Absolutely within your rights. Generally good advice. Just consider opening your trunk will get you on your way in a couple minutes. Refusing the search may mean waiting some time for a dog or warrant. Work the system if you can spare the time.Even as a law abiding person, NEVER consent to a search.
Do not say "No, you can not search my vehicle" instead say, "I do NOT consent to search."
Even as a law abiding person, NEVER consent to a search.
Do not say "No, you can not search my vehicle" instead say, "I do NOT consent to search."
Even as a law abiding person, NEVER consent to a search.
Do not say "No, you can not search my vehicle" instead say, "I do NOT consent to search."
I was wondering the same thing. If someone says either of those two things to me it communicates the same thing. If one is meant to be more legalize, it isn't necessary. A court does not expect an ordinary citizen to speak formally just to invoke his rights. As to exercising this right, I have always taken it two ways. One is that the citizen is simply making the Constitution work and exercising the "system". No problem. The other is that the citizen is afraid that they will somehow end up in trouble. I suppose, if you really aren't sure of your innocence, like having a weapon in a bag and not knowing that state's gun laws, that may make sense. But then that violates the aforementioned qualification that the citizen be "law abiding". If you are truly and confidently law abiding I don't see the risk. I see, perhaps, the satisfaction of making the Constitution come alive and work for you, but where is the risk? If the cop is dirty and you are afraid of having something planted, he can still do that after getting a warrant or dog. Maybe I just haven't considered all the scenarios.Can I ask what the difference is between the two statements?
I was wondering the same thing. If someone says either of those two things to me it communicates the same thing. If one is meant to be more legalize, it isn't necessary. A court does not expect an ordinary citizen to speak formally just to invoke his rights. As to exercising this right, I have always taken it two ways. One is that the citizen is simply making the Constitution work and exercising the "system". No problem. The other is that the citizen is afraid that they will somehow end up in trouble. I suppose, if you really aren't sure of your innocence, like having a weapon in a bag and not knowing that state's gun laws, that may make sense. But then that violates the aforementioned qualification that the citizen be "law abiding". If you are truly and confidently law abiding I don't see the risk. I see, perhaps, the satisfaction of making the Constitution come alive and work for you, but where is the risk? If the cop is dirty and you are afraid of having something planted, he can still do that after getting a warrant or dog. Maybe I just haven't considered all the scenarios.
If you are truly and confidently law abiding I don't see the risk. I see, perhaps, the satisfaction of making the Constitution come alive and work for you, but where is the risk?
A court does not expect an ordinary citizen to speak formally just to invoke his rights.
Not the same thing. In Salinas the suspect had waived his right to not answer questions. He participated in an interview and then simply stopped talking. This opinion simply says that if you talk and change you mind you have to assert your 5th amendment not just be silent. Nothing legalese has to be said. No specific words. Just that you don't want to talk any more and want a lawyer. No need to even know what amendment it is.Not completely true. A few days ago, the Supreme Court decided that in order to enjoy your 5th amendment rights prior to arrest,you must state that you are asserting your right. Silence after being asked a question can be used against you.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do...l-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-texas/
Can I ask what the difference is between the two statements? I mean, technically I can see that one is suggesting there is no ability to search while the other speaks to willingness to allow it, but if I said the former, would I somehow be forfeiting (or not protecting) my rights in a way I wouldn't with the latter? (In case it isn't coming across, I'm not being argumentative at all. Just trying to understand.)
"I do not consent to searches." It's not combative or challenging to the officer and it's exercising your rights rather than saying things like "I know my rights." Even if you're not abiding by the law (whichever that law may be), if there is probable cause they can search you without your permission. If they're asking you to consent to a search, then they don't have probable cause.
The "I don't see the risk" is the same as saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." Cool, lemme attach this GPS and camera to your car 24/7. How about your living room? No? Well, the courts have ruled that privacy extends to your vehicle as well. There is simply no way to know that you are abiding by 100% of the laws, 100% of the time. There are too many laws and statutes that can trip you up in your day to day activities and the police are not there to help you avoid them.
It always amuses (read: scares) me how often, those who claim to be the advocates of "small government/the Constitution/personal responsibility" are those most willing to cede those rights and views to authority under the guise of "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."
I've said it once and I'll say it again (with a qualifier this time): Unless you called them for help, never ever ever talk to the police.