• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

So whats the deal with LEO's searching vehicles during a traffic stop?

"You're going to have to wait while we get the dog down here, it's coming from Lake County"...

Is there a limit on how long one can be detained in such a situation? How long can they legally keep someone on the side of the road waiting for a dog or other resource?
 
Quote:
"The vehicle was covered in stickers, some of which indicated that the owner didn't approve of police drug-enforcement policy."

Absolutely not!

Maybe true in California (I don't know) but in New York, the state supreme court upheld that a Grateful Dead sticker constituted probably cause for a search of a vehicle for contraband.
 
If I am being detained, the length of time of the detention has to be reasonable.

I don't care if others feel like they want to consent to a search -- but legally, I have nothing to gain by consenting, and I preserve some rights be declining to consent, so that's the direction I take.

Refusing to consent to a search does not create PC.

I never said otherwise. Everyone has to play it like they see it...Me- I want to get on down the road and my fat ass defying a request, for mistaken thinking of "liberty" ain't going to change a thing in the world. Knock yourself out.
 
I never said otherwise. Everyone has to play it like they see it...Me- I want to get on down the road and my fat ass defying a request, for mistaken thinking of "liberty" ain't going to change a thing in the world. Knock yourself out.

:thumbup. Everyone has to make their own decisions on this.

One thing I guess I don't understand is why agreeing to a search will get you down the road any faster. If they are going to search, they are going to search.

And I think you missed my point -- I'm not doing this as some sort of "liberty" protest or anything -- I am just trying to preserve what rights I have to contest the search if, for whatever reason, I ever end up in court after a search.
 
Now this thread got me wondering. Regarding what constitutes as PC...

Are "shooting accessories" considered PC to search a car?

Had an incident about 8 years ago when I was coming back from the range. I had left my earmuffs and targets on the front seat, gun in a locked range bag in the trunk. Instead of going straight home I went for a little sunset hike at Santa Teresa park off Bernal. Came back at dusk to find an SJPD officer peering intently into my car with his flashlight.

Approached him slowly. And he turns to me and asks if I was the owner of that car. I said yes. He then says something to the effect of, "now I notice you have earmuffs and targets on the front seat, do you have any guns in the car?" I said yes and that it was secured in the trunk. I don't remember him actually asking if he could search my car but I did give him the keys and he did open my trunk and asked me to unlock my range bag (it has a combination lock). He checked out my gun, complimented it, told me to lock it back up and gave my car keys back to me.

He was actually a pretty good guy. Turned out we were both ex-Light Infantry in 10th Mountain Division around the same time, different Battalions. We stood around in that parking lot BSing for a while.

Anyways, back to my questions. Do shooting accessories like earmuffs, eye protection, range targets, qualify for PC? I know that range bags in open view gives the officer the right to check if the guns are secured properly, but I wonder if the same applies to the accessories.
 
Handcuffs. An ice pick. A crowbar. Pantyhose with eye holes cut out. A missing front passenger seat.

Can anybody guess who got arrested for burglary because of these items found in his/her car?
 
"May I search your vehicle."

"No, I believe we have a constitution for a reason."
 
A search on the web finds a lot mentioning this, but no actual citation. I don't imagine it's impossible. Far worse travesties have occured. But I wonder if you can get a citation for this? I found nothing directly on snopes.com either but found this which indirectly refutes it: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/lsdcop.asp
Maybe true in California (I don't know) but in New York, the state supreme court upheld that a Grateful Dead sticker constituted probably cause for a search of a vehicle for contraband.
 
Handcuffs. An ice pick. A crowbar. Pantyhose with eye holes cut out. A missing front passenger seat.

Can anybody guess who got arrested for burglary because of these items found in his/her car?

To be arrested for burglary, there must have been a burglary committed. Possession of burglary tools is a crime covered under 466 PC. Crowbar, mask, etc... when found together, could very well be charged as 466 PC.

466. Every person having upon him or her in his or her possession a
picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vise grip pliers,
water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun,
tubular lock pick, floor-safe door puller, master key, ceramic or
porcelain spark plug chips or pieces, or other instrument or tool
with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad
car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in
the Vehicle Code, or who shall knowingly make or alter, or shall
attempt to make or alter, any key or other instrument named above so
that the same will fit or open the lock of a building, railroad car,
aircraft, vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle
Code, without being requested to do so by some person having the
right to open the same, or who shall make, alter, or repair any
instrument or thing, knowing or having reason to believe that it is
intended to be used in committing a misdemeanor or felony, is guilty
of a misdemeanor. Any of the structures mentioned in Section 459
shall be deemed to be a building within the meaning of this section.
 
