In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

JUST SAY NO TO SEARCHES!

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited January 2002 in General Discussion
JUST SAY NO TO SEARCHES! By Pat Barber A chief deputy sheriff told me, "We rely on people's ignorance to get their consent." Most folks don't know they have a constitutional right to refuse a police search request...and a lot of others are afraid to say no. For the past year, police agencies across Texas have stepped up what they call "consent" searches of vehicles on our highways. The unprecedented numbers of searches are mainly the push of the state's 47 federally funded Drug Task Force(s) with a major assist from the Texas Highway Patrol and local officers. An officer will stop a traveler on some pretext such as a seat belt or speeding violation, or as has been documented in many cases - no valid reason at all, get the driver out of the vehicle, ask, "Do you have any guns or drugs in your car?" And when the traveler answers in the negative, the officer says, "Then you don't mind if I look in the trunk, do you?" The officer is standing there in his mirrored sunshades, black Task Force uniform, pistol on his hip, and the traveler has nothing but a limp ego. Most people feel intimidated by this kind of pressure. They don't know their rights, believe they will be searched even if they do refuse, and give up. Police officers are not required by law to inform the traveler that he or she has an absolute constitutional right to refuse a search request, that a refusal cannot be used in any way to imply probable cause of criminal activity or that they will be free to leave if they do refuse. A chief deputy sheriff told me, "We rely on people's ignorance to get their consent." An old DPS trooper friend tells his family and friends to say to these black-shirted and black-booted "storm troopers" (task force officers) the following: "Officer, I don't have anything to hide, but I don't want you pawing through my stuff." Sometimes a refusal will bring threats to get a warrant or a drug dog, but if the officer really had probable cause to search, he wouldn't be "asking" for a search; he would be "telling" you. However, my data indicates that a firm and consistent "no" will work most of the time, regardless of their threats. An officer stopped my daughter for speeding and wanted to search her pickup, although there was no evidence she was carrying contraband. She told him she was late to meet her vet - that was why she was speeding and that she didn't have time for a search. The officer threatened to go to the JP for a warrant. When she heard the magic word "warrant", she thought she didn't have any choice. What she said was, "Officer, my father is a lawyer, and he told me that if I ever gave consent for a search, he would kick my butt. I'm sorry; I can't do it." The officer angrily said, "Take your ticket and get out of here." Her quick answer saved her a lot of unnecessary humiliation, and is recommended for three reasons: 1. Her response was funny (although the officer obviously didn't have a sense of humor)2. It was evident she had access to legal counsel3. The officer knew she was acting on advice of counsel.I have had many complaints from average citizens who are upset about the new highway search terrorism. One well dressed lady traveling in a late model suburban was seen standing by the side of the road trying to hold her hair together in a 20 mph wind while officers threw her possessions on the ground. After the officers finished the "consent" search and left, a local citizen stopped and helped her pick up her things. I've seen vacationing families with children standing in the summer heat in the bar ditch while officers went through their suitcases. I saw two gray-haired ladies standing in the cold, last winter. I've had hundreds of complaints from citizens who felt like they had been mistreated for no reason. I may be old-fashioned, but this kind of dangerous and ineffective police behavior is offensive to me, and I would expect, to most Texans. The "shotgun" search approach may occasionally net smugglers, but at what price? Most folks don't want to see us turn into a third-world police state where you can't walk across the street without a police dog's nose in your crotch. My main goal is to create a fundamental debate about roadside searches. Do they yield enough criminal cases to justify intrusions into glove compartments, trunks and luggage of law-abiding travelers? While the police agencies are quick to seek publicity for their busts, data about "failed" (nothing found) searches is suppressed. No police paper trail is kept. If we ever got an accurate assessment of what they are doing, we would likely see an enormous number of citizens are being terrorized and harassed by an ineffective policy. They can't stop the flow of drugs. How far do we allow them to erode our constitutional liberties in an unwinnable war on drugs? Tell your clients to Just Say NO to Searches! Pat BarberAttorney at Law102 W 2nd St.Colorado City TX 79512915/728-3391pbarber@bitstreet.com http://freespeech.org/justsayno http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wod/barber01.htm

