Vehicle on School Property

[Fallguy]

Once on the property you are subject to search and you have voluntarily consented driving/walking/riding past that sign and by being on the property. You cant revoke it unless you leave the property before they search.

Exactly....and I don't think you can hold me there just to search my vehicle.

[DaveTN]

Exactly....and I don't think you can hold me there just to search my vehicle.

Certainly they can; you don’t have the rights on school property that you have on the street.

The SCOTUS has given special exception to schools. The Police or School Officials do not need “probable causeâ€; they only need “reasonable suspicion†when it involves the safety of the children. So far they (Officials) have been given a green light on every case I know of other than a strip search. The SCOTUS did rule that a strip search was going too far. However, they ruled that school officials could not be individually held liable, and left it up to the local courts if the school district could be held liable. So there is really no worry on the part of officials.

[Fallguy]

Certainly they can; you don’t have the rights on school property that you have on the street.

The SCOTUS has given special exception to schools. The Police or School Officials do not need “probable cause”; they only need “reasonable suspicion” when it involves the safety of the children. So far they (Officials) have been given a green light on every case I know of other than a strip search. The SCOTUS did rule that a strip search was going too far. However, they ruled that school officials could not be individually held liable, and left it up to the local courts if the school district could be held liable. So there is really no worry on the part of officials.

Well the whole time I was in school and the last 15 years I have had kids in school this hasn't been an issue with me and I'm really not worried about it now....so most of this is just a point of view and/or opinion for me. I admit I have not ever worrry about this and don't feel I will, but........ If I'm not of the mind to let him....I'd hate to see the principal try to physcially stop me from getting in my vehicle and leaving if I chose to.

[Oh Shoot]

You just gave them PC - suspicion.

It's suspicious behavior to deny a search, implies you have something to hide!

- OS

I hope you're joking...

Not at all.

Any given LEO is going to do what he decides to do.

- OS

[DaveTN]

but........ If I'm not of the mind to let him....I'd hate to see the principal try to physcially stop me from getting in my vehicle and leaving if I chose to.

Been drinking tonight have we?

[Fallguy]

Been drinking tonight have we?

No, I hadn't

[JayC]

Woah Dave... they've allowed a lot of searches of CHILDREN under their care... Virtually none of that case law is applicable to non-student adults. And the SCOTUS opinions clearly indicate that.

As far as reasonable suspicion, that seems to be the standard everywhere today, not just for schools, if the police have a reasonable suspicion you have, are or about to break the law they can stop and search you.

Certainly they can; you don’t have the rights on school property that you have on the street.

The SCOTUS has given special exception to schools. The Police or School Officials do not need “probable causeâ€; they only need “reasonable suspicion†when it involves the safety of the children. So far they (Officials) have been given a green light on every case I know of other than a strip search. The SCOTUS did rule that a strip search was going too far. However, they ruled that school officials could not be individually held liable, and left it up to the local courts if the school district could be held liable. So there is really no worry on the part of officials.

[JayC]

You just gave them PC - suspicion.

It's suspicious behavior to deny a search, implies you have something to hide!

- OS

Shoot you need to put smilely faces behind comments like that... people may take what you say seriously...

Refusing to consent to a search is never reasonable suspicion under current case law. Just like refusing to answer questions can not be seen as RAS or PC for a search either. An officer may choose to search but if he gives that reason as RAS any good lawyer is going to get the search kicked.

It won't stop them from searching, it won't stop them from arresting you... it will likely stop them from charging or convicting you... and it will likely result in a lawsuit that names said LEO individually as a defendant.

Edited September 8, 2010 by JayC

[Oh Shoot]

Shoot you need to put smilely faces behind comments like that... people may take what you say seriously...

Refusing to consent to a search is never reasonable suspicion under current case law. Just like refusing to answer questions can not be seen as RAS or PC for a search either. An officer may choose to search but if he gives that reason as RAS any good lawyer is going to get the search kicked.

It won't stop them from searching, it won't stop them from arresting you... it will likely stop them from charging or convicting you... and it will likely result in a lawsuit that names said LEO individually as a defendant.

I am being serious and you're just making my point.

A LEO is going to do what he's going to do. I made no statement about what may or may not stand in court.

All a LEO has to ultimately say is that he smelled what seemed to be pot. Or if there's one around with a dog, just has to say the dog seemed to hit on something.

