So you believe this is a free country. I will never travel again.

alaskaflyer said:
I'm not commenting on asset forfeiture or consent searches here, just clarifying the state of the law in almost every state for anyone who incorrectly believes they can say "not without a warrant!" on the side of the road, trail or airport ramp. A better response if you want to make that choice and make it clearly is "not without probable cause!"
Click to expand...

As usual you are presenting one side. The proper response is clearly no, no one has permission to search from the vehicle owner/driver/occupant.

If there is a warrant or probable cause then search is going to happen but no one has to consent.

You really should do a better job of presenting the legal position here if you want to claim to be an expert.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Alaska is similar. Might be another state I'm not aware of too. But for the plurality of states, and for all federal officers regardless of in which state they happen to be located at the time, judicial review of probable cause for a search of a vehicle usually takes place much later after the event upon a motion by the defendant if it gets that far, not beforehand in a warrant affidavit and affirmation like in other circumstances where there may be a REOP. That's generally been the law of the land for a long long time. Some agencies make it a practice of obtaining a warrant on a serious cases for prophylactic purposes so to speak, even though it isn't strictly needed. In over twenty years I've only done it once, specifically at the request of the US Attorney's office, on a case involving a possible homicide. The rest of the time I've determined if I have probable cause, and chosen to search with the knowledge that what I find might be suppressed if a judge disagrees with my assessment later.

And as has been previously discussed here a vehicle is more than a truck or car on a highway. Boats, airplanes, RVs, snowmobiles - even bicycles and mules.

I'm not commenting on asset forfeiture or consent searches here, just clarifying the state of the law in almost every state for anyone who incorrectly believes they can say "not without a warrant!" on the side of the road, trail or airport ramp. A better response if you want to make that choice and make it clearly is "not without probable cause!"
Click to expand...

The best answer is "no, I do not consent." Then it doesn't matter. If the officer has a warrant or PC, they don't need your consent.

I would never say "not without (insert anything here)." The answer is always (and has always been): "Respectfully, sir, I do not consent to any search of my vehicle or property."
 
Holy Smokes!!! If some cop tried that in Canada, he would be in deep @#$%.
 
Clark1961 said:
As usual you are presenting one side. The proper response is clearly no, no one has permission to search from the vehicle owner/driver/occupant.

If there is a warrant or probable cause then search is going to happen but no one has to consent.

You really should do a better job of presenting the legal position here if you want to claim to be an expert.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are talking about here, exactly, but I was specifically responding to the oft-stated concern that officers must have a warrant before searching if you don't give your consent. Clearly that is often not true. If that is "one-sided", then guilty as charged. As Nick mentioned, there are good ways to state your preference to consenting. I wasn't going to get into that too much.

One reason for my particular way of looking at this issue is having situations escalate over the years because of many people's erroneous assumption that a warrant is required, otherwise known as "I learned everything I need to know about Constitutional law on television" syndrome. Not everyone is as polite as posters in this thread claim to be.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
The best answer is "no, I do not consent." Then it doesn't matter. If the officer has a warrant or PC, they don't need your consent.

I would never say "not without (insert anything here)." The answer is always (and has always been): "Respectfully, sir, I do not consent to any search of my vehicle or property."
Click to expand...

Touche
 
alaskaflyer said:
state for anyone who incorrectly believes they can say "not without a warrant!" on the side of the road, trail or airport ramp. A better response if you want to make that choice and make it clearly is "not without probable cause!"
Click to expand...

That is correct. However you should still state clearly that you don't consent to a search.

Lets say you are pulled over for crossing the center line of the road. The officer looks around the vehicle, asks you to get out and asks for permission to search. You say "i've got nothing to hide, go ahead". You're driving through NJ and you have a handgun loaded with ammo that is illegal in NJ, locked in the trunk. You're busted with no defense.

