Right to Search

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

On the TV show Cops, a policeman often stops a car and though no drugs are in sight asks the car owner for permission to search the car. The car owner always grants permission and then the policeman always finds drugs.

What would happen if the car owner said, "No, I deny you permission to search my car?"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 884 • Replies: 9

No top replies

Then the cop would have no right to search. He'd need a warrant to do so.

0 Replies

Civil rights groups give exactly this advice. State loudly and clearly that you do not give the right to search.

Of course you should not try to physically stop the police from then searching anyway... but any search after that will not only be illegal, they will be unable to use it in court.

I think police usually obey a clear denial as an illegal search can actually hurt any case they might have against you.

0 Replies

That's really the whole point. If the police search your car without a warrant and without your permission, that constitutes illegal search and seizure and is not admissible evidence in court. In fact, this happened to a friend of mine back in the days when he was a rookie patrolman. He approached a parked car, shone his flashlight into the window, saw two people snorting what clearly looked like cocaine, seized the substance and arrested the two perps. They had a good lawyer. The case was dismissed by the judge, saying the discovery of illegal narcotics had been made under unwarranted circumstances and the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Go figure.

0 Replies

Right to Search
I thought there was an "in plain sight exception."

0 Replies

Re: Right to Search

gollum wrote:

I thought there was an "in plain sight exception."

Oh, yeah. That's what my friend, the ex-cop, thought, too. But the kids' lawyer convinced the judge that a cop has no right to shine his flashflight into an illegally parked car except to check for such things as, say, dead bodies in the rear seat. Failing that, it's an invasion of privacy. The judge bought it.

0 Replies

Re: Right to Search

Merry Andrew wrote:

gollum wrote:
I thought there was an "in plain sight exception."

Oh, yeah. That's what my friend, the ex-cop, thought, too. But the kids' lawyer convinced the judge that a cop has no right to shine his flashflight into an illegally parked car except to check for such things as, say, dead bodies in the rear seat. Failing that, it's an invasion of privacy. The judge bought it.

Are you sure this was decided under the 4th amendment U.S. Constitution as opposed to a state constitutional amendment regarding search and seizure of evidence? Under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th amendment, the rookie patrolman's conduct did not violate the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps a state amendment was violated but not the 4th according to the Court.

0 Replies

Do you really want to have a discussion of a legal technicality based on a two-sentence, third person account of a trial that none of us are remotely familiar with?

I don't see how this would make any sense.

0 Replies

Re: Right to Search

Madisonian Dilemma wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
gollum wrote:
I thought there was an "in plain sight exception."

Oh, yeah. That's what my friend, the ex-cop, thought, too. But the kids' lawyer convinced the judge that a cop has no right to shine his flashflight into an illegally parked car except to check for such things as, say, dead bodies in the rear seat. Failing that, it's an invasion of privacy. The judge bought it.

Are you sure this was decided under the 4th amendment U.S. Constitution as opposed to a state constitutional amendment regarding search and seizure of evidence? Under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th amendment, the rookie patrolman's conduct did not violate the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps a state amendment was violated but not the 4th according to the Court.

Frankly, I have no idea on which part of the Constitution the defense based its argument nor on what the judge's thinking was in granting the motion to dismiss. Basically, what ebrown_p said.

0 Replies

the law's different here in Queensland, Australia.

if the police have "reasonable" suspicion that you've got drugs or weapons on you, or in your car then legally they can search.

there's been quite a few cases where the police's definition of "reasonable" has been quite different to the accused's!! :wink:

0 Replies

Right to Search

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know