Recent Incident

[Cruisinferburgers]

I got stopped last month and searched by two policemen at the beach. I was wearing motorcycle gear. They said I looked suspicious. They were not looking for anyone and they did not think that I had done anything wrong. I went along with it and said nothing because I figured I would get rid of them sooner that way. I was not carrying anything illegal and was not intoxicated. Are they allowed to do this? Should I have just told them to go away or what?

[Cruzrat]

had you been wearing shorts and flip-flops, you would have blended in , but in "gear" hmmmm night be a terrorist :rolleyes: :D:D:D:D

Rat

[Cruisinferburgers]

Yeah, I hear that. There was another rider there and I was complaining to him. He said he couldn't believe it. He and his buddies had no problem. He was wearing just what you said.

[Custom85VT]

Are they allowed to do this?

Back in the 'good old days' when we at least had the illusion of freedom you might have been able to question this. Now the answer is yes they can do what ever they want. Stop you, search you, detain you, and impound your bike, anything. There are a whole host of little freedom misappropriation laws they can choose from to "justify" anything they do. All they need to do is say you were swerving, or they smelled something etc. and this warrants "probable cause". :eek:

[Cruisinferburgers]

Yeah, you are probably right. They were two very young policemen. They were real nervous at first. As the BS dragged on and on, they started enjoying themselves and that is when my cheerfulness started to unravel.

[PerrySB]

What state was this in? We are suppose to have reasonable cause to stop or detain someone. I know some officers abuse this at times but they are treading on thin ice in most states. As for searching you, first the need your permission unless they have caught you in the commission of a crime, or are arresting you for justifiable reasons. Did they indicate in what manner you were action suspicious? What were you doing to catch their attention? When I see one of our local Hells Angeles I just assume he is up to no good, but that doesn’t give me the right to stop him or detain and search him, and I don’t. Most cops have more to do than just decide to stop someone and shake them down, and that kind of thing just gives us all a bad name.

[pdksh]

Any officer of the law, in order to detain an individual must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the individual has, is, or is about to commit a crime in order to lawfully detain a citizen (aka Terry stop). Reference SCOTUS Terry v. Ohio (I believe).

In order to perform a search, LE need to have probable cause to search without your consent. Generally speaking, if the officer asks to search you and/or your possessions and/or vehicle, he/she does not likely have probable cause. By consenting, you are waiving your 4th Amendment rights and it is lawful for them to continue.

I have not been asked by an LEO if they could search my vehicle. However, if I am, my intent is to not consent. Not because I am doing anything wrong, but because a right not exercised is a right lost.

Having said that, LEO are in a position of authority. If they assert their authority unlawfully and aggressively, I will submit and deal with it in the courts.

Of course, when confronted with such circumstances, the way each citizen goes about resolving them is a decision they must make for themselves.

OP: The LEOs claiming you 'looked suspicious' does not constitute reasonable suspicion. However, because you consented to the search, it was not an unlawful search. On the other hand, it could be argued that the search was unlawful because the search occurred pursuant to what appears to be an unlawful detainment of your person. Without knowing all the facts of the scenario, it would be difficult to say.

There is much case law out there that I strongly encourage people to familiarize themselves with. A good place to start might be http://www.flexyourrights.com/.

[smcbride11]

You're right, it's a Terry Stop - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

It's possible that maybe you had your gloves inside a jacket pocket or something, and he saw the bulk and thought it might be a weapon. I wouldn't necessary expect him to tell you what looks suspicious - it's always simpler to be generic (partially because he doesn't look foolish when you pull your gloves out of a pocket and he just told you it was a gun).

Generically, though, you're within your rights to refuse search until he proffers a concrete reason.

[rocketsfall]

Any officer of the law, in order to detain an individual must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the individual has, is, or is about to commit a crime in order to lawfully detain a citizen (aka Terry stop). Reference SCOTUS Terry v. Ohio (I believe).

In order to perform a search, LE need to have probable cause to search without your consent. Generally speaking, if the officer asks to search you and/or your possessions and/or vehicle, he/she does not likely have probable cause. By consenting, you are waiving your 4th Amendment rights and it is lawful for them to continue.

