Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw Enforcement & Police · 1 decade ago

what would happen if i deny cops permission to search my car?

i have never been asked but i see on the "cops" tv show that they sometimes ask " is it ok if i search your car" or something like that, what would happen if i get stopped asked that and deny them permission?

32 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The exercising of a right CANNOT be converted into a crime. US Supreme court ruling. No matter how much this concept offends power hungry cops.

    If you say no, end of issue and drive away. They cannot search without your consent. Yes they may manufacture some "probable cause" but it had better be CONCRETE. Not "I smelled pot" or some other subjective BS.

    They cannot "detain" you while a police dog is on the way. That would be unlawful arrest. You are either free to go or UNDER ARREST, there is now in between like that manipulative dishonest/criminal crap they say like "you are merely being detained". If you are not free to go you are arrested, end of discussion. If you tell them this and they still detain you, then they have now made themselves subject to a title 42 FEDERAL LAWSUIT for violating your civil rights. You can sue them as INDIVIDUALS, not hiding behind their badges. Grounds for RICO charges are also established.

    Police derive MOST of their POWER from the average citizens ignorance of their rights and the law.

    Put them on the defense, I do, and it scares the hell out of them. That's why they always let me go.

    Police state advocate below, MIKEYSCO, is opperating under the assumption that he actually knows of what he speaks. He does not. He is not an attorney, I assume. I have spent many years studying the law and court rulings. Such as the following:

    OFFICER, AM I UNDER ARREST OR AM I FREE TO LEAVE?

    LAW HOLDS THAT IF I AM NOT FREE TO

    LEAVE, THEN I AM UNDER ARREST!

    Do NOT tell me that I am NOT under “arrest” and that I am merely being “detained” because the word “arrest” is used to define the word “detain” to wit:

    “Detain. To retain as the possession of personalty, To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to restrain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438; State v. King, 303 S.W.2d 930, 934. See Confinement; Custody.” Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 404.

    Court’s have consistently held that once you turn on your lights and stop me, that you have invoked a seizure, that I am not free to leave and that I am under arrest to wit:

    “A motorist is seized when a police officer pulls up behind his car and activates full emergency lights.” State v. DeArman, 54 Wn. App. 621, 624, 774 P.2d 1247 (1989).

    “Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers’ attempt to summon the occupants of the parked car with both their emergency lights and high beam headlights constituted a show of authority sufficient to convey to any reasonable person that voluntary departure from the scene was not a reasonable alternative. Cf. United States v. Palmer, 603 F.2d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir. 1979). In the present case, however, we conclude that Stroud was “seized”, for Fourth Amendment purposes, at the moment the officers pulled up behind the parked vehicle and switched on the flashing light.” State v. Stroud, 30 Wn.App. 392 (1981).

    “A person is “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that he or she was not free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 100 S.Ct 1870, 64 Led. 2d 497 (1980); State v. Young, 135 Wn.2d 498, 509, 957 P.2d 681 (1998).

    “Under both state and federal law, whenever a police officer stops a motorist, he has “seized” him.” State v. Silvernail, 25 Wn.App. 185, 605 P.2d 1279 (1980).

    The Court in Seattle v. Sage, 11 Wn. App. 481, at pages 484-485, 523 P.2d 942, rev. denied 84 Wn.2d 1013 (1973), observed:

    “. . . a person is placed under arrest when he is deprived of his liberty by an officer who intends to arrest him. The arresting officer does not need to orally communicate this intent to the person being arrested. State v. Sullivan, 65 Wn.2d 47, 395 P.2d 745 (1964). Here the arrest occurred when the officer informed the aid car attendant that the defendant was under arrest and was not to be allowed to leave. The arrest was valid. (Emphasis mine). See also State v. McIntyre, 92 Wn.2d 620, 623, 600 P.2d 1009 (1979).

    State v. Byers, 88 Wn.2d 1, 559 P.2d 1234 (1977) cited with approval in State v. Dunn, 22 Wn.App. 362 (1979), appears to be the modern case most cited in Washington as to what constitutes an arrest. At page 5 the court states:

    “A person is restrained or imprisoned when he is deprived of either liberty of movement or freedom to remain in the place of his lawful choice; and such restraint or imprisonment may be accomplished by physical force alone, or by threat of force, or by conduct reasonably implying that force will be used. Kilcup v. McManus, 64 Wn.2d 771, 777, 394 P.2d 375 (1964). Appellants were under arrest from the moment they were not, and knew they were not free to go. United States v. See, 505 F.2d 845, 855 (9th Cir. 1974) ‘when the officers interrupted the two men and restricted their liberty of movement, the arrest for purposes of this case was complete’ Henry v. United States, (supra) at 103.” State v. Byers, supra, at page 5. See also Moore v. Pay ‘n Save, 20 Wn.App. 482 (1978).

