-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Drivers Have Right To Refuse Search
- Thread starter vta
- Start date
forty
Active member
i read something like 94% of seizures come from consent searches. old number, not sure it it's accurate today but still says a lot. consent is a crap shoot; how well is it hidden? how experienced is the cop? has he picked up indicators from you and is very motivated to find something or has he not picked up indicators and is asking to search based on state plates, profile, etc. and hoping to find indicators? tons of possibilities and mind games... huge respect to anyone who can roll through such a situation keeping cool and play it right.
what if it goes bad? with consent your limiting your defense chances in court. or, depending on how connected to the car you are denying any knowledge of contents could work and having consented supports that defense.
if consent wasn't given, probable cause would have to be proven pretty clearly, the stop would have to be justified, etc. if you have not made the stop, search, and probable cause easy for the cop to articulate in court and you have a good lawyer you have a chance of getting it thrown out.
truly amazing subject to me..
FREEwoman
Member
My ex boyfriend and I got pulled over once and apparently an unused (still in its wrapper) Philly lying on the floor was reasonable cause for a search.
My boyfriend was the one under the spotlight, so the stupid cops allowed me to sit in the car by myself. In a matter of 20 seconds I was able to open the center console and transfer the weed, opium AND mini-bong into my bra (I didn't really have any tits yet, so luckily all of this crap fit).
I am sooo glad I am female with an angel face. It has gotten me out of loads of tickets and possible jail time. All you ladies out there- don’t be afraid to use your looks to your advantage!! Tears usually help too.
My boyfriend was the one under the spotlight, so the stupid cops allowed me to sit in the car by myself. In a matter of 20 seconds I was able to open the center console and transfer the weed, opium AND mini-bong into my bra (I didn't really have any tits yet, so luckily all of this crap fit).
I am sooo glad I am female with an angel face. It has gotten me out of loads of tickets and possible jail time. All you ladies out there- don’t be afraid to use your looks to your advantage!! Tears usually help too.
I once had a baseball glove and a bat in my back seat and was pulled over.. The guy just wouldn't stop breakin my balls. He asked to search my car I told him I was in a rush He pulled me over for goin 27 in a 25.. He was just an asshole. He asked to search the car and I said no I'm in a rush, I gotta get home this and that. Then he said well you have a weapon in your backseat.. I told him it's not a weapon it's for softball on sunday.. He said It's still a weapon step outa the car. So at that point I got out of the car he handcuffed me I still said I'm not giving my consent. Then he called back-up, said to get in his car. Back-up came searched my car found nothing. They wrote me a ticket for speeding... Then he wrote me a summons for having a weapon in the car.. The baseball bat.. Then they uncuffed me and let me go. I told them I'm fileing a complaint. My lawyer got everything dropped but still had to pay the court fee. I was so pissed off about that. I didn't file a complaint because I've ha a friend do that before and he got tickets every month after that.. Still just a shitty story. So don't even have a Swiss Army kife in plain view.. They will exploit this..
ALWAYS politely and respectfully refuse to be searched...ALWAYS! and you will usually be asked, 'whatcha trying to hide...blah blah blah' to which you reply, 'nothing sir...i just don't have the time to clean up the mess you leave behind'. then keep up with the "am i free to leave?"...nothing more, nothing less. after 3-4 times you'll be turned loose. be respectful & polite...offer nothing more than short, precise answers...have your papers handy...and just say no, as nice but as assertive as you can be.
i usually carry my 'salesman samples' (gemstone jewelry and cutlery) and it's a couple boxes of stuff...i'm a longhair and drive an '85 camper when traveling (just spent $5.8K getting her totally rebuilt!) so i tend to get checked out more than usual but it makes for a good excuse for them to not bother my gear, whether i have a few clones or not! a toolbox would do the same...just an idea.
i usually carry my 'salesman samples' (gemstone jewelry and cutlery) and it's a couple boxes of stuff...i'm a longhair and drive an '85 camper when traveling (just spent $5.8K getting her totally rebuilt!) so i tend to get checked out more than usual but it makes for a good excuse for them to not bother my gear, whether i have a few clones or not! a toolbox would do the same...just an idea.
And an expansive one.....one could start reading today and continue and never reach the end....forty said:
94% and going wrong?, etc?......
One has to remember we're talking highway interdiction here, which is a completely different ballgame from everything else.....completely....100%
One will find in searching for knowledge that in many areas that is essentially their role 24/7.....playing the numbers game....can find single individuals with 200-300-400+ stops monthly....anyone having been there knowing that they are pulling another over even before your gone.....
In such areas, there are K9's readily available, often multiple...so, a refusal and they are there........(And in some cases and places they are there anyway on initial stop.....)
One can find a lot of cases of this and search not even requested......no reason...k9 on scene......
One will also see increase of photo enforced speed.......which of course then frees up time....eliminates stops in many places regarding speed...(story above about speeding, but, training would tell a trooper people heavy in general don't speed.....so here you have if your not your suspicious, and if you are, you run the risk of a speeding stop......
Lot of places also change up efforts because people have theories about where and when are best times, which are always wrong.....enforcement comes at different days and times, no fixed schedule....so, again......highway interdiction and hot spots not even close to a local stop........difference is laughable.....(and what's the difference?.....the difference is the former are looking for that 24/7 and experienced and educated......that's a big difference......)
Depends again on the what and where and how much.....local never going to find it if right place.......never....(unless they knew for certain and subject under surveillance beforehand, in which case entire vehicle would be gone over top to bottom, inside out.......).....nations highways?....hot spots?......well, I've seen more than one talk about "all their trips and never a problem".......just a matter of time, as a numbers game......(for a stop....outcome of stop depends on 100 things.....)
There was a time when I was one
("Done 100 times and never stopped once, blah,blah,blah"..........one of those "when you catch yourself saying that, a reality check coming soon" ......)Angles are endless.........truly.....no single source covers all ingredients in selection and profile....and we know from public trans interdiction, lot of those indicators written to encompass every scenario....(arriving early, arriving late........subject nervous, subject too relaxed, etc.......)
Problem I think people have is they get nervous if things are going well.....(which is suspicious....everything's fine....so what's the problem?
.....)Refusal brings dogs......dogs will find what a person cannot.....so, no....I wouldn't say refusal is always safest depending on the what and where and when...
Forgot where (easily looked up), but I think Missouri has the drug checkpoint signs on the highway........(of course, if one knew what they were doing, they would know that was struck down and originated in Indiana, and that they are just signs, with no actual checkpoint but they are waiting on exit..........)
Can you imagine the number of people who haven't done the first bit of research and drive right into them on exit?
Hot routes they are of course looking for the larger loads, so, right off the bat if it's hidden and smaller, the better........chance one might bypass a longer search for something small to get back on the road to grab a larger load........
(Personally, I think highway interdiction is complete bullshit......select a source state, and the real traffic are in state plates....out of state are just the little people as always getting grabbed for minor bullshit while the bigger loads pass them by........Texas usually a great example of everything.........they grab a pair of black guys with little bit of this while 10 pick ups loaded to the top and 2 semi's pass by with 1,000 times more.........)
Path of least resistance.......they go after what is easiest first.....
depends on who, where, how much training though......
Note: Any/all regions typically have their hot spots. Meaning troopers assigned to a specific set of mile markers.....not necessarily throughout the state.....(I'm sure everyone has driven on highways for a couple hours.....and can drive for 2 hrs and see nothing, thenh see them, then again, etc.......)
One familiar with certain routes becomes familiar with where those hot spots are, and can then work around them any number of ways....traffic, bad weather,time of day, or what I can "defensive/strategic positioning".....(positioning yourself favorably while passing them, using other cars for cover to a degree.....working yourself into groups on far sides..............ie: as opposed to below speed limit and finding yourself passing them with no one in front, no one on the side, no one in back of you....stuck out there sticking out easily.....etc......)
Problem is also a lot of them have been conditioned to basically assume everyone is lying......
Regarding any specific profile......actually it is the reverse of what most believe...
While some might very well go after a certain "looking" individual in a certain car...most would pass that by assuming a person with that specific appearance would not have a load, but more likely have just personal, while people with loads vary......could be 18.....could be 88......janitor.....attorney......and whites just as likely as blacks, asians, etc, etc........the experienced know those stereotypes not always the case in the real world....(and of course that is now the case, due to the numbers of cases that have come from "those you least expect".........) Read a case once about guy in his 80's with an oxygen tank being cracked.....(bigger load hidden if I recall....)
Angle has changed from stereotyping to more select criteria which can be applied including the psychological and physical aspects....