I'm sure some cops here can tell you some other ploys that could be used (not that any on this forum would).

Ultimate point is, if a LEO wants to search your car, he will do it, whether he actually thinks you may harbor something illegally, or whether you managed to jerk his cord and he has the will and the time for some payback.

And I think you give too much credence to the power or even likelihood of suing cops for merely being hassled, with no real physical or significant financial damages to the individual.

- OS

[JayC]

I agree with everything you said, but they'll have to at least come up with some reason other than he wouldn't allow me to search

SCOTUS has gutted the 4th and 5th amendments when it comes to searches... We should still require officers to get a search warrant before searching any car or home. At least then they have to swear under oath the reason why they want to look, and get a judge to rubber stamp the warrant...

And you're also right, an officer who does get a search tossed faces little downside... even if he is named in a lawsuit there is little chance he will have to pay.

I will say it's my understanding that the ratio between searches ruled illegal and lawsuits which result in a settlement where nothing illegal was found is high enough to be noticed by insurance companies covering police departments. Enough that many policies now require additional policies and/or training on illegal searches.

I was trying to be a little light hearted OhShoot, because if I really focus on how far we've broken the 4th and 5th amendments my blood pressure goes up too high

I am being serious and you're just making my point.

A LEO is going to do what he's going to do. I made no statement about what may or may not stand in court.

All a LEO has to ultimately say is that he smelled what seemed to be pot. Or if there's one around with a dog, just has to say the dog seemed to hit on something.

I'm sure some cops here can tell you some other ploys that could be used (not that any on this forum would).

Ultimate point is, if a LEO wants to search your car, he will do it, whether he actually thinks you may harbor something illegally, or whether you managed to jerk his cord and he has the will and the time for some payback.

And I think you give too much credence to the power or even likelihood of suing cops for merely being hassled, with no real physical or significant financial damages to the individual.

- OS

[Fallguy]

I am being serious and you're just making my point.

A LEO is going to do what he's going to do. I made no statement about what may or may not stand in court.

All a LEO has to ultimately say is that he smelled what seemed to be pot. Or if there's one around with a dog, just has to say the dog seemed to hit on something.

I'm sure some cops here can tell you some other ploys that could be used (not that any on this forum would).

Ultimate point is, if a LEO wants to search your car, he will do it, whether he actually thinks you may harbor something illegally, or whether you managed to jerk his cord and he has the will and the time for some payback.

And I think you give too much credence to the power or even likelihood of suing cops for merely being hassled, with no real physical or significant financial damages to the individual.

- OS

SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!

[DaveTN]

I agree with everything you said, but they'll have to at least come up with some reason other than he wouldn't allow me to search

SCOTUS has gutted the 4th and 5th amendments when it comes to searches... We should still require officers to get a search warrant before searching any car or home. At least then they have to swear under oath the reason why they want to look, and get a judge to rubber stamp the warrant...

And you're also right, an officer who does get a search tossed faces little downside... even if he is named in a lawsuit there is little chance he will have to pay.

I will say it's my understanding that the ratio between searches ruled illegal and lawsuits which result in a settlement where nothing illegal was found is high enough to be noticed by insurance companies covering police departments. Enough that many policies now require additional policies and/or training on illegal searches.

I was trying to be a little light hearted OhShoot, because if I really focus on how far we've broken the 4th and 5th amendments my blood pressure goes up too high

JayC do you have kids? If so you really owe it to them to better understand the workings of search and seizure on the street. We don’t live in a courtroom and cops don’t drag a Judge around with them.

If parents are going to interpret the law and the Constitution for their children they have the responsibility of knowing what they are talking about. Your child may someday be faced with a situation where they need to make an informed decision on what to do; a decision that could change their life and their career path. I know this because I have had this conversation with many young people. As I have said before, I have never asked for permission to search a vehicle that I didn’t already have probable cause to search. I have had kids go to jail for DUI or drug possession because their parents told them not to consent and not to say anything. If your kids are innocent of any wrongdoing they can afford to stand their ground. If they aren’t; they probably aren’t going to like the outcome.

No cops are going to be getting sued for an illegal search… it just doesn’t happen. Your understandings are wrong. The stuff you are rattling on about ratios between searches ruled illegal and lawsuits which result in a settlement is silliness.

