Can cops violate amendment rights?

[1lastGodsend]

Amendment four of the U.S. Constitution states.
"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."
Now if a cop pulls you over on a routine stop. & he asks to search your vehicle & you say No, is that not already probable cause for him? I personally put myself in the cops shoes. If I ask to search some ones car & they say no I can easily assume that he has anything & everything inside his car that he shouldn't have other wise why wouldn't he let me search the car. I think suspision is enough probable cause for a police officers to search your car. If you hesitate or refuse a search does that not make the officer question what you may be hiding? I personally think ylif you have nothing to hide at all a search should be no big deal to you. So does you refusing them to search your vehicle count as probable cause? Can a cop make assumptions on mere suspision? & is that enough probable cause to allow a search and violate your rights? Personally I think if you say no to a search the cop has the right to say whatever he wants as to what's in your car as he cannot prove you have nothing in your car unless you are willing to let him find nothing in your car through a search. You can't prove to him that you have nthing to hide any other way. The only way is to let him actually find nothing. Other wise in his eyes your hiding anything & in your eyes your not. One of thee persons has to be wrong therefor the search is the way to clear it all up.

Is probable cause enough to violate your rights? Does a cops suspision after you say no to a search count as probable cause?

 

[ANC]

The thing is many people have alot to hide, and all of it is totaly legal....

What needs to be established is if routine vehicular searches is part of the pull over routine, otherwise, you;d have to have been profiled...

 

[ViRedd]

Refusing to allow a search of your car is NOT an admission that you have something to hide. Nor is it at that point permissible for an officer to search your car. The officer may "suspect" that you have something to hide, but it remains nothing more than a suspicion at that point.

The courts have ruled that if after your refusal of a search, the officer calls in a K-9 unit and the dog sniffs around the car, then subsequently alerts the officer that something illegal is inside, say illegal drugs, explosives or a large amount of cash, reasonable cause has been established and the search is permitted and admissible in court ... even though a search warrant has not been issued by a judge.

If the officer asks to search the car, and you give permission, then you have waived your fourth amendment rights. This is the same as a DUI checkpoint. In advance of every DUI check point, a sign is placed in the roadway warning of a checkpoint ahead. If you proceed into the checkpoint, the courts have ruled that by passing the sign (constructive notice), you have given permission to the DUI investigation and any subsequent search that may ensue.

Government is very sneaky in getting you to waive your constitutional rights. Remember when you signed your tax return? Have you ever read what is printed under your signature regarding "under penalty of perjury?" By signing your tax return, you are waiving your rights under the 4th, 5th and 13th amendment.

And finally, every sovereign citizen should refuse random searches as a stand on principle. If the officer threatens to "get the dog," just say ... "Well, go get the dog." Most attempts at searches will end right there because the officer knows he's just on a fishing expedition. If he gets the dog and finds nothing, he'll probably say ... "Why didn't you just comply with my request to search and save yourself a lot of time?" Your response should be ... "This is not about time, officer ... this is about the rights of the individual and the avoidance of being compelled to comply with an illegal search by a jack-booted, fascist thug."

Vi

 

[1lastGodsend]

ViRedd I greatly appreciate your input & I respect your knowledge behind your response. Laws are sneaky & they do reword things to makes their own little lee way. I really still personally thnk suspision enough for the search because I can't help but to put myself in the officers search who is probably concerned about his safety. But it is very vaige how probable cause just is probable cause. There is no detailed instructions or explanations on what is reasonable acceptable probable cause. I am in no form encouraging a dispute with you. Just merely sharing a comment & a thought with you as you did with me. I appreciate your response.

 

[ViRedd]

"There is no detailed instructions or explanations on what is reasonable acceptable probable cause."

There is plenty of case law explaining what is reasonable and acceptable probable cause. For example, if you are pulled over because you have a tail light out, this is not probable cause for a search of your vehicle.

If, on the other hand, you are pulled over for a burnt out tail light and the officer smells marijuana smoke coming from your vehicle, then that odor is probable cause for a search.

Another example would be if you are pulled over for speeding. The speeding is in itself not probable cause for a search, but if the officer sees a handgun sitting on your seat, that is probable cause.

In both of these examples, the probable cause comes from the officer observing a crime being committed after the fact. If no crime is observed by the officer, then in order to search, the officer MUST go before a judge, describe the probable cause and the area to be searched. At that point, it is up to the judge's discretion to issue the warrant or not.

Most police officers rely upon the citizen's ignorance of their constitutional rights and just bluff their way into a warrantless search. Remember, if you give permission to search ... you have waived your rights under the Fourth Amendment and the officer is free to search at will.

Vi

 

[eric1589]

its not legal. but it doesnt have to be for a cop to do and you to get in trouble.
you may be able to get a decision over turned later on... but that will months or maybe even years away and cost you lots in legal fees and already served jail time. all of which you will not get back.

ever heard the phrase,, "sometimes its better to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission"
some cops make that their motto.

 

[1lastGodsend]

What I have confused is the whole order of things. The officer cannot engage in a search or even question you for a search untill probable cause is obvious. So therefore after he questions you & asks for a search & you say no that cannot be used as a reason to search. The reason, the probable cause, the whole spark to ignite the flame of the search has to be presented & observed before the officer can even think about searching your car. Totally undestood.
I was looking at it after the he asks you to search.
So let's say he forces himself to search your car & you have said no several times what should you do to make sure that officer is held responsible to any justice to the fact that he violated your rights?

 

[1lastGodsend]

What I have confused is the whole order of things. The officer cannot engage in a search or even question you for a search untill probable cause is obvious. So therefore after he questions you & asks for a search & you say no that cannot be used as a reason to search. The reason, the probable cause, the whole spark to ignite the flame of the search has to be presented & observed before the officer can even think about searching your car. Totally undestood.
I was looking at it after the he asks you to search.
So let's say he forces himself to search your car & you have said no several times what should you do to make sure that officer is held responsible to any justice to the fact that he violated your rights?

 

[max420thc]

all of this reminds me of a old buddy of mine..he was retried army 8 years of it in the SF ..three of those years in vietnam.
one year was 66 through 68...i was a cavalry scout seems he had alot of respect for that.and i have alot of respect for him.the man is a true warrior and patriot.like all of our special forces..the government is scared of these guys..for good reason.
we used to discuss the best most efficient methods of murder/killing.
he used to tell me how to kill a cop .cops are easy to kill..just wait for him to walk up to the car and ask for your license you hand him a license with one hand and blow his brains out with a pistol with the other.
of course in a stolen car. then ditching the car .
another method is the old tried and true mtor cycle shot gun method..ride up to target with passenger who has shot gun .blow the taget in two and ride out fast..everyone is wearing helmets .LOL..this guy was fucking great.very clever man.
all of the training our current troops recieve was developed by this man and a few other men like him.
believe me when i tell you our special operators are very fucking dangerous men...and all of our combat troops are deadly dangerous..
even though you libtards like to think soldiers are all dolts . on the battle field only the strong and smart survive.
fools die.
not only are these men dangerous and very well trained.they love thier country and constitution...
this is bad news for a unconstitutional government.

 

[NorthwestBuds]

Unsubscribed.

 

[ilkhan]

So let's say he forces himself to search your car & you have said no several times what should you do to make sure that officer is held responsible to any justice to the fact that he violated your rights?

First, keep shit you don't want a cop seeing out of sight.

Second, there is no reason not to be civil, be polite and relax.

Third, Tell him "I do not consent to any searches"

Forth, determine if you can leave or if your being detained.

Fifth, Do Not Answer Questions without Your Attorney Present

Lastly, Do Not Physically Resist.

Here is a good you tube video on the subject the first bit is about car searches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=channel

 

[Johnnyorganic]

So let's say he forces himself to search your car & you have said no several times what should you do to make sure that officer is held responsible to any justice to the fact that he violated your rights?

First, keep shit you don't want a cop seeing out of sight.

Second, there is no reason not to be civil, be polite and relax.

Third, Tell him "I do not consent to any searches"

Forth, determine if you can leave or if your being detained.

Fifth, Do Not Answer Questions without Your Attorney Present

Lastly, Do Not Physically Resist.

Here is a good you tube video on the subject the first bit is about car searches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=channel

Absolutely correct.

If a copper searches your vehicle after you have refused to consent, anything he finds is tainted - inadmissible in court. Coppers know this and will try to weasel you into consenting to a search. "You must be hiding something."

At this point, I would be hard pressed to not respond with a smart-assed reply like, 'Just my copy of the Bill of Rights, Deputy Fife.'

Politely re-assert your rights and ask if you are free to go. If you are not free to go, assume you are under arrest. Ask for an attorney immediately and make it clear you have nothing further to say.

If the copper responds that you are not under arrest so you do not need an attorney, repeat the question, "Am I free to go?"

If you are not under arrest, a copper cannot legally hold you so get the fuck out of there ASAP.

Never trust a cop. I repeat with emphasis: NEVER trust a cop.

 

[docd187]

Absolutely correct.

If a copper searches your vehicle after you have refused to consent, anything he finds is tainted - inadmissible in court. Coppers know this and will try to weasel you into consenting to a search. "You must be hiding something."

At this point, I would be hard pressed to not respond with a smart-assed reply like, 'Just my copy of the Bill of Rights, Deputy Fife.'

Politely re-assert your rights and ask if you are free to go. If you are not free to go, assume you are under arrest. Ask for an attorney immediately and make it clear you have nothing further to say.

If the copper responds that you are not under arrest so you do not need an attorney, repeat the question, "Am I free to go?"

If you are not under arrest, a copper cannot legally hold you so get the fuck out of there ASAP.

Never trust a cop. I repeat with emphasis: NEVER trust a cop.

im not disagreeing with you or anything but what if the copper searches your car against your repeated attempts to tell him he cant. then when you go court he swears under oath that you gave him permission. its your word against a copper's and whose a jury or judge gonna believe?

 

[Parker]

im not disagreeing with you or anything but what if the copper searches your car against your repeated attempts to tell him he cant. then when you go court he swears under oath that you gave him permission. its your word against a copper's and whose a jury or judge gonna believe?

This just in. The two reasons cops can search your car, without your consent, after they arrest you.

1. access evidence because the arrested person may destroy it
2. weapon in arms reach where the cop could be in danger

So if you get pulled over and you have a warrant for a traffic ticket, they can arrest you, but they cannot search your car.

The Supreme Court of the US upheld a previous decision by the Supreme Court of Arizona finding that the seizure of Gants property did violate his 4th Amendment Rights. Gant was arrested on an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license in 1999. After he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car officers searched his vehicle and seized a gun and cocaine. Gant held that there was no reasonable expectation that he could access either the evidence or weapon and therefore the officers had no probable cause to search his vehicle.

 

[1lastGodsend]

But the bottom line is a search has to be proppelled forward by a fucking warrant. What happens to the dumb pig that shoves his nose where it don't belong? In court you prove you never gave permission. Do you force yourself to stay in your car? Like how can you stay inside your vehicle without causing problems?
Because I'm sure if a cop asks you to step out that's gotta be some sort of loop hole for them already.

 

[1lastGodsend]

But the bottom line is a search has to be proppelled forward by a fucking warrant. What happens to the dumb pig that shoves his nose where it don't belong? In court you prove you never gave permission. Do you force yourself to stay in your car? Like how can you stay inside your vehicle without causing problems?
Because I'm sure if a cop asks you to step out that's gotta be some sort of loop hole for them already.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Amendment four of the U.S. Constitution states.
"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."
Now if a cop pulls you over on a routine stop. & he asks to search your vehicle & you say No, is that not already probable cause for him? I personally put myself in the cops shoes. If I ask to search some ones car & they say no I can easily assume that he has anything & everything inside his car that he shouldn't have other wise why wouldn't he let me search the car. I think suspision is enough probable cause for a police officers to search your car. If you hesitate or refuse a search does that not make the officer question what you may be hiding? I personally think ylif you have nothing to hide at all a search should be no big deal to you. So does you refusing them to search your vehicle count as probable cause? Can a cop make assumptions on mere suspision? & is that enough probable cause to allow a search and violate your rights? Personally I think if you say no to a search the cop has the right to say whatever he wants as to what's in your car as he cannot prove you have nothing in your car unless you are willing to let him find nothing in your car through a search. You can't prove to him that you have nthing to hide any other way. The only way is to let him actually find nothing. Other wise in his eyes your hiding anything & in your eyes your not. One of thee persons has to be wrong therefor the search is the way to clear it all up.

Is probable cause enough to violate your rights? Does a cops suspision after you say no to a search count as probable cause?

Read what you posted.

the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

Yes, probable cause is enough.

Though, if you require more proof, there's plenty of supreme court cases that probable cause is enough.

 

[medicineman]

Refusing to allow a search of your car is NOT an admission that you have something to hide. Nor is it at that point permissible for an officer to search your car. The officer may "suspect" that you have something to hide, but it remains nothing more than a suspicion at that point.

The courts have ruled that if after your refusal of a search, the officer calls in a K-9 unit and the dog sniffs around the car, then subsequently alerts the officer that something illegal is inside, say illegal drugs, explosives or a large amount of cash, reasonable cause has been established and the search is permitted and admissible in court ... even though a search warrant has not been issued by a judge.

If the officer asks to search the car, and you give permission, then you have waived your fourth amendment rights. This is the same as a DUI checkpoint. In advance of every DUI check point, a sign is placed in the roadway warning of a checkpoint ahead. If you proceed into the checkpoint, the courts have ruled that by passing the sign (constructive notice), you have given permission to the DUI investigation and any subsequent search that may ensue.

Government is very sneaky in getting you to waive your constitutional rights. Remember when you signed your tax return? Have you ever read what is printed under your signature regarding "under penalty of perjury?" By signing your tax return, you are waiving your rights under the 4th, 5th and 13th amendment.

And finally, every sovereign citizen should refuse random searches as a stand on principle. If the officer threatens to "get the dog," just say ... "Well, go get the dog." Most attempts at searches will end right there because the officer knows he's just on a fishing expedition. If he gets the dog and finds nothing, he'll probably say ... "Why didn't you just comply with my request to search and save yourself a lot of time?" Your response should be ... "This is not about time, officer ... this is about the rights of the individual and the avoidance of being compelled to comply with an illegal search by a jack-booted, fascist thug."

Vi

I think your premis is correct, although, in reality, who could really dispute the dogs reaction. The officer would just say, the dog reacted and we have the right to search, Or some other suspicious activity. Just like on cops, they say, "you are acting nervous" therefore implying you have something to hide, therefore giving them reasonable cause to search (Suspicion). I think the word suspicion about covers anything the cops want to throw at you.

 

[ilkhan]

Your right med and that damn dog is being used to justify anything. The dog isn't gonna be under oath in court how the Fuck is that workable. I can see a dog at a border crossing, airport or in prison where you have no 4th amendment rights (sorta) but in real life they should only be able to use a dog if they already have a warrent. Otherwise the dog handler can say "my dog thinks your smuggling facehugers (aliens) in your trunk."

While I worked in a prison we were not allowed to bring in a drug dog to search visitors. They said it was because it "scared them."

 

[ANC]

Erm, border patrol is now operating withing a 100mile radius from the borders...