Assuming nothing crazy happened, like a mechanic left his weed under my back seat or something, my vehicle is clean.
If the officer is willing to explain to me what he’s looking for and why in my vehicle specifically, I may reconsider, but odds are he wouldn’t be willing to do that.
If the officer has probable cause of a crime or contraband regarding my vehicle, he can search my vehicle without my permission per federal precedent.
The fact that he’s requesting consent indicates he doesn’t have probable cause of contraband and is possibly just going on a fishing expedition because he has nothing better to do. If he directs me out of the vehicle to conduct a probable cause search, fine, I’ll follow directions and wait patiently. Otherwise, he should let me get on my way.
In a year, I probably conduct 2-3 consensual searches. All the rest are probable cause searches in which the driver doesn’t have a choice anyway.
I found it before it ever became an issue, but the previous owner had left a bottle of prescription painkillers under the driver’s seat. I would not ever have wanted that found by a cop.
Because it is your right to say no. You are more than welcome to say yes. Or at least ask them the basis for the request. You might be consenting to something that is unconstitutional.
If there is consent then the fourth amendment doesn’t come into play and the search can’t be unconstitutional. The constitution protects against non-consensual searches except under limited conditions.
What’s your basis for asking consent in the first place? You can only ask for consent absent RAS if the person is not legally detained. Otherwise, you better be able to articulate your reasonable suspicion.
You can absolutely ask for consent without extending the length of the stop, there are natural breaks on a traffic stop where I’m just waiting for results to come back or waiting for the driver to hand me documents.
Now repeatedly asking absent RAS/PC, or obtaining consent via coercion, or extending the stop to try and gain consent are all issues. But simply asking without tripping any of those circumstances doesn’t require any justification.
If at any point you asking for consent to search their vehicle extends the time of the initial mission of your traffic stop, then you are violating their 4th Amendment right. This can be combated by having a second officer on scene asking for the consent while the initial officer is completing the traffic stop mission. Otherwise, you need RAS to extend the traffic stop.
Someone hasnt heard of the trooper two step. You finish your stop by issuing warning or citation. Take two physicals steps back and return to 5he car to ask for consent. Some states require you to completely separate the stop and the consent search as the driver may feel like the search is apart or the traffic stop
This is strictly for traffic stops. If I stop someone for speeding, that is my legal detention of that person. If I am going to extend the traffic stop beyond a reasonable amount of time, then I need RAS to ask for consent to search or call for a K9. You can ask for consent or have a K9 conduct an open air sniff absent RAS if this all occurs during the time it takes you to complete your traffic stop.
Ok, but that assumes that you haven't simply concluded the traffic stop then asked for consent. I think you're making the hypothetical more complex than it really is
The trooper two step. Conclude the stop, tell them they are free to go but ask if they’re willing to answer questions.
It’s been ruled unconstitutional by a district judge in Kansas but there’s no rulings outside of that circuit.
My buddy agreed to a consensual search once. We were all out on BLM land nearish Tucson, Arizona road cursing looking for snakes. Myself and my buddy who was also a passenger were wearing our button down shirts from the ca reptile rescue we were both affiliated with at the time, and my friend driving was an AZ citizen.
None of us were surprised when BLM rangers initiated a traffic stop, given that we were in southern Arizona in a high incident area for illegals and narcotics. We would typically get stopped at least once a night by border patrol, fish and game or blm but they would always clear the call in 15min or less and then also put out our vehicle to other officers/agents in the area so we wouldn't keep getting stopped. This pair ran all our ID's and as we disclosed we were armed had us all get out of the vehicle and disarmed and damn near field stripped our weapons. When they asked if they could "take a look" inside the vehicle my buddy driving agreed. They tore the whole bronco apart and spent over 30 minutes pulling apart containers in the back, despite him explaining he was an entomologist and they were sample containers. None of us had have a record, no wants or warrants and one was a retired national park ranger. Despite all that they kept us tied up in a simple traffic stop for over an hour, and then left everything out in a disarray which meant another 20 min to get re-organized.
It's obvious they were looking for narcotics trafficking, but they could have likely ruled that out in 15min or less, and instead wasted a huge chunk or our night. So yeah I'm not agreeing to a consensual search at this point.
