Constitutional Rights for Citizens: Police Contact

Never give up on suing these bastards and some day you have a good chance at getting compensated for your suffering at the hands of lawbreaking, vicious cops. If everyone who was abused by cops sued and stuck with it, we would see a drastic change in the way the cops treat the people who pay their salaries. Here is another case of interest:

Question 4.
During a search of Carson’s home pursuant to a warrant to look for stolen credit cards, Thompson, a police officer, found five small, white rocks that resembled crack coc aine. He seized the items and took them back to the station. A preliminary field test indicated the items were not, in fact, coc aine. Nevertheless, Thompson sent the items for testing at the laboratory. Convinced that Carson was a drug dealer, and that the laboratory would confirm his suspicions about the rocks, Thompson decided to go ahead and obtain an arrest warrant. In the affidavit he submitted to the judge, Thompson stated: “A field test of the rocks in question indicated they each had properties consistent with coc aine. Based on Carson’s possession of a controlled substance, I request an arrest warrant be issued.”
There was no other information presented to justify issuing the arrest warrant. Based on this, the judge issued the warrant and Carson was arrested. When the laboratory report confirmed the substance was a vitamin supplement, not coc aine, all charges were dropped and Carson was released. Carson sued Thompson, alleging that he had intentionally lied to the judge to obtain the arrest warrant. According to the law, can Thompson be held liable for his actions?

Q.4 Answer: Yes, because he knowingly and intentionally made a false statement in obtaining the arrest warrant.

[edit: added link and EX tags]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Katolu
You are making a mistake by offering "sound legal advice". Unless you are a lawyer, you can't claim to offer that.

ACTUALLY YOUR WRONG!!! ALL AMERICANS CAN PRACTCE LAW AND GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. You fell for some Attorney telling you not to give advice if you not an attorney. You probably also fell for the old adage "A laywer who defends himself has a fool for a client". Do you know who came up wth that? You got it a LAWYER trying to MAKE A BUCK. Lawyers are 99.9% Bar Attorneys, they take an oath to the STate, the Court and to the Bankers. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT YOU.

Attorney MUST under LAW be Licensed to practice law, do me a facor find me one attorney License and post it here, I DOUBLE DARE anyone to find one. THEY DON'T EXIST.... So the Lawyers don't follow the law, and this is who you want protecting your rights, someone that has oathed to the court and has no License.

What I see in this thread is a bunch of scaredy cats worried about the police, and rightfully so. But you all feel that it is best to cowtow and fold to them, I say DO NOT COWTOW, DO NOT FEAR THEM, DO NOT OBEY THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTS, DO NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED THEY ARE THERE TO HELP, DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING THEY SAY, DO NOT BELIEVE THEM.

Sorry about the caps but that is screaming. Those points are very very very important that everyone understands, and remembers. In the days of Mayberry RFD the Police were your friends. Today they are NOT NOT NOT your friends.

Here is a case that shows how brutal and vicious the cops can be , and how fellow cops cover up for their pals who break the law:

NORTH RICHLAND HILLS - A new federal lawsuit against the North Richland Hills Police Department claims an officer repeatedly slammed a handcuffed Hurst motorist's head into his driveway in January 2003 during a DWI stop.

The lawsuit says the officer, Filipe Carmichael, is shown in a police videotape of the incident bragging to other officers about pounding the face of Aaron Christian Jacobson into the ground and describing the sound it made.

Police did not provide the tape Wednesday, but Jacobson's attorney released a copy. On the tape, Jacobson pleads with officers to let him go because he hasn't done anything and occasionally curses at them.

Carmichael, 32, whose nickname is "Psycho," testified in Jacobson's driving while intoxicated trial that he used force on Jacobson because the Hurst resident "looked him up and down," the lawsuit says. A Tarrant County jury found Jacobson not guilty in July of the DWI charge.

