"I'm A Cop, Just Cooperate [or else] (1 Viewer)

[simsarge]

Simple, easy to follow steps on how to act if you're pulled over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

 

[Christo]

I agree 100%...it SHOULDN'T be, but in the scenario we've been discussing, with a cop who is clearly on a power trip, it IS. I'd rather take that up with the officer's superiors after I've left the scene than try and rationalize with the guy on the spot.

Again...not justifying the cops actions. Saying that pulling the rights card on a cop already over the line for the sake of standing up for our rights isn't always a wise decision.

Do people really think that telling a cop on a power trip that you won't obey his orders because you have rights (and are otherwise innocent) is really a good idea? Really...I'm seriously asking just to make sure I'm not reading into this.

I think it generally depends on your position and where you are relative to home. I understand that's not how everyone handles it, but when I am 100% in the right and by myself so it won't mess up anyone else, yes I challenge. I also alert the officer to the reason I know I'm right. It helps to know the law, it helps more to be a lawyer, it helps even more to know every judge in my parish, and it certainly doesn't hurt that my office shares a wall with Internal Affairs for my parish's Sheriff. Of course, I know (at least by sight) virtually every officer between my home and my office. If I were in a different city, I'd probably react differently.

The people who can stand up to this sort of this thing with relative impunity should.

Ok...so yeah. There's that. I certainly can't lay claim to ANY of that. In your shoes, I totally agree.

Right, I forget that not everyone is in the same position that I am when I get righteously indignant about my rights.

Yeah, I only get a finger in my ### when I see my doctor.

 

[Henry Ford]

I agree 100%...it SHOULDN'T be, but in the scenario we've been discussing, with a cop who is clearly on a power trip, it IS. I'd rather take that up with the officer's superiors after I've left the scene than try and rationalize with the guy on the spot.

Again...not justifying the cops actions. Saying that pulling the rights card on a cop already over the line for the sake of standing up for our rights isn't always a wise decision.

Do people really think that telling a cop on a power trip that you won't obey his orders because you have rights (and are otherwise innocent) is really a good idea? Really...I'm seriously asking just to make sure I'm not reading into this.

I think it generally depends on your position and where you are relative to home. I understand that's not how everyone handles it, but when I am 100% in the right and by myself so it won't mess up anyone else, yes I challenge. I also alert the officer to the reason I know I'm right. It helps to know the law, it helps more to be a lawyer, it helps even more to know every judge in my parish, and it certainly doesn't hurt that my office shares a wall with Internal Affairs for my parish's Sheriff. Of course, I know (at least by sight) virtually every officer between my home and my office. If I were in a different city, I'd probably react differently.

The people who can stand up to this sort of this thing with relative impunity should.

Ok...so yeah. There's that. I certainly can't lay claim to ANY of that. In your shoes, I totally agree.

Right, I forget that not everyone is in the same position that I am when I get righteously indignant about my rights.

Yeah, I only get a finger in my ### when I see my doctor.

That's more of a privilege.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I agree 100%...it SHOULDN'T be, but in the scenario we've been discussing, with a cop who is clearly on a power trip, it IS. I'd rather take that up with the officer's superiors after I've left the scene than try and rationalize with the guy on the spot.

Again...not justifying the cops actions. Saying that pulling the rights card on a cop already over the line for the sake of standing up for our rights isn't always a wise decision.

Do people really think that telling a cop on a power trip that you won't obey his orders because you have rights (and are otherwise innocent) is really a good idea? Really...I'm seriously asking just to make sure I'm not reading into this.

I think it generally depends on your position and where you are relative to home. I understand that's not how everyone handles it, but when I am 100% in the right and by myself so it won't mess up anyone else, yes I challenge. I also alert the officer to the reason I know I'm right. It helps to know the law, it helps more to be a lawyer, it helps even more to know every judge in my parish, and it certainly doesn't hurt that my office shares a wall with Internal Affairs for my parish's Sheriff. Of course, I know (at least by sight) virtually every officer between my home and my office. If I were in a different city, I'd probably react differently.

The people who can stand up to this sort of this thing with relative impunity should.

Ok...so yeah. There's that. I certainly can't lay claim to ANY of that. In your shoes, I totally agree.

Right, I forget that not everyone is in the same position that I am when I get righteously indignant about my rights.

Yeah, I only get a finger in my ### when I see my doctor.

