It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How I said 'no' to cops searching my car

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I have been stopped many times and searched only a couple of times. When he ask to search your vehicle, you tell him (that you do not consent to any searches of your vehicle or persons.) That usually stops the cop when he see you know your rights. But you have the slick ones who ask you to step out of the car or call a k-9 unit. That happened to me. He told me to get out of the car i said okay. I started to roll up my windows and lock all my side doors. When i opened my driver door he grabbed the top of it, that is how they get you if you leave your door open when u get out they dont have to have consent. I made sure i slamed the door so he would let go. Then he ask me why u lock your doors we are the police. I told him i dont trust anyone not even the police. So then he patted me down not searched me. Then he pulled the dumb @$$ k9 out he walked around my car twice didnt bark, jump, scratch or anything. He was like we got a hit told the other cop to watch me. I told him the dog didnt give any signal he said he did. He said the dog hit on the trunk. He had me on the side of the road for almost an hour of course he didnt find nothing. I told him he was wasting my time and his. He went threw my car 3times from front to back. Gave me a ticket for failure to stop at stop sign. This is the ringer went to court on the date i wasnt even on dockett. Gave me a fake ticket. I had told him i was going to plead not guilty and i was going to supena him to go on the stand. He was a crooked cop he no longer works on the force he had numerous complaints and was fired for tasering a guy in handcuffs. Always tell them you do not consent and to lock your door and roll up your windows if he ask you to get out.




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 




Is that what you cling to....you're a law abiding adult? Do you mind if I have a look at your car?

Do you care about freedom and privacy or do you just figure those are outdated topics that don't belong in the new world?

People like you scare the hell out of me. You remind me of dogs that have been beat to the point that they just sit there with their ears tucked back. Some of us dogs still bristle when our rights are being violated. Your best bet is to cower in your corner and stay out of our way if you believe being an a$$hat means we tell someone to piss off when they want to violate our privacy.

It isn't a matter of fighting the sysstem [sic] it's a matter of Constitutional law.

I dont think neonitus deserves to be lambasted for his decision to cooperate with the police. I dont think he is afraid of the police or was coerced into allowing them to search his vehicle. I believe he is fully aware of the law and his rights and chose to go along with it knowing he had nothing to hide. It is everyone's own decision and he made his or hers.

I think he or she was commenting on the way the OP said it. And I believe he or she has a valid point. Yes, it is everyone's god given right to answer a police officer sneidly but is that really the right way to go about it? Neonitus was simply saying he or she disagreed with the sneid remark, not the fact that the OP said no.

Also, consent seaches have been tested by the courts and upheld numerous times. So no, it is not a matter of Constitutional Law because it is not an infringement on one's rights to ask for consent to search their vehicle or person. It may be a violation of privacy but that is why a police officer must gain consent first if they do not have probable cause or a warrant. If the OP said no and the officer searched anyway without probable cause, then yes it would be a matter of Constitutional Law. This is not the case.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Its nice how something that doesn´t bother in reallife is so discussable on the internet.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Do NOT Consent to Searches



If asked , "May I Search Your Vehicle ?" You have the right to refuse searches of your car or home.

This is granted to you by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Respect the Law but also have the Law respect your right to privacy....it is your constitutional right.

Privacy does not = "Something to hide"

Privacy is exactly why we all wear clothing to cover our "privates".

Plain and Simple.





posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by neonitus
so, a cop was tring to do his job, and you where a bit of a jerk?
cool story bro.


screw cops that try to bust kids for marijuana, it's a g** d*** plant for f***'s sake.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gwampo
 




screw cops that try to bust kids for marijuana, it's a g** d*** plant for f***'s sake.

You sir or madam, are the man or woman proponents for the legalization of marijuana have been looking for.

Now, all we have to do is get congress back in session and you can make that amazing argument in front of them.

I am sure it will be legalized in no time.

Seriously though, why do you misplace your hatred with the police for making marijuana illegal? The police enforce the laws that are set by the legislature. If you want to screw someone for making marijuana illegal, screw the politicians that passed the legislation.

Why not go a step further and screw the people that elected the politicians that passed the legislation? Or the population of the state of California that directly voted in a statewide ballot to keep marijuana illegal?
California Proposition 19

Agree with it or not, your anger towards the police in this matter is misplaced. If marijuana were legalized tomorrow, the police would no longer charge people with possession of said substance.

And how do you know what the officer was looking for? You assume he was looking for drugs but in fact, officers recover stolen property, handguns and various other illegal items during consent searches.
edit on 19-8-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to add



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 




Sounds IDENTICAL to a story i have read elsewhere....il find the source and post it



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Keep a box of doughnuts in the car. After the search turns up no contraband, claim one of the doughnuts is missing.