The cop's nickname is PSYCHO, he beats a man in handcuffs because " He looked me uip and down ". THAT is exactly the kind of cop that needs to be thrown in a dark dungeon of a prison and kept as a bitch by the biggest and baddest convicts in the pen; maybe that would instill some sense of justice in these disgusting pigs. I call cops like Carmichael PIGS and with a clear conscience. This kind of insanity happens all the time; many times the victim cannot get a fair shake due to the abuse of the system by the prosecutors who normally hide and cover up police misconduct unless it is an outrageous example and one they cannot sweep under the rug.

I will be assembling a number of cases and show how to deal with them and how to find a way to file Federal and State lawsuits against cops by yourself if you absolutely cannot find an attorney that will work with you or cannot afford one. Never forget the victims of police brutality, police muder and police abuse; they are crying out for justice and we will never see it if we do not take a stand.

Always stand up for your rights, never be intimidated by the cops, and always file charges and lawsuits if you are violated in any way by the " servants and protectors who take our tax money.

More soon.



[edit: clipped quoted content and added appropriate External Source tags]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

As stated earlier, a Florida attorney, Rex Curry, won a big case that sets standards for police dogs so that the cops cannnot get away with so many illegal and unConstitutional arrests. Here is the court decision invalidating the assumption that all dogs are equal:

rexcurry.net...

It makes fascinating reading and shows the law and the logic behind the decision. If you are ever charged with a crime after a dog induced search, you have an excellent opportunity to challenge the case by simply insisting that your attorney make sure that the dog's ceritifcations, training, record keeping,etc. is all up to date and correct.

As this case shows, the police consider a request to search motorists as ROUTINE..they are fishing for fools to give consent and when that happens, the citizen gives up all their rights later in court to any defense of an illegal search; consent means you lose, every time. When the citizen, in this case Matheson, refused to let the cops search for no reason, they made him wait for a dog; the cops are not supposed to make you wait but they write the ticket so slowly that a first grader would be faster, so that the dog can arrive before the clock runs out on a ' reasonable length of time ' which is the time it would take to write a normal ticket. Typical cop tricks to get around your rights; they do not respect the law, only their power.

Dogs that are NOT trained professionally and certified , with records kept for false alerts, are not reliable. The cops that testified in the Matheson case actually stated on the stand that as far as the cops are concerned, the dogs are NEVER wrong; if they alert and nothing was found , you are not innocent, just lucky that you got rid of the ' contraband ' before the ' sniff " !!! Amazing how the cops think we are all stupid enough to believe that hogwash. They will stoop as low as they need to in order to remove our rights; that is common and accepted behavior for them.

I urge anyone who cares about this particular area of law to read this decision closely and apply it's wisdom on the street. If all citizens insisted on the police observing our rights, this would be a far different nation than it is now, for sure, and a much better one.

I received a question about ' interfering with police' another catch-all law that cops routinely use to violate rights. The cops HATE to be watched and criticised by the people who pay their salaries because they violate rights so often; otherwise they should not mind being watched and filmed, etc.

Here are a few tips, although this is a gray area in the law to a degree; you must be careful not to cross the line and actually obstruct the cops in their duties. You can get close to a scene to observe it, but not so close as to interfere. You may make comments to the cops or the person being held or harrassed, as long as you do not interrupt to the degree that would require the cops to remove you to continue with their harangue of the citizen.

Never walk up behind a cop and never touch them. At a safe distance, which need not be too far to hear or see what is happening, you may curse the cops, question their actions, and express yourself to any degree covered by the 1st Amendment. The cops have NO RIGHT to tell you to ' shut up ' or ' go away ' merely because they are irritated at the content of your speech.

If your speech and actions do not directly and clearly stop the police from doing their ' duties ' then it is legal. Of course, being legal means about nothing to most cops, and they might arrest you anyway due to their lack of professionalism and inability to control their emotions, but if you have witnesses and did not substantially interfere with the cops then you should beat the charge. Cops use laws like a caveman uses a club instead of like a delicate instrument meant to excise only the problem.