Me too. Stupid BCBS won't cover extra phalanges.

 

[Christo]

I wonder if there's ever been a study done on the personality types that are drawn to law enforcement careers? I don't have any hard data to back it up, but I don't recall any of the best or brightest kids I knew aspiring to be police officers. People realize that it is a potentially dangerous career with limited upside financially. The people I knew who became cops became cops because they didn't want to go to college and most of them had a pretty aggressive personality. So from my limited exposure, we put a lot of responsibility in the hands of some personality types who may behave aggressively by nature and aren't necessarily the brightest minds among our society. Maybe that's ok though and that's how things should be?

It's a job that requires you to be aggressive. Those in charge need to be able to choose people who have the ability to control that aggression as well. But it's not an easy thing to do.

 

[Loan Sharks]

I agree 100%...it SHOULDN'T be, but in the scenario we've been discussing, with a cop who is clearly on a power trip, it IS. I'd rather take that up with the officer's superiors after I've left the scene than try and rationalize with the guy on the spot.

Again...not justifying the cops actions. Saying that pulling the rights card on a cop already over the line for the sake of standing up for our rights isn't always a wise decision.

Do people really think that telling a cop on a power trip that you won't obey his orders because you have rights (and are otherwise innocent) is really a good idea? Really...I'm seriously asking just to make sure I'm not reading into this.

I think it generally depends on your position and where you are relative to home. I understand that's not how everyone handles it, but when I am 100% in the right and by myself so it won't mess up anyone else, yes I challenge. I also alert the officer to the reason I know I'm right. It helps to know the law, it helps more to be a lawyer, it helps even more to know every judge in my parish, and it certainly doesn't hurt that my office shares a wall with Internal Affairs for my parish's Sheriff. Of course, I know (at least by sight) virtually every officer between my home and my office. If I were in a different city, I'd probably react differently.

The people who can stand up to this sort of this thing with relative impunity should.

Ok...so yeah. There's that. I certainly can't lay claim to ANY of that. In your shoes, I totally agree.

Right, I forget that not everyone is in the same position that I am when I get righteously indignant about my rights.

I personally have issues with most authority and especially overzealous application of authority. So my position may not warrant my indignation but I got one more thing going for me even though I am not connected. I am a white guy. That seems to go a long way.

You sound like some one who wants to start a rebellion. You want to help me overthrow the government?

 

[Gene Sackman]

People who dont cooperate with cops are ridiculous. Good rule of thumb, dont #### with people who are paid to #### with you.

That's the whole point. They aren't paid to #### with us, but that's what in many areas we have allowed it to turn into.

If you are in the wrong they are. And that is obviously what I meant.

Picture this, Im on my way home from a late night hockey league game. (true story) And I am exhausted. Im doing that closing your eyes thing and weaving my truck. A cop pulls me over and asks me several questions.. Have I been drinking, where am I coming from, why I was weaving, and will I take a series of tests as he didnt have a breath machine.

Now, I could go two ways with this. Cooperate fully or say something stupid like I know my rights and dont have to tell you anything. (or soimething to that effect)

I cooperate fully and explain that I was coming from the rink and was just tired, and have not been drinking. I do his series of tests and he concludes I have not been drinking. I promise to keep my window down and radio up and go right home. He concurs and lets me off with a warning. I thank him and go home.

Now if you were difficult in this situation, how do you think it would of went. Im gonna say bad. He could of easily given my a ticket or worse, arrested me for impaired driving (being too tired).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

 

[Gene Sackman]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

Get him MT!!!

 

[cosjobs]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Sure sounds like you have one hell of a persecution complex. Don't break the law and you won't have to worry about an unnecessary search. I'd rather have cops search unnecessarily and find a threat than not be able to do so and miss one.

Nice. It didn't take long for someone to throw out the ol' "If I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about" line.

I wonder how they'd feel about annual tax audits. Since there not doing anything wrong. And we can always rely on the integrity and fairness when their jobs are rated on how well they find stuff, whether legitimate or not.

 

[msommer]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

Sure, but

cops are not murderers.

is misleading at best.

This is a pretty stupid post.

If I said black people are not murderers would you dare say that post is misleading?

 

[Christo]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

 

[msommer]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

 

[Christo]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

No

 

[gianmarco]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was a black guy in my teens or 20s.

