If you have PC to stop someone, do it. It's better than driving around waiting for a call. Besides, you never know what you'll find.

 

Man, I don't know where you guys hang out and are doing, but it has been a long time I have ran into the police! And I have gotten many speeding tickets in my younger days and never been treated wrong even when I was not acting very civil...

So I have no fear of the cops planting something since there is no reason for them to do that.

 

Which is it?

They can search areas within lunging distance? Or all of it? If all, then why do they ask?

Lets get a clear answer: You are stopped for speeding, can the officer search the entire car. (Lets assume there is NOTHING else he sees or observes other than simply you were speeding- no "anxious manner", no "unsteady gait", no "slurred speech"... just the violation.) You say yes, they can search the car with no warrant, I say no they need a warrant or my permission to search the whole car...which is it?


My position:

I have nothing to hide. BUT, and this is A BIG BUT, I will not allow the government (LE, TSA, name it) to usurp my rights. I do a calculation- do I have the time to hang out if they play hardball, or is it just no worth a hassle.

I agree with the tactic in the initial post- say something generally supportive about LE, and their job, then assert your right to decline a voluntary search. Say you will cooperate to the extent required by the law.

 

If you say "yes" they/I can search EVERYTHING.

 

Why do people have attitudes? Especially when they're wrong.

Go research the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. I have no motivation to help the arrogant ignorant.

 

I agree with this. There are far fewer legitimate activities at 3am. While it's not a crime to be out at 3 am, I have no problem with heightened scrutiny.

That said, don't be mistaken on the law. I am from Arizona, and I had a California officer pull me over for no front plate. I told him that was an illegal stop and that I was going to be leaving. He said that I'd go to jail, so I handed him a copy of the CA Appellate court case that excluded marijuana seized from pulling over AZ car with no front plate. (Rule: If the issuing state does not issue a front plate, it is an illegal stop. And yes, I actually brought copies of the case in my car ). I told him to give it a read before making career decisions by arresting me.

I was more of a jack in my younger days.

 

Fair enough. Here is a clear answer.

Reasonable suspicion to stop the car = Can be ordered out of car

Reasonable suspicion to stop the car and a fear for safety = interior of the car for a weapons search

Probable cause to arrest = Interior of the car, including containers

Probable cause to search = Entire car, including containers

If you'd like me to further break down a section or have another hypothetical, let me know.

In your proposed hypo, the answer is no. They can only order you out of the car. That said, "fear of safety" requires articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to fear for his/her safety, but this isn't a very high hurdle. Combativeness can give an articulable fact tending to cause a reasonable officer to fear for their safety -- it's all a question of reasonableness and is highly subjective.

If you say yes, generally that's consent for the entire car. You can limit the scope of your consent, e.g. "You have permission to search under the seat, but only under the seat", but few rarely do.

Keep in mind, however, they never need a warrant to search your car on the street. They just need to meet certain standards. (Though a Supreme Court case this year finally said that they do need a warrant if the suspect is secured in a patrol car [rationale being that the exigency had ended]).

 

I was reading through this thread and this very thought came to mind. If they order you out of the car, and have no legitmate fears or illegal itmes in plain view, it seems thay shold not be able to search the car at all. There would obviously be no "lunging distance" if you are no longer in the car, correct?

I always try to be as polite as possible. I keep my windows down and shut off my car, making sure all my movements are very slow and fluid. The last time I was pulled over in my "hot rod" it was by two officers, and it was for no front plate and expired stickers. The second officer was coming up on the passenger side with his hand on his firearm. Suposedly, some crimes were committed recently in that area by a perosn in a similar car. If that was the case, I could understand the heightened sense of alert from the second officer, but I was still ticketed for expired stickers. This was aroun noon fwiw.

 

Papers please.....

I have had three different "bad" encounters with law enforcement. In two of those cases the officer flat out lied - one of them in COURT and I was able to prove it. The judge ignored this and I was still fined, the officer had been "looking for me". In the second case I brought witnesses and was prepared to defend myself, the officer had the case pulled from the docket while I sat in the court room and offered both myself and witnesses apologies - he admitted he was trolling for info when he pulled me over. In the 3rd instance I wasn't cited but was able to prove the cop was lying - I am sure he was surprised to pull over a Supra and find responsible adults instead of teens. We both argued him down.

Having experienced this I flat out do not trust the police to do the right thing. If they ask to search my car I will ask for their probable cause. I will and do cooperate when they approach and I do not look to make their lives harder but I will not simply roll over. Giving them anything and everything they want is NOT what we as citizens are supposed to do and shocking as it may seem most officers aren't exactly legal scholars either - they do get it wrong sometimes. I had state police officer ream me for not having an inspection sticker on an antique tagged car once - the law says I can "self inspect" but he hadn't ever heard that. Exhaust violations are a big one - I was pulled over my an officer who claimed my exhaust wasn't "stock" but he ignored the Harley that ROARED by - he claimed they came that way from the factory, B.S!

So, when pulled over my hands go OUT the window, my windows get rolled all the way down, and I tell the officer EVERY move I am about to make before making it. If he wants to get into the glovebox or trunk to rummage I say no. If he wants to shine the flashlight around where he can already see I'm okay with it. Yes they can make trouble for you but frankly that just indicates to me how far we've fallen when an officer is legally denied something and he gets vindictive. We as citizens should not fear the police or worry about repercussions - and yet we must...

 

Your reasoning is absolutely sound. However, in what I and many other thing is some of the most irrational Contitutional Law jurisprudence (thank the late Reinquist), that is not legally true. According to the confused Court, the exigency is not over until the suspect is in cuffs and secured in the officer's car. Now, there is some question when the search is a protective frisk and when it's a search incident to arrest, but that's often just a legal fiction. The officer can have you 30 feet away from the car, watched by other offers, and in cuffs -- and can still search for weapons if he feels his safety is compromised.

Crazy.

 

Wow, those are bad stories.

I think cops get the law wrong 99% of the time, frankly. I got into an argument with one driving back to Tucson. I was pulled over in Arizona driving on my dealer plates. He tells me "you're not allowed to drive on dealer plates for personal business." "Yes I am. Title 28, section 1438. Look it up." "Oh, you think you can tell me what the law is?" "Well, I just told the California bar examiners what the law is, and they liked it. So yes, I think I'm beyond qualified to tell you the law. Unlike you, I spent years in law school learning the law, not cop school."

He didn't like that one.

In their defense, they're not supposed to be legal scholars. That's the judge's job. It just bugs me when they pretend to be one on the shoulder of the Interstate.

 

From http://www.valawyersweekly.com/vlwbl...traffic-stops/




"Prosecutors are disappointed to find former friends Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the majority yesterday with a case that limits when police can search the car of someone arrested at a traffic stop.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. Gant that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.
There are exceptions, though. The majority in the 5-4 decision said that a warrantless search is permissible if the suspect might still have access to the passenger area of his car or if the car might hold evidence related to the reason for arrest."


Read this: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf

 

Thanks. Send me the bill.

(Missed this post before I replied to the latter post)

But seriously, your first post stated they can search the car and seemed to imply declining a voluntary search was futile- they had the legal right to search.

The don't. Or more precisely, as this thread has unfolded, we see that there are certain factors that must be met before they can search the car. Specifically, as was stated by you above, they need probably cause to search the car on the side of the road.

Adam

 

I think my fear, and I have never had the "*****" to say NO, is that there you will definately be getting a ticket for whatever and anything else they can think of if you say NO to the search.

I have only had this happen once, when I was a lot younger and uniformed, but I was not even asked. He directed me out of the car as he searched inside, trunk, and engine bay and took pictures. That would not fly now but I was a scared kid then.

 

I have deserved every ticket, but haven't had any in many years. The cops have always been polite and I to them.

I have no tickets and have been let go for a minor speeding infraction. An officer was even nice enough to let me go with a firm warning for what may have been construed a contest of speed (the other guy was behind me, not beside me).

These guys have a tough job and perform very well for the most part. I really don't think they're after me. But I wouldn't authorize a search.