You MAY videotape and/or record the cops; if they say it is ' wiretapping' or any other nonsense they are mistaken. There is NO LAW that makes it legal for cops to film and record us but not us record them. They lie.
In most states , and in federal law, as long as one of the parites know that they are being recorded it is legal. If a cop sees you videotaping him and protests, he is out of bounds. He is NOT a private citizen for the purposes of rights, and even if he was the law does not cover open and unhidden recording of anything the cops do.

The cops just hate evidence that shows their crimes so they try and discourage filming by lying, blustering and generally threatening arrest for a variety of phony and non-existent ' laws ' that supposedly give the police more rights than us; it is a crock. You CAN tape and record the cops and as long as you do not substantially obstruct the cops from doing their job, you are free legally to express yourself. Always have evidence or witnesses willing to testify before doing so as the cops will lie without shame to convict you; they will claim that you did things you never did to make it stick and unless you have proof of your innocence, you will likley lose as the cops are usually believed barring evidence of their guilt. the system is backward I know but better to be prepared.

Stay calm, get close enough to be able to see and hear what is going on, but not TOO close. Making comments is legal no matter if the cops like it or not. Record with video/audio and do not stop filming just because some lying cop does not want to be held accountable for his actions; if he grabs the camera or arrests you for such, just file a Federal civil rights suit and see how fast they make a settlement offer and ream the cop for costing them money; that is the only way to get change, by making cops that violate your rights pay and pay big, personally or financially.

Only by standing firm can we, the People, win against the crooked cops and their lies. Cops are like a tiny poodle with the bark of a mastiff; not until the real dog is seen does the fear go away and the true nature of the beast becomes evident; cops are rude and loud and bold and nasty and they expect that to take the place of the law and common sense and our rights; if we fall for it shame on us.

Bad cops are a problem, but you can usually only deal with them after the fact.

I know a lot about this. The second anniversary of my grandfather's murder is less than 2 weeks from today. The police initially seemed to be botching the investigation, and then refused to help afterwards in order to cover their backs. My own investigation though has identified the person who fenced the stolen property as a very successful pawn broker and bail bondsman in this area, and the killer as the son of a producer with a major spanish language television news network. It appears the cops are protecting friends in high places. Reporters have lost their jobs for getting involved. I have nearly been arrested on two occasions. My grandmother has been threatened by detectives in her home. Family friends have been placed in professionally perilous positions- one of them was coerced through false representation of consequences by police into committing a crime (signing a death certificate outside the guidelines of California law).

But last week, my family pulled out one of three major victories so far, and this one will probably turn the tide. I have in my possession a letter from the sheriff department's victim witness program stating that a preponderence of the evidence does indicate the my grandfather was the victim of a homicide. I don't think there will be any getting away without investigating this time, especially since local law enforcement is currently under seige by the media already for covering up another crime- the sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl by a police officer.


What have I learned from this experience and others? The guy with the strongest nerves will usually win, and in my experience, that's the guy who's in the right. Keep your cool, avoid shooting people even when it seems like a viable, justified option, smile and call them sir even while you're plotting to see them pilloried for thier sins. That works because not every cop is crooked. If you keep doing it right and keep fighting, you're going to find the help you need somewhere, even if you're dealing with a department as thoroughly corrupt as the one I've been fighting with.

Where would I be if I hadn't calculated my moves, acted on impulse, insisted on getting my way right then and there at some point? Game over. They'd have cuffed me, made a spectacle of my mistake, I'd have zero credibility and even though I can recite the entire history of this case, every shred of evidence, every implication, and every section of every code that has been violated by the boys in blue all on command, I would have been completely written off at the hearing that finally got me the big break we needed.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
cops are rude and loud and bold and nasty and they expect that to take the place of the law and common sense and our rights;

You're entitled to your opinion, but this statement is without merit and crosses the line of fairness and decency.

Maybe you live in a country where this is true, but I believe that you are talking about the US.

Statements like this make everything you say suspect.

The best way to deal with cops is to let them do their jobs and be polite with them. The law protects both the law enforcement officer and the citizen.