 

[mr roboto]

What is the bar for probable cause for searches? I would imagine the officer could, if they were unscrupulous, find/make up a reason under most circumstances, no? Or make the person believe they had probable cause enough that they would simply consent anyway.

I draw the line at searches personally. Up until that point I will say. 'Yes sir, no ma'am, I'd be happy to officer' etc. If they ask to come in my home or search my car I would ask if they had probable cause. How would that go down?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

What is the bar for probable cause for searches? I would imagine the officer could, if they were unscrupulous, find/make up a reason under most circumstances, no? Or make the person believe they had probable cause enough that they would simply consent anyway.

I draw the line at searches personally. Up until that point I will say. 'Yes sir, no ma'am, I'd be happy to officer' etc. If they ask to come in my home or search my car I would ask if they had probable cause. How would that go down?

With a beatdown or worse, possibly. Question is, when you ask if they have probable cause or flat out refuse the search, how will they act? Depends on which cop you get.

 

[Christo]

What is the bar for probable cause for searches? I would imagine the officer could, if they were unscrupulous, find/make up a reason under most circumstances, no? Or make the person believe they had probable cause enough that they would simply consent anyway.

I draw the line at searches personally. Up until that point I will say. 'Yes sir, no ma'am, I'd be happy to officer' etc. If they ask to come in my home or search my car I would ask if they had probable cause. How would that go down?

I don't see how asking if they have probable cause will help. What if they say yes? Are you going to let them in? If they say they have probable cause when they don't and you consent they don't need probable cause. If they ask to search I'd say no. One of two things are then going to happen. Either they claim they have probable cause and they search anyway. Or they don't search.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was a black guy in my teens or 20s.

Uh-huh. Sure.

 

[Christo]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I agree. But I don't think anyone's advocating being unreasonable and confrontational.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was a black guy in my teens or 20s.

Uh-huh. Sure.

edit because I'm a poopy head.

 

[Christo]

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I agree. But I don't think anyone's advocating being unreasonable and confrontational.

It was the premise of the article posted in the OP:

Don't argue with me, don't call me names, don't tell me that I can't stop you, don't say I'm a racist pig, don't threaten that you'll sue me and take away my badge. Don't scream at me that you pay my salary, and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me.

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt.

 

[moleculo]

So cooperate basically means don't be a #### but dont automatically offer concent to searches. Is that correct?

 

[Christo]

So cooperate basically means don't be a #### but dont automatically offer concent to searches. Is that correct?

That's my read--don't make the cop's job harder than it has to be even if you don't agree with him.

 

[cosjobs]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

Good luck trying to rejuvenate your sex like in a few years

 

[Sweet J]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

Good luck trying to rejuvenate your sex like in a few years

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

Good luck trying to rejuvenate your sex like in a few years

That's the joke I was trying to make.

 

[Zow]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

Good luck trying to rejuvenate your sex like in a few years

That's the joke I was trying to make.

I laughed. But could tell sweet j totally missed it.

 

[Zow]

So cooperate basically means don't be a #### but dont automatically offer concent to searches. Is that correct?

This is, in a nutshell, what I advise my client.

Here are a few rules of thumb I give people (bear in mind, some of this is jurisdictional specific) I give when people ask how to deal with a police officer:

1. Be polite. Always. Play nice and play dumb. Like anything in life, you get farther when people like you. And people like nice and dumb people.

2. Respect the officer's safety concerns. If you have a weapon, tell him before he asks (I live in gun-toting AZ so this is jurisdictional specific). If you're pulled over and need to reach under your seat, in the glove box, etc. tell the officer what you're doing. Pull over safely and in an area where the officer won't be in danger approaching your car. This stuff goes a long way.

3. Don't offer excessive information. Officers are trained that a person who has an elaborate story is covering something up. Additionally, the more you speak, the more likely you are to make an admission. "Yes, sir", "No, sir", "I don't know, sir", and "I'd like to speak to my lawyer" should make up the majority of your statements.

4. It's okay to say no to the officer. Generally, if an officer can lawfully do something he's going to just do it. So, if he's going to ask you if he can do something, he likely doesn't have any other lawful means to do it. However, if you say that he can, he's now going to take full advantage and a guy like me will tell you later there's nothing that can be done about it. So say no. But under the confines of Rules 1 and 3. I'd say that the most common basis for an officer obtaining a basis for a warrantless search in the majority of my major drug cases is consent. Police officers are trained to use this tool well and there are numerous legal "exceptions" which expand their power to do it.