Comments

  • Trader DaveTrader Dave Member Posts: 791 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Pat Barber - Attorney at Law. That sums up enough for me. I agree that we don't want to be searched for no reason at all, that is truly an invasion of privacy. However, I find it hard to believe that many LEO's would waste their time to search someone's car without some slight probably cause. I am sure that there have been a few bad occurrences where it was pure harassment. LEO's are human and can fall to human emotions. If the person stopped has a bad attitude, I bet that the possibility of getting searched rises considerably. That is not right either. I don't defend LEO's that abuse their powers. But on the other hand, I don't have sympathy for the drug traffickers that they nail. On many searches, before they were started I bet the LEO had called in the license name and number and found out that person had been convicted before for some drug or gun related crime or maybe even out on bail from such happening. Not saying that is right, it would depend on how the person was reacting to the traffic stop. If I was stopped and asked to submit to a search, it would depend on the situation. Most likely I would deny it since I have nothing to hide and no reason to be searched. That would be not just an invasion of my privacy but an assault.
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    trader dave,I'm with you,all LEO's are prey to human emotion, however, they wanted to be an LEO and therefore they have to deal with it, not us. If I have a bad attitude, maybe it's because they want to search my vehicle on the side of the road through the use of intimidation techniques. I pay their fu@*ing salary, or part thereof, with my taxes. If I don't fit the drug dealing, weapons smuggling profile, don't f@*k with me. Your, (LEO), job is to protect and serve, not to rifle through my possesions and discard them on the side of the highway for hundreds of passers by to see. If you have probable cause (see it plainly/smell it plainly/etc) then be on your way!!!!
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    When I was a LEO, if I asked for a consent search, I:A. Had some reasonable suspicion (odor, known offender, etc.)B. Always asked AFTER I issued the citation as in, "Oh, by the way, would you mind if I take a look in your vehicle" after I completed my other duties and they were free to go. At that point, it is their choice if they want to stay or not. I'm not holding them there because I still have their DL and such.C. NEVER call the dog AFTER searching a vehicle and not finding anything. The dog is for PC to search only, not to find stuff, thats the LEO's job.I rarely did this. It is usually pointless. Once, our department had a dog on call, I never did this. If I had reasonable suspicion, I called out the dog for PC.
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Tell that to Macho Camacho (Puerto Rico)Boxing champion ,Searched after passing a trafic RED light .... Car LOADED with DRUGS!
    _%_S
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    i always let any LEO go through my vehicle unless said LEO is a smartass. When I get Officer Smartass, I mirror him and remind him that he should not ask to search my vehicle if he ain't wantin't to hear me say "no". Other than that I have the utmost respect for PROFESSIONAL LEO's and don't mind a search every now and then. I do however reserve the right to refuse intrusive searches whenever I feel like it.
    If you can't fix it with a hammer, take it to a mechanic. will270win@aol.com ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
  • 223believer223believer Member Posts: 128 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    One thing you fellows missed is a major reason that they ask is to get your consent. It may seem obvious, but later in court if you decide to contest the search, the fact that you consented really takes away your ability to object. All the cop has to do is point out that you consented to the search, and you really don't have a leg to stand on.Another reason for a perfectly law-abiding person to refuse a search is on general principle. I have nothing in my home to hide, but if the police wanted to come in and poke around I would say no. I would do this as a way of reminding them of the importance of probable cause, the reason we have the bill of rights, etc.
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    Make like Nancy Reagan - JUST SAY NO!
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You have also ignored the possibility they could PLANT evidence.
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    Quick Question:If a LEO really wants to be a jerk, couldnt he search your vehicle anyway regardless of whether you consented and then later just say "I thought I smelled dope" or "I thought I saw ammo on the floor"?You know, create his own probable cause?
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    No.Smelling dope is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.I don't know what seeing ammo would do for them. They might have a weapon in the vehicle? So what?
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    Of course, if a narcotics K9 alerts on your vehicle, that is probable cause.4-legged search warrant.
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    My first DUI was chugging on a bottle of Crown Royal when I made initial contact.
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,078 ******
    edited November -1
    The ignorance of so many mules has made it tough on the rest of us. I have seen these task force guys walk onto a Greyhound bus at a bus stop and ask if anyone has drugs. Of course everyone says no. Then he asks if he can look in bags. These guys score nearly every time with this method.The chief deputy was right. It is ignorance that allows this to happen. People just don't think they can say no. Then it gets so easy for the drug cops to get consent, they bridle when an informed citizen refuses.It's OK. Refuse anyway. And the last time I checked, the odor of burning marijuana was considered good PC for search.Remember: If we have the PC, we DO NOT ASK your permission to search. If we ask your permission, WE ARE FISHING. GOT IT?
    Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Visit www.gunbroker.com, the premier gun auction site on the Net! Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!
Sign In or Register to comment.