I know that you see every search by the cops as an illegal search. But that just isn’t how it is; they know the law better than you. They know the law better than you because they are trained. You try to make it appear as something that is forced by insurance companies because of lawsuits… or some such silliness. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Certainly departments having training for their Officers. The law changes daily. You don’t appear to have any knowledge of Police Departments, how they train, the law, or civil suits. But you are entertaining and some of us can’t help but comment after you have taken the time to put your thoughts out here. Now…. Have a drink or whatever you need to do to get your blood pressure back down and enjoy the rest of the night.

[Guest EB31]

JayC do you have kids? If so you really owe it to them to better understand the workings of search and seizure on the street. We don’t live in a courtroom and cops don’t drag a Judge around with them.

If parents are going to interpret the law and the Constitution for their children they have the responsibility of knowing what they are talking about. Your child may someday be faced with a situation where they need to make an informed decision on what to do; a decision that could change their life and their career path. I know this because I have had this conversation with many young people. As I have said before, I have never asked for permission to search a vehicle that I didn’t already have probable cause to search. I have had kids go to jail for DUI or drug possession because their parents told them not to consent and not to say anything. If your kids are innocent of any wrongdoing they can afford to stand their ground. If they aren’t; they probably aren’t going to like the outcome.

No cops are going to be getting sued for an illegal search… it just doesn’t happen. Your understandings are wrong. The stuff you are rattling on about ratios between searches ruled illegal and lawsuits which result in a settlement is silliness.

I know that you see every search by the cops as an illegal search. But that just isn’t how it is; they know the law better than you. They know the law better than you because they are trained. You try to make it appear as something that is forced by insurance companies because of lawsuits… or some such silliness. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Certainly departments having training for their Officers. The law changes daily. You don’t appear to have any knowledge of Police Departments, how they train, the law, or civil suits. But you are entertaining and some of us can’t help but comment after you have taken the time to put your thoughts out here. Now…. Have a drink or whatever you need to do to get your blood pressure back down and enjoy the rest of the night.

I agree with most of what you said....except the cops knowing the law better part. I run into more officers and sheriffs deputies that dont know what they are talking about when it pertains to actual written law. It's just a fact based on my personal experiences....nothing against you or your opinion.

[JayC]

JayC do you have kids? If so you really owe it to them to better understand the workings of search and seizure on the street. We don’t live in a courtroom and cops don’t drag a Judge around with them.

I have children on the way right now as a matter of fact. My wife and I have had long talks about whether we will subject our children to state run schools or not... I'd say my understanding of case law surrounding some of IMHO poorly decided SCOTUS cases on the subject is much better than 95% of the population out there. I understand I have strongly anti big government, anti big brother feels towards the current policies and procedures that I think not only aren't needed but are destructive to our society in the long run (I don't think I make any attempt to hide those feelings do I?)

If parents are going to interpret the law and the Constitution for their children they have the responsibility of knowing what they are talking about. Your child may someday be faced with a situation where they need to make an informed decision on what to do; a decision that could change their life and their career path. I know this because I have had this conversation with many young people. As I have said before, I have never asked for permission to search a vehicle that I didn’t already have probable cause to search. I have had kids go to jail for DUI or drug possession because their parents told them not to consent and not to say anything. If your kids are innocent of any wrongdoing they can afford to stand their ground. If they aren’t; they probably aren’t going to like the outcome.

I agree completely, it's much better to not be doing something illegal when you take a stand I'd be happy to show you others including former police officers giving the exact same advice... but I don't have a problem talking to the police... I do so on a fairly regular basis and have yet to have an encounter that I would describe as anything but professional.

Dave, just so we can verify for everybody else, why exactly did you ask to search their vehicle if you already had RAS to search? Could it be one of the reasons you asked was by giving their consent to the search it largely removed any possibility the search could be tossed out as an illegal search?

I agree to your point, often police officers give kids passes on what are minor infractions on a regular basis as long as the kids act in a respectful way... My guess is that many parents when teaching their kids to decline consenting to searches often forget that little tidbit of good manners go a long way in a civil society.

No cops are going to be getting sued for an illegal search… it just doesn’t happen. Your understandings are wrong. The stuff you are rattling on about ratios between searches ruled illegal and lawsuits which result in a settlement is silliness.