Now lets say you are pulled over for crossing the center line, officer pulls you out of the car and asks you if he can search. You say no. The officer says 'well, you appear to be under the influence to me, so I have probable cause to search your vehicle' and puts you in the cruiser, without administering a sobriety test. The illegal ammo is found, and you are arrested. When you are booked, you pass a sobriety test and breathalyzer with .00

In the second case, you have a defense against the search. A traffic violation alone is not probable cause. The officer never performed a sobriety test. You were not under the influence. It could be shown to a judge that the officer had no probable cause. In this case, the evidence as a result of the search would be suppressed.
 
When I read these stories, my first thought is why not immediately go to a higher authority? Why not get a lawyer?

I'm no lawyer but I know that I cannot be deprived of liberty or property with due process and at some point down the line these guys can be made to account and can be forced to either prove wrongdoing or hand your stuff back over.

Every agency, every officer, is ultimately accountable. All you gotta do is bring things out into the light. Not saying that's always easy but you have to stand up to bullies and thugs or they win.
 
EdFred said:
And then the cops say, "No problem, we'll get a warrant. Might take 4-5 hours, might even take 12 hours to get that warrant but I can have another officer come out and sit with you while we wait for the judge to say OK. We're getting paid, whether we sit here with you or whether we are out doing something else. You sure you don't want to just consent? We don't have anywhere else to be."

And guess what, they bring out the K-9 unit, and signal the dog to start barking like he found something. Busted. The cops are not there to serve and protect anyone's interest but their own.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right because in the mind of a racist cop, just being black or non-white, is probable cause!

That's what's wrong with this society, as a non-white person, you are automatically targeted and profiled as a criminal even though you've never engaged in illegal activity (TRAVON MARTIN).

And the icing on the cake is, NO charges were filed in the majority of these cases, yet their property was never returned, because through fear, they were coerced into signing an illegal waiver! It's a racist, legal (illegal) car-jacking (at gunpoint)! And those that are perpetrating this crime, already know that the majority of their victims, are NOT criminals.

Sad that certain people still have to deal with this crap in the 21st century:mad2:.

I guess Christopher Dorner was right:rolleyes2:. (no, I do not condone what he did).

I guess someone will chime in soon with some garbage about me having a "chip on my shoulder":popcorn:. I just call it as I see it, and if that's "having a chip"...so be it!



"But in 147 others, Guillory said the court records showed, police seized cash, jewelry, cell phones and sometimes even automobiles from motorists but never found any contraband or charged them with any crime. Of those, Guillory said he managed to contact 40 of the motorists directly -- and discovered all but one of them were black.

pixel.gif


"The whole thing is disproportionately targeted toward minorities, particularly African-Americans," Guillory said. "None of these people have been charged with a crime, none were engaged in anything that looked criminal. The sole factor is that they had something that looked valuable."
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
When I read these stories, my first thought is why not immediately go to a higher authority? Why not get a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Guess who the higher authority is? The county - guess who's side they are taking.

May dad got pulled over a few years back for speeding - which he was going below the posted speed limit to begin with. The cop got SEVEN things wrong on the ticket. So he went to the higher authority (county judge) that said "In my opinion police officers do not make mistakes." Bang gavel.

I also got pulled over for speeding while not speeding. Completely eviscerated the cop before the magistrate to the point where the magistrate said, "Yes, you are correct, but if I let you go I have to let everyone go."

There is no winning when you appeal to their authority.

I actually pursued mine further and did get it tossed, but the whole system is about making money, its not about keeping us safe.
 
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." — Ayn Rand

In Canada, when it comes to the R.C.M.P. If you not satisfied, call up the Provincial Staff Sergeant, and threaten to file a complaint with the "Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP". Problem solved. If not... file the complaint and cc: to the national media. It works... I've done it.
 
It's funny how many people still have the delusion that we live in a free country.
Freedom of speech, not really, say something deemed hateful, there are criminal laws against it. If it doesn't fall under criminal laws, your job can fire you for using words they deem offensive, or hurtful, and laws protect them firing you.

Find a place a couple of miles from your house, think about how many laws you have to abide by just walking.