You say that cops hate to be video or audio taped, yet cops have dashboard cameras and here in Albuquerque, every cop has a audio recorder on his belt, which is almost always on when the officer confronts a citizen.

That protects everyone's rights.

I know there are bad cops.

I have been the victim of stupid cops.

But, I know better than to brand all cops and I also know that in a pinch, I like to have John Law close by.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You're entitled to your opinion, but this statement is without merit and crosses the line of fairness and decency.

Grady, maybe if you took the whole paragraph instead of picking part of it, it might make more sense.
Here's the whole paragraph:

Originally posted by eyewitness86

Only by standing firm can we, the People, win against the crooked cops and their lies. Cops are like a tiny poodle with the bark of a mastiff; not until the real dog is seen does the fear go away and the true nature of the beast becomes evident; cops are rude and loud and bold and nasty and they expect that to take the place of the law and common sense and our rights; if we fall for it shame on us.

I cannot speak for the author, but it looks to me like the paragraph speaks about crooked cops, cops on the muscle, cops on steroids, cops with a chip on their shoulder, etc. And there's WAY too many of these....but
NOT ALL COPS.

I've run into some of the bad ones, too.
Maybe if I had taken some of eyewitnesses advice, things would have turned out much better.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Grady, maybe if you took the whole paragraph instead of picking part of it, it might make more sense.

I trimmed the quote to be in compliance with the T&C.

Only by standing firm can we, the People, win against the crooked cops and their lies.

I agree with this statement, but the following sentences are quite clear in their meaning.

Cops are like a tiny poodle with the bark of a mastiff; not until the real dog is seen does the fear go away and the true nature of the beast becomes evident; cops are rude and loud and bold and nasty and they expect that to take the place of the law and common sense and our rights; if we fall for it shame on us.

These statements are directed at all cops and these statements are consistent with the sentiment of the entire thread.

Exactly, DTOM !! I already said previously that I have NO problems with the 1 % of cops that are above violating the law themselves. Good cops are a rarity today as training is vastly different and so are the laws these days.

The sad fact is that MOST cops will lie on the stand to convict someone they charged, MOST will lose their cool and react emotionally when citizens fully express their Constitutional rights firmly, MOST will use too much physical force when ' angry ', etc. Since this is a fact ( remember the quote from Norm Stamper, Chief of the Seattle Police, that 99% of all cops are felony perjurers , he should know ) we must protect ourselves from their machinations.

For sure, be polite and not belligerant and you will fare better; that is human nature. but there is no need to assume that the cop is in a superior position to us because his job is in a particular field. As long as they obey the law and the rules of their dept. I am Ok with them, but so few do. Abuse of prisoners is common, excessive charging is common, false alerts by drug dogs are common and we had better commonly use our rights because the cops are never going to act on our behalf. Anyone who can tell me that the goals of the cops are the goals of the majority of the people is deluded.

Cop see us as the adversary, or at least as potential adversaries and so they view us in a way that makes us less ' qualified ' for mercy and courtesy and respect. If I have to deal with a cop, I let them know it is all business and no room for error.

Better to keep the cops on their toes than to have them keep us on our knees. Not one person has refuted the wisdom and accuracy of my advice, only that I have an ' attitude'; well, that may be true, but they are two seperate issues and anyone should be able to differentiate between opinion and sound advice.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Exactly, DTOM !! I already said previously that I have NO problems with the 1 % of cops that are above violating the law themselves.

Now, you see.

This statement is not only ridiculous on the surface, there certainly isn't any evidence to support the supposition that 99% of all cops are corrupt.

If 99% of all cops are felony perjurers, by admission of a major police official, and a well known fact and logical to anyone that has been around cops and courts, then 99 % of all cops are corrupt. Felony perjury, lying on the stand to make a case rather than tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is corruption plain and simple. It is so common that they do not even bother denying it. They KNOW they have all done it, well, almost all; there is the 1 % after all. You are right, they are not ALL bad. Some comfort..