Are you aboslutely, 100% sure that you have NOTHING, anywhere in your car, that is illegal? That might be miscontrued as illegal? Do you ever allow friends to ride in your car? Are you absolutely, 100% sure that they have never, ever, left anything in your car that is illegal, or might be misconstrued as illegal?
Are you 100% sure that the cops that search your car -- with your consent -- won't make a mistake, and misconstrue something? (not saying anything about corruption here, just a mistake). Of course, if it's a mistake, eventually it will get sorted out -- but do you want to go through the hassle in the meantime?

The point is -- you have nothing to gain by consenting to a search. If you consent, and they find something, it's not like they are going to let you off for being cooperative. If you don't consent, and they still find something, at least then you have preserved the potential to challenge the validity of the search later. But if what they find is serious enough to arrest you, you are going to jail whether or not you consent to the search.

If they search and find nothing, maybe, just maybe, you might save a few minutes by consenting to a search -- but, then again, maybe no search would have occured if you hadn't consented, and you would have been on your way sooner.

Honest people with nothing to hide usually want to help out the police, so wanting to consent to a search when you have nothing to hid is natural. But, from a legal perspective, you have nothing to gain from consenting to a search.

Yes, I am.
 
To be arrested for burglary, there must have been a burglary committed. Possession of burglary tools is a crime covered under 466 PC. Crowbar, mask, etc... when found together, could very well be charged as 466 PC.

[Shrug]

Those items were found in Ted Bundy's VW Bug when he was first arrested. It was a great collar.
 
its easy to say on a forum to say NO.. when ure in the situation, cops pressure the livin shit out of whoever it is theyre pulling over.
and when you say NO officer you cant .. they somehow still manage to do it anyway.
but technically all cop cars have video and recording goign on during stops so if you SAY NO and the officer still goes through with it, you can sue him and have him lose the job.
cops have rules they need to follow as well.

i've encountered some super cool officers and then some that are just upset at everything and those WILL mess with you big time.

so i usually stay away from cops no matter what.. no need for time consuming pull overs.

but if you cant beat em , join em HAHA


but i like this thread
subscribed
 
Q: "Would you mind if I look around your vehicle?"

A: "What's in it for me?"



Q: "Mind if I make a quick search of your car?"

A: "I hereby consent to search everywhere except the trunk, glove compartment, center console, seat pockets, behind the sun visors, and under the seats. Those areas are off limits."
 
Yeah, me too. Weird....

Cool. :thumbup

But I am not 100% sure. I don't sweep my car everytime I use it. I let other people (rarely, though) use my car -- and I don't search the car when I get it back. Although I never lend my car (or give rides to people in my car) that I don't trust, well, you never know -- that's why I said 100% sure, not 99.9% sure.

But -- and to me this is the most important thing -- I can't even say for sure what is and what isn't legal anyway. There are so many different laws on the books, I am not sure anyone who doesn't work with them day in and day out can say, for certain, what might be technically legal or illegal. I know that I don't ever knowingly carry anything illegal in my car -- but I also know that I don't know all of the laws and ordinances and regulations out there.

I read somewhere that there are over 10,000 pages of federal criminal statutes on the books, not to mention all of the state and local statutes and ordinances. I was watching a lecture where the prof brought up a federal statute that makes it a felony to possess in the United States a fish, animal, or plant that was illegal to possess in the country in which it was obtained.

This may be a stretch, but consider if you traveled to Canada, picked a flower that you liked, came back into the U.S., get stopped by a cop, they ask to search, you say yes, and you happen to hit the one cop in the U.S. that knows that statute, and knows that this particular flower is illegal to pick in Canada. You are now a felon, even though you would likely have sworn up and down that you were 100% sure that there was nothing illegal in your car at the time of the stop.

Maybe JPM and the other officers on this board can say with 100% certainty that there is nothing illegal, even "technically" illegal, in their cars -- but I know I can't, because I can't even say for 100% sure what it, and what is not legal -- there are just too many laws on the books to know for sure. And I am saying this as a lawyer -- I don't practice criminal law, but even in my practice, I don't know ALL of the laws, there are just too many to keep in your head.

And that's the reason why, for me, it's important to preserve whatever rights I might have, because I just don't know. I am pretty confident that if I were to get stopped and searched, all would be well -- but I don't know for sure that, if someone nitpicked everything in my car and had knowledge of some arcane statute, that they couldn't find something. So I will preserve the right to challenge the search later by refusing consent.
 
Yes, of course I am. It's the perspective of a Good Citizen, not a Subject. The whole cops and robbers thing is a huge artifice of corruption and disease. It's self perpetuating and does not bring about a safer community.

American's have long lost what it is that makes us special. That's a pity.

K, thanks. Just wanted to make sure we disagree. :)
 
I bought my car used, so it's entirely possible that the previous owner dropped some weed behind the back seat or something. I'm sure plenty of other people are in the same situation.

Again, I won't consent to a search because there's no reason for it. Having nothing to hide is irrelevant.
 
Back
Top