    In State v. Sullivan, 65 Wn.2d 47, 395 P.2d 745 (1964), the court observed at page 51:

    “Perhaps it should be mentioned that as a general rule a person is placed under arrest when he is deprived of his liberty by an officer who intends to arrest him. It is not always necessary for the officer to make a formal declaration of arrest. See: 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, 75 (1961); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 4 L.Ed.2d 134, 80 S.Ct. 168 (1959) and United States v. Boston, 330 F.2d 937 (1964). And;

    “The stopping of an automobile by a highway patrol officer for inspection of a driver’s license, or for any other purpose where it is accomplished by the authority of the officers, is an “arrest.” Robinson v. State, 198 S.W.2d 633, 635, 184 Tenn. 277

    “A motorist stopped by a traffic officer for a traffic offense would be considered “arrested” . . . even if the motorist was not specifically informed that he had been arrested.” People ex rel. Winkle v. Bannan, 125 N.W.2d 875, 879, 372 Mich. 292.

    “Any restraint, however slight, upon another’s liberty to come and go as one pleases, constitutes an “arrest.” Swetnam v. W.F. Woolworth Co., 318 P.2d 364, 366, 83 Ariz. 189.

    See also United States v. Boston, 330 F.2d 937 (1964); United States v. Shelby, 407 F.2d 241 (Ninth Circuit, 1969); United States v. Willis, 248 F.Supp. 265 (D.C. 1965); Virgin Island v. Quinones, 301 F.Supp. 246 (D.V.I. 1969); State v. Mallet, 542 S.W. 2d 584; Pullins v. State, 256 N.E. 2d 553, 556 (Sup.Ct. Ind., 1970); Dillon v. State, 275 N.E.2d 312 (Sup.Ct.Ind., 1971); United States v. Strickler, 490 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1974); Jackson v. United States, 408 F.2d 1165, 1169 (8th Cir. 1969); Presly v. State, 75 Florida 434, 78 So. 532, LRA 1918 C. 975; 4 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure 281; and 4 Am Jur. 5 defining what constitutes an “arrest.”

    MIKEYSCO, have you actually read the Uninted States Constitution of which I assume you swore an oath to uphold and defend against ALL enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC ? OR did you swear an oath to all the lower court rulings regarding the USC thus giving you more police powers ? You can't swear an oath to both, they are almost uniformly contradictory. Either you serve the people of this once great country or you serve your masters, the black robed priests who tell you that "shall not" really means "shall" etc etc etc . You obviously have ingested, and regurgitate, the beleif that this is a POLICE STATE ! It is easy to prove that 100%, yes all, police are criminals acording to the law! Children know this.

    California police being uncontested the most criminal and Naziesq !

    MIKEYSCO, it says much that you refer to yourself as a LAW ENFORCER rather than a PEACE OFFICER. Obviously says where you are coming from.

    "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Right..... nothing to hide and being normal looking they will take a quick look and thats that. Why would someone who has nothing to hide care? Say "no search" and they will find a reason.

    Think of it this way. Always on Cops are guys who are begging for it. You could smoke it up and have all sorts of things in the car but what prompts an officer to want a search? They stop someone for a DWI and they don't ask for a search. There are too many ways a person could make a case in court.

    Bottom line..... you say no and you are busted or at a point in life where it could be an issue. Even if they did search and found something it would go easier in court than if you just said "no".

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • tk
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    If the police say - is it ok if i search your car, it is a clear indication that they do not have reasonable suspiscion or probable cause to proceed. They are trying to hyave you give them your "informed consent" to proced. If you say no, they can not proceed unless they push some weak reasonable suspiscion theory or discover a probable cause. Reasonable suspiscion is a belief that a crime has or is being committed, it is not a guess or a hunch. Probable cause is discovery of evidence of a crime being conducted or strong indication. This requires the police to see or smell something with their own eyes.You can not fishing about under probable cause.

