Do your know your rights?

[Nija]

If you get pulled over, for whatever reason, and the cop asks to search your car, what do you say?

So when a cop says your miranda rights, and says do you understand your rights, what is the proper answer?

[cheapie]

i would tell the cop, "cop, you'd better talk to whitak. he's my lawyer, he went to columbia. (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60255)

[whitak24]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
i would tell the cop, "cop, you'd better talk to whitak. he's my lawyer, he went to columbia. (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60255)
:heh:

no criminal law for this mofo :D

[nickel]

Originally posted by Nija
If you get pulled over, for whatever reason, and the cop asks to search your car, what do you say?

So when a cop says your miranda rights, and says do you understand your rights, what is the proper answer?

i would probably let him search my car for fear of worse trouble.
is that the wrong answer?

and yes i would understand my rights, but if i said no would that CMA in a court of law?

[chadlnc]

Do you have something in your car that is illegal? If so, just say no. If they aren't arresting you, they can't search your vehicle (within reason, there are exceptions). However, if they suspect you have something in there that can be detected by K-9, they will probably call them out and have them sniff the car. If the dog alerts on the car, you're screwed.

Do you understand your rights? If so, say yes. If you're afraid you may say something stupid, don't say anything at all and ask for an attorney.

Saying that, just remember, the less you cooperate with the officer in the field is the less he will cooperate with you in court. Above all be respectful and be honest. You are doing no one any favors by delaying an investigation.

[Merlin]

An officer may not search your car without cause. If he is asking that means he does not have cause (if he did have cause he would not bother to ask) I would tell the officer no. Why subject yourself to search needlessly?


less you cooperate with the officer in the field is the less he will cooperate with you in court. Above all be respectful and be honest. You are doing no one any favors by delaying an investigation.

Once you get pulled over and asked to have your vehicle searched I'd say the odds are pretty good your getting the ticket. Cooperating to get mercy from the officer at his point is really a waste of time. Keep your dignity and tell them "No, you may not search my car."

[WhiskeyPapa]

The proper answer in both circumstances:

"Hey bud, I pay your salary!"

[topane]

Originally posted by chadlnc
Do you have something in your car that is illegal? If so, just say no. If they aren't arresting you, they can't search your vehicle (within reason, there are exceptions). It's alot easier to search a vehicle now. Can you say "Patriot Act"?

[Merlin]

Originally posted by topane
It's alot easier to search a vehicle now. Can you say "Patriot Act"?

Yeah, that is true. Now all you need is some redneck waitress to say she thinks she might have overheard something.

[Merlin]

From this week's Economist...
---------------------------------------------

The right to silence

But starting when?

Apr 24th 2003
From The Economist print edition


The Supreme Court will reconsider the scope of the famous Miranda warnings

THE so-called “Miranda” warning (“you have the right to remain silent”) is one of the best-known features of America's criminal-justice system. Though familiar, the warning has also long been controversial, repeatedly challenged by political conservatives who consider it one of the worst examples of aggressive meddling by the liberal Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The court ruled in 1966 that all accused had to be told their rights before being questioned. This week the current conservative-leaning court agreed to revisit the subject yet again.

The case taken up by the court, which it will decide next year, concerns the scope, rather than the legitimacy, of the warning. The current court has already confirmed that, if the police fail to advise suspects of their rights while being questioned, anything the suspect says cannot be admitted during a trial. But if incriminating evidence is subsequently discovered as a result of what a suspect said before being told his rights, is this admissible?
Samuel Patane was arrested in 2001 outside his home in Colorado Springs for violating a domestic-violence restraining order. When a detective began reading Mr Patane his rights, he said he already knew them, and the detective stopped. He then asked Mr Patane, a convicted felon on probation, where his gun was, and Mr Patane told him. After the gun was found, Mr Patane was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, but he sought to have the gun suppressed as evidence on the ground that he had not been properly read his rights. Last September, the federal appeals court in Denver ruled in Mr Patane's favour. The federal government appealed to the Supreme Court.

This case arises directly out of a landmark 2000 Supreme Court case, Dickerson v US, which seemed to have settled once and for all the continuing dispute about Miranda warnings. That case was a stunning blow to Miranda's critics. In a surprising twist, the opinion for the 7-2 majority upholding the Miranda decision as a “constitutional rule” was written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had been a persistent critic of the original Miranda ruling throughout his judicial career and had joined earlier opinions chipping away at it. He changed his mind partly because most American police forces, which originally opposed the Miranda warning, now embrace it as a useful procedure which reduces courtroom disputes about the voluntariness of confessions. In the view of the Denver court the Dickerson ruling, giving the Miranda decision the standing of a “constitutional” rule, also swept aside two Supreme Court rulings of 1974 and 1985. Those had seemed to allow the admissibility of physical evidence found as a result of statements made by defendants before they had heard the Miranda warning.

In the peculiar circumstances of Mr Patane's case—that he told the arresting detective he already knew his rights—it may seem justified that the gun should be admissible. But many supporters of the Miranda warning argue that, if the court decides the case this way, police across the country will be encouraged to interrogate suspects regularly without the warning to gather as much physical evidence as possible, leaving many vulnerable to intimidation and undermining Miranda's effect.

In its appeal, the government maintains that the point of the Miranda warning is to “guard against the use of unreliable statements at trial” but that physical evidence “undoubtedly constitutes reliable, trustworthy evidence”. The issue arises frequently, it concedes, because “warnings may be omitted during a fast-moving investigation”, but claims that excluding evidence obtained from suspect's statements for this reason would impose serious costs on the fight against crime.