One familiar with certain routes becomes familiar with where those hot spots are, and can then work around them any number of ways....traffic, bad weather,time of day, or what I can "defensive/strategic positioning"
.....(positioning yourself favorably while passing them, using other cars for cover to a degree.....working yourself into groups on far sides..............ie: as opposed to below speed limit and finding yourself passing them with no one in front, no one on the side, no one in back of you....stuck out there sticking out easily.....etc......)Problem is also a lot of them have been conditioned to basically assume everyone is lying......
Regarding any specific profile......actually it is the reverse of what most believe...
While some might very well go after a certain "looking" individual in a certain car...most would pass that by assuming a person with that specific appearance would not have a load, but more likely have just personal, while people with loads vary......could be 18.....could be 88......janitor.....attorney......and whites just as likely as blacks, asians, etc, etc........the experienced know those stereotypes not always the case in the real world....(and of course that is now the case, due to the numbers of cases that have come from "those you least expect".........) Read a case once about guy in his 80's with an oxygen tank being cracked.....(bigger load hidden if I recall....)
Angle has changed from stereotyping to more select criteria which can be applied including the psychological and physical aspects....
ResinKing
Member
Ok so I have experience here on getting stopped and searched in my car. When your stopped by a cop and he asks you for license and checks your insurance , tax and road worthiness which is usually how the start off. After that is checked alot has to do with your appearence , what you wearing, type of vehicle, and age in my opinion which is pure discrimination. So in my case the pig said were you going , I said going to get some food from mcdonalds which was true and I wasnt carrying personal smoke but I had a friend with me who was carrying bout 10 grams of dank (hidden in his boxers when flashing lights came on). This is when the harassment started I was asked to step out of the car while my friend was too. There was no explantion giving , so I said whats this all about he replied Im searching you on the misuse of drugs act - this was the 1st mention of drugs. He proceeded to empty my pockets , touch my legs and body all over , asked me to remove my shoes and socks {keep in my mind this is on the side of a busy street with alot of traffic} I said you want me to take off my socks he said yes and looked at me like I was crazy , I felt like I was been Raped. While this is going on my friend is getting the same treatment by a cop who I can say looked like a 20 stone bouncer and was about 6 foot 4 tall , this cop was pushing and pulling my friend all over the place , I mention aswell there were undercover scum pigs dressed in sports gear from head to toe. Then the piggy wiggy who was searching me put his hands on my waist and started to shake my hips and hit my pants around the bollock area in the hope something would fall out the leg of my pants if there was something there , he stopped then when he was satisfied and started on my car by giving a good check everwere inside , under seats , glove compartment , boot , just a proper good snoop , I sat back into the car driver seat and glanced out at my mate who was standing in his bare feet getting the same treatment , I didnt want to look at him coz I just didnt know were to look at this stage , and then I hear ''Im arresting you on the misuse of drugs bla bla bla'' and I thought fuck , then the cop who was searching my mate came round to his bacon partner and said what bout him is he clean , and bacon nodded the head and said get on your way..My point here is 'cops need suspision to search , rite we all know that , but how do you question that suspision coz if you refuse a search it makes them more suspicious. We simply passed that parked undercover car on the side of the street and it started to follow us , I know they made a stereotypical judgement on us '' they seen 2 males in a nice car with nice sportswear and said lets check em out.. Is that called suspicion. I was annoyed when it was over coz I knew there supision turned out to be right and my mate got caught..I hate cops and they way they treat people especially young males..Cops are arseholses who join the cops for the power especially the ones who strive to get into the drugs squad , and target us.. Not all cops are like this but sadly most of them are. They love power and over-use it all the time. Thats my experience on this subject. Peace my fellow tokers and smokers and be carefull. As for rights ''What Rights''
Just so you guys know the US Supreme court recently put limits on the police conducting warrantless searches during vehicle stops.
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=119299
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=119299
Unionman
Member
Another good reply would be.....Sir I do NOT consent to a search, to many good Americans have died fighting to protect my freedoms and rights for me not to excersice them to the fullest.
I remember reading or hearing that a hidden compartment in a vehicle is illegal.... Let me search real quick.
http://www.unoa.org/compartments.html
This is the first one I found, I don't know what if any other states have laws like this. For our purposes though it just seems like another charge.
SmokyMtnToker
Member
Lets clear up a few things:
Lets clear up a few things:
In the original post, the author says that ' looking nervous' is reason for ' probable cause '. That is INCORRECT.
There are TWO standards of grounds for legal suspicion that justify detention or a search. The first is " reasonable grounds to believe ' and the other is " probable cause'. They are two very different standards.
