Creative Answers to "May I search your ..."
- Thread starter Jeff Thomas
- Start date
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
I drive frequently on I20 from Augusta to Atlanta.
Some time back I was driving home from Atlanta on a Saturday afternoon. I was about 30 miles from Atlanta when I spotted signs warning of drug searches ahead with K9 dogs on I20. Traffic was moderate but was not slowing down. Then I came up on an exit. ??? A fair amount of cars were taking the exit. I never saw a checkpoint on the interstate. The checkpoint was up on the road catching the folks who exited to avoid the checkpoint supposedly on I20 as well as the people legitimately taking the exit.
Unfortunately, I had to get to work and did not have time to drive through the checkpoint and refused to be searched. Oh, well, better luck next time. I know these type of searches have been ok'ed by SCOTUS. I think it's time to begin to throw monkey wrenches into them by overload. Find every one you can. Drive into it. Be polite. Refuse to be searched. Protest the dog-politely. If you are allergic to dogs even better.
I support the police in most cases. However, I do not support LEA's continual assaults upon the 4th and 5th Amendments. Since SCOTUS seems to have their heads way up their fundaments on this issue, I think it may be time for some creative, polite, and non-violent civil disobedience.
Just think, if everyone who went through a DUI checkpoint slurred when speaking to an officer
Some time back I was driving home from Atlanta on a Saturday afternoon. I was about 30 miles from Atlanta when I spotted signs warning of drug searches ahead with K9 dogs on I20. Traffic was moderate but was not slowing down. Then I came up on an exit. ??? A fair amount of cars were taking the exit. I never saw a checkpoint on the interstate. The checkpoint was up on the road catching the folks who exited to avoid the checkpoint supposedly on I20 as well as the people legitimately taking the exit.
Unfortunately, I had to get to work and did not have time to drive through the checkpoint and refused to be searched. Oh, well, better luck next time. I know these type of searches have been ok'ed by SCOTUS. I think it's time to begin to throw monkey wrenches into them by overload. Find every one you can. Drive into it. Be polite. Refuse to be searched. Protest the dog-politely. If you are allergic to dogs even better.
I support the police in most cases. However, I do not support LEA's continual assaults upon the 4th and 5th Amendments. Since SCOTUS seems to have their heads way up their fundaments on this issue, I think it may be time for some creative, polite, and non-violent civil disobedience.
Just think, if everyone who went through a DUI checkpoint slurred when speaking to an officer
MrMisanthrope
New member
From 2AMPD:
A police officer pulls a guy over for speeding and has the following
exchange:
Officer:
May I see your driver's license?
Driver:
I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my 5th DUI.
Officer:
May I see the owner's card for this vehicle?
Driver:
It's not my car. I stole it.
Officer:
The car is stolen?
Driver:
That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the owner's card in the
glove box when I was putting my gun in there.
Officer:
There's a gun in the glove box?
Driver:
Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who owns
this car and stuffed her in the trunk.
Officer:
There's a BODY in the TRUNK?!?!?
Driver:
Yes, sir.
Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was
quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached the driver to
handle the tense situation:
Captain:
Sir, can I see your license?
Driver:
Sure. Here it is.
It was valid.
Captain:
whose car is this?
Driver:
It's mine, officer. Here's the owner' card.
The driver owned the car.
Captain:
Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun in it?
Driver:
Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it.
Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.
Captain:
Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a body in it.
Driver:
No problem.
Trunk is opened; no body.
Captain:
I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told him you
didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glovebox, and that
there was a dead body in the trunk.
Driver:
Yeah, I'll bet the lying s.o.b. told you I was speeding, too
A police officer pulls a guy over for speeding and has the following
exchange:
Officer:
May I see your driver's license?
Driver:
I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my 5th DUI.
Officer:
May I see the owner's card for this vehicle?
Driver:
It's not my car. I stole it.
Officer:
The car is stolen?
Driver:
That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the owner's card in the
glove box when I was putting my gun in there.
Officer:
There's a gun in the glove box?
Driver:
Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who owns
this car and stuffed her in the trunk.
Officer:
There's a BODY in the TRUNK?!?!?
Driver:
Yes, sir.
Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was
quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached the driver to
handle the tense situation:
Captain:
Sir, can I see your license?
Driver:
Sure. Here it is.
It was valid.
Captain:
whose car is this?
Driver:
It's mine, officer. Here's the owner' card.
The driver owned the car.
Captain:
Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun in it?
Driver:
Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it.
Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.
Captain:
Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a body in it.
Driver:
No problem.
Trunk is opened; no body.
Captain:
I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told him you
didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glovebox, and that
there was a dead body in the trunk.
Driver:
Yeah, I'll bet the lying s.o.b. told you I was speeding, too
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
LOL! I heard that one on a morning radio show a couple of weeks ago. Then I told it to a LEO buddy of mine at work. After he stopped shooting coffee out of his nose, he told me,"I'd charge him with giving false information to a LEO."
Oh, well.
Oh, well.
Right-on, Sparticus
That is what I call monkey-wrench activism. Engaged in some myself.
I care not a whit what the High Court says. One-hundred years ago in Plessey v Ferguson, the Nine Robed Wonders said that "Separate but Equal" was just dandy. They said Dred Scot was not a citizen in 1856.
I need not have a 5 to 4 decision to tell me when my rights are being violated.
That is what I call monkey-wrench activism. Engaged in some myself.
I care not a whit what the High Court says. One-hundred years ago in Plessey v Ferguson, the Nine Robed Wonders said that "Separate but Equal" was just dandy. They said Dred Scot was not a citizen in 1856.
I need not have a 5 to 4 decision to tell me when my rights are being violated.
W'all, thet all depends on the ossifer and yor attutid, don' it?
If you keep it respectful (assuming you are in the right) and reasonable, and don't just accuse him of being an idiot, you may get thim to see the light. I have.
Jeff, thanks for the thoughtful input to the discussion. I have to agree with the last poster, though. SCOTUS or not, the Consitution does not give law enforcement the right to detain citizens while they wait for a canine. No probable cause, no custody, no search.
Jeff White
New member
RickD,
We can debate the right or wrong of the Supreme Court decision forever. But it won't make one whit of difference. Every law enforcement agency in the country will set their policies based on those decisions. I don't agree with everything the Supremes do either. I personally chose not to particpate in property seizures, because I feel they are blatently unconstitutional and can't wait for the court to see the light.
I happen to think that Criminal Patrol is a good way for the police to do the job we hire them to do. All kinds of cases are made like this, not just drug and weapons cases. I've personally seen burglary, assault and other crimes solved through the very criminal patrol tactics we've been discussing.
As I said before, it's a very fine line between a free state and a police state. For the most part American law enforcement does a fine job of walking it.
I've asked this question during these discussions on TFL before, and I've never really gotten much of an answer. Were all you guys who are so anti-police and pro fourth amendment this disturbed about these tactics when they were mainly used to target drug trafficing, or did you get outraged when you thought that you might be the target because you enjoyed owning and using firearms?
See, often people couldn't care less about these issues because they never saw them as affecting them. So if there is any plus side to what the previous administration did to the 2d Amendment, it's that a lot of people who were blissfully ignorant of these issues, suddenly were awakened.
Jeff
We can debate the right or wrong of the Supreme Court decision forever. But it won't make one whit of difference. Every law enforcement agency in the country will set their policies based on those decisions. I don't agree with everything the Supremes do either. I personally chose not to particpate in property seizures, because I feel they are blatently unconstitutional and can't wait for the court to see the light.
I happen to think that Criminal Patrol is a good way for the police to do the job we hire them to do. All kinds of cases are made like this, not just drug and weapons cases. I've personally seen burglary, assault and other crimes solved through the very criminal patrol tactics we've been discussing.
As I said before, it's a very fine line between a free state and a police state. For the most part American law enforcement does a fine job of walking it.
I've asked this question during these discussions on TFL before, and I've never really gotten much of an answer. Were all you guys who are so anti-police and pro fourth amendment this disturbed about these tactics when they were mainly used to target drug trafficing, or did you get outraged when you thought that you might be the target because you enjoyed owning and using firearms?
See, often people couldn't care less about these issues because they never saw them as affecting them. So if there is any plus side to what the previous administration did to the 2d Amendment, it's that a lot of people who were blissfully ignorant of these issues, suddenly were awakened.
Jeff
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Jeff,
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1977. Does that answer your question about the asset forfeiture laws? As currently used, these laws are unconstitutional no matter who is targeted for asset seizure. What other crimes they have committed is irrelevant. What the government claims is due process in the current asset forfeiture law most assuredly is not.
These laws are part of a disturbing trend going back at least three decades. Multiple criminal charges for what was historically in this country one criminal act. Nowadays you can have one person murdered and the suspect is charged with two or three different murder charges. Why? Prosecutors have come to appreciate the "shotgun" approach. The more charges they can come up, the better the chance of at least one guilty verdict.
RICO and the ensuing misuse thereof. The "War on some drugs" and the host of abuses following.
You bet your boots I was disturbed way before HCI was ever founded. Hell, I was outraged by the way things were going by 1977 and my mood has not improved one whit since.