5. If you're being arrested, comply (in AZ it's still a crime to resist an unlawful arrest). Oftentimes whatever you're being arrested for is less serious than resisting arrest, assault on a cop, and fleeing (all possible felonies in AZ). If this occurs, still very much mind Rule 1 and Rule 3 should very much apply.

Like anything, there are good police officers and bad ones. Some lie, most try not to. They can be incredibly annoying and patronizing at times, but there's no constitutional protection against a wound up young officer trying to make a big bust. Accordingly, play nice and play dumb, but respectfully refuse to give the officer consent.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

Good luck trying to rejuvenate your sex like in a few years

That's the joke I was trying to make.

I laughed. But could tell sweet j totally missed it.

Sweet J's been a pile of poop lately.

Jesus, I need to update Jimtan.

 

[Zow]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I completely agree with everyone you said in theory. But, practically speaking, the bolded worries me. Doing something like opening the door for the cop could, at a suppression hearing 6 months later, be construed as implied consent or, possibly, trigger the good faith exception. I'd fear that this minor gesture could give the cop ammo to get up on the stand and talk his way into a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. In most jurisdictions this evidence would be incredibly difficult to refute because it'd just be the word of the outcome-interested defendant and the unbiased cop. Which of course, is another reason why ON-PERSON CAMERAS WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

 

[Christo]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I completely agree with everyone you said in theory. But, practically speaking, the bolded worries me. Doing something like opening the door for the cop could, at a suppression hearing 6 months later, be construed as implied consent or, possibly, trigger the good faith exception. I'd fear that this minor gesture could give the cop ammo to get up on the stand and talk his way into a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. In most jurisdictions this evidence would be incredibly difficult to refute because it'd just be the word of the outcome-interested defendant and the unbiased cop. Which of course, is another reason why ON-PERSON CAMERAS WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

I can't believe you are telling us that we should make the cops break down the door.

 

[Zow]

OK, hyperbole aside...does "cooperate" mean consenting to an illegal search?

Is that a trick question? I don't think it's possible to consent to an illegal search.

So if the officer asks to search your vehicle without probable cause or indeed a warrant, you cannot say yes?

If you say yes the search is not illegal.

But making the request is, right?

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I completely agree with everyone you said in theory. But, practically speaking, the bolded worries me. Doing something like opening the door for the cop could, at a suppression hearing 6 months later, be construed as implied consent or, possibly, trigger the good faith exception. I'd fear that this minor gesture could give the cop ammo to get up on the stand and talk his way into a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. In most jurisdictions this evidence would be incredibly difficult to refute because it'd just be the word of the outcome-interested defendant and the unbiased cop. Which of course, is another reason why ON-PERSON CAMERAS WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

I can't believe you are telling us that we should make the cops break down the door.

That's not at all what I am saying. I'm talking about the factual fluidity of search and seizure law.

 

[msommer]

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I completely agree with everyone you said in theory. But, practically speaking, the bolded worries me. Doing something like opening the door for the cop could, at a suppression hearing 6 months later, be construed as implied consent or, possibly, trigger the good faith exception. I'd fear that this minor gesture could give the cop ammo to get up on the stand and talk his way into a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. In most jurisdictions this evidence would be incredibly difficult to refute because it'd just be the word of the outcome-interested defendant and the unbiased cop. Which of course, is another reason why ON-PERSON CAMERAS WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

I can't believe you are telling us that we should make the cops break down the door.

If you don't want to comply with a warrantless search what other options would you have than closing the door?

 

[cosjobs]

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I completely agree with everyone you said in theory. But, practically speaking, the bolded worries me. Doing something like opening the door for the cop could, at a suppression hearing 6 months later, be construed as implied consent or, possibly, trigger the good faith exception. I'd fear that this minor gesture could give the cop ammo to get up on the stand and talk his way into a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. In most jurisdictions this evidence would be incredibly difficult to refute because it'd just be the word of the outcome-interested defendant and the unbiased cop. Which of course, is another reason why ON-PERSON CAMERAS WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

I can't believe you are telling us that we should make the cops break down the door.

If you don't want to comply with a warrantless search what other options would you have than closing the door?

They cannot beak down your door to search your house without a warrant or probable cause.

 

[Christo]

Nope. They can request to search your vehicle. If you say yes, then it's legal for them to do so. If they weren't allowed to ask, then those types of searches would be found illegal and inadmissible, which clearly isn't the case.

