual basis. If they don't, they probably wish you a good day and depart.

[keenkeen]

I just watched a video by James Yeager...

^^^^ This is where you lost me.

[indy78]

Unlawful Detention

If the enforcement contact occurred EXACTLY as you described then you would be free to leave after you signed the the citation. However, if the officer specifically ordered you to stay put until the arrival of a K-9 unit then it would be in your best interest to comply. The detention after signing the citation would ultimately be ruled an unlawful detention absent any articulable facts to detain you while awaiting a canine.

If the officer actually did develop PC after you signed the citation through an observation and simply did not tell you, the 10 minute wait would not be ruled unreasonable in a 1538.5 motion. If a search was ultimately conducted and dope was located, the citation would simply be voided and entered into evidence as the reason for the stop. You can what-if search and seizure scenarios to death.

Let's assume you are dirty and the officer developed PC to search the vehicle while you were signing the citation. The PC could be him observing the passenger door panel was loose, missing screws, and you gave conflicting statements as to your planned routes of travel and destinations. It all depends on the officer's experience and training. This could be ruled good PC by a judge if the officer has made similar arrests, whereas a new officer with no experience and just out of the academy would be hard pressed convincing a judge missing screws and a loose door panel was PC to detain and search.

In any event, the officer may still ask for verbal or written consent without specifically telling you he has already developed PC. If the consent is denied he could still order you to await the arrival of a canine so an exterior sniff could be conducted (this is not a search). If the canine alerts to the car then the alert in of itself is further PC and an actual search could be conducted.

In a 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence, the officer may have verbal or even signed consent, his own observations/PC, and the alert of a canine. Asking for consent after developing PC could be an officer's way of trying to add one more nail in the bad guy's coffin. On the other hand, there may be some officers who have nothing and are just fishing by asking for consent.

I just watched a video by James Yeager, "Never Allow A Police Search Part 1". Someone in the comments section brought up an interesting question and I wanted to ask here.

Let's say that I get pulled over. The officer explains the reason was because of a blown taillight (or some other traffic infraction that makes the stop legit). I present my CA DL and registration. The officer issues me a (fix it) ticket and the transaction is complete. It's my understanding that I'm no longer in a sense, "detained" because the grounds for me being pulled over have been fulfilled by both parties (I could be completely wrong).

Now let's say, instead of saying our goodbyes and getting back to our lives, the officer asks if he/she can search my vehicle. I politely decline. Then the officer explains that a K9 unit will be dispatched and it'll be arriving in 10 minutes.

So here's my question. Would the officer be within the confines of the law to keep me there (detained) until a K9 unit arrives, or am I free to go? In which case, I just need to speak up and ask.

Thanks in advanced!

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[spyde12]

If the traffic stop were for speeding only, it would be a very different situation.

Speeding is a crime (just like operating a vehicle with a burned-out taillight), but I cannot think of any evidence relating to that crime that would be secured through a search.

The most important point is that we need a source of legal standing to detain folks, and we also need a source of legal standing before we can undertake intrusive searches. Quite often, the source of standing will also dictate the extent of a search that can be done. There are a great variety of sources of that needed standing. A good LEO is going to be conversant in the case law that provides standing, and they'll have some facility at applying that standing to the field situations that they encounter. At the same time, a good officer will be able to recognize when the needed standing is lacking.

Mere suspicion alone doesn't really provide any standing to do anything. Once that rises to "Reasonable Suspicion". the officer gains some legal standing to do some things (detain for investigation and do a limited "Terry" type of search). If the higher "Probable Cause" standard is met, then a "Ross" search of a vehicle can be undertaken, and a more intrusive personal search can be conducted.

There are also some searches than can be undertaken on administrative and/or "special needs" grounds that do not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The whole field of search and seizure law is really complicated, and rapidly changing.

But there a couple of important points to remember if you are the person being contacted by an officer:

1) It's OK to assert you rights. We get that. No professional officer is going to be bothered if you politely state "I don't want to consent to any searches." Our curiosity will be picqued, but that's OK.

2) The RC and PC standards are based on the information available to the officer. There is no requirement for the officer to share his/her knowledge of the RC or PC for their actions. At the same time, we don't show our cards to the folks we play poker with either. As a result, you probably cannot make an informed judgement as to whether an officer's conduct was reasonable or not. The first real opportunity you have to learn the knowledge that an officer possessed is at your preliminary hearing or PC 1538.5 hearing.

3) Because of this "lack of knowledge" issue, it's generally futile to argue about a detention and/or search in the field. If you believe, on the basis of information available to you, that the officer's actions are unreasonable, the best course of action is to clearly state your lack of consent. If the officer believes they have sufficient legal standing, they'll conduct the search or detention on a non-consensual basis. If they don't, they probably wish you a good day and depart.

You never disappoint Rick! Very thorough as usual. I didn't even know about "reasonable suspicion" and had to look it up. Pretty interesting grounds for being detained.

I totally get that the LE will not reveal and divulge any leverage they have. The best thing for anyone to do at this time is remain silent and let the LE piece what ever puzzle they want to put together.

As always, thank you for the insight.

^^^^ This is where you lost me.

Hahaha

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[spyde12]

If the enforcement contact occurred EXACTLY as you described then you would be free to leave after you signed the the citation. However, if the officer specifically ordered you to stay put until the arrival of a K-9 unit then it would be in your best interest to comply. The detention after signing the citation would ultimately be ruled an unlawful detention absent any articulable facts to detain you while awaiting a canine.

If the officer actually did develop PC after you signed the citation through an observation and simply did not tell you, the 10 minute wait would not be ruled unreasonable in a 1538.5 motion. If a search was ultimately conducted and dope was located, the citation would simply be voided and entered into evidence as the reason for the stop. You can what-if search and seizure scenarios to death.

Let's assume you are dirty and the officer developed PC to search the vehicle while you were signing the citation. The PC could be him observing the passenger door panel was loose, missing screws, and you gave conflicting statements as to your planned routes of travel and destinations. It all depends on the officer's experience and training. This could be ruled good PC by a judge if the officer has made similar arrests, whereas a new officer with no experience and just out of the academy would be hard pressed convincing a judge missing screws and a loose door panel was PC to detain and search.

In any event, the officer may still ask for verbal or written consent without specifically telling you he has already developed PC. If the consent is denied he could still order you to await the arrival of a canine so an exterior sniff could be conducted (this is not a search). If the canine alerts to the car then the alert in of itself is further PC and an actual search could be conducted.

In a 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence, the officer may have verbal or even signed consent, his own observations/PC, and the alert of a canine. Asking for consent after developing PC could be an officer's way of trying to add one more nail in the bad guy's coffin. On the other hand, there may be some officers who have nothing and are just fishing by asking for consent.

Thank you indy for your input. Just to be clear, I posted this question based on a comment I read on a YouTube video. I wasn't in any way cited or detained

You're right and it's not my intent to run through a list of search and seizure scenarios. The ones that have been shared by others, as well as yourself shows that the whole ordeal is complicated (huge understatement).

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk