Vehicle search consent?

[vaiger]

My brother who always stubles across good deals, bought a Jeep Cherokee from guys on the side of the road. They were broken down and trying to get to Bonaroo. He offered to give them a ride or call a tow truck, but the folks actually sold him the vehicle instead for a real bargain. Well, a few weeks later, my brother is stopped for speeding and the officer inquires about a small staw like thing in the back which was actually part of a tool that he uses in his business. The guy gave him a hard time and then asked if he could search the vehicle. My brother said, "sure" since he had nothing to hide........and then he started sweating bullets during the search thinking about how he bought the vehicle off of guys headed to bonaroo!!! Everything turned out okay, but man, that could have gone differently.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

A friend had a horror story about giving search consent in rural N. GA. He was a balding mild mannered middle-aged programmer driving a late-model car to an amateur observatory on a country road on a sunday afternoon. He has good people skills and usually gets along fine without rubbing people the wrong way. Doesn't look especially like a criminal.

He got stopped by a deputy who requested permission to search. Friend gave permission and the deputy found: 1. A couple of darvons in a prescription bottle written in the friend's name by his dentist. 2. A pistol in the glove compartment. 3. A few hundred bucks cash (the fella habitually carries a few hundred bucks cash).

Possibly he was arrested primarily to seize the cash. The deputy explained that "drug dealers live on that road". Wonder if there are any roads in the USA where drug dealers DO NOT live?

After several hours in jail, they released him and gave him the car back, and gave the gun back (locked in the trunk with the bullets confiscated). They set a court date and kept his cash and the dentist's bottle containing two darvons. Can't recall if he had to post bail.

Friend was mad about it and paid about as much on lawyer fees as the amount of cash they seized, but was determined they were not gonna rip off his cash. He prevailed in court but it was a big hassle and of course if the judge had ruled the wrong way maybe he could have had jail time or whatever.

Dunno if he would have fared better refusing search permission. He decided it was the last time he was gonna grant permission.

I'm laid-back and agreeable and would have tended to give search permission too (not having considered the issue at the time). His experience makes me wonder about it.

[oldogy]

Good discussion. Guys and gals, think long and hard about that "ain't gonna find anything in my car" scenario. Many years ago when one son was about 20 YO, clean cut, living at home, working part time and going to college full time he found an old El Camino he had to have. He immediately bought the stereo system that had to be installed. I was helping him, working up under the dash when out comes this dust covered 'joint'. I know as well as I am sitting here that it was not his as we had an understanding that I had zero tolerance of any kind for illegal stuff of any kind and that thing had been there for years. Besides he had to pass drug tests for his job. We both thought what a mess that could have been if he had been stopped and the car searched. I blew the trash and dust out of the dash and we pulled the carpet and blew all that dirt out. Oh,and, I've heard that most of the money in your pocket will have traces of drugs, weed, or something else undesirable thereon. And would a dog make a hit on this?

oldogy

[Oh Shoot]

A friend had a horror story about giving search consent in rural N. GA. ....

Good Lord. I believe after that hassle I would have been mad enough to pursue a false arrest suit or something, whatever I could file outside the local jurisdiction.

- OS

[Patton]

Im less likely to find a joint behind a stereo just by searching than a dog, that will search out and detect something behind a stereo to alert me. You really just have to take case by case.

[Timestepper]

Great information and responses here. Very educational and my thanks to the LEOs who have commented. I can't really add anything except to say that the one time I I was asked (and consented) to a vehicle search, I did so with the caveat that, "I really don't think you're going to find anything, but if you do I'll be happy to know about it because I know a certain stepson who'll be wearing his butt between his shoulder blades for the foreseeable future after I get out of jail." The officer just laughed and told me to have a nice day. Didn't even bother to write the ticket for speeding that he'd stopped me for (and that I deserved). Guess a good attitude goes a long ways, huh?

...TS...

[Guest WyattEarp]

Just wondering. If you have a car safe bolted in your vehicle and you get pulled over. The LEO asks you if he can search your vehicle, can he also demand you open the safe? Now, I'm going on these as the circumstances. He has no probable cause to search but simply asks. I have had several friends, and my wife, lately get pulled over and this has become a seemingly routine question. My wife stood up for herself and said no, and the officer let her go. I'm assuming they do this to see your reaction. But even if you have nothing to hide, I feel it is a violation IF there are no suspicious probable cause indicators from the stop. If you consent to a search and he finds nothing, can he make you open the safe? Without probable cause?

don't ever consent period. make them get a warrant.

[BlackHawk93]

I just ask to see what they would say and to help me in making a determination on how things were going to go when I found what I was looking for.

This is the issue that I'm referring to. It seems that some LEO's, and I'm not trying to insult ANYONE, but there are some who will ask just to see your reaction. Several years ago I got pulled over for speeding. I had gotten called in to work because a pilot had become ill. (I work for an air ambulance service) I was asked if I had any drugs in the car. I said no. He asked me could he search the car. I said "Sure". I never have anything to worry about. As soon as I said "Sure", he said Have a nice day and was back in his car. It was like he was testing me to see if I looked nervous or hesitated. And that goes to the issue. I dont ever have anything to worry about on a stop. I have to be tested often to even fly for my job and I never let anyone drive my vehicle, but I was just curious if I said no, like a few video's Ive seen suggest to do, if it would cause me to be held at the side of the road for a while. It's not the fact that I have something to hide, sometimes it's the insinuation that I may be hiding something and being asked to give consent to freely roam through my vehicle. I have the utmost respect for 99% of LEO's and know quite a few. But there ARE bad apples in every barrel, as we've all seen by some of the video's posted around the net. Thanks for all the good replies.

[Makiaveli]

I don’t know why an Officer would ask to search your vehicle without cause, but it happens.

A feeling perhaps? Or just being zealous? My point being is that asking might get a yes, and that could lead to actual evidence (unlike the baby spoon mentioned above). That is the way it was explained to me many moons ago.

You said it gives you more information after you have a reason to search. Why not use it when you don't for the same purpose?

[NRA]

Great information and responses here. Very educational and my thanks to the LEOs who have commented. I can't really add anything except to say that the one time I I was asked (and consented) to a vehicle search, I did so with the caveat that, "I really don't think you're going to find anything, but if you do I'll be happy to know about it because I know a certain stepson who'll be wearing his butt between his shoulder blades for the foreseeable future after I get out of jail." The officer just laughed and told me to have a nice day. Didn't even bother to write the ticket for speeding that he'd stopped me for (and that I deserved). Guess a good attitude goes a long ways, huh?

...TS...

This is what happens more often (no ticket) then being a butthead and getting your just desert.

[NRA]

This is the issue that I'm referring to. It seems that some LEO's, and I'm not trying to insult ANYONE, but there are some who will ask just to see your reaction. Several years ago I got pulled over for speeding. I had gotten called in to work because a pilot had become ill. (I work for an air ambulance service) I was asked if I had any drugs in the car. I said no. He asked me could he search the car. I said "Sure". I never have anything to worry about. As soon as I said "Sure", he said Have a nice day and was back in his car. It was like he was testing me to see if I looked nervous or hesitated. And that goes to the issue. I dont ever have anything to worry about on a stop. I have to be tested often to even fly for my job and I never let anyone drive my vehicle, but I was just curious if I said no, like a few video's Ive seen suggest to do, if it would cause me to be held at the side of the road for a while. It's not the fact that I have something to hide, sometimes it's the insinuation that I may be hiding something and being asked to give consent to freely roam through my vehicle. I have the utmost respect for 99% of LEO's and know quite a few. But there ARE bad apples in every barrel, as we've all seen by some of the video's posted around the net. Thanks for all the good replies.

The way you answered must have been a clear indication you were no problem child. Often it is the hesitation or the look at the glove box with a delayed answer tells the tale. Most criminals are very easy to read.

[Timestepper]

The way you answered must have been a clear indication you were no problem child. Often it is the hesitation or the look at the glove box with a delayed answer tells the tale. Most criminals are very easy to read.

Actually, most people are easy to read. Even easier when they're trying to/hoping to hide something. And it doesn't have to necessarily be something illegal. A buddy of mine who is a LEO up home in Kansas stopped a guy one night with the intention of letting him know he had a tail light out. Wasn't planning on issuing a citation, just letting the guy know. But the guy got to acting nervous and so my buddy asked for and was eventually granted permission to search. The only thing he found was a box of condoms under the seat with 3 missing. Turns out that the guy had been cheating on his wife (with whom he was trying have a child) and he was scared to death that his wife would find out. My buddy told him, "Well sir, it ain't my job to judge you, but if you're that worried about it, maybe you should find a better place to hide your rubbers than under the seat. Good luck juggling your relationships and PLEASE get your tail light fixed - next time you might be stopped by a female officer who would feel it's her duty to tell your wife!"

Long and short of it is, if you don't have anything to hide then it's doubtful you'll have anything to worry about.

[MphsTiger1981]

I've been on both sides of this issue. I've been the cop who stopped folks and I've been the guy who got stopped. When I was young and stupid, if they had searched the car I was in, not saying I was the driver, I'd probably still be in jail.

As most of the officers on the thread have said, attitude determines where the traffic stop goes from there. If you've got nothing to hide, but you don't like the way the cop is treating you, in other words if "he" seems to have an attitude, then perhaps it's best to decline to allow them to search. If you have nothing in the car and the cop seems to be acting courteous and just doing his job, I'd probably say "go for it". Like most things in life, I do not think there is one blanket answer for what to do if you are stopped. I personally think the answer always begins with "it depends".

Also, I can't remember the exact case law, but there was some case law which allowed the cop to search the portions of the car which are within the reach of the driver, simply for officer's safety. This could be done without permission or a warrant, but I've been out a long time and I'm not sure if this is still the controlling case or not. This did not include the glove box on the other side of the car.

Interesting thread.

[Reservoir Dog]

Also, I can't remember the exact case law, but there was some case law which allowed the cop to search the portions of the car which are within the reach of the driver, simply for officer's safety. This could be done without permission or a warrant, but I've been out a long time and I'm not sure if this is still the controlling case or not. This did not include the glove box on the other side of the car.

That would fall under a Terry frisk (Terry v. Ohio; expanded under Michigan v. Long). In addition to the person, the officer may search for weapons within the "lunging area" around the person.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Reservoir Dog

[DaveTN]

Like most things in life, I do not think there is one blanket answer for what to do if you are stopped. I personally think the answer always begins with "it depends".

Yep.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “you need a warrantâ€. Or, my Father/Sister/Uncle/whatever is a lawyer and they say you can’t search my vehicle, from people right before I put the cuffs on them and took them to jail. I would have liked to have heard the conversation with their lawyer relative when they figure out that a cop rarely needs a warrant to search a for a vehicle.

My son came in one day and announced “Our teacher told us the Police need a warrant to search your car, is that true?†We sat down and a long conversation about surviving a traffic stop. I tried to make his teacher not sound like he was clueless, but he was.

But again… you have to do what you are ready to take responsibility for because it isn’t going to come back on anyone but you.

[Guest mcgyver210]

I have never been asked by any officer if he could search my vehicle. When I was younger & trusted & respected most officers because they deserved & earned it I wouldn't have thought twice about saying yes. Now days not 100% sure but I doubt I would consent to any search. In my local area I find the LEOs to be generally good to deal with but still don't think I would just consent to a search.

Now to be clear I have nothing to hide what so ever since I don't Steal, Drink, Smoke or do drugs. I even avoid medically needed prescriptions because I prefer not to take anything.

It is sad but we are heading for a time where we have no rights to refuse Government Harassment & are Guilty until proven innocent.

Also before you consent be-aware it is considered acceptable for LEOs to Bold Face "LIE" to you about anything.

[East_TN_Patriot]

That would fall under a Terry frisk (Terry v. Ohio; expanded under Michigan v. Long). In addition to the person, the officer may search for weapons within the "lunging area" around the person.

Not exactly. The only time an officer can make a protective search of a person under Terry or under the wingspan rule within a motor vehicle is in a case where the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE that the individual has a weapon. It must be enough information that you can articulate it to a jury and have them agree that under the same circumstances they would reach the same conclusion. I emphasize probable cause because it is a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion, mere suspicion, gut feeling, etc. An officer can't just automatically frisk people or search cars for weapons just because they want to (at least not legally). Typically, to search a motor vehicle for a weapon, the officer must observe "furtive movements" where it appears that someone in the vehicle makes a suspicious movement that gives the officer probable cause to believe that the occupant has either concealed or tried to retrieve a weapon.

[Guest Loyaljeeper]

When I was in college in a criminal justice course we talked about a loop hole in the system that an officer can search any vehicle he has legally stopped. It basically was if the officer feels the defendant will not pay the citation or appear in court he can arrest instead of issue the citation at which point in time the entire vehicle can be searched "Subject to Apprehension".

[TMF]

I consented to search when I was younger (19) after being pulled over in Camden County, Georgia. I was held on the side of the road for around 30 minutes while one officer searched and the other pulling security on me as if I was a threat. I don't think either one was unprofessional, it just seemed like a huge inconvenience when I hadn't done anything wrong other than look young and drive fast. It turned out that they didn't give me a ticket (although I was going 12 over) and were very respectful in sending me on my way. Now that I'm older, have a wife and kids, I don't think I would consent to search again. Not to be difficult, but I'm not going through that buttpain with the whole family. It's hard enough getting the family in and out of the vehicle when we're just going to Kroger.

[Patton]

Honestly the arrest to search crap an officer will get by with but I have never been denied a warrant to search a car. I have been denied them to search a house. Judges just expect you to have a lot more privacy in your home than in your vehicle on a state or county road. Warrants for vehicle searches are handed out like candy. I prefer to get a k9 out so Ill know if its even worth searching because most of the cars you want to search are filthy. I dont mind getting dirty if its worth it. Dogs will hit on residue also I leave the occupants in the vehicle so if the dog hits on the car I'm searching everyone one at a time to find that one joint in a pocket or that one hydro that I otherwise would not find. In a consented vehicle search I cant search the occupants other than a terry frisk.