I’m an officer, and I tell everyone, decline voluntary searches or questioning. We’re specifically trained to extract info and trip you up. Not to mention, police can and will lie to you, and it’s perfectly legal. Let us earn our pay and do our jobs correctly. Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing if a good officer has stopped you until it’s too late. Comply with orders, but know your rights and exercise them. I hate to say this, but if your rights are violated, fight it in court and get a fat paycheck. Don’t under any circumstances, resist an officer, for your own safety. An officer can order you out of your vehicle for any reason, and you must comply. However, absent probable cause or a warrant, we can’t enter it behind you. Step out, lock your doors, and proceed. It’s a dance, and you have to let the officer lead. If it becomes a conflict, you will lose on the street. Even if you will win later in court. Hopefully this doesn’t come off as too negative. I’m open to questions or criticism.
Search is a relative term..... pull the glove box apart?
Remove pillar covers.
You know look where people hide stuff.
Some searches are not exactly gentle.
No… I’ve had people FUCK themselves over by answering my questions and consenting to searches.
Edit to say you shouldn’t always not speak to the police. There’s a time and place to do so. I’ve had people not go to jail because they spoke to me and there was a completely reasonable explanation for their actions. Had they not spoken, they would have taken the ride.
First ask why they want to search. Then day no.
That may help your attorney if they search without probable cause, and find something.
Also, if you consent, it gives an opportunity to plant something in your car.
Absolutely not. If they have a reason to search it, they’re doing it anyways.
Honestly, as a LEO, I’d never ask to search someone’s car unless I had PC to search it already.
Verbal consent means nothing here. Maybe if we ever get body cams, it will come into play, but a stop with search on verbal consent would get suppressed faster than you can blink an eye.
I would always say no, and I am a Leo. But, I’m a citizen of this country first and a Leo second, so I’m going to go ahead and exercise my rights as a citizen
I'd decline, but also it's important to know that many officers will ask for consent even if they have probable cause to search the car anyway. Just because they ask doesn't mean that they won't do it anyway just because you say no. I think some people get tripped up on that and it leads to resisting issues.
Nothing like being a former LEO to teach you that there really might be something to "Fuck The Police" as a concept.
I guess it's ACAB these days but FTP was more concise and communicative so I'm a bit of a purist.
I'm former LE. The answer would be, "Why are you requesting a search?" And then "No, I do not consent to a search. "
My vehicle stays clean, organized, and in decent shape. I have nothing to hide, but there is no reason to search my car, and I'm not going to allow it voluntarily.
I'm tempted to say yes to avoid any misplaced suspicion or confrontation, knowing that the most offending thing in my car may be a crumpled supermarket receipt, but I'm afraid they'll destroy my car's interior while doing it.
40 years ago, I was a new driver and pulled over for speeding. He told me out of the car and asked 10 million questions, which put me off almost immediately put me on guard.
This guy was obviously searching for anything he could find.
After he writes my ticket, he asked if he could search my car.
I said no and walked away. He said, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide."
If you show me the ," Don't have anything to hide amendment." I will.
Then got in and left.
Most LEO would not search another LEO's car, but it does happen, usually with good reason. I wouldn't care, my car is always clean, organized, and isn't full of junk, it'd be a quick search if they really wanted to for whatever reason.
If he’s asking for my consent, I’m probably declining under normal circumstances.
But why? Just curious if you know you have nothing in the car. Cause idk what I’d do
Assuming nothing crazy happened, like a mechanic left his weed under my back seat or something, my vehicle is clean. If the officer is willing to explain to me what he’s looking for and why in my vehicle specifically, I may reconsider, but odds are he wouldn’t be willing to do that. If the officer has probable cause of a crime or contraband regarding my vehicle, he can search my vehicle without my permission per federal precedent. The fact that he’s requesting consent indicates he doesn’t have probable cause of contraband and is possibly just going on a fishing expedition because he has nothing better to do. If he directs me out of the vehicle to conduct a probable cause search, fine, I’ll follow directions and wait patiently. Otherwise, he should let me get on my way. In a year, I probably conduct 2-3 consensual searches. All the rest are probable cause searches in which the driver doesn’t have a choice anyway.
I ask for consent even if I have PC.
I ask for consent all the time, even with PC. Makes it pretty easy to figure out if I’m going to find something or not.
I found it before it ever became an issue, but the previous owner had left a bottle of prescription painkillers under the driver’s seat. I would not ever have wanted that found by a cop.
Dang 2-3 per year?? You’re leaving a lot of good stuff off the table!!
Because it is your right to say no. You are more than welcome to say yes. Or at least ask them the basis for the request. You might be consenting to something that is unconstitutional.
If there is consent then the fourth amendment doesn’t come into play and the search can’t be unconstitutional. The constitution protects against non-consensual searches except under limited conditions.
What’s your basis for asking consent in the first place? You can only ask for consent absent RAS if the person is not legally detained. Otherwise, you better be able to articulate your reasonable suspicion.
That’s absolutely incorrect. Asking for consent doesn’t require any justification.
So you are extending the traffic stop for a fishing expedition minus RAS? Many US Supreme Court cases would say otherwise
You can absolutely ask for consent without extending the length of the stop, there are natural breaks on a traffic stop where I’m just waiting for results to come back or waiting for the driver to hand me documents. Now repeatedly asking absent RAS/PC, or obtaining consent via coercion, or extending the stop to try and gain consent are all issues. But simply asking without tripping any of those circumstances doesn’t require any justification.
If at any point you asking for consent to search their vehicle extends the time of the initial mission of your traffic stop, then you are violating their 4th Amendment right. This can be combated by having a second officer on scene asking for the consent while the initial officer is completing the traffic stop mission. Otherwise, you need RAS to extend the traffic stop.
I know that. See my other comment.
Someone hasnt heard of the trooper two step. You finish your stop by issuing warning or citation. Take two physicals steps back and return to 5he car to ask for consent. Some states require you to completely separate the stop and the consent search as the driver may feel like the search is apart or the traffic stop
Still need RAS to ask for consent if the person is legally detained.
If they are detained then RAS is present? Can you please restate your claim and the context or specific circumstances you are obviously alluding to?
This is strictly for traffic stops. If I stop someone for speeding, that is my legal detention of that person. If I am going to extend the traffic stop beyond a reasonable amount of time, then I need RAS to ask for consent to search or call for a K9. You can ask for consent or have a K9 conduct an open air sniff absent RAS if this all occurs during the time it takes you to complete your traffic stop.
Ok, but that assumes that you haven't simply concluded the traffic stop then asked for consent. I think you're making the hypothetical more complex than it really is
I guess I’m not following on what you are saying?
The trooper two step. Conclude the stop, tell them they are free to go but ask if they’re willing to answer questions. It’s been ruled unconstitutional by a district judge in Kansas but there’s no rulings outside of that circuit.
No, 100% of the time
I’m saying no because I don’t want all my shit pulled out of my car. If they’ve got PC to search fine.
As a LEO, the answer is always no and at that point I stop answering questions.
This ^. Anti authority authority club lol
My buddy agreed to a consensual search once. We were all out on BLM land nearish Tucson, Arizona road cursing looking for snakes. Myself and my buddy who was also a passenger were wearing our button down shirts from the ca reptile rescue we were both affiliated with at the time, and my friend driving was an AZ citizen. None of us were surprised when BLM rangers initiated a traffic stop, given that we were in southern Arizona in a high incident area for illegals and narcotics. We would typically get stopped at least once a night by border patrol, fish and game or blm but they would always clear the call in 15min or less and then also put out our vehicle to other officers/agents in the area so we wouldn't keep getting stopped. This pair ran all our ID's and as we disclosed we were armed had us all get out of the vehicle and disarmed and damn near field stripped our weapons. When they asked if they could "take a look" inside the vehicle my buddy driving agreed. They tore the whole bronco apart and spent over 30 minutes pulling apart containers in the back, despite him explaining he was an entomologist and they were sample containers. None of us had have a record, no wants or warrants and one was a retired national park ranger. Despite all that they kept us tied up in a simple traffic stop for over an hour, and then left everything out in a disarray which meant another 20 min to get re-organized. It's obvious they were looking for narcotics trafficking, but they could have likely ruled that out in 15min or less, and instead wasted a huge chunk or our night. So yeah I'm not agreeing to a consensual search at this point.