For example, if a cop believes that you are ' nervous' that MAY , in some very limited circumstances, ALONG WITH OTHER grounds, MIGHT lead to a finding that suports the cop. However, merely being ' nervous ' does NOT equal ' probable cause'. Probable cause is enough evidence to arrest and charge. There must be convincing and articulable reason to believe that a crime has been committed.
Reasonable grounds is a LESSER standard that includes such elements as ' nervousness', etc. If you are nervous, AND if there are OTHER factors, that MIGHT add up to probable cause, but it takes many more factors that simple nervousness. People may very well get nervous for reasons that have ZERO to do with criminal behavior. It may be that a person was a victim of a previous bad cop, and feared for his safety...there could be many reasons to be nervous, and that alone means NOTHING legally.
Here are the rules no matter what: Ask any lawyer...don't believe me. But I have studied this for years and there is only ONE way to behave with a cop that wants consent. If you do the following, no matter what happens, your attorney will have the ability to defend you and get you off, not just plead you guilty after raping you financially.
First, get it through your head in advance that you are under NO obligation to discuss anything with a cop. You need answer NO questions and should never do so.Cops ask seemingly innocuous questions to get you softened up psychologically to answer yet more, and more of his questions. If a cop says " Where are you going" it is not because he cares, but to get you talking and obeying his demand that you answer.
ALL such questions should be ignored totally. That means YOU control the exchange and not HIM. You simply give the proper papers, and state the following: " Officer, I never speak to the police without my attorney...he ( or she ) has told me that I MUST remain silent". Now, of course the cop will badger and whine and threaten and cajole...he wants consent so badly because it gives him free rein to search and bust you with NO defense for you later in Court.
If a cop knows that you are determined, NOT afraid of them, and coonectesd to a LAWYER, they are MUCH less likley to go any further than they should. There are too many weak fish in the sea to hassle a few that stand firm.If the cops DO violate your rights, then you have a very good chance of beating it, and by all means you MUST file official complaints any time a cop screws up. The other cops will NOT gang up on you because if they do and you document it they can suffer badly. Most cops will not risk big trouble for mere revenge.
The ideal scenario would be if your attitude reflected a person that actually WANTS the cop to violate Rights so you can sue him and make his life hell. If a cop thinks that he is being set up, he will run like the dog he is.If a person is CALM, with authority in his voice and NO FEAR showing whatsoever, and takes a stand, most cops will go away.
It is NEVER EVER recommended to allow consent. plain and simple if you do, chances are you will lose. The odds change from in your favor to almost assured loss in court. Cops cannot make you wait on the side of the street while they get a dog....unless it takes less time than a regular ticket would. If there are no ' reasonable grounds' to believe that you have committed a crime, then they have NO legal right to detain you.
Let me explain it this way: If a cop sees a guy walking down the street with jewelry hanging from his pockets, late at night, a block from a jewelry store that just got burgled, he would have ' reasonable grounds' to stop and attempt to question the person based on the factors he sees. In other words, a reasonable person might believe that the person observed MIGHT be the perp. If the cop subsequently discovers that there are burglary tools on the guy and labels from the jewelry store on the merchandise, THEN the cop could say he has ' probable cause' to arrest and charge the person.
Probable cause is enough to arrest. Rasonable grounds are steps along the way, bits of evidence that add up to probable cause.Another example:
Lt's say that you have an indoor grow that only you know about. If a cop suspects for whatever reason that you have a grow, he would investigate and try to put enough bits of ' reasonable grounds' together to finally get probable cause. Let's say that your electric bill is somewhat higher than your neighbors. That alone is NOT reasonable grounds alone. But also the cop looks in your trash one night and finds a few wrappers from rockwool blocks. Then he finds a few more bits and pieces, not enough by themselves to mean anything, but taken together add up to probable cause, and a warrant.
There must be for probable cause a specificity of evidence. It must be more than hunches...it must be more than a guess. It must be enough for a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed. Not maybe, but HAS, and by the person charged. Taken alone, bits of evidence could never stand in court. But together, at some point a judge says: " Thats enough' and the warrant gets signed.
But even if they have a warrant, it can be fought. If there was not enough reasonable grounds along the way, a warrant can be squashed .
But avoiding an arrest is best. NEVER for any reason give consent. If you do, be prepared for your attorney to tell you that you are screwed...you gave away your rights .If you take a strong stand, you will come out better. Do NOT talk to the cops. Cut off ANY chance of giving them what they want. Let them know that you have RULES to follow and they are legal.If a cop asks where you are going, ignore it. He will get the point.
Just say that your attorney has forbidden you from talking to police without him there; put it on the LAWYER!! That gets a cop fast. MY ATTORNEY has told me that I cannot talk to you. Why? Ask him Officer.
Do NOT get into any conversation. YOU control the scene, not him! you only say what you want to say, which is the minimum needed to get your ID and papers to him. Thats it. Only FEAR ruins it all. Do NOT be fearful.
If you allow fear to control you, then you will lose. Let the thug COp be fearful of YOU! Let him think that if he crosses the line he will pay one way or another. He will leave you alone and look for easier prey. Cops are like jackals, they attack the young and weak for easy kills. If you show them a lion, they will flee.
It is very EMPOWERING personally to back cops down with very few words.If you are calm..almost amused, by the cops nonsense, they will instantly respect you a bit and thats all you need. Cops do NOT want their names being shown to the papers and TV and formal complains, etc. Only if they are really idiots will they go too far. your protection is your ability to give your lawyer the tools he needs. And the only way to do that is by saying nothing and allowing nothing. Give them nothing.
Lets clear up a few things:
In the original post, the author says that ' looking nervous' is reason for ' probable cause '. That is INCORRECT.
There are TWO standards of grounds for legal suspicion that justify detention or a search. The first is " reasonable grounds to believe ' and the other is " probable cause'. They are two very different standards.
For example, if a cop believes that you are ' nervous' that MAY , in some very limited circumstances, ALONG WITH OTHER grounds, MIGHT lead to a finding that suports the cop. However, merely being ' nervous ' does NOT equal ' probable cause'. Probable cause is enough evidence to arrest and charge. There must be convincing and articulable reason to believe that a crime has been committed.
Reasonable grounds is a LESSER standard that includes such elements as ' nervousness', etc. If you are nervous, AND if there are OTHER factors, that MIGHT add up to probable cause, but it takes many more factors that simple nervousness. People may very well get nervous for reasons that have ZERO to do with criminal behavior. It may be that a person was a victim of a previous bad cop, and feared for his safety...there could be many reasons to be nervous, and that alone means NOTHING legally.
Here are the rules no matter what: Ask any lawyer...don't believe me. But I have studied this for years and there is only ONE way to behave with a cop that wants consent. If you do the following, no matter what happens, your attorney will have the ability to defend you and get you off, not just plead you guilty after raping you financially.
First, get it through your head in advance that you are under NO obligation to discuss anything with a cop. You need answer NO questions and should never do so.Cops ask seemingly innocuous questions to get you softened up psychologically to answer yet more, and more of his questions. If a cop says " Where are you going" it is not because he cares, but to get you talking and obeying his demand that you answer.
ALL such questions should be ignored totally. That means YOU control the exchange and not HIM. You simply give the proper papers, and state the following: " Officer, I never speak to the police without my attorney...he ( or she ) has told me that I MUST remain silent". Now, of course the cop will badger and whine and threaten and cajole...he wants consent so badly because it gives him free rein to search and bust you with NO defense for you later in Court.
If a cop knows that you are determined, NOT afraid of them, and coonectesd to a LAWYER, they are MUCH less likley to go any further than they should. There are too many weak fish in the sea to hassle a few that stand firm.If the cops DO violate your rights, then you have a very good chance of beating it, and by all means you MUST file official complaints any time a cop screws up. The other cops will NOT gang up on you because if they do and you document it they can suffer badly. Most cops will not risk big trouble for mere revenge.
The ideal scenario would be if your attitude reflected a person that actually WANTS the cop to violate Rights so you can sue him and make his life hell. If a cop thinks that he is being set up, he will run like the dog he is.If a person is CALM, with authority in his voice and NO FEAR showing whatsoever, and takes a stand, most cops will go away.
It is NEVER EVER recommended to allow consent. plain and simple if you do, chances are you will lose. The odds change from in your favor to almost assured loss in court. Cops cannot make you wait on the side of the street while they get a dog....unless it takes less time than a regular ticket would. If there are no ' reasonable grounds' to believe that you have committed a crime, then they have NO legal right to detain you.
Let me explain it this way: If a cop sees a guy walking down the street with jewelry hanging from his pockets, late at night, a block from a jewelry store that just got burgled, he would have ' reasonable grounds' to stop and attempt to question the person based on the factors he sees. In other words, a reasonable person might believe that the person observed MIGHT be the perp. If the cop subsequently discovers that there are burglary tools on the guy and labels from the jewelry store on the merchandise, THEN the cop could say he has ' probable cause' to arrest and charge the person.
Probable cause is enough to arrest. Rasonable grounds are steps along the way, bits of evidence that add up to probable cause.Another example:
Lt's say that you have an indoor grow that only you know about. If a cop suspects for whatever reason that you have a grow, he would investigate and try to put enough bits of ' reasonable grounds' together to finally get probable cause. Let's say that your electric bill is somewhat higher than your neighbors. That alone is NOT reasonable grounds alone. But also the cop looks in your trash one night and finds a few wrappers from rockwool blocks. Then he finds a few more bits and pieces, not enough by themselves to mean anything, but taken together add up to probable cause, and a warrant.
There must be for probable cause a specificity of evidence. It must be more than hunches...it must be more than a guess. It must be enough for a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed. Not maybe, but HAS, and by the person charged. Taken alone, bits of evidence could never stand in court. But together, at some point a judge says: " Thats enough' and the warrant gets signed.
But even if they have a warrant, it can be fought. If there was not enough reasonable grounds along the way, a warrant can be squashed .
But avoiding an arrest is best. NEVER for any reason give consent. If you do, be prepared for your attorney to tell you that you are screwed...you gave away your rights .If you take a strong stand, you will come out better. Do NOT talk to the cops. Cut off ANY chance of giving them what they want. Let them know that you have RULES to follow and they are legal.If a cop asks where you are going, ignore it. He will get the point.
Just say that your attorney has forbidden you from talking to police without him there; put it on the LAWYER!! That gets a cop fast. MY ATTORNEY has told me that I cannot talk to you. Why? Ask him Officer.
Do NOT get into any conversation. YOU control the scene, not him! you only say what you want to say, which is the minimum needed to get your ID and papers to him. Thats it. Only FEAR ruins it all. Do NOT be fearful.
If you allow fear to control you, then you will lose. Let the thug COp be fearful of YOU! Let him think that if he crosses the line he will pay one way or another. He will leave you alone and look for easier prey. Cops are like jackals, they attack the young and weak for easy kills. If you show them a lion, they will flee.
It is very EMPOWERING personally to back cops down with very few words.If you are calm..almost amused, by the cops nonsense, they will instantly respect you a bit and thats all you need. Cops do NOT want their names being shown to the papers and TV and formal complains, etc. Only if they are really idiots will they go too far. your protection is your ability to give your lawyer the tools he needs. And the only way to do that is by saying nothing and allowing nothing. Give them nothing.
SmokyMtnToker
Member
But, that reasonable ARTICULABLE suspicion has to be enough to detain...and most of the time the mere refusal to give consent is NOT in any way a factor; it cannot be as a legal right. If a cop smells weed...AND the driver is enrvous...AND other factors are present..SURE, a wait for a dog MAY be justified. But in MOST cases, the vast majority, the cop has nothing but the refusal to give consent and that alone is NOT enough to detain for a dog.
What articulable suspicion does the cop have? Refusal to give consent cannot be used as a factor, so if there is nothing else, NO detention beuyond a ticket writing time is allowed. Period. Please show me proof of ENDLESS cases of HOURS of detention being justified....they don't exist unless there was vast evidence of a crime...not just some copm suspicious. Articulable means that a cop has to give solid and valid ' reasonable cause' factors to justify any detention. What I said is still correct and valid.
What articulable suspicion does the cop have? Refusal to give consent cannot be used as a factor, so if there is nothing else, NO detention beuyond a ticket writing time is allowed. Period. Please show me proof of ENDLESS cases of HOURS of detention being justified....they don't exist unless there was vast evidence of a crime...not just some copm suspicious. Articulable means that a cop has to give solid and valid ' reasonable cause' factors to justify any detention. What I said is still correct and valid.
That would be probable cause. Nervous not required, other factors not required. Dog not necessary.SmokyMtnToker said:
If you were as well versed as you claim, you would be aware and I wouldn't have to do your work for you. (I dislike having to provide examples to people of something that they should already be aware of before making statements....)
Have you read thread?....
BobbleheadJed
Member
Illinois v. Caballes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes
In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop so as to violate the Fourth Amendment.
This case further eroded our rights and gave the cops and thugs more power. Police can force you to wait at the scene until a drug dog arrives to smell you without arresting you. Democrat Lisa Madigan argued this case at the SCOTUS saying a dog sniff is not a search. Lisa Madigan also said she wished law enforcement could sit outside our homes with heat seeking cameras and watch our every move in the transcripts of her oral arguments. Barack Obama LOVES Lisa Madigan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes
In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop so as to violate the Fourth Amendment.