I have not been asked by an LEO if they could search my vehicle. However, if I am, my intent is to not consent. Not because I am doing anything wrong, but because a right not exercised is a right lost.

Having said that, LEO are in a position of authority. If they assert their authority unlawfully and aggressively, I will submit and deal with it in the courts.

Of course, when confronted with such circumstances, the way each citizen goes about resolving them is a decision they must make for themselves.

OP: The LEOs claiming you 'looked suspicious' does not constitute reasonable suspicion. However, because you consented to the search, it was not an unlawful search. On the other hand, it could be argued that the search was unlawful because the search occurred pursuant to what appears to be an unlawful detainment of your person. Without knowing all the facts of the scenario, it would be difficult to say.

There is much case law out there that I strongly encourage people to familiarize themselves with. A good place to start might be http://www.flexyourrights.com/.

I've been out at a park at night with friends and the police came and said we had to leave (we weren't doing anything wrong, but the park has hours of operation that we were unaware of). Me and one of my friends came in our cars and after radioing everything in to the station the two cops asked if they could search our cars. At first we said yes, but then I decided, and my friend decided with me, to decline, to exercise our rights a bit. At this point they said sit down and get comfortable, we're calling a K9 unit to sniff around.

Long story short, we didn't have anything and they didn't get the K9 unit there anyway, it was like two in the morning and none were available. They let us go, finally, and we went on our merry way. But I'm curious - was that legal?

[Dodsfall]

Long story short, we didn't have anything and they didn't get the K9 unit there anyway, it was like two in the morning and none were available. They let us go, finally, and we went on our merry way. But I'm curious - was that legal?

Yes I believe that was legal. Technically you were in violation of being in the park after it was closed.

[pdksh]

I've been out at a park at night with friends and the police came and said we had to leave (we weren't doing anything wrong, but the park has hours of operation that we were unaware of). Me and one of my friends came in our cars and after radioing everything in to the station the two cops asked if they could search our cars. At first we said yes, but then I decided, and my friend decided with me, to decline, to exercise our rights a bit. At this point they said sit down and get comfortable, we're calling a K9 unit to sniff around.

Long story short, we didn't have anything and they didn't get the K9 unit there anyway, it was like two in the morning and none were available. They let us go, finally, and we went on our merry way. But I'm curious - was that legal?

IANAL...don't take this as legal advise. Without knowing all of the facts, I can't really begin to speculate. That said...

The park has operating hours. Were those hours posted somewhere around the park, more specifically, near the entrance? In some states, posted signs carry the weight of law, while in others, they do not. If it was posted in a state where signs carry the weight of law, then you were trespassing. Articulating reasonable suspicion that a crime (trespassing) has, is, or is about to be committed is simple in this scenerio. Therefore, LEOs have legal authority to detain.

They asked to search the vehicle. That's a red flag that they have not established probable cause that anything else was going on. If the LEOs had smelled alcohol or drugs, this would be probable cause enough to search the vehicle.

Again, not knowing all the facts, I can only speculate here. However, because you were only being detained, they wanted to bring the dog in order to obtain probable cause for a search. I'd bet that the consent and subsequent withdraw of consent, raised a red flag for them, but not having obtained probable cause and a dog not being available, they could not persue it any further.

Those are just my thoughts. I am not a lawyer, I am not a law maker, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...but given what I know, those are my thoughts. If anyone else has something to add or correct, please do.

[rocketsfall]

IANAL...don't take this as legal advise. Without knowing all of the facts, I can't really begin to speculate. That said...

The park has operating hours. Were those hours posted somewhere around the park, more specifically, near the entrance? In some states, posted signs carry the weight of law, while in others, they do not. If it was posted in a state where signs carry the weight of law, then you were trespassing. Articulating reasonable suspicion that a crime (trespassing) has, is, or is about to be committed is simple in this scenerio. Therefore, LEOs have legal authority to detain.

They asked to search the vehicle. That's a red flag that they have not established probable cause that anything else was going on. If the LEOs had smelled alcohol or drugs, this would be probable cause enough to search the vehicle.

Again, not knowing all the facts, I can only speculate here. However, because you were only being detained, they wanted to bring the dog in order to obtain probable cause for a search. I'd bet that the consent and subsequent withdraw of consent, raised a red flag for them, but not having obtained probable cause and a dog not being available, they could not persue it any further.

Those are just my thoughts. I am not a lawyer, I am not a law maker, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...but given what I know, those are my thoughts. If anyone else has something to add or correct, please do.

I appreciate your input, either way. I remember thinking after the fact, "Why didn't I just pull a 'am I under arrest or not' and leave?"

[Cruzrat]

Knowing your rights and HOW to exercise the is what everyone should know........I learned a lot the hard way in my rambunctious youth. I wish I had read this article years ago
http://www.policecrimes.com/police.html
it could have saved me lots of headaches.
Most deal with vehicle searches, but I never had a LEO ask to search me or my bike when riding.
Just remember .... IF ASKED! they don't have reason to search or they would without your permission.....so just so NO, POLITELY! and don't offer any information other than your name........remember your Miranda rights ....anything you say can and will be used against you.

Happy motoring

Rat

[bwilliamson08]

were you suspicious looking?

[2Wheels]

What if your a minor and get pulled over for a random search? Are you still aloud to say no?

[Goliath616]

2Wheels, click on the link Cruzrat put up, then click on the "Under 18 Click here" link.

[Schneiderman]

It's important to know your rights but it's important to respond appropriately to different situations also. That article is strongly biased against the character of police officers in general, it implies that police are jerks for the sake of being jerks. Yeah, some police are jerks but very often they are not, and only seem like it because they have a specific job to do and nobody likes being on the receiving end of justice.

By knowing my rights, but also by having plenty of respect and consideration, I have made every encounter of mine with the police a pleasant one. Such as the time I was stopped on the street for suspicion of dealing drugs, and the time I got caught speeding excessively (potentially license-losing speed, got off with a verbal warning and a friendly chat with the officer).

[Goliath616]

that is true (I didn't really read the page, I just saw the link for minors) I agree with everything Schneiderman said, take it one step at a time, and be polite. I have been stopped for speeding well over 200 times, I have only had 3 speeding tickets, and most of the stops were in a 4 year period (a few were for well over 100 mph in 35-45 mph zones) :)
but I was always polite and answered everything truthfully, the only time I ever said no to a search was when it wasn't my car that I was driving.

[PerrySB]

Goliath
You state that you were stopped for doing excess of a hundred miles an hour in a 35 to 45 zone and the officer just gave you a warning. To me that was one stupid cop, you were endangering anyone around you, yourself, and showed complete disregard for the law. Personally I would have arrested you and impounded your bike. That is the kind of stupid stunts that gives bikers a bad name and causes people like myself to clean up your body parts when you eventually kill yourself. If you continue to ride in that manner you will eventually kill yourself and be added to the stupid bikers statistics list.

[Goliath616]

not on a bike, in a 4x4 truck, rural road (sort of) and I was wearing my uniform at the time (I was working as an armed security officer and my boss was a retired cop, I got away with a LOT of stuff back then :D) I do not ride like that on a bike (hell I haven't even been over 80 on the highway) and now I drive a mini van when not on my bike

[PerrySB]

Look I know I came off strong, the impression I got from your post is that you were doing this on a bike. I don’t know about your state but if I drove my own vehicle like that I could very well get busted. It tears my guts our every time I need to deal with a fatality accident and especially with young people. The problem with driving anything at that speed is the possibility of hitting someone coming off a side road or street, or as we all know the unexpected. Many years ago I was responding to a call code 3 (lights and siren) and a car pulled right out in front of me, I hit it at over seventy five miles an hour. You know what after that accident I rethought the whole aspect of high speed driving.

[Goliath616]

oh I understand Perry, and I have no doubt that I was getting very lucky back when I did this stuff, one thing about it though is I never drove like this in traffic, only late at night with no one around, and not in neighborhoods. I have no problem with the way you stated your initial response, I don't like to see bikes do this either (except under controlled conditions, like at a track) and I have since then, slowed way way down and just putter around now (I drive a School Bus now, kinda hard to drive aggressive in that :D)

to clarify a little, when I said I don't like to see bikes do this, I also mean cars. I can see driving over the limit if your following the flow of traffic, but not the weaving in and out of lanes with other cars on the road.

and back when I was doing most of my speeding, I was in a 1979 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4 with 4.11 gears front and rear, I had a cop pull me over one night and ask if I knew how fast I was going, my answer was "Nope I sure don't, the speedometer stops at 95" but my RPM's were around 9000 (with a lightly built 350 and a mild cam) he told me he clocked me with the radar at 135 mph, when he saw my duty belt and my badge in the seat beside me, he asked who I worked for, when I told him, he just smiled a little, shook his head and told me to slow down and walked back to his car. I was more careful and kept it under 90 after that night ;)

[rexmitchell]

The thing with refusing a search is you are more than justified to say that, but then the cop will just detain you until he gets a k9 unit to show up, and who knows how long that will take, after that then he might let you go.

[pdksh]

The thing with refusing a search is you are more than justified to say that, but then the cop will just detain you until he gets a k9 unit to show up, and who knows how long that will take, after that then he might let you go.

I think that this scenario has a lot of grey area. I don't have any case law to cite whether or not such a detention is legal. About all you can do at that point is ask the officer "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?" because without reasonable suspicion, the detainment can only be brief. What constitutes brief in the eyes of the court? I don't know...

If anyone has any case law on this, I would certainly like to read it.

[Kid2Nite]

Did a ride last week to check out natures fireworks (foliage) in the white mountains. Beautiful!Anyway, going through the Kangamangus highway was painfully slow and once past the traffic we kinda opened up on the throttle. Sure enough, I got pulled over. The cop said he had me going 63 in a 35. NO WAY was I doing 63..............73 maybe:D

disclaimer: The speed limit was 65 and within a very short span went down to 35

As he was writing up my ticket, I spied a few short 2x2 pieces of wood in the road. I waited for the traffic to clear, walked out and kicked them off the road.
I saw the cop look up as I did this but didn't think much of it at the time. He came out of his cruiser and said he had a urge to be nice and that he was going to let me go.
I thanked him and then said: "have a nice day because you just made mine"
He laughed, got in his cruiser; pulled up next to me holding up the ticket all filled out and said: "This is what you were going to get.
Sometimes....life is good!
The days ride was 328 miles of beautiful color, sun, warm weather (once we got off the mountains) and good people
:)

[GI Jack]

Yeah, you are probably right. They were two very young policemen. They were real nervous at first. As the BS dragged on and on, they started enjoying themselves and that is when my cheerfulness started to unravel.

haha rookies. I had rookie cop come up to me on a bench 5 years ago, and hassle me about smoking a rollie(rolled tobacco cigarrette), cause they look like joints. Man was he nervous.

All the crap they teach 'em at cop school, makes 'em ansy. Also, you cops out there, tell your damn rookies to stop fingering their pistols everytime they see something slightly suspicious, like I don't notice it.

[LittleEddie]

I think that this scenario has a lot of grey area. I don't have any case law to cite whether or not such a detention is legal. About all you can do at that point is ask the officer "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?" because without reasonable suspicion, the detainment can only be brief. What constitutes brief in the eyes of the court? I don't know...

If anyone has any case law on this, I would certainly like to read it.


I can't remember which issue of the WA Law Enforcement Digest I read it in but a K-9 unit on the scene is reasonable but you can't be detained without arrest for any time longer then it would take to write an infraction. I believe that this was a US Supreme court ruling. If I remember correctly a search was deamed as unlawful when the party was detained for 45 min. to await the arrival of a K-9 unit.

[David 1]

My rights my rights. That to me is nuts. If you start arguing with a cop you will probably lose.
Supreme court. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO TAKE A CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT. You want to pay that?
I got nothing to hide. I'm not carrying any dope, no guns, no illegals in my trunk, I'm not drunk, or under the influence of drugs or anything else.
If the cops want to search any and everything I got they are quite welcome. The more open and friendly you are with cops the less suspicious they are with you and the less the 'hassle' you.
Now, if you are doing something wrong, then you got something to be real defensive about.
Freedom is not a device to allow somebody to do something wrong. Something they shouldn't be doing.
Case law and arguing with a cop will do you NO GOOD.
Just mind you manners and cooperate and you will be out of there much quicker.
dc

[eljefino]

This calling a K9 seems like a major mental trick by the cops. We civilians don't know if an attack dog is even trained for, say, drug sniffing. Best recourse after "am I free to go" is to say, "I have nothing to hide but do not consent to a search". Worst they can do is have the dog walk around the outside of the car... you'll find out if he's a certified drug dog if he "marks" per his training and they then search your stuff without your consent. Otherwise it's just an attack trained dog.

If the K9 crew (cop) is off duty there may be pressures to keep overtime down by the city and they'll cut you loose.

Also beware the double/triple negative "are you sure you're denying you don't want us to not search your car?", don't say "yes" just repeat "I do not allow a search".

[LittleEddie]

My rights my rights. That to me is nuts. If you start arguing with a cop you will probably lose.
Supreme court. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO TAKE A CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT. You want to pay that?


What I was saying was that the case has already been ruled on and is now law. They are held to the "reasonable time" standard when making a stop. If it goes beyond that without criminal charges then the stop is thrown out of court (even if it's just traffic court) because of the ruling.

And don't get me wrong, I would never suggest that you argue with the officer that stopped you. As it's been stated before, just politely state that you don't consent to a search.

[Goliath616]

if you have nothing to hide, why not just consent? I mean come on, it's only going to take a few min, they look under your seats, in the glove box, and the trunk, and if your on a bike, what are they going to look in? yeah, that's right, your saddle bags (if you have them) a tank bag (if you have one) and maybe pat you down. So again, if you have NOTHING to hide, why not consent.

[2Wheels]

if you have nothing to hide, why not just consent? I mean come on, it's only going to take a few min, they look under your seats, in the glove box, and the trunk, and if your on a bike, what are they going to look in? yeah, that's right, your saddle bags (if you have them) a tank bag (if you have one) and maybe pat you down. So again, if you have NOTHING to hide, why not consent.

That and out in public it just makes them look like jackasses for harrasing you for no reason.....If there was no reason for the search in the first place and if you've got nothing to hide.

But in the long run it'll save you alot of time to just listen.

[Goliath616]

even if they "think" they have a reason to search me, I will still consent, because I know without a doubt they will not find anything illegal on me, so if you have nothing to hide and say no to a search, your just setting yourself up for more harassment from the cops, don't think for a second that they will not tell every other cop they see about you.

[eljefino]

That and out in public it just makes them look like jackasses for harrasing you for no reason

I would imagine the 500+ cagers that drive by in those minutes you're "assuming the position" have tried and convicted you just by the context of your vehicular equipment.

[Ringo]

If you have the time, the inclination and you’re clean, never ever give a cop permission to search anything. Simply state in a calm, clear emotionless voice that he/she does not have probably cause, politely take pen and paper and ask for their name, rank and who their immediate supervisor is. I’ve never had any trouble with the law because I never give them a reason. Only once have I had to go the “No Sir I do not give my permission” rout, the cop spun on his heel and left. Although with the advent of the Patriot Act I think Probably Cause no longer applies.

[PerrySB]

I stopped a couple of young people one evening and thought I smelled pot in the car. Asked if I could search the car and the driver said no. I told him I was going to call in a K9 unit to confirm my suspicions, the driver then consented to a search. I didn’t find any drugs, however found some porn pictures in his glove compartment. That is why he didn’t want me to search his vehicle and I can fully understand why. Also had guy on a DUI stop that freaked out about being searched because he was wearing womans underwear, I mean bra, panties, and nylons. That ended up being one of the funniest stops I ever made. So as a cop I learned that there are reasonable reasons why someone wouldn’t want there car or person searched. I do respect a person’s right to privacy because either I live buy the law that I’m hired to enforce or I have no business in law enforcement. However it takes some of the younger guys some time to learn that.

[Dodsfall]

I wonder how often the "I thought I smelled pot" reason is given to go on a fishing expedition?

It scares me when I read that people are so willing to have their rights given away. These rights do have their purpose to protect us from tyrany and many people have given their lives over the years to protect them.

We should all cooperate with law enforcement doing their job in a legal manner because the majority of them are good people to work hard to help us be safe. However, know your rights and don't let anyone trample on them.

[PerrySB]

The idea that cops use bogus suspicions to justify a search is somewhat of a stretch. What most citizens do no realize is that the cop you meet on the street has supervisors and they are held accountable for their actions. I would say all departments have a division known as internal affairs and their purpose is to make sure officers are doing their jobs properly and that citizens rights are protected. Do abuses occur, sure they do but that is not the norm. Do cops do profiling, sure they do even though their not suppose to. In the perfect world everyone would play buy the rules and there would be no need for cops, however we have a ways to go to have a perfect world, and cops are imperfect people just like the rest of the world.

[Kickstand]

So as a cop I learned that there are reasonable reasons why someone wouldn’t want there car or person searched.

The only reasonable reason that matters is the Constitution of the United States. If you have ask permission to perform a search then you don't already have probable cause. Just based on principle I would never consent to a search. If you don't have probable cause and you don't have my permission to search, then I should be free to go.

--Kickstand

[Ringo]

The only reasonable reason that matters is the Constitution of the United States. If you have ask permission to perform a search then you don't already have probable cause. Just based on principle I would never consent to a search. If you don't have probable cause and you don't have my permission to search, then I should be free to go.

--Kickstand

Do I hear an Amen on that, Brothers and Sisters?

AMEN!

[GI Jack]

I wonder how often the "I thought I smelled pot" reason is given to go on a fishing expedition?

I wonder if I can go to a private eye, have a hair test done, and take the cop to court for harassment when its showed I haven't smoked weed in over 5 1/2 years.


It scares me when I read that people are so willing to have their rights given away. These rights do have their purpose to protect us from tyrany and many people have given their lives over the years to protect them.

We should all cooperate with law enforcement doing their job in a legal manner because the majority of them are good people to work hard to help us be safe. However, know your rights and don't let anyone trample on them.

exactly. the police are there to serve you, not the other way around. thats how a free country works. Just because today's society isn't a brutual authoritairn dictatorship doesn't mean its impossible for it to happen. The way to prevent it is to flex your rights at every oppertunity.

Its to politely refuse searches unless they have reasonable cause. I don't have anything to hide, but its an INSULT to me as a citizen of a proud and free country to have to submit to random searches without cause. Its a pretty big insult at that too. I have the RIGHT to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. To demand I give up this right is an insult.

[Zowwie]

hahah... You poor guys! I have had cruisers follow me for miles... Guess the tip of my pistol was sticking out my jacket when I was driving.

OPPS!!! Did you see the tip of my junk there officer???? hahaha

I try to keep my weapons hidden, but every once in awhile it gets a mind of it's own and pokes out.

Works great for keeping tailgaters off your arse though! LOL

Never been stopped.

[59caddy]

For what its worth

My mom works for the superior court in AZ.
she tells me stories alllll the time of what she sees and hears in the courtroom.
she has pounded into my head to NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER give consent to a search. she also said that they will trick you by the wording, where they will ask two questions and when you say yes they take it as the search question. Bottom line, dont ever consent. they may still search you and if for some reason you have something illegal you can usually get it dismissed since they didnt have permission to search.
but like i said, NEVER give consent.
also, if you ever feel harrassed or miss treated, you can ask for a supervisor and they HAVE to call one out.
that got me out of a bad situation once!!!!!