Misdemeanor

[Flying Pig]

Ive asked that exact "jerk" question more times than I can count. Have yet to ever lose a case with that very quote in the report.

[Ned]

Many years ago, I made a sign to hang on the radio rack in my patrol car, in full view of any back seat guests.  It contained an early version of "Ned's Rules."

1.  A policeman is your friend.
2.  It never helps to make me mad.
3.  Driving is not a competitive sport.
4.  Never argue with a computer.  (If it says you have a warrant, you do.)
5.  Just because I cannot find your dope legally does not mean you get to keep it.

When appropriate to a given conversation with a back-seat occupant, I could just point to the applicable rule.  Saved a lot of time.

Of course, with many years of additional experience and wisdom, I would not display these rules today.

[PHall]

Many years ago, I made a sign to hang on the radio rack in my patrol car, in full view of any back seat guests.  It contained an early version of "Ned's Rules."

1.  A policeman is your friend.
2.  It never helps to make me mad.
3.  Driving is not a competitive sport.
4.  Never argue with a computer.  (If it says you have a warrant, you do.)
5.  Just because I cannot find your dope legally does not mean you get to keep it.

When appropriate to a given conversation with a back-seat occupant, I could just point to the applicable rule.  Saved a lot of time.

Of course, with many years of additional experience and wisdom, I would not display these rules today.

Nah, it's much more effective to text them to them these days.

[bflynn]

I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.

No, I didn't miss the point of the question. 

It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer.  Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't.    If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.

At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment.  Some won't.

I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.

[abdsp51]

It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer.  Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't.    If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.

At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment.  Some won't.

You really don't get how the whole search thing works do you? 

[Flying Pig]

No..... he doesnt.  Its pretty interesting to see how uninformed people believe it works.

[JeffDG]

But the question "If you don't have anything illegal in your car, it's OK if I take a look around, OK?" is like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  There is no "good" answer to it.

If you say "No, go ahead", you've given consent to search, and you cannot later challenge the search on the grounds of lack of probable cause.  It's a consensual search, and as such, probable cause is not relevant.

If you say, "Well, I might have something..." then you've given the officer probable cause, and now he can search absent consent.

The only answer that requires the officer to have previously established probable cause to search is no answer whatsoever.  Which is your absolute right under the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision.  The only answers you must give are identification.  Anything else you are entirely at liberty to refuse to answer, and the police may not infer guilt or probable cause from your refusal to answer.

[abdsp51]

But the question "If you don't have anything illegal in your car, it's OK if I take a look around, OK?" is like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  There is no "good" answer to it.

If you say "No, go ahead", you've given consent to search, and you cannot later challenge the search on the grounds of lack of probable cause.  It's a consensual search, and as such, probable cause is not relevant.

If you say, "Well, I might have something..." then you've given the officer probable cause, and now he can search absent consent.

The only answer that requires the officer to have previously established probable cause to search is no answer whatsoever.  Which is your absolute right under the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision.  The only answers you must give are identification.  Anything else you are entirely at liberty to refuse to answer, and the police may not infer guilt or probable cause from your refusal to answer.

Wow, you definitely have no idea of how those amendments work by any means. 

[JeffDG]

But the question "If you don't have anything illegal in your car, it's OK if I take a look around, OK?" is like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  There is no "good" answer to it.

If you say "No, go ahead", you've given consent to search, and you cannot later challenge the search on the grounds of lack of probable cause.  It's a consensual search, and as such, probable cause is not relevant.

If you say, "Well, I might have something..." then you've given the officer probable cause, and now he can search absent consent.

The only answer that requires the officer to have previously established probable cause to search is no answer whatsoever.  Which is your absolute right under the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision.  The only answers you must give are identification.  Anything else you are entirely at liberty to refuse to answer, and the police may not infer guilt or probable cause from your refusal to answer.

Wow, you definitely have no idea of how those amendments work by any means.

Then feel free to explain it to me.

[abdsp51]

Which would you like first? 

[Mitchell 1969]

I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.

No, I didn't miss the point of the question. 

It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer.  Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't.    If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.

At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment.  Some won't.

I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.

Wow!  Double Whammy!  Missed the point AND don't understand how it works!

The answer doesn't constitute consent to search. Under the fact set given, the search is going to happen. And, failure to give consent to the search won't, alone, stop a search which is being driven by factors not requiring consent.

Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you think that CAP core values hold police officers to a higher standard.

[a2capt]

I'm not sure there's a higher standard to be held, however, a greater expectation of "should know better" might be in order.

"It's okay if that schmuck does it.. but not the cop", doesn't make any sense at all.

[bflynn]

I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.

No, I didn't miss the point of the question. 

It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer.  Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't.    If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.

At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment.  Some won't.

I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.

Wow!  Double Whammy!  Missed the point AND don't understand how it works!

The answer doesn't constitute consent to search. Under the fact set given, the search is going to happen. And, failure to give consent to the search won't, alone, stop a search which is being driven by factors not requiring consent.

Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you think that CAP core values hold police officers to a higher standard.

Under the facts that I'm starting from in this circumstance, there is neither probable cause nor consent, so the officer isn't going to be doing a search.  If the officer has either consent or probable cause, they don't stand around having a friendly conversation about what they might find, they just start searching.

Suppose the officer asks "Before I start to search, do you have anything illegal"?  Whether you answer Yes or No, you did not object to the officer searching.  Consent has now been tacitly given.  That is trickery because most people don't catch the implied consent in a No answer.  Trickery is not honest.  I hold police to the standard of being honest and restrained.  Most are.