This case further eroded our rights and gave the cops and thugs more power. Police can force you to wait at the scene until a drug dog arrives to smell you without arresting you. Democrat Lisa Madigan argued this case at the SCOTUS saying a dog sniff is not a search. Lisa Madigan also said she wished law enforcement could sit outside our homes with heat seeking cameras and watch our every move in the transcripts of her oral arguments. Barack Obama LOVES Lisa Madigan.
Now there's someone who knows what to do with 5 seconds and an internet connection .......
Here's what I turned up in 60 seconds.....
(Note fine print on criteria for reasonable...I will highlight....)
The U.S. Supreme Court has not established a rigid time limit on the duration of investigative detentions. Blacksten, 507 N.W.2d at 846. There is no bright line rule, “ometimes a 20-minute detention will be too long, sometimes a detention of more than an hour will not be unreasonable. It all depends on the facts and circumstances.” Moffatt, 450 N.W.2d at 119.
United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994) Eighth Circuit
The one-hour time period between when the officer pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation and when officer arrested defendant was not unreasonable period to wait for drug dog to verify officer’s suspicion that vehicle contained drugs.
In United States v. Hardy, the court explicitly ruled that the fifty minutes necessary to secure a drug detection dog was not unreasonable when the dog was stationed twenty-five miles away. The court also noted that it could not expect that the police would have a dog available at a shorter distance, given the rural area.
Several courts have approved of detentions of up to ninety minutes, when the detention is supported by reasonable suspicion and the officer acts with due diligence to get the dog there as soon as practical.
United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.
United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit
One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.
United States v Villa-Chaparro (115 F. 3d 797 (1997) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Officer who stopped vehicle for traffic violation had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify continued detention of defendant until canine unit could come to check truck for drugs.Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the officer acted reasonably in detaining Defendant for five minutes from the time he stopped Defendant at 1:10 p.m. to the time he requested a canine unit at 1:15 p.m., and for an additional thirty-eight minutes while he waited for the canine unit to arrive
United States v Burton (288 F. 3d 91 (2002) Third Circuit
Seizure of the defendant’s vehicle for approximately 30 to 45 minutes, pending canine sniff of the vehicle, was reasonable where defendant conceded that officers possessed a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal acts, as would support investigative stop of his vehicle. Officers proceeded diligently in bringing canine unit to vehicle
United States v Orsolini (300 F. 3d 724 (2002) U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
Defendant was not detained for unreasonable length of time after traffic stop, where entire investigation lasted for one hour, 35 minutes of that time were spent waiting for canine unit to arrive.
United States v Cervine (347 F. 3d 865 (2003) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for 30 to 50 minutes to conduct canine sniff of his vehicle following traffic stop
United States v Maltais (403 F. 3d 550 (2005) Eighth Circuit
Investigative detention by border patrol agent, during which defendant was held in patrol car for somewhere between 90 minutes and two hours, and was detained in all approximately two hours and 55 minutes before he was arrested, was not excessive, and thus did not constitute arrest.
United States v Donnelly (475 F. 3d 946 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit
Time period of approximately 80 minutes to investigate motor vehicle accident involving defendant's vehicle and to obtain canine for drug-sniff of defendant's vehicle was not unreasonable, and thus, valid investigative stop was not transformed into arrest by delay.
• Officer called in his request for drug dog within 12 minutes of his arrival at the accident scene and immediately after he developed a reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed narcotics.
1 minute.......imagine what one could learn in 1 day........
1 week........
1 month
Edit: It should be noted many states have been rewriting their guidelines over last several years and implementing new policies and procedures for searches.
It should also be noted that in most cases, as was addressed regarding highway interdiction, that the "hot spots" will have one much closer and ready in almost all cases, with K9's initiating stops themselves and showing up as backup on other units stops.....
And a bonus......
We held in Hardy that a 50-minute investigative stop was not excessive under the circumstances. See id. at 761; cf. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (stating that 90 minutes is "probably" too long for a Terry stop). Other courts have found a 30-minute wait for a computer check during a traffic stop reasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491, 1502 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 871 (10th Cir.1995). We observe that longer traffic stops, during which nothing occurred to justify the additional detention, usually require extenuating circumstances to be upheld. See United States v. Rutherford, 824 F.2d 831, 833-34 (10th Cir.1987) (upholding a one-hour traffic stop where nearly one-half of the time was occasioned by problems with police computer).