Which is why "just cooperate" is so insidious. "I'll just let him search my car and then complain later." What are you going to complain about later? He asked for permission, and you gave it to him.

You can be reasonable and non-confrontational but still assert your rights. If they ask to search you say no. If they say they have probable cause say you don't agree but understand they are going to search anyway. You can then open the door and let them in. That is not consent.

I completely agree with everyone you said in theory. But, practically speaking, the bolded worries me. Doing something like opening the door for the cop could, at a suppression hearing 6 months later, be construed as implied consent or, possibly, trigger the good faith exception. I'd fear that this minor gesture could give the cop ammo to get up on the stand and talk his way into a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. In most jurisdictions this evidence would be incredibly difficult to refute because it'd just be the word of the outcome-interested defendant and the unbiased cop. Which of course, is another reason why ON-PERSON CAMERAS WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

I can't believe you are telling us that we should make the cops break down the door.

If you don't want to comply with a warrantless search what other options would you have than closing the door?

They cannot beak down your door to search your house without a warrant or probable cause.

Technically, they can't even walk through an open door without a warrant or probable cause if you don't give consent.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Hands up, don't shoot.

 

[Da Guru]

I'm a white guy in my 40s with a government job. But I STILL have this weird irrational fear that if a policeman ever tried to put handcuffs on me I'd resist him, leading to a very bad outcome for someone, probably me. I can't STAND the thought about being handcuffed/tied up and defenseless as people with power do with me how they want.

I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was a black guy in my teens or 20s.

I don`t think any sane person wants to be handcuffed or tied up against their will regardless of race or sex. Then again if it comes down to that and you resist arrest the outcome will be pretty much the same regardless of race or sex. The bottom line is that people who obey the law and act rational when dealing with the police usually do not end up in cuffs. I was cuffed twice in my early 20s..looking back I deserved it both times.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Stuff your parents should have taught you in kindergarten.

 

[Pots]

Why do black people steal and loot stores and destroy property when they protest? It's like they want to have a collective voice to say they don't want to be profiled as criminals because of the color of their skin, and then they go out and do criminal acts.

Of course I don't mean all black people do this, but it seems to be pretty damn common and I don't understand the purpose.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why do black people steal and loot stores and destroy property when they protest? It's like they want to have a collective voice to say they don't want to be profiled as criminals because of the color of their skin, and then they go out and do criminal acts.

Of course I don't mean all black people do this, but it seems to be pretty damn common and I don't understand the purpose.

I'm curious as to why you think only black people do it.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Why do black people steal and loot stores and destroy property when they protest? It's like they want to have a collective voice to say they don't want to be profiled as criminals because of the color of their skin, and then they go out and do criminal acts.

Of course I don't mean all black people do this, but it seems to be pretty damn common and I don't understand the purpose.

I'm curious as to why you think only black people do it.

Where do you see him saying only black people do it? He specifically asked why a culture that he is not familiar with does something.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Sam Montgomery was very cooperative during his traffic stop/arrest. Good thing that was on camera.

 

[cosjobs]

You mean why do disenfranchised, repressed, hopeless, segments of the population sometimes loot and riot when they begin to also be murdered?

 

[Pots]

Why do black people steal and loot stores and destroy property when they protest? It's like they want to have a collective voice to say they don't want to be profiled as criminals because of the color of their skin, and then they go out and do criminal acts.

Of course I don't mean all black people do this, but it seems to be pretty damn common and I don't understand the purpose.

I'm curious as to why you think only black people do it.

Where do you see him saying only black people do it? He specifically asked why a culture that he is not familiar with does something.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why do black people steal and loot stores and destroy property when they protest? It's like they want to have a collective voice to say they don't want to be profiled as criminals because of the color of their skin, and then they go out and do criminal acts.

Of course I don't mean all black people do this, but it seems to be pretty damn common and I don't understand the purpose.

I'm curious as to why you think only black people do it.

Where do you see him saying only black people do it? He specifically asked why a culture that he is not familiar with does something.

Because he specified that he's curious as to why "black people" do it. That suggests he thinks it is something that's done only or almost only by black people, because the question would make no sense if he thought everyone did it. It would be like asking why black people order pizza or watch television or try to talk their girlfriends into threesomes. You don't ask why a certain minority does a certain thing if you are aware that it's something that everybody does.