Equality, laws like affirmative action now make it legal for color, race, to have preference in hiring.

4th amendment, can very easily be manipulated when the courts will take the word of law enforcement over the word of an average citizen.

We are not the greatest country anymore, where do we rank in economy, education, infant mortality rate, etc.

I could go on, but I think I made my point, we do not live in a free country, we are taught to believe we have more freedom than anyone else and that we are the greatest country, but in reality,Mathis country has been in a landslide for years, and its just keep going down faster and faster.
 
cowman said:
When I read these stories, my first thought is why not immediately go to a higher authority? Why not get a lawyer?

I'm no lawyer but I know that I cannot be deprived of liberty or property with due process and at some point down the line these guys can be made to account and can be forced to either prove wrongdoing or hand your stuff back over.

Every agency, every officer, is ultimately accountable. All you gotta do is bring things out into the light. Not saying that's always easy but you have to stand up to bullies and thugs or they win.
Click to expand...
I can't understand that either. When I was a cop we would get sued if we looked at someone cross eyed. I can't believe that all of these innocent people let this happen and didn't turn around a sue the hell out of these cops. It seems to me to almost be a money maker for anyone who wanted to turn the tables on them. I can see something like this happening for a while, but I can't see it being an all out effort. That is just like asking for it. To tell you the truth, from my twenty-nine years of experience, this all sounds weird.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I don't know what you are talking about here, exactly, but I was specifically responding to the oft-stated concern that officers must have a warrant before searching if you don't give your consent. Clearly that is often not true. If that is "one-sided", then guilty as charged. As Nick mentioned, there are good ways to state your preference to consenting. I wasn't going to get into that too much.

One reason for my particular way of looking at this issue is having situations escalate over the years because of many people's erroneous assumption that a warrant is required, otherwise known as "I learned everything I need to know about Constitutional law on television" syndrome. Not everyone is as polite as posters in this thread claim to be.
Click to expand...

So you don't know what I'm typing about? I suppose the written word could be difficult for you. I doubt it though. I think you are either deliberately or naturally obtuse when it comes to interaction with people who point out your errors. That's okay, I'll leave you to your world. Have a nice day.
 
dell30rb said:
That is correct. However you should still state clearly that you don't consent to a search.

Lets say you are pulled over for crossing the center line of the road. The officer looks around the vehicle, asks you to get out and asks for permission to search. You say "i've got nothing to hide, go ahead". You're driving through NJ and you have a handgun loaded with ammo that is illegal in NJ, locked in the trunk. You're busted with no defense.

Now lets say you are pulled over for crossing the center line, officer pulls you out of the car and asks you if he can search. You say no. The officer says 'well, you appear to be under the influence to me, so I have probable cause to search your vehicle' and puts you in the cruiser, without administering a sobriety test. The illegal ammo is found, and you are arrested. When you are booked, you pass a sobriety test and breathalyzer with .00

In the second case, you have a defense against the search. A traffic violation alone is not probable cause. The officer never performed a sobriety test. You were not under the influence. It could be shown to a judge that the officer had no probable cause. In this case, the evidence as a result of the search would be suppressed.
Click to expand...
Problem is that the suspicion of intoxication is seen/used as "probable cause", as is the "weaving" (crossing centerline) is "probable cause" to stop you in the first place. Now when they cart you off to jail, they have 72 hours to charge you with a crime, or they have to turn you loose. In the meantime, they are talkin' to the judge, and getting all their ducks in a row. then they search your car, and haul you up to see the magistrate, who will officially charge you with the weapon, set bail, and then you'll be locked back up. And you refused the breathalyzer test. So now you have 10 days to keep your license from being suspended, based upon the 5th.
If you miss the 10 day deadline, you'll lose your driving privilages for a period of time, (6-12 months) without ever being convicted of anything.
 
bluerooster said:
Problem is that the suspicion of intoxication is seen/used as "probable cause", as is the "weaving" (crossing centerline) is "probable cause" to stop you in the first place. Now when they cart you off to jail, they have 72 hours to charge you with a crime, or they have to turn you loose. In the meantime, they are talkin' to the judge, and getting all their ducks in a row. then they search your car, and haul you up to see the magistrate, who will officially charge you with the weapon, set bail, and then you'll be locked back up. And you refused the breathalyzer test. So now you have 10 days to keep your license from being suspended, based upon the 5th.
If you miss the 10 day deadline, you'll lose your driving privilages for a period of time, (6-12 months) without ever being convicted of anything.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no, at least not in Colorado. Here you get a hearing to determine if the request for a breathalyzer or blood test was warranted.
 
Clark1961 said:
So you don't know what I'm typing about? I suppose the written word could be difficult for you. I doubt it though. I think you are either deliberately or naturally obtuse when it comes to interaction with people who point out your errors. That's okay, I'll leave you to your world. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

If you have something of substance to add - either to what I posted or in opposition to it - knock yourself out.


Otherwise...I truly don't know what you are going on about and I doubt anyone else does either but I'm willing to listen.

eba3ape4.jpg
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
That is correct. However you should still state clearly that you don't consent to a search.

Lets say you are pulled over for crossing the center line of the road. The officer looks around the vehicle, asks you to get out and asks for permission to search. You say "i've got nothing to hide, go ahead". You're driving through NJ and you have a handgun loaded with ammo that is illegal in NJ, locked in the trunk. You're busted with no defense.

Now lets say you are pulled over for crossing the center line, officer pulls you out of the car and asks you if he can search. You say no. The officer says 'well, you appear to be under the influence to me, so I have probable cause to search your vehicle' and puts you in the cruiser, without administering a sobriety test. The illegal ammo is found, and you are arrested. When you are booked, you pass a sobriety test and breathalyzer with .00

In the second case, you have a defense against the search. A traffic violation alone is not probable cause. The officer never performed a sobriety test. You were not under the influence. It could be shown to a judge that the officer had no probable cause. In this case, the evidence as a result of the search would be suppressed.
Click to expand...

You don't have to say you don't consent. Consent must be explicit. OTOH, nothing wrong with saying you don't.
 
Actually, from what I can find, CA leads the country in asset forfeiture cases and amounts. No doubt these Texas cops are crooked as hell, and it looks like their days of thievery are about over now that the feds have stepped in. I recall a case a few years ago about a Lear seized in San Jose, or thereabouts and it took the owner of the plane about $150k in legal fees to un-seize it. The 'asset' gets arrested, and after that the problem becomes that the 'asset' has no assumption of innocence. It is presumed to be guilty of being a guilty asset, and it's up to the owner to then prove the 'asset' is not guilty of criminal behavior.

When the asset forfieture laws were passed at the fed level, it opened a giant can of worms cause the facility that did the seizure was able to keep part of the proceeds. A dangerous system for sure.
 
1600vw said:
Check this out, found as a reply on one of these pages I posted.

Misty Rae1, September 7, 2012 at 12:15 am
They confiscated from me in North Carolina, in my own small town, 10,949.00 from my home, under the guise that when I reported my wallet stolen, that I had been in a drug area ( I was new to the town and was lost) that I was suspected of trying to buy drugs, the 2 detectives came to my home claiming they need more information, the next thing I know 15 officers surrounded my home with dogs and I was, I felt coerced to allow consent to a search, for drugs ONLY- which they ofcourse found none, but I had just moved and carried the cash, that I have more than ample documentation to prove it legal, tax paid funds that were to be deposited within a local bank-but I never got a chance, they took it and said it was “bundled” like drug money- how can this be legal- who can I turn to- this town is so corrupt, they now follow me around town, almost to the feeling of harrasment and they are going around to my neighbors telling them that I had 10,000 confiscated becaused they belived it to be enough to of course buy drugs, is this the only thing we can buy with cash anymore? Is cash illegal to have and it was in my own home- I feel as though somewhere my 4th amendment has been violated- but who do I turn to? Anyone have any suggestions? I would be greatful, it is monies left to my daughter for her higher education- these are the most sickening stories, I have no faith in the “system” if I ever did- they are more crooked than anyone I have ever met, SWAT member convicted finaly of stealing drugs from evidence locker and selling them, our Probation officer lives with Ashville, NC 2nd largest drug dealer, one of our patrol officers knocked up a 17 year old, never got so much as a slap on the wrist, reason- well she turned 18 by the time the kid is born- WHAT? Since when he is 45 she is 17 and anywhere else, anyone else would have been arrested and tagged a sex offender and arrested- AMAZING, how do I fight that??
Click to expand...

