[click image]
I can see the need for a visual search of the interior of a car when a suspect is in a vehicle or someone is pulled over by a traffic cop, for the safety of the officer, but, beyond that, no dice. Period. Fourth Amendment. This isn't even a dent in the mess they've made.
05 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I'm not mistaken, when you register a vehicle in California - or is it when you get your drivers license - I forget which - you sign a statement that you inherently give permission for such searches.
ReplyDeleteYou could be right and they just slipped it past me, but then I wonder if this decision will make that illegal. THEN I wonder if they will get rid of it if it is! We are SERIOUSLY down the rabbit hole and there doesn't appear to be any path back up.
ReplyDeleteMore like a rat hole!
ReplyDelete.
Bluebear2 said...
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, when you register a vehicle in California - or is it when you get your drivers license - I forget which - you sign a statement that you inherently give permission for such searches.
Show us please, cause my understanding is I have the right to say, "no, get a search warrant." And that would be unconstitutional. It's like buying a house and them saying you have to agree to have it searched on the deed. --Nonsense.
It seems to me if your stopped one of three situations occur consensual contact, detention or arrest.
Under Consensual contact, This means that the officer comes up to you and says "can I speak with you?" If you say "yes," you have consented to have contact with the police. That is very bad. The result of such "consent" is that you won't have various "rights" under the Constitution. You could say, "No, I'm sorry, I'm need to be somewher and I don't have time to talk." If the cop insists, ask him "Are you detaining me? Am I free to leave?" If you don't actually verbally ask to leave, the court will presume that you consented to whatever follows.
Detention-- The police are only allowed to detain a citizen when there are "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. This means that they can't detain you on a "hunch."
"Specific and articulable facts" (SAF) means that the police must have observed something about your behavior and character that links you with specific criminal activity. If the police detain you without SAF, the detention is illegal and whatever they obtain as a result of the detention (evidence or arrest) cannot be used against you in court.
How does this all work in practice? Suppose the police stop you because it is late at night, you are walking around the city, "you look at them funny", look "strange" or are homeless or the wrong color.
The officer says "Excuse me, may I talk to you?" You say alright. You have just consented to talk to the police. If the officer notices after talking to you for a while that you have spray paint on your finger or wheatpaste on you clothing, or notices a bulge in your coat, the officer can find cause to detain you and could eventually arrest you.
If, however, you said "no, I have to go" the officer is supposed to let you go because he or she doesn't have SAF that you are involved in criminal activity just because you look funny and it is nighttime. The courts have found all of the facts mentioned above insufficient to justify a detention.
Searches --
If the officer asks to search you without arresting you, you can say "no." The police have the right to search for weapons if they feel in danger of being attacked. They are not allowed to search people for other items. In a lot of cases the police ask to search someone and obtain "consent" to search. Even though the search isn't justified, it will be legal because the citizen didn't object and therefore "consent" is presumed.
If the officer asks to search you or any of your property, say no and ask if you are under arrest or if they have a warrant. If you aren't and they don't, tell them "I would rather not let you search." They may ask many times and seem to be acting with complete authority. Just Say No. You will not let them search you unless they arrest you or have a warrant, and you don't have a weapon.
If they search anyway and find something, you may be able to escape the penalty later in court. If the cop is obeying the law, they should leave you alone. The fact that you refused to be searched does not make you more "suspicious" and give them an excuse to search.
Arrest--
Once you are under arrest, offer no physical resistance, volunteer nothing and answer no questions. Nothing you can say will pevent your being handcuffed and taken to the station for booking. Anything you say can be used as evidence against you in court. Resistance to handcuffing and any police actions/orders will get you an automatic "Resisting Arrest" charge as well as any number of injuries as the police use whatever force they deem necessary against you until you comply with their directions. Your only response to any interrogation from the moment that you are told that you are under arrest should be "I want a lawyer".
(You can find this article many places on the web--I made it a little brief. ~P)
Furthermore, I've had personal experience with this.
ReplyDeleteAn officer comes up to me and says "can I speak with you?" I said "yes," I just consented to have contact with the police. That is bad. The result of such "consent" is that you won't have various "rights" under the Constitution. I have been harassed for over two hours because of this after I had been walking over 28 miles because my truck had broken down. At the time I looked and felt like shit but I wasn't doing anything wrong and I wasn't drunk or drugged up. All I wanted was a glass of fucking water.
In short NEVER CONSENT!
Oh yeah and I was eventually searched... Like a dummy I consented to it also.
ReplyDelete~P