Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

...so?

So you clicked either the 'YES' or the 'NO' button on this one? Really? When is your guest spot on Oprah? Can I send you a self-addressed stamped envelope so I can get your autograph? I'm going to frame that shit and take down my autographed cigar from Bill Clinton and put your's in it's place...

Wow, no one gives a damn.

wow, you moderated this one and you were the first one to comment? "someone" needs to spend a little time away from fml

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

YDI, why in god's name wouldn't you let him search your car unless you had something to hide? Typical liberals fight the police then get angry when they are arrested

#207, 4th amendment, your eyes? Maybe they should meet. Typical liberals don't fight the police. There was no fighting. Why should this person consent to a search? If the cop wants to get a drug dog, let him. Then if the dog doesn't hit, the cop should fuck off.

Just because some of us don't feel like giving our liberties away doesn't mean we're criminals. And just because you're willing to get on your knees for authority doesn't make you a good citizen.

/rant.

Wow...just because he didn't consent to a search doesn't mean he has something to hide. It's called right to privacy. Typical liberals? How about normal person who's aware of their rights. That's like saying 'oh, typical liberal, not letting cops search his house without a warrant and then being surprised when he the cop sends for a SWAT team and tear gasses his family'. This is America, not Soviet Russia, and everyone can refuse consent to a search, and no cop can do anything about it unless they have plausible reason to believe you ARE hiding something. And no, the fact that you refuse a search does not provide reasonable suspicion. Bringing politics into this is moronic, as being aware of your rights and insisting upon them does not indicate any kind of political sway. And if you're definition of 'conservative' is blind, unswerving loyalty to any person in a position of authority, then you dont have any clue what a conservative is. You, sir, are a partisan, divisive asshole, and you embody everything wrong with this country.

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

Typical ignorant leftist.

You NO NOT have a right to drive an automobile. You can attain however, the PRIVILEGE to possess a valid driver's license which, prior to receiving, you sign that you give your consent to certain legal actions.

Typical troll. Bringing irrelevant facts to the table. What's your point? Are you implying we sign away our 4th amendment right? Cite it please.

I can tell you (#207) exactly why a lot of people don't want to consent to a search. A friend of mine and his friend were pulled over for no apparent reason other than being very obviously in college, and since he had nothing to hide, he let the cop search his car. The officer pretty much tore everything out looking for weed, took a cane that my friend's grandfather had given him, said "this looks perfect for smuggling" and broke it in half. Then he basically said "oh, guess not" and threw the pieces away with no apology or reimbursement. So.. yeah, I wouldn't want to consent to any searches either if the cop was an asshole like the one in this FML obviously was.

People should never consent to unnecessary searches.

I've had friends who consented to searches because they thought the cops would realize they weren't hiding anything. Instead, the cops ripped the lining out of their cars, tore every seam possible, and completely trashed it looking for shit that wasn't there.

All I hear is typical conservatism crying. If you don't like it you can git out, as far as I'm concerned everyone who disagrees with what transpired is anti-american and should be treated as such.

Where did all these conservative trolls come from?

#220 your an idiot, you don't know what the situation was. and having a drug dog "SEARCH" the premises is a search tard.

WOW 207, are you really that stupid? that does NOT constitute 'fighting' the police. normally, i decline a search because they tear through and garbage that i had just cleaned up and put into grocery bags and am goign to throw out when i get my car parked and find a nearby trash can. they'll just rip that shit open and make another 20 minutes of cleaning for me. so no. when a cop asks me if he can search my car, i always say no. i don't have illegal things on me ever anywas, but i don't want the pain in the ass. leave it to a CONSERVATIVE who has WAY TO MUCH FRIGGIN faith in the system to say some stupid shit like 'oh leave it to a liberal to fight the cops' are you really THAT retarded or do you just act like it to get attention?

#312 "Bla bla bla whaa whaa whaa I'm too cool for school lol I'ma take my frustration out on the people who protect me from criminals" Seriously that's what you sound like. Show some damn respect these people risk their lives to protect your sorry ass each day

I don't understand why liberals are suddenly the ones who fight cops. When I think of anti-government/anti-police activists, many different types of people come to mind, most specifically militia groups. They are about as conservative as they come, and they clearly take the law into their own hands and make no qualms about hating the police and government.

#305 you're the idiot. Bringing the drug dog isn't a search. It's a way to get probable cause to search. Dumbass. And I know the situation because the OP explained in the comments. Careful, your ignorance is showing.

For all you guys you say cops put there life on the line and they just doing there job are right, and the bull shit they go threw can make a person on edge. but no reason to be a asshole, so stop with all this your wrong for not letting him search the car and all that crap. i had a cop pull me over for no reason ask me for my license and reg walk back to the car, and come back and tell me he giving me a ticket for sound viloation becasue my music was to loud until i smiled and pointed to my dash were there was no stereo because some one had stolen it. he then turned red riped up the ticket and got into is car and speed of so fast that if i was a cop i would of gave him a ticket for wreckless driving. so dont always cops are here for you and right some cops are assholes. just like normal people are that they pull over. but quit saying all cops are wonderful and great people and doing there jobs. if you do i hope you get that one asshole cop who stops you and gives you a ticket for your car lights being to bright or somthing stupid they make up at time.

#321 You're wrong.

321, that's a vast generalization. Not every cop is a dick, only some are. It just seems that no one here is saying anything good about cops and it's painting a negative picture.

No, they're pretty much all dicks. I don't trust them as far as I can pick them up and throw them and I don't say shit without a lawyer present. Always refuse the search. Never give them anything. The less you give them, the less they have to use against you. Make them get a warrant signed by a judge. If they try to put the cuffs on you, let them. If you don't they'll just kick your ass.

Remember a cop is a cop because they couldn't become a lawyer or detective and have no other skills other than "Asshole meat bag". They are thugs paid by the state to harass and arrest people, most of which aren't hurting anyone. If they weren't a cop, they'd be mopping floors or working at Subway. Every loser in high school with below average intel wanted to become a cop, if I remember correctly.

Just my opinion based on my personal experience with them.

Your personal experience should not include global statements. Unless, *gasp* you've met every single cop in the entire world? If so I'll bow to your superior experience and understanding. :P Also be aware that attitude etc changes from station to station, city to city, and state to state. Here, the bigger city cops aren't that bad, but the small town cops have attitudes (probably from dealing with tourists >> ). Though, I will say, my one time being pulled over I had a very pleasant officer who reduced my ticket (from 30 over the speed limit to 20 over), which saved me quite a lot of money.

Just sayin. :P

@312 Protecting me from people that would do harm to me, and doing harm to me is not the same thing. How is ripping a persons car apart protecting them from criminals? It's vandalism, a criminal act.

I believe that the right to privacy should extend to anything that a person owns. Especially vehicles.

yeah and typical republicans vote for anti gay rights legislation and get blow jobs from dudes in bathrooms.

come down, or probably up to nyc and ill give you the thorough nyc cop treatment... by that i mean i'll beat the shit out of you cause i've had a bad day knowing id probably get off with nothing if i shot you anyway, and of course you being being black would help.

oh and btw asking for our constitutional rights to be protected in the case of search and seizure seems to me at least as fair as republicans asking for their constitutional rights to carry concealed handguns in schools and churches to be protected... hypocrite jerk off

I've got a 4.0 GPA, never had a detention in my life, 139 IQ, a member of Amnesty International, and I'm looking at a career in law enforcement.

Your personal experience probably related more to the fact that you're an asshole who broke laws. It's funny, all cops are dicks and stupid asshole thugs until you need 'em, right?

Isn't this interesting. It appears that someone has been living in Chicago their whole life. You really aren't that smart, are you?

First: because you obviously can't see things outside your own limited view, I'll let you know that cops everywhere aren't corrupt or assholes. Where as there are certainly many out there, it's no different than with anything else.

Lets imagine no cops or related forms of pubilic safety, and see that with no enforcement of law there really would be no stopping people from doing whatever they wanted. Does a narrow mind like yours comprehend that? I could kill you kill anyone of your friends or family, and there would be no sure consequence.

Now, do you see how much you drag down society by becoming one more idiot that has to be taken care of? You probably shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.

Not sure exactly what your point is, but if I'm not mistaken, you're trying to say that he has no right to not being searched. If that's the case then you're wrong. If you tell the officer that he cannot look in your car then there is nothing he can do about it except get a search warrant.

Definitely! I hope you reported him... that is a violation of your rights! Unless he could SEE something illegal or had definite reason to suspect something, you are able to refuse consent and force him to get a warrant. These sorts of rights are what separate us from police states, it's not a joke.

You can refuse consent no matter what. It's just that the officer doesn't NEED your consent if the circumstances justify the search without it. In no case is your refusal wrong, it's just not always effective.

could their possibly be other circumstances? could the OP have been difficult prior to being asked to be searched? just wondering

Without having more information if he actually searched without cause or warrant, it's hard to call it abuse. Refusing to let an officer search is actually cop speak for, "I have something to hide, arrest me!"

True that 181 that is what i was going to say. If you say no i dont consent then they don't have to search they take you into custody and get a warrant depending on the circumstances... AND FYI people he could have smelt something like marijuana or something which they can lock you up for so dont judge the Police Officer

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

warrants are for residential searches.
kids nowadays. sigh.

Nope. Warrants or reasonable cause are necessary for any search, from a pat down to a car search to a residential search. You absolutely have the right to refuse a search. The cop can call in a drug dog to sniff the car, but they have no right to cuff you for refusing a search. They have no right to cuff you even if the drug dog does imply that there might be drugs. A drug dog could give them the probably cause to search, but unless they find something cuffing a person is completely out of line. I hope the OP files suit against the PD and the cop gets some sort of reprimand.

we didn't get the whole story so the OP could have been arrested for prior behavior. He could have been arrested for that and the OP could be using refusing the search as a reason he got arrested

In order to conduct a search or make an arrest, a LEO must have RAS (Reasonable, Articulable , Suspicion) They must be able to vocalize a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Anything done without such is an illegal search, and a violation of a citizen's 4th Amendment protection from illegal search and seizure.

No citizen should consent to a search. If they think you've done something wrong, they will be able to support a charge. Any content given "to show you're not hiding anything" may very well end in a search that leaves you with destroyed property and only yourself to foot the bill. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

Bullshit. An illegal search is an illegal search, even if they had a "good reason."

No, they are not well within their rights. The only time a officer has the ability to search anything is if there is a warrant or probable cause i.e. see or smell drugs or alcohol or find something in plain view that could be easily used as a weapon. The OP was well with in his rights as backed by the constitution to deny his search.

@ OP unless he had a specific reason to pull you over I would file a complaint, when people constantly refuse to exercise their rights against such abuses of the law the people that are supposed to enforce law run unchecked. Another thing that people often forget is just because an officer says or does something does not make it legal. Many times because people do not know the laws or are afraid to enforce their rights just allow them to do what ever they want no matter how illegal and once you do some reading on law you will be astounded by what some get away with.

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

Who said it was illegal? For all you know he was smuggling drugs or was a terrorist with sarin gas to release in a public place. If the police have a good reason to want to search someone, and that person doesn't consent, do you think they're just going to say "Oh well... OK then" and let them walk off?

At any rate, refusing a search does entitle the police to arrest you.

Darkon - He didn't say he was driving or pulled over. You have no idea what the circumstances were.

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

I'm sorry...I thought "probable cause" meant that he HAD a good reason, and therefore the search was LEGAL.

Unless you have something to hide, just let the cop search your car. Remember, it's for his protection, and the public's.

Authorities can get away with far too many things, even with such exposure that these abuses get. It just goes to show that the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out the window. CLEARLY, the perp is always the one to antagonize the cop. The cop is just doing his job, protecting the people and upholding the law... right? Though, I will say this: I don't think most cops HAVE bad intentions when they overstep their boundaries, they do have a lot of dangers to look out for, and even the best of men make judgmental mistakes. However, that's certainly no excuse for the erosion of our rights, as citizens. As far as I'm concerned, my rights should be of a higher concern to him than his own. He made the choice to protect and serve the people, not himself/herself.

@#17, I'm sure you support the Patriot Act too, eh? It's for a good cause, who cares if it promotes tyranny and negatively affects the checks and balances in place, right?

"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."

cheesesoda - searching someone the police are suspicious of IS part of protecting the public. What would have been illegal is if he conducted the search anyway. He didn't. He arrested him instead which is the correct procedure and entirely legal.

If this happened when being pulled over, the officer was well within his rights. Cops don't need consent to search your vehicle.

I apologize for the car reference but non the less it applies to any situation.

@16 For all you know it was an illegal search of an officer using his gun/baton as an extension of his manhood. "You have no idea what the circumstances were" works well here. Actually to the whole "do you think they're just going to say "Oh well... OK then" and let them walk off?" actually yes, but what normally happens is that the officer will use bully tactics to get you scared and to consent to a search. Please be a good little German in your particular place of residence and allow everyone else to exercise their rights entitled by the document that the police themselves use to empower themselves, it is called the Constitution read it!

@17 Refusing a search is not an admission of guilt and just allowing him to search your vehicle or yourself "because you have nothing to hide" is extremely wrong!

"Suspicion" is far too flimsy of a reason to restrain someone. Granted, the OP has only given one side of the story, but if we're to take the OP's words as truth, the cop overstepped his boundaries and impeded on our 4th amendment rights. Besides, just because it may be legal *cough* Patriot Act *cough* doesn't make it Constitutional.

Holy shit balls batman. Yank you seriously believe that crap. That is pretty damn close to, "I don't care if they wiretap my phones because I have nothing to hide." That kind of mentality will lead to an erosion of our rights. Didn't you read up on the warrantless wiretapping and hear how many times the government jsut "vacuum sucked" information up with no real regulations in place, no probable cause for what they were doing, and also the amount of people affected that shouldn't have been. It's called privacy for a reason. If you want the police to be able to illegally search you start a petition to get the 4th Amendment taken away (right to be free from illegal search and seizure).

My god I feel sick to my stomach that people like you live in this country. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

....like what 27? Following correct procedure when someone does not consent to a search? My god you're right, it's practically martial law these days...

@#26 - What are you smoking? Yes, you can deny them from searching your vehicle. However, once he has probable cause, then you can't prevent him. He can't just pull you over and decide you have weed (or whatever else it may be) if there are no signs of it.

@26 actually if they don't have probable cause yes they do need permission. Please educate yourself with law before commenting on such things.

@26

They need probably cause and even at that they need you to sign that you consent and if you don't consent a search warrant from a judge. They can't just search your vehicle unless they can visibly see something illegal in your car from outside the car. They can't think you look like a gangbanger and search your vehicle for guns if you give them no reason. It's called profiling and it's illegal.

29 - Now you're just making stuff up that the OP didn't even hint at. If that had happened, I'm pretty sure it would've been included in his story. Look up your own laws. If a suspect refuses search, it is procedure to arrest them.

30 - The OP didn't even give his side of the story. You have no idea what he was doing at all. And no, it's not too much of a flimsy reason to restrain someone.

31 - His rights were protected. He wasn't searched. The officer acted according to law. He arrested someone who was suspicious for whatever reason, and who then refused a search. I'm not American (thank god), and even I seem to know your laws better than most of you from my one visit there. Truly scary how ignorant the majority of your country is.

The law is that they can only search the parts of the car that are visible from the outside if you do not consent to a search, unless they have probable cause to search the car or you give consent.

That means they can't go searching under the seats, in the glove compartment or in the trunk unless they have a warrant or said probable cause.

That said, probable cause is flimsy and if you call the cop out on it he'll probably claim he smelled weed or some bullshit. Cops are corrupt. Let this be a lesson for you.

FYL for having to learn this lesson the hard way.

@40 Perhaps you can't read English properly. The FML says the OP refused consent to search, and THEN the officer cuffed him. If the officer already had him in cuffs, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but the fact is that his refusal is what led to him being cuffed, if we're to believe this story. THAT, even if it is "legal", is complete bullshit.

49 - My reading comprehension is just fine thank you, and I didn't imply anything else had happened. Perhaps you have misread.

Refusing to consent to a search is grounds to arrest someone, if the officer had reason to request the search in the first place. This prevents anyone innocent who will consent to searches being arrested on suspicion, and still allows people who may pose some harm to the public to be arrested, protecting public safety and respecting their privacy. What alternative do you suggest to their regulations and guidelines? Allowing people they are suspicious of to go on their way, or making searches mandatory?

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

Shut up, all of you.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have the RIGHT to my privacy against unwarranted searches. My refusal isn't grounds to be restrained. I can't see how one could suggest that by exercising my rights, I'm a suspect. It's fucking ludicrous to suggest such a thing.

You're assuming the cop already has probable cause when he's asking to search the person/vehicle/property. Suspicion is not enough. Cops can be wrong, even the best and most honest of them. For the reason that man is fallible, I have the RIGHT to deny a search and NOT be restrained without probable cause/warrant.

Yes 61... you do have that right. As does the OP. And as such, the OPs right was respected. However, if the cop had reason to ask for a search, and the search was refused, he has the obligation to arrest that person.

There is not one single reason for you to suspect the cop was acting out of line. His actions were what any single American would expect him to take if the suspect was carrying a bomb. If he hadn't, he would probably be fired.


Refusing to consent to a search is grounds to arrest someone, if the officer had reason to request the search in the first place. This prevents anyone innocent who will consent to searches being arrested on suspicion, and still allows people who may pose some harm to the public to be arrested, protecting public safety and respecting their privacy. What alternative do you suggest to their regulations and guidelines? Allowing people they are suspicious of to go on their way, or making searches mandatory?

Cops do their job correctly a hell of a lot more often than they abuse their power, so there's no reason for you to think he wasn't in this case. Unless you can come up with one single reason why you think the cop was acting out of line besides "it happens", shut the hell up.

Didn't you just reply to me a few minutes ago and say that majority doesn't mean anything? If I have no reason to believe the OP was in his car, you have no reason to believe the cop actually was upholding the OP's rights.

Yes, if the cop has probable cause. A suspicion and a simple inquiry to search one's person or property is not probable cause. Cops don't need probable cause to request a search. As such, a person refusing a search should not be assumed suspicious on the refusal alone.

It's clear, from the very vague story posted here, we're picturing very different scenarios.

Refusing a search does NOT give the police the right to arrest you. That just ruins the whole Fourth Amendment purpose. Here's the problem: If you say No, you may not search my car, then they decide your secrecy is suspicious enough and is "probable cause" to search. Which sucks pretty bad and completely undermines that whole "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" stuff. Also, if he has drugs--since the authorities refuse to respect his right to privacy, which is fundamental law in the USA, but somehow statutes criminalizing drugs have passed (and they are absolutely illegal, by the way)--sometimes you gotta protect your own interests and follow the real law. It's immoral to detain a person because of things they do to themselves that do not directly hurt others.

73 -Your comment about the majority of situations not mattering would be true if I had then gone on to claim that the OP certainly wasn't in his car, despite the majority of police interactions taking place with drivers(according to your bullshit statistic). I didn't. I simply said, you don't know that it did.

Also, the majority of police doing their job correctly is far, far higher than the (supposed) majority of police interactions with drivers, so why would you presume the lower majority statistic and not the larger majority statistic??

You're assuming the situation happened as happens slightly more often than other police interactions. I'm presuming no abuse of power happened, which is less than in 1% of cases. Be honest with yourself. Which makes more sense?

You're picturing a story completely made up by your own wish to feel victimized by your authorities. I'm saying the cop, regardless of situation, was acting legally, and unless something out of the ordinary happened, morally correctly as well.

I also see you choose to not answer what alternative the law could be changed to. If you can't back up your opinion, shut up.

I didn't feel the need to argue every point, but I have absolutely no problem with telling you what the law should be... as it is under the original intent of the founding fathers when the Constitution and subsequent amendments were written.

Unless there's a warrant, no search should be performed without the consent of the individual. It's as simple as that. Sure, some criminals will get by, but the greater good is protecting the rights of the majority. As Thomas Jefferson said, and as I'm too lazy to search for the quote I shall paraphrase, I'd much rather deal with the problems of too much liberty than the problems from too little liberty.

I'm no fan of the Patriot Act, but I also know that if an officer has probable cause to search you or your car, then he/she is going to do it. If I'm pulled over and the officer, for instance, smells weed, then of course the officer is going to want to search my car. That is when the officer will ask me to step out of the car and ask for my consent. If I say no, I'm not sure what the procedure for that is, but I hope it's appropriate. Putting the OP in cuffs is not always an arrest and the officer will typically state that to you. You're being arrested when your rights are read. The officer may have placed the OP in cuffs in order for his/her safety, etc. I'll be optimistic and hope that this was all justified.

"Regardless of situation"? Clearly, you don't understand the "Bill of Rights" amended to my country's constitution. In my scenario, the action taken by the cop is illegal. That tends to throw out the whole "regardless of situation" idea. A cop requesting a search doesn't mean anything other than that... the cop would request a search (and the story doesn't even tell us that... just that the OP said he doesn't consent to searches, he could have just been an idiot and blurted it out without any act on the officer's part).

A cop can ask numerous questions without merit and be perfectly legal. It's still legal if the questioned individual answers the cop's questions. It is, however, illegal for the cop to detain an individual for the refusing to answer a question. Again, just because a cop may ask to search does not necessarily mean he has probable cause.

@90, that's why I tried to use "restrain" or "detain" instead of "arrest" because simply cuffing someone does not place them under arrest as you said.

If the cop has probable cause (ie. the smell of weed in your car), then he is more than legal to search your car and detain you. If you refuse when the cop cannot detect the smell of weed or cannot see the presence of any weed, he cannot detain you for that refusal alone. He needs probable cause/warrant/consent to perform any search.

93 - No, even in your scenario, it's legal. Perhaps you should look up the definition of legal before continuing to post your confused and idiotic ramblings.

I get the feeling Americans who have no idea of their own laws, when caught out being so absolutely clueless, start spouting "bill of rights" and "patriot act" without ever having actually read them.

Again, you have no reason to assume there's no probable cause. Unless you can come up with a reason why you're assuming this besides "it happens"(very rarely) shut the hell up/

"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."

Probable cause is required. Refusal of a search is not probable cause, it's not even cause for suspicion.

Though, perhaps my wording is a bit clumsy. I'm using "legal" and "Constitutional" interchangeably, as if I think my government creates laws that follow the Constitution. My mistake.

Do you want my reason for why I think the cop acted illegally? Because the story plainly says the OP refused the search and the cop detained him. There's nothing else in the story that would make you say, "clearly, the cop had probable cause." No, it said he refused the search, and as a result the cop detained him.

Wow! Great debate everyone. I don't live in America, though so I have absolutely no idea about what is and isn't legal in this situation. I was about to say something about different states having different laws, but of course the Constitution is universal throughout every state.

Still, in my opinion, these laws don't actually give more freedom. I'll imagine I lived in America. The chances of my getting stopped by an officer for a search are extremely unlikely to begin with, as I'm fairly law-abiding. In the unlikely event I did, I could consent to a search no problem. The officer would search my car, find nothing, and leave. It would be a hassle yes, but my freedom wouldn't have suffered as a result. So, really, all this preaching about freedom is just because people want to avoid a possible hassle like this. Urgh.

I hate the "liberty vs. security" quotes that have been posted here (remember, just because something is a famous quote doesn't make it right). You don't have to compromise that much liberty to offer a lot more security. Honestly, some people are so damned obsessed with freedom that they don't realise they have plenty of it.

Seriously guys, if you live in America, you have barrel loads of freedom. Being concerned about your freedom just doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. Don't bother replying to this comment to prattle on about your freedom.

105 - Your quotes irrelevant. He WASN'T searched. What do you not get about that. His rights were respected.

When a person refuses a search, it is legal to arrest them. This prevents destruction of evidence and harm to public.

You are assuming there was no reason to question him which, as I pointed out, is based on nothing and would be very unusual.

While the OP quite obviously didn't say there was a reason to be suspicious, he also, at no point even implied he was innocent. Basing the your assumption the cop acted immorally on the fact the OP didn't admit guilt, while not ever bothering to claim innocence either, is ridiculous.

115 - My opinions about it being morally and legally correct aside, I agree with you. It's good to take a step back sometimes at look at what the situation in reality is.

#115 - In a lot of ways, I agree with your statement. I see nothing wrong with being willing to consent to a search, it makes things quicker, and if you don't mind making your privacy public, then so be it. The issue isn't really that, though. The issue is the attitude of "if you have nothing to hide, why hide it?" If that attitude becomes widespread, then we are more willing to give up our rights to where we don't have the ability to choose whether or not you CAN consent.

In most cases, I would probably let the officer search. If I had time to burn and he has absolutely no basis for his request, I would certainly uphold my rights.

Hmm... still don't know who is correct in this debate, but I really HOPE it's mobius8!

Seriously, there's something fucked up about a system that let's you go without anything if you refuse a search. It just lets all the criminals run free on the roads so that the law-abiding people won't moan about their rights. I could drive through America with a car full of drugs if I wanted, and keep out of jail by refusing searches, because I have rights!! (I'm seriously thinking about it now)

((Please, let mobius8 be right tho))

How is the fourth amendment irrelevant? He was detained by refusing to consent to a search. That isn't respecting his rights.

You can't detain someone if they're not a threat to the officer or public. An officer cannot arrest someone without a warrant/probable cause. What's so hard to understand about that?

Yes, an officer can detain someone if they refuse to consent to a search... if the officer has probable cause. Again and again and again, suspicion is not probable cause. Refusal to consent is not probable cause. Therefore, the officer cannot detain an individual for simply refusing to consent to a search. There needs to be a warrant. How did you not get that from the Fourth Amendment that I quoted?

@cheesesoda: Thanks very much for a decent, well-articulated reply. There aren't a lot of those around thesedays. I do understand your point, but I'm not convinced that will happen.

It's just that your rights about not being searched will rarely affect law-abiding citizens. People who are somehow involved in a crime will be the ones getting searched most of the time. and stuff like the Fourth Amendment makes it harder for criminals to get caught without actually giving people that much more freedom.

To say it simply: Fourth Amendment =/= more freedom

Don't mean to be rude about America, but the Fourth Amendment is the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

115 - your comment about having "plenty of freedom" is like saying our liberties are "good enough." but how often is "good enough" ACTUALLY good enough? and even if it is, wouldn't it be BETTER if it was "great" or "perfect"? "good enough" generally means there is something left to be desired, and personally i don't think it's possible to have too much freedom. there are certain choices one can make that forfeits certain freedoms, but refusing a search as per our constitutional rights is not one of them.

@133: You don't need any more freedom if you live in a country like America (or the UK, which is where I live). The goal of freedom is to get to the most balanced level of freedom you can, and we're pretty close to that. Having more freedom at this stage will inevitably be a bad thing Maximum freedom is just anarchy, which although would be fun for about a week, is an awful and destructive system. So, a good level of freedom does NOT mean there is more to be desired. You have enough freedom, and you can't have any more without compromising other things.

128 - It's respecting his right to refuse a search, which is the right your quote was talking about, and it was respected entirely.

The officer can legally arrest someone who's refused a search. That's a fact. In that case, it's not moral, but it is still legal. He wouldn't be held though. The point is, you're assuming there's no probable cause. The OP isn't even claiming there was no cause, so why would you assume there wasn't??

#132 - It is put in place to prevent a tyrannical government. Just because NOW authorities don't abuse the power in a majority of time doesn't mean that it can't be abused in emergency situations. For a great example... the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was practically martial law. The officers (and military) routinely ignored Constitutional rights. If this happened WITH these protections in our Constitution, what would happen if these protections didn't exist?

133- What freedom are you losing in reality? The freedom to not have a police officer search you and arrest you if you're doing something illegal? Nothing is being made public, and it is not a common occurrence, and the alternative is that any criminal can refuse a search and get away with it.

142 - "It's respecting his right to refuse a search, which is the right your quote was talking about, and it was respected entirely."

The fourth amendment also talks about seizure of property AND person. It's right there at the end.

"The officer can legally arrest someone who's refused a search. That's a fact. In that case, it's not moral, but it is still legal. He wouldn't be held though."

Legally, perhaps. Constitutionally, no. It's still the Unconstitutional seizure of the OP.

"The point is, you're assuming there's no probable cause. The OP isn't even claiming there was no cause, so why would you assume there wasn't??"

There's nothing in the story to say that there WAS probable cause. I'm not going to doubt he left out plenty of the story, and cop most likely DID have probable cause, but there's nothing in the story to confirm this. This is why I'm making the assumption there wasn't.

No. Why should you help the cops? If you did nothing wrong then they have no reason to search you to begin with. Besides once you give your consent they can use anything they find against you. Without your consent or a warrant nothing they find can be used as evidence.

#145 - The criminal can only get away if there's no probable cause. I'm not suggesting that simply because you refuse to consent that you must be released. Clearly, that's easily abused by criminals.

If government decides that it doesn't need probable cause, a warrant, OR consent, then it's taking away liberty. I don't care if it's "common" or not, it's not an essential liberty to give up.

148 - "Unreasonable" seizures of person. It wasn't unreasonable. It was legal. And most probably, entirely warranted and appropriate.

I'm not going to convince you it's constitutional(it is) as well as legal, but you can't argue with the fact that not being able to arrest someone for refusing a search would be ridiculous, and there's not really any alternative.

You just admitted the cop most likely had a probable cause, but you're going to assume the very unlikely situation of the cop not having probable cause regardless? That's... incredibly stupid and senseless.

There are many reasons the OP would leave the fact there was probably cause out of his story and none that I can think of that would explain him not including his complete innocence.

yes they do need consent to search your vehicle unless they have probable cause.
which means they SEE something.

if they dont SEE anything, they dont have probable cause; and if you dont consent, they can't search.

168 -

They'd fit the character limit. It's one of the shorter FMLs and it only takes a few words to state the fact you were innocent, and it's pretty vital to the story, as is obvious from the comments.

You're the one leaping to the completely unfounded conclusion that the OP was innocent, despite the fact even they don't claim to be, that the police officer had no probable cause, despite that not being mentioned either and that the police officer was doing their job wrong, despite the fact that that's a very uncommon occurrence. All based on nothing the OP has said..

A cop can arrest you for refusing a search. That doesn't mean they will. Just that they can. And if they do, there is almost always going to be a probable cause. To assume there wasn't in this case is completely illogical and retarded.

@mobius8 and you are leaping that he was guilty, you are doing exactly what you are telling everyone else not to do.

A cop can not arrest you for refusing search, he can detain (place in handcuffs) you which is legal as to protect himself and others while he tries to figure out how he can legally get what he wants or to use it as a bully tactic to scare the person to consent.

You yourself say that you are not an American how can you think you know the law better than an American? I have lived in this country my entire life, I have read as many laws as I can find about matters of this sort. Please read the our laws a little more before acting as an authority on them.

"You're the one leaping to the completely unfounded conclusion that the OP was innocent, despite the fact even they don't claim to be, that the police officer had no probable cause, despite that not being mentioned either and that the police officer was doing their job wrong, despite the fact that that's a very uncommon occurrence. All based on nothing the OP has said.."

The story says the OP stated he does not consent to searches. The OP was then detained. That's all it says, so all we can gather was that he was detained because he refused. There's no mention of innocence, but there's no mention of guilt, either.

"A cop can arrest you for refusing a search. That doesn't mean they will. Just that they can. And if they do, there is almost always going to be a probable cause. To assume there wasn't in this case is completely illogical and retarded."

He can only detain you if he tries to obtain a warrant. However, he can't obtain a warrant without probable cause. You're making the assumption that any abuse of this is statistically insignificant, but you fail to realize most people don't report the abuse because they aren't aware that there IS any abuse. This doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Hell, before I started to become interested in preserving my liberties, I was aware of very few of my liberties. I would have been incapable of reporting the abuse because I was ignorant of it.

@140 Please keep your ignorance about freedom to yourself! There is no such thing as enough freedom! Just because you are satisfied with how your government acts doesn't mean everyone else is. Governments around the world are the way that they are because their people allow it. Should we just decide that our government isn't the worst out there and let them do whatever they want? No of course not that is how these governments that end up mass murdering their own people just because they can are born. Each time you leave a freedom unprotected it will get taken away and for each freedom taken it is easier to take the next.

It is easy to forget that not all of the people that we trust with out interests and safety have our best interests in mind and very often act in a self serving fashion.

177 - Yes, both are technically assumptions, seeing as the OP doesn't state one way or the other. One is a logical assumption because

a - If the OP was innocent, it's the sort of thing they'd mention
b - It's the most likely
c - Cops are actually responsible for their actions. If they arrest someone for no reason, they do face consequences. There's no reason for a cop to waste their time and risk being reprimanded for arresting someone who politely refused to be searched

The other is the baseless assumption. You're going to a lot of effort to prove a baseless and unlikely assumption is indicative of your countries apparent lack of freedom.

A cop does NOT need a warrant to arrest you. If they're looking in someones car, and can see what looks like it is probably a weapon or drugs and you refuse a search, they can absolutely arrest you without going back and obtaining a warrant.

187 - That's called PROBABLE CAUSE. Refusing a search AFTER that can legally result in a detention, but not without that probable cause.

YES, AND WHY DO YOU THINK THERE WASN'T A PROBABLE CAUSE?

And why do you think there was? Because a cop was involved? You assuming there was probable cause you are making just as much as an assumption as every one else.

Seriously? Don't generalize the entire population of a country based off a few people on a popular website. Now that is ignorant.

192- I'm sorry, but assuming the cop was doing his job when the OP didn't even say they weren't doing anything to give probable cause isn't really an assumption. It's the logical conclusion.

Assuming the cop is arresting someone for no reason, a thing he would get in trouble for, even though the OP didn't say he was innocent is just plain stupidity.

It's not an assumption to to believe the cop had reason to arrest someone. You do realise that reasons for arrest are actually checked up on? The fact he refused a search gives at very least, reasonable suspicion, which is enough to detain someone for a while, and if he was acting suspiciously, or it was in a bad area, that's enough for probable cause. It's the logical conclusion that the OP, who isn't claiming innocence, had done something to warrant the officer asking to search, and that the officer wasn't looking for a good way to lose his job when he arrested him.

I completely agree with cheesesoda and darkon.
Mobius8 I can see where your coming from on the topic.But its naive to believe that all cops follow the law themselves!I've read all your comments and you continuously write like the OP had something to hide. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. You all are fighting for two different views,for the cop,for the OP. I wish you wouldn't talk about how selfish us Americans are because,what ?... There are some of us who want to KEEP our rights. The truth is, the more you let the government control the more they want to. NONE of the other comments EVER said we were ungrateful for the freedom we have, But some of us like to keep it that way,You can look at that two different ways as well, "Well why shouldnt i let the cop search me I have nothing to hide"-That would be a waste of our past generations time,that they spent fighting for these rights!You have that right and just like that give it up.
OR "I am not just going to let some cop rummage through my things on the off chance that he might find something"-That would be using MY right, that I am grateful for having. Two different two kinds of people. I can say that people that just let the law and enforcers of it,walk all over them, HAVE NEVER CHANGED THE WORLD FOR ANY GOOD!

"When a person refuses a search, it is legal to arrest them."

not without a warrent. ^so false

@Mobius Please don't waste any more of our time.

Anyway, I agree completely with the posters who say this is an invasion of our freedoms. Police can get away with anything in our society, and need to learn the LIMITS of their role. Most cops aren't the "noble" stereotype we all grew up with anymore - they're people who like having power, and it just takes a nudge to turn them into oppressive bullies. Think about it. When was the last time a cop helped you? Some people out there are thankful, but all I've ever gotten are speeding tickets.

Wrong. They do not need consent if there is probable cause. If there is nothing in plain sight, earshot, or within range of the officers' nostrils, you can say no. If they try to tell you that means you have something to hide, you just stick to your guns. If you truly have nothing to hide and can hold you own in an argument you'll be back on your way in minutes and the officer will have wasted his faggot time.

@Mobius: Although I appreciate your well-worded arguments, you are incorrect. A police officer cannot lawfully arrest an individual SOLELY based on the fact that he or she refused to consent to a search. If the police officer had reasonable suspicion (i.e. smelling weed from the car/house, something clearly visble and dangerous inside the car or premises or on the body of the person) to search the car, house, body, etc. then they wouldn't need consent in the first place.

It works like this:

Probable cause => They get to search without consent
Suspicion or a "funny feeling" => To have to obtain consent

If the person says no, they have to respect that answer and move on. They CANNOT arrest you for refusing to consent to a search. You may think that is crazy, but the fourth amendment is one of many that are made to protect the "defendant," so to speak.

If the officer could arrest a person for refusing to consent to a search, why would we need a fourth amendment? It would be obsolete. In that case, your choices would be, a) allow a police officer to search your property/body even though they don't have enough probable cause to do so without your consent, or b) go to jail. In that case, you'd be FORCED to let them to engage in a search that the would otherwise not be legally allowed to or otherwise go to jail. The law does not work like that, thank goodness. I don't understand why anyone would want it to work that way. We (personifying our Constitution) believe in innocent until proven guilty; whether or not you believe in it is irrelevant.

Bottom line: if they don't have enough probable cause to conduct a search without requiring your consent, then they cannot arrest you for refusing consent.

No, no it doesn't. Read the 4th amendment. You have every right to refuse a search, and they can't search you without either a warrant or "probable cause" ie. a drug dog indicates drugs. If the cop didn't have that he has no right to search the vehicle.

Mobius- You are incorrect, on all counts. I'm a cop, and also have a Master's in Criminal Justice Admin. If a citizen does NOT consent to a search of privately owned property ( a home, boat, motor home, trailer, business, or VEHICLE), the police officer may bring in a trained Canine Officer (that would be the drug sniffing dog) to smell the OUTSIDE perimeter of the property. IF, and only IF, the Canine alerts that there is the presence of contraband in the property (or that there was recently contraband in property) does the officer have probable cause to search the property, because he NOW has the prerequisite "probable cause." If the owner of the property still refuses the search of his property, then said property can be guarded, impounded, or seized until a Search Warrant signed by a judge is issued. If, and ONLY if, the subject resists the search once the search warrant is legally obtained, he can be detained by police for obstruction of justice.
The US Constitution states in the 5th Amendment that no person shall be called to testify against themselves. This gives every person in the United States the right to say "No, you cannot search my property without probable cause" and "I want an attorney present." Nowhere in Federal, State, County or Municipal penal code or ordinance does it state that a private citizen can be arrested for refusing to give permission to a police officer to search their private property. If such a law or code did exist, rest assured the ACLU would be ALL over it.

And By the way, Americans do NOT sign away their rights to privacy in their vehicles when they get their Driver's License... This should be self-evident, as the police are required to ASK the owner/driver of vehicle's permission to search the vehicle before actually searching it.


You're a Dumbass.

Just thought it would be relevant to actually have the amendment somewhere in this long-ass discussion:

"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."

There is also a right specified in the 5th amendment that says one cannot be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". This also applied to be detained by a police officer without probably cause.

So no, you cannot be arrested just for refusing a search (unless probable cause already existed, in which case it has to be articulated at the hearing, and can be argued back). This would render the two amendments moot, as once you are arrested a cop is allowed to search anything in proximity to you at the time of arrest.

(I am not a lawyer.)

Mobius -- I've been searched multiple times while driving. I've been on both the correct side of the law and on the wrong side of the law. In the latter case, I was detained (not arrested) while my car was searched after I gave consent. In the former case, I refused consent and was told that my car smelled like marijuana, so the search was performed anyway. When the searching officer found nothing in the car, he proceeded to search the engine of my vehicle, causing several hundred dollars in damages. Nothing was found because there was nothing to find. I just fit the profile of a probable criminal.

That said, it is well within one's right to refuse consent to a search. Under the 4th Amendment, you cannot be searched without a warrant or probable cause. Giving consent means that you are giving up that right and giving permission to the state to be searched. If employing that right meant that you would be arrested (meaning you would be charged with a crime), then that right would be worthless.

Now, refusing consent to a search is different than refusing to comply with an officer who is performing a lawful searched based on probable cause or a warrant. That is, if an officer says, "it smells like weed in here, I am searching your car" and you refuse to let him search ("screw you, budday! I'm outta here!"), then he has every right to cuff you while he performs the search (for his own safety), and possibly arrest you for refusing a lawful order. If you say, "I refuse to consent to a search but will comply with any lawful order or action", you're probably in the clear (again, not a lawyer).

What is confusing to me about the OP is that he was cuffed after refusing consent. An officer will not ask for your consent to search if he doesn't need it. If he asked, it suggests he didn't have probable cause to search. What the OP leaves out is whether he was arrested (charged with a crime) or merely cuffed while being detained during a search.

40, before you claim to know our laws better than we do, try ACTUALLY BEING CORRECT ABOUT WHAT THE LAW STATES. Novel concept, I know. Try to restrain your hubris.
For the record: it is NOT procedure to arrest people who refuse searches, or who "are suspicious." It is not even legal to do so. What a law-abiding police officer would do is get a search warrant, and arrest them if and only if something illegal is found, or if the suspect becomes belligerent in their interactions with the officer and breaks a law. As several other people have pointed out, however, people do not know their rights, which enables the police to use scare tactics to carry out illegal searches without repercussions.
So, to those of you who clearly do not know anything about our laws regarding illegal searches: unless the OP broke some law that was not referenced in this post, the officer was completely out of line and the arrest was completely illegal. OP, I hope you report him. Standing up for your rights is, if anything, patriotic...please don't try to tell me it is more patriotic to enable those who break the laws to continue doing so by not standing up for them, than to stand up for the Bill of Rights. I promise you, our Founding Fathers would not agree with you.

I created this account just because I want everyone to know that Mobius is an idiot who apparently has no life and spends the ENTIRE Sunday on FML (Christ on a pogostick), looking for an argument.

Look idiot, a cop illegally searches my car and my lawyer will have anything 'illegal' that is found thrown so far out of court your mother wouldn't be able to find it.

Detain me illegally and my lawyer will see that I end up owning that pig's house, car, and garnish their wages for the next century.

HA HA!!

Mobius, you are an idiot.

Will you just piss the hell off? The man's trying to make people laugh, you come up with your own, I'm sure you could with your sad pathetic life. You don't even need to make shit up!

P.S If you reply to this I'll probably start a potition counting how many people hate you.

:) Have a terrible day!

My last comment was to Mobius.

@ mobius8sucksdick: I think you're the real loser here for creating an account just to slag off another user. If you think you have a social life, you're fooling yourself.

Yeah, alright, mobius8 was wrong about what the law actually is. I am annoyed that he argued for so long about laws he had no clue about, but unlike most of the people here, I am not going to gang up on him because I have moved on from pre-school. That argument was such a waste of time.

On another subject, I used to want to live in America, until I found all the shit that's in the constitution. I mean, the right to not be searched is really an essential part of our freedom isn't it? Let's all moan about a right we don't really need (because there's no such thing as "enough freedom") and make it much way harder for the cops to catch criminals. And of course, all households need a gun to defend the country if it gets invaded? Forget nuclear weapons- millions of US farmers with shotguns are the real deterrent. Forget about all the violence and deaths it causes- gun ownership is the solution to everything -_-

Well, it's not like my opinion matters- I just like to rant. A lot.

@tennis21: What are you, 8? A petition to see how many people hate someone? Grow up

(it's a petition, not a potition- learn to proofread dumbass)

You're wrong. Cops need consent to search anything unless they have probable cause.

How do you know he wasn't searched? Since when does not consenting give an officer the right to arrest you. In America you have to be charged with a crime or at least demonstrate an immediate threat to be arrested by the police. Refusing a search is not a crime and for at least two good reasons. One reason is that there are in fact many legitimate reasons for a person who has nothing to hide to want to refuse a search. The second is that we don't want our police to have too much power. I don't know what "American" laws you've been reading/dreaming up, but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Oh you are so right divineinstrument, I have no social life. Actually I have a great social life, make a very nice living and absolutely HATE stupid liberal losers like mobius8 who think that they can spit on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights with impunity.

While having no life, I did a little digging on public domain records. The problem with people like mobius8 is that they are so simple and narrow minded they use the same moniker for everything.

From what I have found using simple public searches

mobius8, aka John La****, wannabe musician who uses some stupid device called a 'Hydra" to produce his so called "music". Has an IMBD profile with only one lousy song published in 1996. John has a myspace page, a facebook page, resides in Van Nuys, CA has a lame ass youtube account with some really crappy videos, etc. (and that's only in 24 hours on the internet without paying for ANY public record searches)

So yes, I am a loser with no social life, but an IQ of 190 and one hell of a temper when pissed off.

lmao, #5.

since when is politely refusing a search "giving him a hard time"?

*high five*

LOL

That is because when anyone uses the word terrorist a majority of the people in the U.S. go into good little German mode and support/believe everything the government says/does.

Are you racist against Germans or something?

is it not possible that the types of people who come to a site like FML are the same types of people who WOULD get upset over guantanamo bay? i've never liked that place and i'm glad it's being shut down.

And what otaku? You don't make a majority.

well the majority of AMERICANS don't post here, do they? that's no reason to believe that a majority of FMLers are fine with gitmo.

82 - It's fair to assume the statistics would be similar. What reason do you have for thinking they would differ largely?

because different sites draw different interests. you're not gonna see a lot of constitution-quoting liberals on republicanclub.com and you're not gonna see many gitmo-backing conservatives on a site based on the phrase "fuck my life" that is rife with stories of sex and debauchery.

This isn't a political site though... And most of the responses to FMLs about sex are incredibly conservative.

your gay

@mobius8 Actually no I am not racist against Germans it is an actual phrase that loosely means a person that blindly follows what an authority figures tells them.

An actual racist phrase maybe.

detainees in Guantanamo are not U.S. citizens, therefore lack the Constitutional protections guaranteed to this country's citizens

It's not stupid, it's the protection of our rights. I'm not saying a cop should let a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest go because he refused the search, but if there's no probable cause to assume he has a bomb strapped to his chest, yes, the police should let him go. They're called checks and balances. Sure, it may let a few criminals slip through the cracks, but it preserves liberty as a whole.

I don't have anything to hide, but I sure as Hell do have a lot to protect... my liberties. Just because I'm not doing anything wrong doesn't mean I shouldn't be entitled to my privacy.

Refusal to consent to a search is not grounds for probable cause.

you're right, civil liberties are for losers.

It has nothing to do with civil liberties. At that time, he had no protection against search and seizure. The officer clearly had probably cause to arrest/detain the subject, and for the officer's safety, the arrestee can be searched. Deal with it or move to Canada where they have basically the same rules. Hmm... move to... wait... America actually has very lenient law enforcement compared to the rest of the world. Maybe you better stay here.

Yes, authorities NEVER abuse power, so CLEARLY the cop acted within his rights. Perhaps he did in reality, but the way the FML paints the picture, the cop restrained the OP without probable cause. Refusing to consent to a search is not probable cause.

The cop acted within his rights regardless of whether or not the OP was suspicious. Of course the OP wouldn't paint the picture as to him doing anything illegal or suspicious, or he wouldn't have been able to have it on FML. I think it's a lot more telling that he gave no more of the story than what he did.

it has everything to do with civil liberties, especially when you refer to the OP as "an ACLU hippie." i love how people act like the ACLU is a bunch of tree-fuckers when all they're doing is standing up for YOUR individual rights.

Okay mobius for the most part I've agree with everything you say. BUT the cop was NOT within his rights regardless of whether or not the OP was suspicious. Suspicious is not probable cause, smelling drugs/alcohol or being able to see something illegal through the window of the car is the only probable cause there is. There are certain traffic violations that constitute immediately arrestable offenses as well but those are rare. There must be probable cause as demonstrated in the examples above. So "regardless of whether or not OP was suspicious" is a ridiculous argument for saying the cop was right because probable cause is the ONLY thing that matters and probable cause is NOT the cop thinking maybe he looks suspicious. Like I said, probable cause has its limits and there is a chance the cop overstepped his boundaries. There's also a chance the cop pulled OP over and smelled weed or alcohol in the car in which case he did have probable cause. We can NOT judge this by a vague FML post. That's why there are judges and lawyers who spend years studying the law. Because they are complicated and sometimes hard to understand.

138 - No where does the OP say he was in a car.

If he refuses a search, the officer can then legally arrest him. If it was found later he had walked up to someone random person on the street and asked to search them for no reason, he would probably be reprimanded, and it would be immoral, and the person released immediately. But the arrest would still be legal. Not appropriate, but it would be legal.

That's not really my main point though. My point though, it would be very unlikely that this happened without probable cause, and the OP isn't even claiming there was no probable cause.

Okay, the burden of proof is on you now. I've tried to beat it into your head that without probable cause, the cop cannot detain the person. You continually suggest otherwise. Prove it. Link me to ANY state's law (and if you're feeling frisky, federal law) that states a cop can detain someone for refusing to consent.

Under the suspicion of drunken driving, a cop can detain someone who refuses a breathalyzer test, but a cop cannot detain someone for refusing to consent to a search.

158 -Firstly, you just admitted above that the cop probably did have probable cause and the OP didn't even say the cop didn't.

Secondly, you can say they can't without probable cause all you want. Asides from it being entirely irrelevant to this FML and original argument, legally, they can.

You just keep changing what you're trying to argue with when you can't prove your point.

"Firstly, you just admitted above that the cop probably did have probable cause and the OP didn't even say the cop didn't."

Yes, but "probably" is not a guarantee, nor is it in the story to make such a claim.

"Secondly, you can say they can't without probable cause all you want. Asides from it being entirely irrelevant to this FML and original argument, legally, they can."

Again, prove it. The burden of proof ison you. If you want to suggest that it's legal for a cop to detain you without attempting to obtain a warrant (which you need probably cause to obtain), you need to show us that law.

"You just keep changing what you're trying to argue with when you can't prove your point."

I have yet to change my argument. If there's no probable cause, there's no legal way to detain the person.

And "entirely improbable" isn't a guarantee either... shockingly enough...

It is legal to arrest someone without a warrant. It is so mind blowingly fucking retarded that you think otherwise I am almost lost for words. I've given you three examples now of why that is. Put it into fucking google if you want "proof" of your laws which you seem completely unable to comprehend. Or, here's a novel idea. Go look in your library. I don't think linking some random webpage is proof of anything. If I really wanted, I would take the time it took me to make this post, I could make my own webpage, copy paste someone elses bullshit webpage, change the words I wanted, and link it to you as what you apparently consider "solid proof". So sad the ignorance the internet builds in some people.

Let's see mobius, so far you have told people to shut the hell up, called people fucking losers, used a heck of a lot of profanity and refuse to listen to any valid rebuttals except to hedge and change the subject.

Are you a narcissist, I already know that you are an extreme liberal and a loser.

That is the kind of dangerous bs that causes people to give up rights (like in the Patriot Act.) This though is worse... you have the right to not consent, even if you aren't hiding anything. There are plenty of cases where police have planted stuff in someone's car so that they hit quota. You have a right to deny consent, and exercising that right is a matter of public security too.

You are wrong. Law enforcement quotas do not exist. And also, if the officer has probable cause to arrest the individual, they already get to search their person whether they consent or not. It should also be noted that being placed in handcuffs DOES NOT mean you are being arrested, it can simply mean you are being detained. As for the Patriot Act, I would like you to explain to me how the implementation of the Patriot Act has personally effected your freedom to live and breathe as an American citizen how you see fit. I can answer that for you... it hasn't. Unless you're a criminal or a terrorist. With you, I'd guess both are equally possible.

if quotas don't exist, why do i always see 10 times more cops driving around and pulling people over at the end of the month? as for the patriot act, it affects me if the government decides i'm a terrorist simply for writing letters or making phone calls to my cousin in iraq. and if i do anything to resist or even try to convince them i'm not a terrorist, i'm labeled an "enemy combatant" and tossed in gitmo to rot for years without ever being given a fair trial.

ah yes, harvey. because i believe in our constitutionally protected rights, i am a terrorist... you sound like you are from the MIAC, which declared libertarians "possible terrorists" because they actually believe the constitution is worth upholding. i am actually a very productive and successful citizen, and even though ive never even touched an illegal drug and i have nothing to hide, i would not consent to a search. the only way that would be for the "good" would be if i was a criminal. and even criminals have the right to refuse a warrantless search, plead the 5th (no self-incrimination.) refusing to consent to a search is an important right. whether or not they handcuff you is beside the point. the founding fathers guaranteed these rights for a reason

You're assuming just as much as we are. You're assuming the cop is being honest, and you assume he put himself in the position to be legally searched/restrained.

The majority of interaction with police has to deal with being pulled over. At least, this is the case from my experiences and those I know around me. This is why we're making the assumption he was in his car.

Honest about what? Refusing search is grounds for arrest. I'm assuming the officer had a reason because that's what his job is. What possible reason do you have for assuming he was acting illegally? Nothing.

It doesn't really matter if the majority of police interaction has to do with being pulled over, although I'd be interested in knowing where you got that statistic from. You still have idea where he was. Majority doesn't mean anything.

You're making up, based on absolutely nothing, that he was in his car(where, by the way, he could still be arrested fro refusing a search and the officer would be following correct procedure according to law) and the officer had no reason to be suspicious. Fucking retarded.

Defending my right is grounds for arrest? That may be a standard society has been setting, but it certainly isn't justifiable in a free society. Perhaps in a society where the people are lined up like cattle, I suppose.

I said from my experience. I never claimed this to be universal.

"It doesn't really matter if the majority of police interaction has to do with being pulled over, although I'd be interested in knowing where you got that statistic from."
uh, life? for the average person, the majority of police contact comes from being pulled over for some traffic violation or other. the average person does not have police kicking in the door of their home or office, or accosting them on the street, nor does the average person have to go to the station to report a crime. and when those things do happen, they most likely do not happen with more frequency than being pulled over for speeding or whatever.

You know, a lot of Americans don't drive. And even for the ones that do, it's entirely likely, depending on demographics and lifestyle, that they have more interactions with the police in other situations.

"I think I'm an average American and all other Americans are like me and live similar lives to me so what I've noticed most often makes this a solid statistical conclusion" doesn't really cut it.

Mobius, as an expat Brit in the USA, let me just add that you won't win this one. Once you use freedom,cop,mistreatment in a sentence,everyone is ready to lynch said cop without actually trying to face the possibility that the "victim" OP in this case may have done something stupid to warrant cuffs.
Given my bad driving record, I somehow have had a run in with most of the cops where I live. Some either don't have the time to pull me over like the one who pulled up alongside me in traffic and screamed at me to slow down( at 2am). If they had quotas as some idiot said,believe me at the speed I was going, he would've made $300 easy from the ticket but he didn't bother.

I ramble but mobius, you have to understand the word freedom is a flash word for these people. Some will tell you they're in Iraq to protect their freedom,others will say Gitmo is there to hold "terrorists" who want to destroy their freedom and yet most will say a cop searching you/your car/whatever belonging is taking away your freedom. They love to pull out that constitution yet most can't tell you how many articles,amendments or the exact wording in the document YET with no understanding of probable cause, they scream "PIG" at the police and want him fired.

I weep for the USA society because its complacency is breeding a generation of smug and arrogant ignoramuses

Duly noted hollywood. =)

Sorry. I'm female but my boyfriend may be interested :p he "swings both ways" so to speak

Mobius - refusing a search is not immediate grounds for arrest, at least not in Florida, where I was pulled over and requested by the officer several times to search the vehicle, which I denied each time. Neither I nor my brother were arrested. The officer asked if he could run his dog around the vehicle. Since I have no rights protecting against that, I told him to go ahead. He ran him twice. After 15 minutes of that and talking, we were free to go with a warning to slow down (was doing 80 in a 70).

But this is just me talking from actual experience. Have you ever refused a search when you were pulled over?

The OP is obviously not giving the whole story. The officer would not have arrested him unless the OP had committed a crime. He obviously had. Officers will often ask consent to search a person even though they have probable cause to arrest the individual, more as a courtesy to the arrestee to show in their report that the arrestee was being cooperative. However, once you are under arrest or detained, an officer can search you for weapons and contraband. That's why it is best to cooperate and not be an ass. Cops aren't going to take bullshit, they're trained not to, and it's important that they don't.

You're clearly a moron. Police officers do arrest people who have committed a crime and if you are too literal-minded to understand that I mean police officers arrest people for whom they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, then there is just no hope for you.

There's a huge difference between "The officer would not have arrested him unless the OP had committed a crime." and "The officer would not have arrested him unless he had probable cause to believe that the OP had committed a crime." That you meant the latter and wrote the former is in no way my fault. That you try to blame me for not being able to read your mind just cements your status as a moron.

No. There is not a huge difference. You are just splitting hairs and not adding anything to the argument at all. The general understanding of law enforcement, ask anyone, is that "they arrest criminals." Criminals are people who have committed crimes. An officer arrests people who have committed crimes is NOT an incorrect statement. However, it is up to the courts, to establish through a burden of proof, that a crime had indeed been committed.

if they arrest someone who is then acquitted, then they've arrested someone who has NOT committed a crime, haven't they?

So if an officer were to arrest you and throw you in prison without a trial because they thought they saw drugs in your car, even though it was something completely innocent, your protests that you did not actually break the law would be "just splitting hairs"?

Probable cause just means that the police have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed. That evidence can, and often is, wrong. Police arrest criminals, yes. They also frequently arrest people who have not committed any crime. This is not a slam against the police, it's just a fact of life. The reason we have courts and juries is because probable cause is NOT proof.

Not necessarily. They've arrested someone who has not met the burden of proof to convict the defendant of the crime.

therealmike: Yes, I do feel you were splitting hairs. Saying that the police arrest people who commit crimes is a pretty well accepted explanation of what police do. As for your second paragraph, you and I are in complete agreement.

Saying that police arrest people who commit crimes is a completely different statement than your original one, however. Yes, police arrest criminals. Not only is this popularly accepted (something I personally place no weight in) but it is true. However, police ALSO arrest non-criminals. This is simply due to the nature of the work, and again not a criticism. Your initial statement that they would not have arrested the OP unless he had committed a crime is therefore simply wrong. Police arrest innocent people all the time. It's then up to subsequent parts of the system to determine their innocence and let them go.

If the OP got arrested, it's not proof of criminality, simply proof of probable cause. Toss in corrupt police (and they do exist!) and it's not even that.

therealmike: while I understand what you are saying, and you are not incorrect, I still don't think I was incorrect to assume that the officer arrested the OP after he had committed a crime. I would have been more correct if I had said that they would not have arrested the OP unless they had probable cause to believe he had committed a crime. Now, when you factor in corrupt police, a tiny percentage, I suppose even that is incorrect. However, you can make exception after exception, and offer what-if after what-if, but it's not really productive. What if I'm dreaming right now and I'm just arguing with myself? What if you think you're a real person but in fact you're a crawfish? Like I said, just not productive to the argument. But I do understand where you are coming from.

That you compare the probability of the police arresting an innocent person to that of a crawfish dreaming he's a person is crazy. Police arrest innocent people all the time. Your assumption that he must be guilty if he got arrested is wrong, pure and simple.

I was more saying the "what if I'm a crawfish" to "what if the police were corrupt?" argument. But I can understand where you might have made that mistake. Like I said, we can throw what-ifs at the argument until we're blue in the face. What IF the police were corrupt and just didn't like his hairdo? What IF the police officer just witnessed him raping and executing a six-year-old girl? What IF he had just strangled six puppies with a telephone wire? What IF the actual perpetrator was his identical twin brother?

Right, so why make assumptions? All we know from the story is that he said "Officer, I do not consent to any searches" and that this caused him to be handcuffed. We don't know if he was arrested. We don't know if he committed any crimes. We don't know anything else. That you state without qualification that the OP "obviously" committed a crime means that you are making unwarranted assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

I guess the main problem with this is that there are no facts nor evidence. I'm still thinking it's quite possible that I am just a lonely crawfish in a remote mountain stream. If it means I can quite arguing, I will concede to you, but still maintain that the kid is a douche bag and I hope he was sodomized by the officer's 26" expandable baton.

Right, so you think that invoking your Constitutionally-granted rights justifies anal rape. Nice. I think that this discussion has demonstrated the quality of your character quite forcibly.

Yes, you're exactly right. I support police brutality. I would never dare to invoke sarcasm, it is the lowest form of humor.

And fine, I will continue playing your silly game. There is nothing in the FML to suggest that he was invoking his constitutional right. He may not have had right to refuse the search in the first place.

"I was more saying the "what if I'm a crawfish" to "what if the police were corrupt?" argument."
except one is ridiculous if not impossible, while the other is fact. some police ARE corrupt. that is a fact. that you would compare that statement to "what if i'm a crawfish just IMAGINING i'm human and on a website and all these people interacting with me are just figments of my tiny little crawfish imagination?" is insulting.

and EVERYONE has the right to refuse a search, even if they've got a bloody orphan's head in their hands.

SOME (a tiny percentage) police are corrupt. But, since you want to place such an emphasis on burden of proof, there is nothing in this FML to suggest the officer was corrupt and you must, by your reasoning, be incorrect. And NO, not everyone has the right to refuse a search. That is patently false. If the police have probable cause to arrest you, you have absolutely NO right to refuse a search.

No. You're wrong. I mean, I don't know how else to put it, you are just plain wrong. The funny thing is you are basically saying what I am saying, just unwilling to admit that you are incorrect. Saying that it "doesn't matter if you give consent or not, you're going to be searched anyway," means you have no right to refuse the search, so I don't really understand what your argument is. You have none. If the officer "has the right to disregard your non-consent" that means you had no right to refuse in the first place. Seriously, get a grip.

This "do you have the right?" stuff is a semantic argument that's not going anywhere.

The important question is this: what legal penalty is there for refusing?

The answer is quite simple. If the officer has no probable cause, then there is no penalty. Nothing happens. If the officer has probable cause, then he can detain (note: NOT arrest) you for a "reasonable" amount of time while he carries out the search. If the search turns up nothing, then nothing further happens, and you are free to go.

If the officer has probable cause, then there is essentially no difference as to whether you consent or not. If the officer has no probable cause, then he cannot do anything to you. Thus we can conclude that there is never a reason not to refuse consent. We can also conclude that if the officer discussed in the original post did not have probable cause, he was wrong in detaining the poster simply for refusing consent.

Ahhh the wonderful Objective Reasonableness and hindsight 20-20 which applies to more that UOF

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment.

You are just another liberal weenie who says, "Oh I wouldn't consent to a search, I'm a tough guy with a pony tail and a neck beard and I know my rights!" When in reality you would just bend over and let them search you or your car anyway. Knowing that you're a liberal weenie, the stench of dope coming from your car would be so overpowering that the officer would have probable cause to search your vehicle anyway and then take you to jail after they recover the pound of marijuana in your car.

What do we have here? Another one of your long and pointless comments supporting abuse of power without a second thought. You would probably suck a cop's dick if he asked you. Perhaps the OP had done something to warrant an arrest, we can't tell from this short anecdote. However from the information provided it is very possible that the police officer did overstep his boundaries. Refusal to consent to a search is not a crime, you said yourself that cops arrest those who commit crimes.

There was no information provided.

You're wrong.

Alright Harvey, how about instead of your "You're wrong" shit you properly explain with your apparently limited ability to form coherent thought a slightly cohesive reason why a poster is wrong. Five times, as I casually scrolled down this list of comment, I saw single sentences from you stating that the poster you are replying to is misinformed or otherwise incorrect.

That said, I believe the OP should have elaborated a bit more on the situation and that due to the omission of information it is fairly pointless to make an argument either way. Sure you can make an assumption based on accurate information, but statistics are, ultimately, useless as probability is merely an attempt to order chaos. Let us say I have a one in six chance of rolling a six on a fair sie. I roll a six every roll for a total of twelve times. This does not alter probability, it just makes my individual outcome unusual. There is no real way to predict an outcome, you can only grasp at straws and make an educated guess. To make the last few sentences relevant: There is a something out of something chance that a cop will not detain you with out due process. This has absolutely no effect on every individual situation, it merely coddles the reviewer by helping them find a form of order in a universe that tends toward random on the large scale.

Why refuse to be searched? Many reasons:

- You can't know the law 100%. Perhaps you are breaking the law and are unaware of it.

- You can't know your vehicle 100%. Perhaps there is something in it which you are unaware of. Maybe one of your friends dropped some dope under the seat, for example.

- You can't know the police officer 100%. Perhaps he's horribly corrupt, has it in for you, is planning to plant evidence against you, but for some reason (being monitored by the station?) will not go so far as to make an illegal search.

- The police may not be terribly gentle when searching. Technically you could sue for damages afterwards, which would involve a great deal of time, lawyer fees, and a fair probability of failure.

- Because you can, because it's your right, because it's your property. I don't let strangers into my house or my car just because they ask. Police get no special treatment in that respect.

I love you.

#103 ftw

"If I am not under arrest". He was. He wasn't allowed to go.

Just so you know, search warrants take time to get. I hope you'd be as understanding if it was a terrorist going into a public place your family was in, and the officer hurried off to get a search warrant, rather than following protocol and doing exactly what the officer in this FML did.

I'm not assuming everyone is a terrorist or drug smuggler. I'm assuming the police officer isn't a power tripping jerk who is breaking the law.

I'm pretty sure it's a more logical assumption to believe someone who hasn't even claimed they were innocent, like the OP, is guilty, than a police officer who is tested and and checked up on and paid to uphold the law.

he was only arrested BECAUSE he refused the search. i seriously doubt the OP would be coming here to complain if he knew he had done something to warrant being searched and arrested in the first place. he wouldn't have been SURPRISED by the officer arresting him if he had done something wrong. the officer wouldn't even need to request a search if he already had grounds to arrest him (such as contraband being in plain sight).

what, are you and harveywallbanger getting together with a bunch of mule accounts to bury all the comments that disagree with you? i find it rather suspicious that only the comments supporting the OP, including articulate and in-depth posts with citations, are being buried while you guys can go around calling people morons and your comments stay visible.

$10 says this comment gets buried too.

No otaku. I think the majority of people just think you're stupid. I guess you're just going to get cut and make yourself believe it's a conspiracy against you though.

In-depth posts with citations? Rofl. A copy paste of the fourth amendment, misread so disgustingly there will no doubt be founding fathers rolling in their graves? That's cute.

Misread? Search and/or seizure without probable cause/warrant/consent is being misread? It's pretty fucking clear-cut to me. My founding fathers had to deal with a tyrannical government and its pawns quelling the spirit of liberty (and imposing taxation without representation). To suggest they would agree with your idea that a cop (or in their case, a British officer) be able to hold a person because the cop has a suspicion? That's just stupid.

I've made it clear already that if there was probable cause, a warrant can be obtained and the person can be detained. Otherwise, it's Unconstitutional. It's just that simple. There's no misreading of the fourth amendment.

172- They weren't searched though..

Then you tried to apply the "unreasonable seizure of ... persons" part of the quote to it because he was arrested, as if was no reason. There was. He was refusing a search, and assuming (logically) that the cop was doing his job, that's entirely reasonable and standard. There's a lot worse things in the world, I know, but for some reason every time an American who clearly has no idea what they're talking about says "constitution" or "patriot act" I feel the bile rising in the back of my throat.

"Your" founding fathers would agree entirely that someone suspicious refusing a search should be arrested and in no way should be labeled a "tyrannical government" (although, there are many, many things America does today I'm sure they would consider tyrannical. Supporting illegals occupation and attempted genocide in Israel, torture of uncharged inmates, you know, all that "trivial" stuff that pales in comparison to someone being able to refuse to a search by police protecting the community).

"They weren't searched though.."

And that justifies being detained... how? If the cop didn't attempt to obtain a warrant, the person cannot be detained.

"Then you tried to apply the "unreasonable seizure of ... persons" part of the quote to it because he was arrested, as if was no reason. There was. He was refusing a search, and assuming (logically) that the cop was doing his job, that's entirely reasonable and standard. There's a lot worse things in the world, I know, but for some reason every time an American who clearly has no idea what they're talking about says "constitution" or "patriot act" I feel the bile rising in the back of my throat."

The refusal of a search is not probable cause. You cannot detain someone without a warrant or attempting to obtain a warrant. If the officer is trying to obtain a warrant, he can only hold the person until the warrant is denied, and if approved... then obviously longer.

"'Your' founding fathers would agree entirely that someone suspicious refusing a search should be arrested and in no way should be labeled a "tyrannical government" (although, there are many, many things America does today I'm sure they would consider tyrannical. Supporting illegals occupation and attempted genocide in Israel, torture of uncharged inmates, you know, all that "trivial" stuff that pales in comparison to someone being able to refuse to a search by police protecting the community)."

They would not have supported such a thing. They understood the abuses that government takes, so they made it required that there be probable cause. Suspicion is easy enough to fabricate. Probable cause is harder and the detainee would have a better chance at proving his innocence in being detained if he can prove no probable cause.

I take every political issue seriously. Give me an FML that deals with torture of uncharged inmates, attempted genocide, and anything else, I'll argue that, as well. Just because this may be a "lesser" issue does not mean it's not an important issue. All it takes is one domino to fall to send the rest tumbling with it.

Yes, refusal to a search can be seen as probable cause. Go look up the legal definition. The refusal of a search can absolutely be seen as probable cause. If there are no other contributing factors, when it goes before a magistrate the police officer can be reprimanded, but the re usually will be.

You don't even seem to understand what a warrant is. I very much doubt you have any idea what your founding fathers thought.

A search warrant means the police can search the house or car and collect evidence. Searching because of probable cause does not require a search warrant, and does not allow then to seize anything or collect evidence. They don't even need probably cause to arrest you techincally. They can detain you for a while just with reasonable suspicion.

No, refusing to consent to a search cannot be used as grounds for a search. That would render the rights guaranteed under the 4th and 5th amendments moot. When you plead the fifth during a criminal proceeding (refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it may incriminate you), your refusal to do so cannot be read as evidence of your guilt. So if someone asks, "did you murder Aaron Burr", and you plead the fifth, that cannot be used as evidence that you, in fact, murdered Aaron Burr. So, your refusal to consent to a search (essentially pleading the fifth) cannot be used as grounds to search you.

(I am not a lawyer.)

Mobius, again, you are proving that you are an idiot. It takes less than an hour to get a signed warrant. The ADA (That's assistant district attorney to you, illiterate loser) and the police have a list of judges they keep "on call" for just such situations.

#246 -Your talking about his Miranda Rights. Here it is strait from the little card that we are issued and must read from every single time otherwise it's our ass.

