I saw that video a few months ago. It's funny, but not the funniest PSA ever made. That honor must belong to one of the hundreds of hilarious Cold War civil defense PSAs.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something huge and glaring is missing from the second vignette. (I haven't finished the commentary yet.)
In most states, reckless (which includes 20 over) is an arrestable offense. And, once arrested, the entire passenger area of the car can be searched incident to that arrest. Even the bag.
So if this cop wanted to stretch it as much as he appeared, he could do so simply by arresting.
It doesn't mean the advice isn't good, but it means that it might be giving a sense of security that isn't warranted.
Further, an officer with a drug-sniffing dog can have the dog sniff if doing so does not extend the traffic stop (which usually means another officer is present).
The dog's reaction is likely enough to sustain probable cause.
Maybe he'll get to these items soon in the commentary.
quote:So the entire advice is worthless because he was reckless?
Who is that directed to? If to me, I suggest you reread what I said. Especially, "It doesn't mean the advice isn't good."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, out of curiousity, if you say something before they tell you have the right to remain silent, can it be used against you? Shouldn't they then say the warning BEFORE asking anything?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, out of curiousity, if you say something before they tell you have the right to remain silent, can it be used against you? Shouldn't they then say the warning BEFORE asking anything?
Depends on if you're in custody or not.
Anything you say not in response to the police officer is most likely usable.
Safest thing: assume it will be used. If you don't want it used, don't say it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Something huge and glaring is missing from the second vignette. (I haven't finished the commentary yet.)
In most states, reckless (which includes 20 over) is an arrestable offense. And, once arrested, the entire passenger area of the car can be searched incident to that arrest. Even the bag.
So if this cop wanted to stretch it as much as he appeared, he could do so simply by arresting.
They didn't explicitly say that in the video, but I was able to pick it up from what was said. The police officer said that he could arrest the kid for going that fast, and this fact was not refuted. Later the host listed the circumstances in which an officer can search your private property, one item of which was in an arrest situation.
They could certainly have made it more clear, but I, a person of no law training and mediocre intelligence, was able to finish the program with an understanding of that fact, so I guess you could say it was in there.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the kid does make a point to ask if he's being detained.
The sense I got was that the cop in the video wanted a drug bust but didn't want to waste his time arresting a mere speeder.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The police officer said that he could arrest the kid for going that fast, and this fact was not refuted.
They make a point of saying that the officer will mislead the suspect. I think it bears emphasizing that this much of what the officer said was the truth.
In fact, in many states, non-reckless traffic offenses are arrestable. And the Supreme Court has specifically upheld arrests that are motivated by a desire to search as long as the actual arrests are lawful.
Also, I seem to recall them saying they could search you when they arrest you, but not mentioning the passenger area of the car. I could be misremembering, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We watch a lot of COPS. It's amazing how many people give up their rights by consenting to a search on that show. (We figure that they simply don't show the instances where people refuse--unless something else interesting has happened.) If the officer asks if he can search you or your car, it's probably because he needs your consent. It's especially amazing because most of those people had something to hide, and if they had only said no, they wouldn't have been arrested. (Unless they were arrested for something ELSE.)
Personally, I think it is your duty as a citizen to refuse searches, whether or not you have any contraband.
I think it's good for people to be aware that committing an arrestable offense is enough for the police to search you, and the video did point that out. It really did fail, though, by not pointing out (and confirming) that 20 miles over is an arrestable offense. But the point of the video is still a good one. Don't be stupid, and don't give up your rights. I wish they had emphasized the fact that we ALL should refuse to give up our rights, no matter what.
A lot of people say, well, if you've got nothing to hide, why refuse? Well, how about because not only is it your right, but why should you have to wait around while they search you for no reason? No one should be harrassed like that.
We saw a COPS episode yesterday (FX had an insanely long marathon) where two cops went up to two young men who were parked in an apartment complex. The only reason the cops investigated was because the boys were just sitting there, with their car pointing out of the space rather than into the space. If the guys hadn't consented to being searched, nothing would have happened to them--the officers certainly didn't have probable cause even to bother them in the first place. (Not that I could see, anyway.) It turned out they both had drugs and weapons--so probably were up to no good. So it's probably a good thing they didn't know their rights. But it is still annoying that so many people either don't know or give up their rights.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the point of the video is still a good one.
Absolutely.
quote:Personally, I think it is your duty as a citizen to refuse searches, whether or not you have any contraband.
I tend to agree, which is not a real popular attitude in my chosen field.
I do think in certain situations it can be a moral duty to consent. For example, if a child is missing and there's good reason to believe the child is in a particular neighborhood, allowing the police to search will allow them to focus on those homes they aren't allowed to search. The same would go with a voluntary request to search the trunk of a car leaving a shopping mall where a kid had been snatched.
But in general, rights to not be searched should be asserted.
quote:Well, how about because not only is it your right
I think it goes beyond that. A pattern of lawful, respectful assertions of rights by those with nothing to hide will help change attitudes about the assertion of rights. It's looked on with suspicion, and it shouldn't be.
quote:If the officer asks if he can search you or your car, it's probably because he needs your consent. It's especially amazing because most of those people had something to hide, and if they had only said no, they wouldn't have been arrested.
The speculation amongst officers is that they think refusing will make the cop search anyway and not be willing to be talked out of arresting them if something is found. Someone guilty confronting a cop assumes the cop knows about their stash and has probable cause.
The flaw, of course, is that both assumptions are dead wrong. Officers will not let the average person go after finding drugs, no matter how cooperative. And, they often don't have probable cause even when they "know" there are drugs in the car.
quote:the officers certainly didn't have probable cause even to bother them in the first place.
No probable cause is needed to approach anyone, to ask them questions, to ask to search, or to ask to see ID. (It sounds like you know that, but I'm clarifying for others who might not.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think it's good for people to be aware that committing an arrestable offense is enough for the police to search you, and the video did point that out. It really did fail, though, by not pointing out (and confirming) that 20 miles over is an arrestable offense.
It may be that it's not in the state in question. And as I understand it, it's not enough for it to be an arrestable offense; the officer must actually have arrested you. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. In this case, the officer asked if he could search, and I imagine he wouldn't have asked had he been entitled to without asking. No?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you ask, after asked to show your ID, "Sorry, officer, but I'm not sure what the state law is on this issue. Could you inform me whether or not I have the right to refuse to show it?"
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And as I understand it, it's not enough for it to be an arrestable offense; the officer must actually have arrested you
That's true. But, he can decide to arrest after consent is refused (as long as he hasn't stated what he's going to do about the ticket yet). He can't use it as a threat, though.
quote:the officer asked if he could search, and I imagine he wouldn't have asked had he been entitled to without asking. No?
Not as a general rule. Many officers ask even when they are sure they have probable cause, because probable cause is tricky to litigate, and consent isn't.
quote:Can you ask, after asked to show your ID, "Sorry, officer, but I'm not sure what the state law is on this issue. Could you inform me whether or not I have the right to refuse to show it?"
I'm not sure. Clearly, if state law says you don't have to, then you're in the clear. But if showing ID is required, I'm not sure how much delay there can be.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried looking up my state's law on whether or not we have to provide ID upon request (when we're NOT driving.)
I couldn't find anything. The search keeps on bringing up plenty on the voter ID controversy happening now. I'm in Georgia.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