.......Here's what I turned up in 60 seconds.....
(Note fine print on criteria for reasonable...I will highlight....)
The U.S. Supreme Court has not established a rigid time limit on the duration of investigative detentions. Blacksten, 507 N.W.2d at 846. There is no bright line rule, “
United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994) Eighth Circuit
The one-hour time period between when the officer pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation and when officer arrested defendant was not unreasonable period to wait for drug dog to verify officer’s suspicion that vehicle contained drugs.
In United States v. Hardy, the court explicitly ruled that the fifty minutes necessary to secure a drug detection dog was not unreasonable when the dog was stationed twenty-five miles away. The court also noted that it could not expect that the police would have a dog available at a shorter distance, given the rural area.
Several courts have approved of detentions of up to ninety minutes, when the detention is supported by reasonable suspicion and the officer acts with due diligence to get the dog there as soon as practical.
United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.
United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit
One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.
United States v Villa-Chaparro (115 F. 3d 797 (1997) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Officer who stopped vehicle for traffic violation had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify continued detention of defendant until canine unit could come to check truck for drugs.Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the officer acted reasonably in detaining Defendant for five minutes from the time he stopped Defendant at 1:10 p.m. to the time he requested a canine unit at 1:15 p.m., and for an additional thirty-eight minutes while he waited for the canine unit to arrive
United States v Burton (288 F. 3d 91 (2002) Third Circuit
Seizure of the defendant’s vehicle for approximately 30 to 45 minutes, pending canine sniff of the vehicle, was reasonable where defendant conceded that officers possessed a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal acts, as would support investigative stop of his vehicle. Officers proceeded diligently in bringing canine unit to vehicle
United States v Orsolini (300 F. 3d 724 (2002) U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
Defendant was not detained for unreasonable length of time after traffic stop, where entire investigation lasted for one hour, 35 minutes of that time were spent waiting for canine unit to arrive.
United States v Cervine (347 F. 3d 865 (2003) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for 30 to 50 minutes to conduct canine sniff of his vehicle following traffic stop
United States v Maltais (403 F. 3d 550 (2005) Eighth Circuit
Investigative detention by border patrol agent, during which defendant was held in patrol car for somewhere between 90 minutes and two hours, and was detained in all approximately two hours and 55 minutes before he was arrested, was not excessive, and thus did not constitute arrest.
United States v Donnelly (475 F. 3d 946 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit
Time period of approximately 80 minutes to investigate motor vehicle accident involving defendant's vehicle and to obtain canine for drug-sniff of defendant's vehicle was not unreasonable, and thus, valid investigative stop was not transformed into arrest by delay.
• Officer called in his request for drug dog within 12 minutes of his arrival at the accident scene and immediately after he developed a reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed narcotics.
1 minute.......imagine what one could learn in 1 day........
1 week........
1 month
Edit: It should be noted many states have been rewriting their guidelines over last several years and implementing new policies and procedures for searches.
It should also be noted that in most cases, as was addressed regarding highway interdiction, that the "hot spots" will have one much closer and ready in almost all cases, with K9's initiating stops themselves and showing up as backup on other units stops.....
And a bonus......
We held in Hardy that a 50-minute investigative stop was not excessive under the circumstances. See id. at 761; cf. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (stating that 90 minutes is "probably" too long for a Terry stop). Other courts have found a 30-minute wait for a computer check during a traffic stop reasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491, 1502 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 871 (10th Cir.1995). We observe that longer traffic stops, during which nothing occurred to justify the additional detention, usually require extenuating circumstances to be upheld. See United States v. Rutherford, 824 F.2d 831, 833-34 (10th Cir.1987) (upholding a one-hour traffic stop where nearly one-half of the time was occasioned by problems with police computer).
Last edited:
BobbleheadJed
Member
So if you get pulled over by the white cops in America (Obama's D-Chicago) because you aren't one of them, you have maybe an hour and half of the cops making excuses until you are free to leave IF the drug dogs haven't shown up yet AND you can prove the timeline. And thanks to Barack Obama's home state and his multiple times endorsed fellow Democrat Lisa Madigan (including her dictator step-fahter), drug dogs can sniff Americans any time they want out in public and it isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment according the Democrat Party. I shutter to think of the scumbag Democrat politician judge Barack Obama will put on the Supreme Court looking at the torture Obama looked the other way at in Chicago.