A cop does NOT have to be on the take financially to be corrupt; any felony will do nicely, thank you. With asset forfeiture laws now making podunk police dept.'s a cash business to dream of with all the money they steal from motorists ( if it is more than the local hick Sheriff thinks an honest person should carry), cars to impound, fines and fees, etc. It is a thriving business in and of itself, mostly perpetrated by the rank and file cops who want kudo's from peers and bonuses for ' performance '.

Anytime you feel that the cops are so wonderful, just Google " police kill wrong... ' or " police misconduct ' if you have a strong stomach. A few examples of sickening brutality and total disregard for human rights and the law should do the trick. Do not even try and tell me that MOST cops are good and honest and truthful, that is a fantasy; ask any attorney, anyone who works the system. It is rotten to the core and without standing up for your rights you are nothing but another warm body for them to pummel and abuse as they will if they ' get pissed off '.

Someday maybe true professionals will be cops and then maybe we can let our guard dowm just a tad; but until then the best advice is to take a firm stand and DEMAND that your rights be respected. Any other way is madness.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by eyewitness86
cops are rude and loud and bold and nasty and they expect that to take the place of the law and common sense and our rights;

You're entitled to your opinion, but this statement is without merit and crosses the line of fairness and decency.

Maybe you live in a country where this is true, but I believe that you are talking about the US.

Statements like this make everything you say suspect.

Thank you Grady, I gave up typing and scratching my head on this. Opinions are one thing but putting down an entire profession because of a FEW bad seeds. I hate percentages but maybe 5%? You only usually here the horror stories, not the heroic ones.

Again, thank you Grady for seeing what I see. Woot, I ain't crazy after all!!

5 % of what? The cops? Thats a laugh. Where did THAT come from? just a guess,eh? Only 94% off from reality!! Why is it so hard for people to see that cops lie on the stand all the time? Is it such a stretch to imagine that MOST cops will lie rather than be embarrassed and lose a case if it is their word against the defendants ? They are such angels, right? Puleeeze.

If only 5 % of the cops were liars and law breakers we would see a nation totally different than we do now; MOST cops would be polite and reserved and respectful of our rights, not aggressive and demanding and bullying and violent. There are too many lawsuits every year that say that cops are almost out of control.

EVERY major US city pays MILLIONS of dollars a year out in claims to victims of police abuse and wrongdoing. Millions of Americans are pulled over by cops for no real reason and asked if they will give up their precious Constitutional rights so the cops can search on fishing expeditions hoping to snag another warm body into the system; only 10% of searches result in finding contraband; the other 90% had their time wasted, were humiliated on the side of the road, had their personal belongings trashed by strangers, and sometimes the victim of planted drugs or other illegal acts by the cops.

But tell you what, just for the sake of argument, let's give you a full half, 50%, OK? 50% of all cops are OK, right? Is a 50% failure rate acceptable to anyone in any business? Is half of the force are felons and perjurers a good number to find OK? If half of any other business employees' were rotten to the core, they would be fired. But the rottenness that cops display is BENEFICIAL to the control system and so remains in place despite every effort at reform. Only by suing individual cops can you ever get real change in the system; it has to hurt before they feel it; they have become desensitized to human feelings and logic and are acting like pack animals on a very loose leash. Prove different from sources that what I am saying is false and I will relent; otherwise face the facts: the cops are NOT to be trusted.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
5 % of what? The cops? Thats a laugh. Where did THAT come from? just a guess,eh? Only 94% off from reality!! Why is it so hard for people to see that cops lie on the stand all the time? Is it such a stretch to imagine that MOST cops will lie rather than be embarrassed and lose a case if it is their word against the defendants ? They are such angels, right? Puleeeze.

So you can throw around made up numbers but no one else can? You seem to insist on this imaginary 1% . . .

Odd, very odd.

I saw we get rid of the whole % thing.
Why don't we just say a large percentage of cops can and will lie on the witness stand to make a case, will back up each other's stories against a citizen, will issue an iffy ticket to reach a quota.