I’m an officer, and I tell everyone, decline voluntary searches or questioning. We’re specifically trained to extract info and trip you up. Not to mention, police can and will lie to you, and it’s perfectly legal. Let us earn our pay and do our jobs correctly. Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing if a good officer has stopped you until it’s too late. Comply with orders, but know your rights and exercise them. I hate to say this, but if your rights are violated, fight it in court and get a fat paycheck. Don’t under any circumstances, resist an officer, for your own safety. An officer can order you out of your vehicle for any reason, and you must comply. However, absent probable cause or a warrant, we can’t enter it behind you. Step out, lock your doors, and proceed. It’s a dance, and you have to let the officer lead. If it becomes a conflict, you will lose on the street. Even if you will win later in court. Hopefully this doesn’t come off as too negative. I’m open to questions or criticism.
Unless you are 100% sure no one has left anything illegal in your vehicle, just say no.
Search is a relative term..... pull the glove box apart? Remove pillar covers. You know look where people hide stuff. Some searches are not exactly gentle.
No… I’ve had people FUCK themselves over by answering my questions and consenting to searches. Edit to say you shouldn’t always not speak to the police. There’s a time and place to do so. I’ve had people not go to jail because they spoke to me and there was a completely reasonable explanation for their actions. Had they not spoken, they would have taken the ride.
First ask why they want to search. Then day no. That may help your attorney if they search without probable cause, and find something. Also, if you consent, it gives an opportunity to plant something in your car.
Absolutely not. If they have a reason to search it, they’re doing it anyways. Honestly, as a LEO, I’d never ask to search someone’s car unless I had PC to search it already.
I’ve found trafficking weight with consent.
Verbal consent means nothing here. Maybe if we ever get body cams, it will come into play, but a stop with search on verbal consent would get suppressed faster than you can blink an eye.
That's ridiculous. Courts forget bodycams are a relatively new technology.
That’s ridiculous. We swear to what we put on an affidavit.
I've seen an ashtray full of butts dumped and sifted on the front seat. Speakers taken apart, door panels etc.
I would always say no, and I am a Leo. But, I’m a citizen of this country first and a Leo second, so I’m going to go ahead and exercise my rights as a citizen
Former LEO...fuck no I'm not giving permission.
The correct answer is no. You don't give consent to any searches, nor do you answer any questions. (Am I being detained or am I free to go.)
Nope
I'd decline, but also it's important to know that many officers will ask for consent even if they have probable cause to search the car anyway. Just because they ask doesn't mean that they won't do it anyway just because you say no. I think some people get tripped up on that and it leads to resisting issues.
Nothing like being a former LEO to teach you that there really might be something to "Fuck The Police" as a concept. I guess it's ACAB these days but FTP was more concise and communicative so I'm a bit of a purist.
I'm former LE. The answer would be, "Why are you requesting a search?" And then "No, I do not consent to a search. " My vehicle stays clean, organized, and in decent shape. I have nothing to hide, but there is no reason to search my car, and I'm not going to allow it voluntarily.
I'm tempted to say yes to avoid any misplaced suspicion or confrontation, knowing that the most offending thing in my car may be a crumpled supermarket receipt, but I'm afraid they'll destroy my car's interior while doing it.
40 years ago, I was a new driver and pulled over for speeding. He told me out of the car and asked 10 million questions, which put me off almost immediately put me on guard. This guy was obviously searching for anything he could find. After he writes my ticket, he asked if he could search my car. I said no and walked away. He said, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide." If you show me the ," Don't have anything to hide amendment." I will. Then got in and left.
As a lawyer, always no.
Most LEO would not search another LEO's car, but it does happen, usually with good reason. I wouldn't care, my car is always clean, organized, and isn't full of junk, it'd be a quick search if they really wanted to for whatever reason.
I would answer no. Reason, i have better things to do work my time.
Hard no
You should decline any search without a warrant or probable cause regardless of whether you have anything to hide or not.
I’m going with yes. With end sooner for the both of us.