Are we starting from a different situation?  If there is already consent or already probably cause, then the question means something entirely different and is largely irrelevant. 

[stillamarine]

I don't know of any court or DA that believes in implied consent when it comes to a search. There has to be a clear and concise request for consent and consent given. As a matter of fact in my department we have a form. Not everyone uses if but I always do. It even explains on the form that they can withdraw consent at anytime. They sign it, I sign it. No trickery.

As far as asking if there's anything illegal in the car, I ask in every stop, whether or not I intend to search or not. That's not used for pc but to gauge their reaction to simple questions. Mine normally goes like this "do you have any drug, alcohol, guns, knives, nuclear bombs or anything else that's gonna piss me off in the car?"

[JoeTomasone]

Two things:
1. I was never pulled over without violating the law (they all count, not just the ones you think are important).
2. Being a smarty pants or making the cop's job harder didn't make my evening go any smoother.

I was pulled over once without having done anything wrong or having a taillight out or the such.  Well, technically *I* wasn't pulled over, but the friend driving me was.  We were in his pickup truck and were driving from my house (west of a high-crime minority town) to his house (on the other side of that town).   We were pulled over while going through because we and his truck apparently matched the description of a suspect vehicle in some unstated crime.   We were polite and he was professional and we were quickly on our way.   Bottom line: We got pulled over for being two white guys in a drug neighborhood.  Reverse profiling!   And you know what?  I support that, as long as I don't get pulled over every time I drive somewhere.

[a2capt]

One similar incident that stands out to me, I got pulled over passing a 7-Eleven in a "transient" part of town, (cops and school district actually have that area labeled as "transient" due the fact that it's four-plexes and rentals, which leases are rare, it's all mostly month to month). Cop didn't say much, just asked me for all the stuff, didn't tell me why,  I could have asked. I know I didn't do anything. I just forked it all over.

About 45 seconds later, he comes back, practically "dumps" it back in my window. That said, if I my open hand was not there, I'm not sure if he would have just dropped it, or waited for me to take. "Have a nice day", and he left.  I figure it was easier to cooperate at the time.

I did follow up on it shortly after, going to the police station and asking to speak to "someone in charge".  I never got an a complete answer, but it was acknowledged that it should not have happened like that, but that perhaps at the heat of the moment they were looking for someone .. and I fit the bill.

About the oddest thing I had that day- RC Dark Cola in brown long neck bottles, in a six pack carrier on the passenger side floor, partially obscured by the hump. I looked over at that as I reached to get the registration .. and thought .. "that might not look like what it is.."  and one bottle was open, in the holder, with the label facing away. I was definitely under-age at that time.

[bflynn]

I don't know of any court or DA that believes in implied consent when it comes to a search. There has to be a clear and concise request for consent and consent given. As a matter of fact in my department we have a form. Not everyone uses if but I always do. It even explains on the form that they can withdraw consent at anytime. They sign it, I sign it. No trickery.

As far as asking if there's anything illegal in the car, I ask in every stop, whether or not I intend to search or not. That's not used for pc but to gauge their reaction to simple questions. Mine normally goes like this "do you have any drug, alcohol, guns, knives, nuclear bombs or anything else that's gonna piss me off in the car?"

Excellent for your dept.  Bad for the ones that don't.

Implied consent is there all the time.  If the officer clearly states "I will search your vehicle now" and you don't object, haven't you given consent by not objecting?  Regardless, is that going to stop some officers?  When an officer asks a question and you respond, aren't you forfieting your 5th amendment right now to answer?  Yet there is no statement, it's just implied by the fact that you answered.

My point of this is that the original question has but one answer - I do not consent to you searching my vehicle.  Furthermore, if the officer has consent or probable cause and asks the question, then what's the point?  So he knows to keep searching and ripping your carpet up and seats apart until he find it?  Or is he going to be less dilligent in the search if you say there's nothing there?

Yes, I have had some negative experiences with officers in the past, including one local deputy at an airport doing an "airplane security check".  He insisted that I had to have a written weight and balance computation before he would "allow" me to take off...he insisted it was an little know piece of the federal aviation regulations, at which point I pulled my dogeared FAR copy out of my flight bag and nicely asked him to teach me about that regulation. 

Despite that I do still generally respect the honorable ones.

[Eclipse]

Despite that I do still generally respect the honorable ones.

Only "generally"? Do they wear a special pin?

[stillamarine]

I don't know of any court or DA that believes in implied consent when it comes to a search. There has to be a clear and concise request for consent and consent given. As a matter of fact in my department we have a form. Not everyone uses if but I always do. It even explains on the form that they can withdraw consent at anytime. They sign it, I sign it. No trickery.

As far as asking if there's anything illegal in the car, I ask in every stop, whether or not I intend to search or not. That's not used for pc but to gauge their reaction to simple questions. Mine normally goes like this "do you have any drug, alcohol, guns, knives, nuclear bombs or anything else that's gonna piss me off in the car?"

Excellent for your dept.  Bad for the ones that don't.

Implied consent is there all the time.  If the officer clearly states "I will search your vehicle now" and you don't object, haven't you given consent by not objecting?  Regardless, is that going to stop some officers?  When an officer asks a question and you respond, aren't you forfieting your 5th amendment right now to answer?  Yet there is no statement, it's just implied by the fact that you answered.

Well any officer that searches under that statement and calls it a consensual search is likely to have his case tossed and open himself up to federal lawsuit charges. Are there bad cops that do that? Sure but like every single occupation out there (no exception) there are good and bad apples.

[JoeTomasone]

Best video ever about talking to police officers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc