originally posted by: Kevinquisitor
a reply to: Kevinquisitor
Also, One night I was pulled over here in FL by a Sheriff for driving with a suspended license. After providing DL + Registration the officer asked me if he could search my car. I respectfully declined. He said "OK no problem, sit tight." About 10 minutes later, 3 more sheriffs arrived with a K-9 unit. A second officer asked me to step out of my car.
I asked: "why?"
He said: "So we can perform a search of the vehicle."
I replied with: "I was asked if it could be searched and I said no."
He replies: "Well you don't have that option anymore. You can either step out of the vehicle, or you can take a ride to downtown."
So, I got out and waited while they searched, which produced nothing. They explained I wasn't legally able to drive my car back home so I had to call someone to pick me up while my car was left there. I eventually had my license reinstated, and after leaving the courthouse saw a group of cops sitting outside eating lunch together. I approached them asking if I had the right to decline a request to search if being pulled over in FL?
Their response: If you were pulled over for doing something illegal, then no.
Just FYI if you ever get stopped & asked to search in FL. This cop could have chosen a better approach to this situation.
Twin Cities Daily Planet brings our attention to this story: St. Paul cops allegedly taser and arrest black male for sitting in public space. City Pages provides some details: St. Paul police roughly arrest black man sitting in skyway Do you have to identify yourself to the police? It depends. When driving yes – driving is a privilege. When walking (in Minnesota) no – “police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity.” Minnesota is not a stop and identify state, unless the police have “reasonable suspicion"
originally posted by: dagann
It's a simple question to me. It's all about showing respect. If a officer shows respect, he'll receive respect. I also don't need someone else to decide the situation. I know when i'm being dissed. The ole "big me...little you" mentality has never worked and it never will. a reply to: Iamthatbish
Searches of Cars and Their Occupants
Cars may be searched without a warrant whenever the car has been validly stopped and the police have probable cause to believe the car contains contraband or evidence. If the police have probable cause to search the car, all compartments and packages that may contain the evidence or contraband being searched for are fair game.
While a police officer cannot search a car simply because the car was stopped for a traffic infraction, the police can order the driver and any passengers out of the car for safety considerations, even though there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing other than the traffic infraction. The police also can "frisk" the occupants for weapons if the officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the occupants are involved in criminal activity and are reasonably concerned for their safety
originally posted by: Restricted
The police can search you and the immediate area under your control for their own safety. It is a courtesy to ask permission.
originally posted by: Domo1
You are required by law to step out of the car when told to do so by LE.
I have no idea if this guy was actually "assaulted". Maybe. Maybe not. I also have no idea how reasonable the officer was being up to this point. I'm kind of doubting he was. He seemed like a dick.
I would be a little suspicious and jumpy if I went to pull someone over and they didn't do so at the first opportunity. Driving a few extra blocks is a bad idea. Not rolling your window down when asked is a bad idea. Not getting out of the car is illegal, and a bad idea.
originally posted by: defcon5
Cops down here “make crap up”, and know how to “game the system”, to harass, pull over, arrest, and fine otherwise innocent people to fill their “quota”
originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: defcon5
I'm interested only in the information of the case law, and what justices have said. Or do they not qualify in your opinion?