[Lenovo]

If someone were to get pulled over, and asked to get out of the vehicle, and the you gave the officer permission to search your vehicle, do you have the legal right to tell him/ her to stop searching?

[excon]

Hello Len:

It's not as simple as that. There have been tons and tons of scholarly legal tomes written on the right to search. There's a lot more to this story and much of it has to do with the legality of the search.

So, the answer to your question is, it depends.

That said, this someone needs to hire a lawyer who will challenge the evidence based upon an illegal search. If the judge rules that it WAS legal, then (at this point) it was. However, if someone appealed that decision and the judge was overruled by an appellate court, then it WASN'T legal. However, if that ruling was appealed to higher court... And, on and on.

So, at this point, there isn't an answer.

excon

[Lenovo]

OK, guess I'll just come out and say it

A few weeks ago, I was pulled over, origionally for speeding, which, OK, I was at fault. As the officer was talking to me, he claimed he could smell weed coming from my car, which I know was bogus, seen how I don't smoke at all, not even cigs. Anyway he asked me to step out of the car, so, to avoid causing trouble, I did. He had me sit on the curb with my legs crossed and I had my hands handcuffed behind my back. During the search he found in my glove compartment about two-hundred dollars in tens, which I saved for emergency money (for gas, groceries, car trouble, whatever) I told him it was emergency money, but said it looked to him like drug money. At that point I wanted to tell him to stop searching, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to do that, so I was going to let him continue searching but then like, two-three minutes later, he said I "checked out" and said I was free to go, and uncuffed me, and let me go, but he kept my money. He told me it is policy to take any money found during a search back to the station. Does this help any more?

[Lowtax4eva]

So why not just go to the station, give them the time and location where you were pulled over and tell them you want the money returned. I hope you got the officers name, license plate, car number or something.

[excon]

Hello again, Len:

Yeah, I don't know why you didn't just come out and say it. I'm not going to tell your mom.

Your question about the search is not relevant since no evidence was seized and is being used against you.

He lied to you, dude. There ain't no such policy in any police department. It looks like instead of evidence being seized, your money was stolen. Certainly, if he didn't give you a receipt, that's what happened.

Can you prove it?? Sure you can. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

[Auttajasi]

Officers are allowed to search your car if they have reasonable suspicion to do so. He can ask your permission to search your car just as a formality. This keeps the situation calm and agreeable. If you deny the officer, he can still search your car if he has reasonable suspicion. So... If he asks you and you say yes, you can, legally ask him to stop searching your car, but if he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't have to stop. This allows officers a great deal of latitude on the job, but it also may feel like our rights are being violated times. Officers also only need "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over. This is very subjective.

[Lowtax4eva]

Officers are allowed to search your car if they have reasonable suspicion to do so. He can ask your permission to search your car just as a formality. This keeps the situation calm and agreeable. If you deny the officer, he can still search your car if he has reasonable suspicion. So...If he asks you and you say yes, you can, legally ask him to stop searching your car, but if he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't have to stop. This allows officers a great deal of latitude on the job, but it also may feel like our rights are being violated times. Officers also only need "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over. This is very subjective.

I thought that if you say no they have to place you under arrest or get a warrant before they can search the car. I was always told your verbal OK bypasses these requirements and is not meaningless.

[NeedKarma]

I believe lowtax is correct or else 'reasonable suspicion' can be abused. Never give your verbal OK for a search. There are videos on YouTube that explain this better than I can. I'll see if I can fnd them.

[NeedKarma]

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV0g5B1blqk&mode=user&search=

[Auttajasi]

I thought that if you say no they have to place you under arrest or get a warrant before they can search the car. I was always told your verbal ok bypasses these requirements and is not meaningless.

That's not my understanding. It would be a lot of trouble to get a warrant for every car that they wanted to search. Technically, he wasn't under arrest even though he was cuffed. It's the same argument with the wiretapping controversy. They don't want to have to go to the trouble of obtaining a warrant for every phone conversation they want to hear or email they want to read. So, it was covered under the Patriot Act. Not sure what the exact wording was, but I think it was something like "reasonable suspicion."

It's kind of interesting, but by telling the officers that it isn't OK to search your car, it might give them the reasonable suspicion to search your car. We give officers this freedom, because it help keep us safe.
It would be interesting to read statistics about how many cars that are searched have something illegal in it. I bet it is a high percentage.

As far as the officer goes, it seems fishy that he took your money. I don't know if they have to take your money during a search.
Did he give you a speeding ticket? I would definitely follow up on this. Your question shouldn't be if you can tell them to stop searching your car, but whether they can take your money. Definitely contact the precinct the officer works at.

[excon]

Hello again:

In legalese, words DO make a difference. In the US, the hurdle cops have to jump over is “probable cause”. That's a LONG long way from reasonable suspicion. Indeed, all cops are suspicious, and a cop's suspicion might be reasonable under the circumstances. But that's not enough. In court, he must demonstrate that he had reason to expect that he would find evidence of a crime. That reason must be based on demonstrable fact, not just idle speculation.

That means if you're stopped for a tail light being out, he can only search your car for evidence that proves your tail light was out, and he can't search any other place than the tail light thingy. He's certainly not going to find evidence of a broken tail light in your glove box.

If he's going to search your glove box, he needs more to go on than a broken tail light or a reasonable suspicion that he might find something.

In the limited space we have, that's the difference between a legal search, and a fishing expedition.

excon

[Auttajasi]

This is the holding from UNITED STATES v. ROSS, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)

To sum it up, officers need "probable cause" and not "reasonable suspicion" (like I originally said) to perform a warrantless search of your vehicle. A situation escalates from 'reasonable suspicion' to 'probable cause' during your interaction with the officer. Again, 'probable cause' is very subjective, but it has been debated in court many times.

UNITED STATES v. ROSS, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. Pp. 804-825.


(a) The "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , applies to searches of vehicles that are supported by probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. In this class of cases, a search is not unreasonable if based on objective facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained. Pp. 804-809.

(b) However, the rationale justifying the automobile exception does not apply so as to permit a warrantless search of any movable container that is believed to be carrying an illicit substance and that is found in a public place - even when the container is placed in a vehicle (not otherwise believed to be carrying contraband). United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 ; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 . Pp. 809-814. [456 U.S. 798, 799]

(c) Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. Pp. 817-824.

(d) The doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude rejection here of the holding in Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420 , and some of the reasoning in Arkansas v. Sanders, supra. Pp. 824-825.