I have seen a number of lawsuits naming the officers and the department in civil lawsuits involving misconduct including illegal searches. I do agree I have yet to see an officer pay out of pocket, normally it's the department insurance carrier who does. But there are TONS of lawsuits filed against every police department in this state every year many of which result in settlement agreements.

I know that you see every search by the cops as an illegal search. But that just isn’t how it is; they know the law better than you. They know the law better than you because they are trained. You try to make it appear as something that is forced by insurance companies because of lawsuits… or some such silliness. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Certainly departments having training for their Officers. The law changes daily. You don’t appear to have any knowledge of Police Departments, how they train, the law, or civil suits. But you are entertaining and some of us can’t help but comment after you have taken the time to put your thoughts out here. Now…. Have a drink or whatever you need to do to get your blood pressure back down and enjoy the rest of the night.

I don't see every search as illegal, search warrants signed by a judge are perfectly fine by me. I do have concerns about abuse of Terry Stops, and other forms of exigent circumstance searches... And while I disagree with much of this case law, I'm the first person to point out probably cause is largely not needed anymore to perform a 'legal' search (again something that probably 95% of the population doesn't know). These exceptions were made for unicorn situations, but are being used everyday, I do have a fundamental problem with that.

As far as the insurance policy question, I in the last 7 years or so have had the 'pleasure' of reading 2 different insurance policies of local police departments, while they are a very small sample sizes, each contained training requirements as a condition of the insurance company. I'd agree not all of those training requirements appear to have been lawsuit related, many if not most appear to involve reducing on the job injuries, but IMHO layman opinion some clearly were aimed at reducing lawsuits. Obviously insurance companies don't set the entire training program, or at least lets hope it never comes to that, can you imagine 40 hours a year of that? I'm sure that the vast majority of training is exactly as you describe, updates they need to know to do their job better, but some department policies and training are related to insurance requirements. I'll give you a perfect example, requiring all police and fire department employees to be wearing a seat belt is an insurance requirement. Some go so far as to deny certain coverage in the event of an employee becoming injured for not wear said seat belt.

If you disagree with me, the policy information is a matter of public record, run down to your local small town PD and ask to see a copy for yourself.

[DaveTN]

I agree with most of what you said....except the cops knowing the law better part. I run into more officers and sheriffs deputies that dont know what they are talking about when it pertains to actual written law. It's just a fact based on my personal experiences....nothing against you or your opinion.

I see that continually on this forum. I also see that not only do they not know the law they can’t shoot either.

I wasn’t a cop in Tennessee and I have never been stopped in Tennessee. The only interaction I have had had with Tennessee cops has either been personal, a gun sale, or one time when I was a witness to a burglary. But I find it hard to believe they are as inept as some here would lead us to believe.

I was a cop on a 200+ Officer department in a city of 100,000. I worked with a good bunch of guys. They were knowledgeable and most of them did a great job. But sure, like any job every now and then we got guys that were lucky to be able to find their way to work. But they didn’t last long.

We had some small towns around us that had some Officers with problems, and that may be the problem some are seeing here. When a town is paying low wages and doesn’t have a training budget that is what they get. Some of them grab the officers that can’t cut it on other departments so the town doesn’t have to pay to send them to the Police academy.

I’m also curious when I see people that claim to know a lot about cops. How are you “running into†them? You know where I’m coming from because I’ve said I’m a former Police Officer, I’m just wondering where some of you are coming from. Do you work with them? If so, what do you do?

[DaveTN]

Dave, just so we can verify for everybody else, why exactly did you ask to search their vehicle if you already had RAS to search? Could it be one of the reasons you asked was by giving their consent to the search it largely removed any possibility the search could be tossed out as an illegal search?

Are we verifying for everyone else because you have already made your mind up?

Not at all JayC. I know you would like to think that and you will probably find this hard to believe; but I had a job to do. I knew the law, I knew I was doing a lawful search and it was then the job of the States Attorney’s Office to keep it from getting kicked. Many searches are challenged prior to going to trial or making a plea agreement; it’s just part of the game.

I asked for permission as part of simple conversation. Based on the situation I knew I had someone in possession of something illegal and I was about to find it. My conversation with them was to determine how things were going to go. Where they going to jail, were they getting a break, where being turned over to their parents, etc.