Repeat after me. "I don't consent to searches". Period. Ever. No exceptions. You do not have to explain yourself. You do not have to have a reason. Either they have probable cause for a warrant or they do not. Either you are being detained or you are free to go.

If you invite the police in, you can also ask them to leave. If the police want to question you, you can always choose to meet in a neutral place or at their station.

This is not about having anything to hide. This is not about being anti-police... But once your radar picks up that you are no longer being seen a victim but as a perp, you need to understand that you need to shut up, lawyer up, and make them prove whatever weak theory of a case they may have. A significant number of forfeitures and convictions are the result of the "defendant" making a weak case into a strong one.

This 45 minute long video bookends my point. A lawyer and a cop both tell you the same thing. Dont talk to the police. Dont consent to searches.
 
Just curious ... Do visitors to the USofA (e.g. gool old Canadians eh) have the same rights as Americans regarding protection via constitution and citizen rights?
 
Lycosaurus said:
Just curious ... Do visitors to the USofA (e.g. gool old Canadians eh) have the same rights as Americans regarding protection via constitution and citizen rights?
Click to expand...
I'm not an attorney, but I have noticed that the Bill of Rights does not say anything that limits its protections to citizens.
 
Maybe if you do that, you go back in time, too. The 2013 version of me would wonder why I had a plan to keep a small stock of TP, disposable masks, pasta, and paper towels. I'd have to write a note that said "everything will be fine soon" and "no, you haven't joined a Utah based religious group".
 
Lycosaurus said:
Just curious ... Do visitors to the USofA (e.g. gool old Canadians eh) have the same rights as Americans regarding protection via constitution and citizen rights?
Click to expand...

We do once in the country. At the border though, not so much.

Should probably expand on this: Visitors have the same protections via the constitutions but obviously no citizen rights. E.g. if pulled over, the same rules apply to us. However, we don't have the "right" to work here, which every U.S. citizen has (citizen rights). We don't have the right to remain in the country for as long as we want - we have to leave by the date stamped into the passport. A U.S. citizen has the right to remain in the country for as long as he/she wants to remain here. Visitors don't have the right to vote. A citizen obviously has the right to vote.

Also, there is an exception to the constitutional rights for visitors. The 2nd Amendment does not apply to visitors, only to citizens and green card holders.

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to this, but in a nutshell, this pretty much sums it up.
 
Last edited:
Chrisgoesflying said:
We do once in the country. At the border though, not so much.

Should probably expand on this: Visitors have the same protections via the constitutions but obviously no citizen rights. E.g. if pulled over, the same rules apply to us. However, we don't have the "right" to work here, which every U.S. citizen has (citizen rights). We don't have the right to remain in the country for as long as we want - we have to leave by the date stamped into the passport. A U.S. citizen has the right to remain in the country for as long as he/she wants to remain here. Visitors don't have the right to vote. A citizen obviously has the right to vote.

Also, there is an exception to the constitutional rights for visitors. The 2nd Amendment does not apply to visitors, only to citizens and green card holders.

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to this, but in a nutshell, this pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...
Some people refer to the area within 100 miles of the border as the "Constitution-free zone" even for citizens. :(

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
 
Jonathan Turley - another right wing, paid Fox commentator spewing half-truths to inflame the ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top