"I am (Insert rank and name ) an member of the (Insert Law Enforcement Agency) and I am investigating the alleged offenses of( insert what he/she's being charged with )of which you are suspected . I advise you that under the Article 31 of the UCMJ/ Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that you have the right to remain silent, that is to say NOTHING at all. Any statement that you make oral or written, may be used as evidence against you in a trial or in other judicial or administrative proceedings. You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have a lawyer present during this interview. You may obtain a civilian lawyer of your choosing and own expense. If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one one will be appointed for to you by civilian authorities before any questioning. You may request a lawyer at any time during this interview. If you decide to answer questions, you may stop the questioning at any time. Do you understand your rights? Do you wish for a lawyer (note: if the answer is yes then cease all questioning at this time) Are you willing to answer questions?" We also tell the that asking for a lawyer is not an admission of guilt, that it is for their protection.

Hell we just call our Magistrate direct line, any time of day- no waiting or anythig

um its probably an fml because he got arrested you idiot... cops are dicks in blue suits who over abuse there authority and people wonder why people hate cops personally im not a fan of the popo either but i cant judge every single cop to be the same... but the majority of them is dicks in blue suits

No, it means: "No officer, I don't want everything in my car spread across the side of the road while you hunt for something we both know isn't there. I don't have time to reassemble my car while you drive off looking for someone else to harass just so you have a nice entry on your daily report."

Actually, it means: "No officer, I don't want the contents of my vehicle spread across the side of the road. I don't want to have to reassemble my belongings (and replace the ones you destroyed) while you drive away in search of someone else to harass. I don't want to do this just so you can have a good entry on your daily report."

"Unreasonable" means searches without warrant, probable cause, or consent.

It's not Constitutional. You cannot detain someone without trying to obtain a warrant. You can't detain a warrant without probable cause. Therefore, you can't detain someone without probable cause. It's just that simple.

Yes, I can argue with that fact. Without probable cause, it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a cop still being capable of detaining the person. Also, it's even MORE ludicrous to suggest that the cop is capable of ARRESTING the individual without probable cause.

Yes, I admitted that there was likely a probable cause, but without the evidence, I will not assume guilt. I, unlike most, prefer to support the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."

@funsized4: in California, I believe you actually sign an agreement noting that if you refuse to comply with a breathalyzer test or other DUI test, you will be arrested. That's pretty standard even outside of California. You do not sign a waiver giving up your right to not be searched at any time, arbitrarily.

(I am not a lawyer. I am a licensed California driver, though. ;))

YDI for refusing the search. If you have nothing to hide, then let him search. If you had nothing to hide and you didn't let him search, then you're just being difficult. ALSO, a cop doesn't just ask to search your car out of nowhere. Usually if the cop asks to search your car, he has already found probable cause and is just trying to handle the situation without too much trouble, for example handcuffing the retard behind the wheel.

Legal precedent, e.g. Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long. Terry v. Ohio has set legal precedent that a policeman with proper articulate reason (not just "I don't like him" but more along the lines of "he is acting mightily weird") to search can indeed search. Michigan v. Long extrapolates that to count car compartments if the officer has reasonable suspicion, once again, not just "His face is ugly" but more along the lines of "I smelled weed", or "The guy was driving 200 mph through a school area"

It is not illegal, nor does it give probable cause, to refuse a search. And as for the response: "if you have nothing to hide, then let the officer search;" if I have nothing to hide, then I don't want to waste my time and the officer's time with an unnecessary search.

@domintenor, mobius is a childish brat who likes to hide behind the computer to spout inane crap that would get his ass beat or killed in the real world. Don't expect a response from this cowardly bitch.

Why don't you work to keep the Police Force free of abusive cops, instead of claiming we should simply got rid of any Police Force?
Look up Jimmy Justice on Youtube, unlike you and many other people, this guy is actually doing something. It may not be much and sometimes he does not do it well, but at least he's doing more than calling for murder on Police officers from his computer.

Also, if tax payers were willing to give more funds to the Police Department, they could afford to hire better people or train their officers better. Right now they pretty much take whoever volunteers to be a cop...
Not to mention, the job of a cop is very dangerous and if officers feel they are not paid as much as they deserve for taking risks, they will tend to abuse their authority in order to stay safe. I bet even Jesus could snap and taze a guy who is taking too long to get his license if he was paid so little to do it.
I'm not excusing authority abuse, I hate abusive cops as much as anyone else, I am only suggesting there is a solution to this problem.

But yeah, lets spend more on the military so they can waste $10'000 anti-tank missiles in Iraq, instead of using this money to keep ourselves safe from police abuse. Better have both Iraqis and us terrorized by armed trigger-happy individuals than keep ourselves safe and give the Iraqis a break, right?

If you're really the OP why are you on the name 'banana321' and not 'whatrights' are you just making up a story or something? Lol

If you really are the OP, your friend should have locked the door and rolled up the window when he got out. If the cop smells weed, he has the right to search your car.

yeah if i was the in the drivers seat there were a few things i would have done differently. i wasn't registered when i made the fml, i just made an account to reply. but hell, i got out with a clean record, a cool story, and a deepened resentment for the police and the way they dance around the constitution, although i wouldn't really call the latter (lattest?) a good thing

Yeah, these details are important. You didn't refuse a search on your property with no probable cause. You were smoking illegal drugs in public, then tried to refuse a search for another person's car when the officer clearly had probable cause.

You're extremely lucky that you got off with just a temporary handcuffing and the loss of your drugs and paraphernalia. You could easily still be in jail if the officer had felt like it, headed for a court date where you would doubtless be found guilty.

yeah i'm lucky i got off with just that, but i kind of think he didn't have probable cause, there was nothing in view and he tried (and succeeded) to intimidate my friend into giving him the right to search the car. and i feel like if he had probable cause, he would have just done it and not needed to beg for permission. and i doubt it would ever end in jail, since i live in california and the only punishment for possession is a ticket, and i wasn't being terribly difficult. but who knows, maybe i could have been a (kind of) martyr for the cause of ridiculous uses of taxpayer resources haha

he obviously smelled it on you, hence the only reason why you might be "unlucky" is because you were pulled over and asked to be searched after smoking illegal drugs. He had probable cause to believe that you had drugs in the car (that you smelled of it) hence, this is not a violation of the fourth amendment, and you're retarded.

i never claimed he violated the fourth amendment, i was just annoyed at how resentful he was of the fact that i knew my rights (needlessly handcuffing me, a move that was obviously much more to scare me than for his protection, we were in a semi well-off san diego suburb by the beach and had no signs of any violent tendencies).

when he searched the car, my friend (who owns the car) had given him permission, after he had asked several times in a very intimidating way. but as far as i know, there's no law against police officers intimidating you into giving up your rights, so there weren't any constitutional infringements as far as i know, although he was dancing around the line quite a bit.

@226, this is totally false. An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime or contraband to search a person. Our constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. If refused consent gives reasonable suspicion to search, then cops could search anywhere as long as they asked.

The judicial system interprets and applies the law. Cops do not.

@226: if refusing a search meant that there was probable cause to go ahead and search, that would render refusing searches useless.

I refuse to take legal advice from someone that doesn't know the difference between "allowed" and "aloud."

But I sure am glad to know I can come to FML if I run into legal problems!!!

Refusing a search is not probably cause. Why don't you go live in North Vietnam or China? They enjoy having their houses turned upside-down for no reason.

If an officer has probable cause, he is highly unlikely to ask for your permission to search. That would send up big red flags that he doesn't actually have probable cause, and whatever was found during the search could be tossed out of court if the search were determined to have been less than legal. Thus, cops' time wasted, criminal goes free.

(I am not a lawyer.)

If they have permission, then anything they find is admissible. If they don't get permission then the rules become much more complicated.

By withholding permission you have tagged yourself as either dickhead out to waste his time and/or guilty of something if they keep looking hard enough.

True. I should clarify to say that if they asked permission, did not get it, and then said they had probable cause to search, I would suspect that, by having asked for permission, it suggests that they did not, in fact, have probable cause to search. THEN anything recovered in a search could be thrown out. (Again, I am not a lawyer.)

The way I see it is that I don't want to waste my time, or their time, so I'm going to decline a search. If there is reason to believe I've done something wrong, then they can search and bust me because I'm a Bad Guy. If they've got no real reason to believe I've done something wrong, then I'm not going to waste their time. Furthermore, until they have some good reason to search me, I'll treat them as if they're just another person (not a police officer) asking to search through my things (but a bit more politely than if they were just your average joe :)).

There is reasonable suspicion to detain, and then there is probable cause to arrest and/or search. These things are separate. If there was only reasonable suspicion enough to detain, the officer may have asked for consent to search, and having not received it, decided to detain the OP with handcuffs so he could safely continue his investigation.

There are two different standards here, one of which is incorrectly being applied to both situations.

I never said that refusing a search gives probably cause. It may, however, give the officer a reason to use the full extent of his lawful authority, which may include placing the detained individual in cuffs.

No, if they have probable case and reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed, then they can search in places consistent with the evidence they have so far. The rules are more loose outside your home than inside your home.

Okay, this FML has FAR too little info to make a judgment call. It doesn't provide the location or situation. This officer could have had a warrant to the person's house and just to be a dick, they blocked the doorway and resisted the search. Or, on the flip side of the coin, this could have been a random act by the officer just demanding a search and cuffing you without reason.

You are absolutely correct. It is a safety precaution as well as when we give them the "saw" and "left, right center, hold" searchs which are not fun at all.

Uh, no. You NEVER need a warrant to search a car. It's in the seven exceptions to the search warrant.

Cops are assholes? More like those cops are assholes. I've had experience with the police, and in all situations they have been very kind and respectful towards me and those accompanying me.

Not true, iTunes. Check the rules again. You never have to consent.

...reread the laws there, McCoy. Having a license means you automatically consent to any sobriety tests, not searches.

Seven exceptions to the search warrant--

- Plain View--cop can see something.
- Exigent Circumstances--fleeing felon, likely destruction of evidence, or serious danger to life
- Caretaker--you can take something to protect it
- Consent--duh.
- Incident to arrest--If they're getting arrested, you can search 'em.
- Inventory--Say if you're arresting someone, you can go into their car and put things in inventory for safekeeping. or something like that.
- MOTOR VEHICLE STOPS--they don't have to get a warrant because vehicles are so movable.

My guess is that the cop had to take him into investigative detention? Not totally certain, though. Not enough details.

err, addendum: I retract the YDI. Makes no sense when taken into context of the post.
This was an FYL because you simply chose to exercise your constitutional rights.