[JWKilgore]

I've never been asked, but I don't think I would consent to a search. I would politely decline. To the best of my knowledge I have nothing illegal in my vehicle, but I'm not intimately familiar with the drug trade and don't know what they might consider "suspicious". From earlier in this thread... a baby spoon? Pills in a prescription bottle made out to the driver? A tube? I'd bet that SOMETHING in my truck could be used for drugs in some way.

I have a few relatives who are officers in various capacities. I normally have the utmost respect for the police, and respect what they do. They put their lives on the line to keep the rest of us safe. But I have problems with these types of searches.

I also participate in other TN discussion forums HERE. A recent thread has been discussing the use of road-side searches, not to stop drugs, but to try and get as much money as possible. Here's a video posted to the thread (not the one in the first post). I love the part toward the end where officers from two different agencies are fighting over who got to a drug stop first (and presumably over who gets to keep the money):

The money quantities in the video are in the tens to hundreds of thousands, but an earlier poster mentioned someone losing what was probably a few thousand. Does anyone here carry emergency cash in your vehicle? If you thought it would be seized, would you agree to a consensual search?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

From reading Patton's messages, he seems sensible and I would probably tell him it is OK to search if I knew it was him.

The friend with the gun in glove compartment and Darvons in the prescription bottle only had a few hundred bucks. Maybe there really was a lot of drug traffic on that rural road and the deputy thought he was fighting a legitimate local problem, but it was a big expensive hassle for my friend and I saw him about daily for a couple of months til he had to go back to that county and get the charge dismissed. It worried him a lot for a couple months. Seemed kinda like a Barney Fife incident except Andy Griffith wasn't around to straighten out the problem on the day of arrest.

He had to hire a lawyer living in that county who presumably knew the politics in the county. The charge was dropped without the lawyer having to present any evidence. Case was dropped after the lawyer cross-examined the arresting officer and decimated the case. It is hard to make assumptions what was going on, but one explanation was that they assumed my friend would roll over and lose his money just to avoid hassle. Which maybe a person actually out there on a drug errand would have done. Maybe it would work for most such cases and be a good income source for the county?

There was a lot of press about cash seizures from travelers in that time period about 8 years ago. A couple of years ago drove up to Nashville to buy a telescope with $3000 cash and was wondering how much of a hazard it would be if I got stopped somewhere along the way. Trying to hide the money in the vehicle would probably make it worse not better if the cash was discovered and the locals were looking for cash to confiscate. It is a bummer that people are suspects just for having money. Makes cash money quasi-contraband except for pocket change. Don't seem right. Is it legal tender or not?

Since the wheels fell off the economy, and the bank changed policies making me mad at them, I've been keeping some cash around for living expenses up to a few months. The bank pays crap for interest anyway, not enough to keep up with inflation. Early this year I bought the little next door house for daughter and the mortgage man said I can't do a downpayment with cash "just because". Can't even deposit the cash back in the bank because it would be "too recent" a large deposit to satisfy the mortgage company. Homeland security or money laundering crap even in the mortgage industry. They might as well make "more than pocket change" illegal.

[Reservoir Dog]

Not exactly. The only time an officer can make a protective search of a person under Terry or under the wingspan rule within a motor vehicle is in a case where the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE that the individual has a weapon.

No. Probable cause is not required under Terry. An officer only needs reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is good to have, but it is not needed for a Terry frisk.

[Patton]

No. Probable cause is not required under Terry. An officer only needs reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is good to have, but it is not needed for a Terry frisk.

Correct, I missed the part about probable cause earlier.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Warrants for vehicle searches are handed out like candy. I prefer to get a k9 out so Ill know if its even worth searching because most of the cars you want to search are filthy. I dont mind getting dirty if its worth it. Dogs will hit on residue also I leave the occupants in the vehicle so if the dog hits on the car I'm searching everyone one at a time to find that one joint in a pocket or that one hydro that I otherwise would not find. In a consented vehicle search I cant search the occupants other than a terry frisk.

Thanks Patton. That's interesting what can be suspicious in the real world.

Years past when I would routinely drive around with expensive music gear in the van, I would keep some old KFC boxes, dried-out paint cans, and other assorted trash in the van. Cover up the good stuff with trash, hoping that any thieves would look in the van, see a bunch of trash, and decide it wasn't breaking into the van just to steal old KFC boxes. Never would have thought that the mess would also be suspicious to police!