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1977. Does that answer your question about the asset forfeiture laws? As currently used, these laws are unconstitutional no matter who is targeted for asset seizure. What other crimes they have committed is irrelevant. What the government claims is due process in the current asset forfeiture law most assuredly is not.
These laws are part of a disturbing trend going back at least three decades. Multiple criminal charges for what was historically in this country one criminal act. Nowadays you can have one person murdered and the suspect is charged with two or three different murder charges. Why? Prosecutors have come to appreciate the "shotgun" approach. The more charges they can come up, the better the chance of at least one guilty verdict.
RICO and the ensuing misuse thereof. The "War on some drugs" and the host of abuses following.
You bet your boots I was disturbed way before HCI was ever founded. Hell, I was outraged by the way things were going by 1977 and my mood has not improved one whit since.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Jeff, you'll find a lot of us have been disgusted with some of these tactics for a long time ... whether they affected the RKBA or not.
From my perspective, the War on Some Drugs is evolving into the War on Some Guns, and both are pounding the Bill of Rights into an early grave.
There are many of us on TFL that are not at all anti-police. However, we are certainly anti-police state tactics.
I would agree that most LEO are decent, honest, brave people who do a very tough job. We are so fortunate for their service. It is a darn shame we ask them to enforce so many idiotic laws, and it is a greater shame that some of those enforcement actions bring dishonor to an otherwise proud profession.
Regards from AZ
From my perspective, the War on Some Drugs is evolving into the War on Some Guns, and both are pounding the Bill of Rights into an early grave.
There are many of us on TFL that are not at all anti-police. However, we are certainly anti-police state tactics.
I would agree that most LEO are decent, honest, brave people who do a very tough job. We are so fortunate for their service. It is a darn shame we ask them to enforce so many idiotic laws, and it is a greater shame that some of those enforcement actions bring dishonor to an otherwise proud profession.
Regards from AZ
Justin Moore
New member
I think the majority of LEO's out there are decent hard working folks. BUT It only takes a few knuckleheads to ruin your day, and THEY are out there too Know your rights, and stick up for them when dealing with these folks. People don't stand up for themselves, and it only encourages further unacceptible behavior.
Maybe someone here can answer this question: what has the Supreme Court said about DUI checkpoints? I myself have never had to go through one, so I don't know how they work in the real world. But it seems to me, its a case of 'guilty until proven innocent'. Like Ben Franklin, I'd rather keep a little liberty, then exchange it for a little saftey, real or perceived. If anyone knows either way, could you point us to the relevant court opinion? Thanks
I concur with Smithz on this one!
It only takes a few knuckleheads to ruin your day, and THEY are out there too Know your rights, and stick up for them when dealing with these folks. People don't stand up for themselves, and it only encourages further unacceptible behavior.Maybe someone here can answer this question: what has the Supreme Court said about DUI checkpoints? I myself have never had to go through one, so I don't know how they work in the real world. But it seems to me, its a case of 'guilty until proven innocent'. Like Ben Franklin, I'd rather keep a little liberty, then exchange it for a little saftey, real or perceived. If anyone knows either way, could you point us to the relevant court opinion? Thanks
I concur with Smithz on this one!
Never consent to this. If you find yourself being detained and questioned, respectfully refuse to answer any more questions & ask for legal counsel.
If your vehicle does get searched, and if they think they are onto something, (a drug dog hits, or they find something they think is suspicious), they can and will literally tear your car apart. If nothing is found, you are left there with your car torn apart, and probably not even an apology. You will have to put it back together, or if the damage is extensive enough, you'll have to pay someone else to do it.
I am not making this up. Although it is usually multi-agency drug task force people who tear cars up. It does happen.
-10CFR
If your vehicle does get searched, and if they think they are onto something, (a drug dog hits, or they find something they think is suspicious), they can and will literally tear your car apart. If nothing is found, you are left there with your car torn apart, and probably not even an apology. You will have to put it back together, or if the damage is extensive enough, you'll have to pay someone else to do it.
I am not making this up. Although it is usually multi-agency drug task force people who tear cars up. It does happen.
-10CFR
MrMisanthrope
New member
When the Police Officer asks you,
"Have you been drinking? Your eyes are red."
Don't reply,
"Have you been eating donuts,? Your eyes are glazed."
You're Under Arrest!
1. No, I don't know who you are.
2. No, I don't care who you know.
3. Yes, you do pay my salary.
4. Yes, you can have my job.
5. No, I don't have anything better to do.
6. Yes, I arrest real criminals sometimes.
7. No, I'm not picking on you because you're _______.
8. No, I can't give you a break.
9. No, I don't know your friend.
10. Yes, you will be allowed to make a phone call.
11. Yes, you probably will never do it again.
12. No, we can't talk about it.
13. Yes, it does make me happy.
14. Yes, you will see me in court.
Your Arresting Officer
"Have you been drinking? Your eyes are red."
Don't reply,
"Have you been eating donuts,? Your eyes are glazed."
You're Under Arrest!
1. No, I don't know who you are.
2. No, I don't care who you know.
3. Yes, you do pay my salary.
4. Yes, you can have my job.
5. No, I don't have anything better to do.
6. Yes, I arrest real criminals sometimes.
7. No, I'm not picking on you because you're _______.
8. No, I can't give you a break.
9. No, I don't know your friend.
10. Yes, you will be allowed to make a phone call.
11. Yes, you probably will never do it again.
12. No, we can't talk about it.
13. Yes, it does make me happy.
14. Yes, you will see me in court.
Your Arresting Officer
Well, just a little help here please...
My grandson, a very large 17 year-old with his own car (in his mother's name of course) and a good straight kid. Now, considering he's still in high school, this is now summer - in a beach town (where the world vacations), my question is:
Just how do I go about discussing with him (and his mother... and his grandmother (my wife)) his action(s) and reaction(s) should he be stopped and queried re search??? I mean, what is the REAL way for me to tell him and WHAT to recommend as his answers?
I need reality.
Thanks.
My grandson, a very large 17 year-old with his own car (in his mother's name of course) and a good straight kid. Now, considering he's still in high school, this is now summer - in a beach town (where the world vacations), my question is:
Just how do I go about discussing with him (and his mother... and his grandmother (my wife)) his action(s) and reaction(s) should he be stopped and queried re search??? I mean, what is the REAL way for me to tell him and WHAT to recommend as his answers?
I need reality.
Thanks.
Jeff White
New member
Real Advice
Ironbarr,
Tell your grandson to be polite and follow the officer's instructions. Tell him that he DOESN'T have to consent to a search and if asked just say "no, I am not giving consent for you to search my vehicle". Also encourage him not to get angry and engage the officer in any type of arguement about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The side of the road is NOT the place to have that discussion. The place to have any type of discussion with an LEO is in the courtroom. The officer holds all the cards out there on the street.
If he is unfortunate enough to meet one of the few who give the profession a bad name, a perceived "attitude" will just make matters worse. Better to beat him in court then escalate things on the street. He should provide his drivers license (and carry it all the time, the number of people who don't carry their license would astound you). If he doesn't have it on him, he should tell the officer his name and date of birth if asked. (the officer can check his DL status with these identifiers)
I've always found that people who were courteous were treated the same. Now I'm not saying courteous to the point of subservience, but courteous.
HTH
Jeff
Ironbarr,
Tell your grandson to be polite and follow the officer's instructions. Tell him that he DOESN'T have to consent to a search and if asked just say "no, I am not giving consent for you to search my vehicle". Also encourage him not to get angry and engage the officer in any type of arguement about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The side of the road is NOT the place to have that discussion. The place to have any type of discussion with an LEO is in the courtroom. The officer holds all the cards out there on the street.
If he is unfortunate enough to meet one of the few who give the profession a bad name, a perceived "attitude" will just make matters worse. Better to beat him in court then escalate things on the street. He should provide his drivers license (and carry it all the time, the number of people who don't carry their license would astound you). If he doesn't have it on him, he should tell the officer his name and date of birth if asked. (the officer can check his DL status with these identifiers)
I've always found that people who were courteous were treated the same. Now I'm not saying courteous to the point of subservience, but courteous.
HTH
Jeff
Jeff Thomas
New member
Ironbarr, good advice above. In addition, it might be worth your while to spend a few minutes with your grandson and an attorney.
Also, with a grain of salt (as, I haven't read the book yet, but I know the author, and he is a fine man), take a look at "You and the Police" ... see http://javelinpress.com/you.html
Your grandson has a wise grandpa. Wish mine had had such foresight.
Regards from AZ
Also, with a grain of salt (as, I haven't read the book yet, but I know the author, and he is a fine man), take a look at "You and the Police" ... see http://javelinpress.com/you.html
Your grandson has a wise grandpa. Wish mine had had such foresight.
Regards from AZ
Jeff White
New member
You Don't Need Your License if You're Not Driving
Deanf,
I didn't mean to imply you needed to carry your license if you aren't driving. But here in Illinois, if you drive without your license on your person, you can be given a citation. I think it's that way in most states.
Jeff
Deanf,
I didn't mean to imply you needed to carry your license if you aren't driving. But here in Illinois, if you drive without your license on your person, you can be given a citation. I think it's that way in most states.
Jeff