There's a case in Detroit now that has at least three different versions of what happened.
news.yahoo.com...
I'm not going to assume the cops were in the right here.
I've seen way too many cases of overly aggressive cops to suit me.

I personally know of a situation of a rather cushy police assignment. When there was an investigation of the unit, all of the cops turned on the cop who ended up being the fall guy. He was more or less responsible for the easy jobs they had. Everyone got a lot of perks on the job, but this guy was persona non grata while they covered their behinds.
In this situation, they even turned on one of their own.

This is not a black and white thing, this is something in shades of grey.
It's not about graft or planting evidence, necessarily. It's the small things, a little lie here or there. It's the blue wall of silence.

So, a citizen should be as aware as possible of their rights. Including law-abiding citizens.
This does happen IRL
An Innocent Man

[edit on 9-7-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I saw we get rid of the whole % thing.
Why don't we just say a large percentage of cops can and will lie on the witness stand to make a case, will back up each other's stories against a citizen, will issue an iffy ticket to reach a quota.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

I agree on not using percents but even saying that a large percentage of cops can and will . . .

As I said at the beginning of this thread about me being a Postal employee and the common use of the term, "Going Postal", hell there is even those crappy PC games of the same phrase. But it doesn't make it true.

Or, every teenager in black clothes and a trench coat is just waiting to spray bullets because society has given them everything but couping skills.

My analogies may be way off but my point isn't. The OP is making broad generalizations about the majority of law enforcement agencies in this country. I urge everyone to go back and re-read soome of the OP posts.

Yes, there are bad cops. There are also bad politicians, bad milk men, well, bad everyone. But there is good, law abiding police men and women out there and I am sorry but I refuse to believe that a large portion of them will lie and purgor themselves at the drop of a hat.

I shall now step off of my soap box.

Both of you make valid observations and I will accept the fact that percentages can be a matter of judgement. OK.

But, milkmen and politicians do not interact with the public on a confrontational and legal basis, now do they? ONLY the police have the power to shoot you or arrest you and merely have to justify it later on paper. These powers are awesome and dangerous to a free nation and must be watched carefully so they do not spiral out of control, agreed?

Yes, cops are necessary. Yes cops CAN be helpful and a benefit to society. BUT, the vast majority are willing to break the law to make charges stick and that means that the majority are corrupt and felons, although not yet convicted.

I got the 99% figure from the quote by the former Chief of police in Seattle who stated that he was certain that 99% of all active street cops have perjured themselves to make a case, mostly drug cases. Let's face it; if some young person says that the cop made an illegal search, and the cop says that the kid gave him consent, but is now lying, who is going to be believed? The COP of course. Judges KNOW that cops lie all the time, but unless the cop is caught red handed and there is video or witness testimony sufficient to overcome the cop's, then the cop will prevail regardless of truth. Many Judges see themselves, like prosecutors, as an arm of the same body; the cops and prosecutors and Judges are all on the same page and unless a case in overwhelming the cop will win.

That kind of atmopsphere is a hard one to get justice out of. That is why it is so important to always demand that your rights are observed. You can do it in a nice way but DO IT !! Video is a major key to halting police abuse and THAT is why cops nationwide are lying and saying that we, the People, have less rights than them, the cops, and not to tape them. It is nonsense. There is NO law that says that only the cops can tape us and not the other way around. They bluster and lie and threaten and intimidate; is this the kind of cops you look up to? Not me.

But it is the NORM as no cop wants to be recorded; if the cops had to tow the line and follow the rules like they are supposed to, they would not be able to swagger and bully and demand and lie with total impunity like they do now. But for citizens to just cave in and throw the Constitution away is a sin and a shame. As long as MOST cops, as we agreed, are corrupt ( lying on the stand, etc. ) then we MUST be vigilant and guard against further erosion of our liberties and more citizen awareness of what it takes to keep what so many have died for to leave for us to use.

We likley agree on more than is apparent; I have strong feelings on this matter and it shows; but what I am saying is truth and should be at least considered before assuming that the cops will do the right thing; history shows us that to be prepared is the best way to be safe.