Jus' kidding. Way to go OP...and congratulations on a meme that will probably spread like wildfire.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hippo45
 


they need to have probable cause to search your car, or if you do not have insurance on your vehicle, at least in MN it's that way. They can ask, but you can say no. If they find probable cause, (an odd odor "MJ", or see possible drug activity, or if you match a description of another suspect) they can search your vehicle. They can't just search your car if they want for no reason, or because they think something is suspicious, accusations like this don't fly well with a judge usually.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by neonitus
 


It's not their job to just "search" your car. That's what that whole Declaration of Independance and the subsequest Constitution of the US was all about. Read them..Paying close attention to the D of I and the 4th Amendment.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Domino's...really?

Worst Pizza Ever....just saying...


so the analogy with the police being defenders of the law is quite apt then



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hippo45
 


yeah they can legally search your car without a warrant if they have your consent...obviously this wasnt the case



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by klenker
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


"I call Dominos when I want pizza, the police when I want a cop.. .I don't need the police right now"

I love that, I am going to steal it






When in San Francisco try Orgasmic Pizza. It's, well, it's good.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I used to get pulled over all the time, i had long hair and grateful dead stickers on my truck. I however was never doing anything wrong.

Once the cop leaned his head into my vehicle and said "smells like pot in here"

I looked him right in the eye and said "no it doesn't" because it was impossible for that to be the case.

The look on his face was priceless

He started yelling at me because my car was half in the road, but there was no shoulder at all where i was pulled over (small side road)

i just waited for his tantrum to stop and went about my business



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by neonitus
so, a cop was tring to do his job, and you where a bit of a jerk?
cool story bro.


a cops job is to protect and serve...but a policeman who actually does that these days is a rare thing.

i wouldnt call it doing his job if im pulled over by an officer who is probably looking for some trouble, held up on my journey and having my possessions rifled through when i havnt done anything wrong...id have said no too...i would also have set my phone to voice record just to cover my back



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo
 




a cops job is to protect and serve


Actually it is the job of the police to uphold the law and promote public safety.

"To Protect and to Serve" is the motto of the Los Angeles Police Department.
LAPD

Just like "Fidelis ad Mortem" or "Faithful unto Death" is the motto of the New York Police Department.
NYPD

Just like "Justitia Omnibus" or "Justice for All" is the motto of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.
MPD

The motto of the police department simply paraphrases what the police department stands for. The motto for the LAPD is simply the most popular and most well known.



but a policeman who actually does that these days is a rare thing.

Actually there are hundreds of thousands of police officers all over the United States that perform their duty everyday. Most of which do it correctly and without incident. You just never hear about it because a police officer doing what he does on a daily basis has been deemed not headline worthy.



i wouldnt call it doing his job if im pulled over by an officer who is probably looking for some trouble, held up on my journey and having my possessions rifled through when i havnt done anything wrong...id have said no too...i would also have set my phone to voice record just to cover my back

I would say pulling someone over is a police officer doing his job. I would say looking for trouble is part of a police officer's job as long as he doesnt give trouble to those who arent looking for it as well. I would say asking for a consent search and, if granted, searching someone or their vehicle for contraband is well within a police officer's job description.

A police officer is not a psychic and does not possess special powers to "sense" if someone has done something wrong or not. The only way to find that out is through investigation. Whether that is asking for consent to search someone's vehicle who has been stopped in a high crime area or stopping someone who matches the description of someone who just committed a crime, the only way police officers identify criminals is by looking. After investigation, the officer will determine if you have broken the law or not and will take the appropriate action.


edit on 21-8-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to add



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
hahahaha nice



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by GovtFlu
 
Sounds IDENTICAL to a story i have read elsewhere....il find the source and post it



That sounded like an accusation. If it was; put up or apologize. Only fair.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
It's illegal for a cop to search somebody's car without proper permission, and if you have no outstanding warrants, past tickets then you are legally aloud to say no. Same if you were to be smoking weed and partying in your house. Even if the officer were to smell your weed and ask to search your residents, you may say no, and they have to leave.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hippo45
The cops don't need search warrants to search a car. If you have already been pulled over for an infraction, then they can legally search your car if they think you are hiding something illegal.


WRONG! A policeman cannot search your vehicle without a warrant.
(Bold Text on Case Law mine)

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness'').

A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83). Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).
source

I have has this happen plenty of times, the main highway between my town and a nearby city where I go a lot is a main drug trafficking path. I have been pulled over more than a few times by Ohio State Police, I drive a van with Ron Paul for President stickers, and a Pirate Skull on the dash, and a "Not for Hire" sign in the windshield, perhaps this makes me a target. When stopped, pulled over, or at a check point, I get out, lock the doors behind me, and offer my ID and registration papers and proof of insurance. If asked if my van can be searched, the answer is always, "No, officer, not without a warrant." I keep it respectful at all times. I too have been threatened with the drug dogs, I say go ahead, just show me the warrant first. My van has not yet been searched.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join