    If you deny a search the cop will try to intimidate you with a statement such as - So, if you are not hiding something and are not breaking the law why would you object. This is further proof that the police has no resonable grounds to proceed. The proper response to a search request is - With respect office I do not give you permission to conduct the search. If he presses for a reason you state - With respect officer I do not give you permission to conduct the search as this is my right under the law. You then ask the officer is you are free to go. It is also not required to tell an officer where you were or where you are going. If asked you state - Officer, I am simply conducting my life in a lwaful manner and do not need to share the details of my life per the law. You then ask if you are free to go. Do not answer nosey questions, do not resist, do not get angry, just stand still. Give your license and registration if asked. Be patient and they will let you go on your way. We do not live in a lawless police state. The police can not pursue harrassment or detain you or search your being or your property without your consent and certainly without reasonable suspiscion or probable cause.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Never refuse or say no (in a negative way to which they wish you to answer) to an officer flat out. They could use that against you saying you failed to comply or some other crap ...

    Tell them you will and would be more then happy to allow them to search your car as soon as they produce a warrant for such a search. They will say all kinds of things to get you to comply and threaten you or befriend you (ill help you if you help me).

    They are wily gritters.

    Just never say the word no or refuse ... keep repeating you'll be happy to once the court issued paper arrives.

    *If you do have something on you and do the above be assured your going to be totally screwed from Anything they can think of to add to the charges.

    If you do not have anything and they do it you may be helping someone else down the road because it will be less likely that officer could get a judge to sign off on it.

    Source(s): Personal experience, in my area.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    If there is probable cause to search the vehicle, they don't need your permission. An example: you get stopped and when you roll down your window, a strong odor of THC comes pouring out....Their going to do more than search. If you decline, it sometimes results in an arrest, car impounding and $. If there isn't anything to worry about, then allow it. Although some people view it as a "rights issue"....these searches take weapons, illegal drugs, and many other threats to the community off the streets. Just let them do their job, which is to keep you and those around you....safe.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    When the police ask that question it is usually just a formality - they can search your car and/or person for probable cause. If they are asking you if they can search your car they already feel they have probable cause. They really don't need your permission. They can bring their sergeant in and get it all on report as to why they feel they have probable cause and go ahead and search it anyways. Best to just let them do it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Basically, you make things much harder on yourself. The only people who usually deny searches, are those with something to hide. Most of the time, what they are hiding is drugs.

    If the officer thinks you have drugs, he/she will call a K9 to do a search on your vehicle and when it hits on your vehicle (cuz it will), that gives the officers probable cause to tear the crap out of your vehicle and find what it is your hiding. This is totally legal and has been upheld by numerous courts.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    They may very well call for a K-9 officer and have the dog sniff outside the car for drugs. If he indicates a positive, they have reasonable cause to search the vehicle

    Source(s): Also from COPS.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Probable cause is subjective, which pretty much makes it their call. You are either clean or not. If you are clean, you will be on your way quicker if you give them permission. I am amazed at what they have missed in a search,[ at least so I have been told by friends who Used to do dope, not me of course!]. If you are dirty, you are going down anyway, so might as well not pi$$ them off.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They would have to contact a judge and give him probable cause to issue a search warrant. Often unless the is sufficient evidence the judge won't allow it.I know of a case locally where this happened.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    i denied them once and got away with it. he tried to say that to me too that it means i'm guilty and i said what good are rights if using them means you're guilty. when asked why not I also said my govt teacher said i didn't have too and i was testing it out or some such thing. luckily i was a doe eyed white boy and i play them up on that, nice college preppie kid like myself. they kept me there and gave me a hard time, had to do the sobriety stuff, ( iremember i also said because they asked me a bunch of times why can't we search your car (Like they were some horny teenage boy who couldn't get any, can i f you know, how about, now can i f you know. over and over again right.) they eventually let me go and of course i ad drugs on me. one other time they just said step out the car and say we're going to search the car for this and this reason. that only happened once. I knew why i got searched, the jerk in the passenger seat put a bag of weed in my glove box. I saw him do it and thought what are you stupid? that is the worst place to put your weed. then we get pulled over, i have to get my registration and this guy has a bag of weed in my glove box. thankfully he said it's his but we both got a upm ticket.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.