Now, back to business: ADVICE FROM BARRY COOPER, ETC.

There are a few websites that promote the sales of videos that spell out the rights of the people and how to react to cop's in various situations. These can be a good thing. One such site is called " Flex Your Righjts " and there are others as well. One of the most well known lately is the tapes made by Barry Cooper, a former narc who has allegedly had a change of heart ( and made several hundred thousand dollars ) by quitting the cop's and making videos that show people how to hide stashes in their cars, how to react, etc.

One mistake that Barry Cooper makes is major: He says to let the cop's search with CONSENT if they ask, hoping that the ' secret hiding places' ( obviously not so secret anymore ) will not be discovered by the cop's. In my opinion, that is a fatal error and should NEVER be followed. You NEVER give the police ANYTHING that they ask for, except to identify ones self.
If they have to ask for it, then they have no right to it, simple. Just say NO. If you ever give the cop's consent to search, you might as well get ready for some jail time or a fine as you will have NO way out in court.

Your attorney will shake his or her head and tell you that you gave up your right to object to the search when you gave consent. They have you by the short hairs then and you will plead guilty or make a deal; the court will assume you knew the consequences of the consent even if you did not. The BEST advice is to never carry anything that you cannot eat safely should a cop pull you over. Munching a couple of joints will at least get you a minor buzz later and you will not be in jail regretting listening to Barry Cooper.

The Flex Your Rights site is good and has standard attorney advice that covers the subject quite well, from car stops to home to street it dispenses solid advice. One poster previously stated a truth: If a cop pulls you over and asks( orders ) you out of the car, by all means the best thing to do is to lock the doors, take your keys, and shut and lock the door behind you when you get out. This stops the cop from claiming that you did not object to his climbing in and searching because you left the vehicle door wide open. A wide open door translates in court to the cop assuming you WANTED him to assume he could search.

Cops will say " Why did you lock the car ?" in an attempt to make it seem like you have something to hide. IGNORE all questions like this. You do NOT have to answer anything. Just ask" Am I free to leave " , or " I do NOT give consent to any searches ". That lets the cop know that he has a choice at that point; he can violate your rights and perhaps get sued as you obviously know more than the average citizen, or he will back off and observe your rights knowing that the matter could cost him big time if he screws up. But if you follow the formula you are giving an attorney all of the ammo he needs to get a charge dismissed or even a lawsuit against the cops who violated you. Never open the trunk if they say to: just refuse.

If they open it anyway, later they will have to answer in court. Anytime a cop ASKS, he is saying " Hey, I cannot legally do this unless you give me permission, can I have it?". The answer is ALWAYS NO. Always. If they have to ask then they have no right to it. Stand firm and prevail or bend and lose; the choice is yours.

More soon on various elements of search , seizure and arrest.

Originally posted by Demetre
I want to add that if you're asked to step out of Your car shut the car door. Leaving it opens is called 'implied consent' and the officer may search Your vehicle because of such.

Peace. K*

I am pointing out this statement for one reason. In many states, there are laws in place that require you to do as an officer asks. Failure to exit your vehicle for example can lead you to being charged with "Failure to Obey" An example would be Michigan Law "Failure to Obey"

I became familar with this law while in Abilene, TX. back in 1990 a number of military members were heading back to base when their vehicle (which was being operated by a sober designated driver) was involved in an accident.
When the police arrived, they ordered the military passengers to exit the vehicle. Three of them did, one did not. The one that did not exit the vehicle was arrested for Failure to Obey and the three that did exit the vehicle were all cited for PI (Public Intoxication). One note, if the three who were PI'd had not left the vehicle, the police would not have been able to PI them but would have charged them with Failure to Obey.
This event as well as other questionable actions by the Abilene police lead the Base Commander to order all off base establishments that servered or sold alcohol were designated as off limits to all military personnel.
This lasted three weeks before the city announced that it was changing how the police department would conduct itself.