[ufcrusher]

Well, can you say refuse to consent to a search. The answer is yes. Can the cop probably search the car anyway? The answer is yes.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Criminal Procedure, where there lives several well known and loved exceptions to your 4th amendment rights.

Without giving everyone a Criminal Procedures lesson..these exceptions include the AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION whereby a cop can search a vehicle if he reasonably believes that there is something illegal in it. He can not pull you over just to search you, but he can search you if he pulls you over for speeding, making an illegal turn, driving "recklessly" etc. He may only search in spots that reasonably could hold the suspected item and he must have a reasonable belief that he will find it. This is due to the very nature of the automobile which is fleeting and therefore a search has to be performed now or what he believes is there can get away.

Other exceptions allow him to search the inside of the car within reach of the driver or passengers for his own safety. He may also conduct a visual search of the car through the windows, think paper bag on the floor with pipe in it or butt of gun sticking out.

You also have things such as the Terry stop and frisk and lots of other fun exceptions. Enough law lesson today.

So in answer to your question, when I have been searched (twice now) by police, I have always consented to the seach. When I asked the cop after the fact what would have happened had I denied consent, he told me we would all have been arrested.

As for Miranda, if you dont understand them tell the cops you dont understand them and he will repeat himself till you do. Then you say yes, and immediately ask for an attorney. Then you SHUT UP. The cops can get your information and process you, but then they cant talk to you until your attorney is present..although there are several ways that they can get around being represented, but I wont bore you anymore.

[cheapie]

i would like to think that i would refuse to let him inspect my car but in all probability, i would most likely consent. mostly to avoid the time and hassle it would most likely incur.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by ufcrusher
Without giving everyone a Criminal Procedures lesson..
but what if we want a criminal procedures lesson? :D

[Merlin]

I made the mistake once when I was about 18 or so. I got pulled over while driving my old beater and while my dad was in the car. When I went into the glove box to get my registration the cop saw a couple of screwdrivers. If you saw the car I had at the time you would understand not going anywhere without some tools:P But the cop took these to be my "burglar tools" and prodeeded with the search. Needless to say that soured me on giving consent.

As for what ufcrusher said...Of course there are ways the cops can get around it and yes they do practice it. My understanding is that they can only search if they have cause, that is they either see something in plain sight or you say something inappropriate that incriminates you. And if he threatens to arrest you for not consenting to a search, well, I'm sure your attorney would love to hear that. (provided you actually are innocent :P )

[raimin]

you should ask on what grounds they have to search your car
and then say, if yes, can he not give you that ticket

[ufcrusher]

Originally posted by Merlin
*snip*
As for what ufcrusher said...Of course there are ways the cops can get around it and yes they do practice it. My understanding is that they can only search if they have cause, that is they either see something in plain sight or you say something inappropriate that incriminates you. And if he threatens to arrest you for not consenting to a search, well, I'm sure your attorney would love to hear that. (provided you actually are innocent :P )

They can search the car if they have PROBABLE cause...but the problem is you are forgetting that just about anything can be considered probable cause. If you are driving around a block in a known drug or gang area, you got PC. If you are acting shifty when the cop walks up to the car, PC. If you dont see the cop and take longer than he thinks is necessary to pull over, PC. If the car doesnt look like its yours, PC. If there was a robbery in the general area and you look out of place, PC. So almost anything can be considered PC. Courts have held that an officers 15 years of experience leading to a feeling that something wasnt right was sufficient for PC. And no, depending on the type of search he is conducting and what he is looking for, he might not need to have seen anything. He just cant go on a "fishing expedition" for contraband.

As for threatening to arrest you, he would need a valid reason to bring you in...and lots of times these are not clear cut answers.

[Nija]

Basiclly, I'm respectful to officers until they start trying to pry things out of me. And to be honest, I would say I don't understand my Miranda rights because I don't understand all the legal entailings. That's what a lawyer learns correct? They interpret they law for lame people who don't know the law (aka everyone whose NOT a lawyer or judge)

I don't want anyone searching my car, period. I don't want anyone walking into my personal objects that hold people, be it my house, or my vehicle. I will remain nice until I get bullied then I shut up, and remember everything that pig said so I can take his ass to court.

Policeman do NOT have my immediate respect. They never will. They are people, they have bias', they make mistakes and pre-judge people incorrectly.

Maybe it's just me :shrug:

[mojo]

<jimmy conway>you say nuttin...they got nuttin</jimmy conway>

[Cantacuzene]

Scariest moment for me was when I was when I got pulled over for speeding on my way home from school one holiday break. I had my pistol in my car and I didnt have a consealed weapons permit. Granted, I know the law and I was transporting it legally (i.e. 3 levels of seperation, unloaded with ammo stored seperatly.) but I was still scared. He asked if I had any drugs or weapons in my car and I said yes. I said I had an unloaded pistol which I was transporting legally. He didnt even ask to see it. Needless to say I was happy.

[le_stick]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Scariest moment for me was when I was when I got pulled over for speeding on my way home from school one holiday break. I had my pistol in my car and I didnt have a consealed weapons permit. Granted, I know the law and I was transporting it legally (i.e. 3 levels of seperation, unloaded with ammo stored seperatly.) but I was still scared. He asked if I had any drugs or weapons in my car and I said yes. I said I had an unloaded pistol which I was transporting legally. He didnt even ask to see it. Needless to say I was happy.

You have a gun with you in school.....:hmm:

I just pulling you ying-yang that's all.....:D

[le_stick]

Originally posted by Nija
If you get pulled over, for whatever reason, and the cop asks to search your car, what do you say?

So when a cop says your miranda rights, and says do you understand your rights, what is the proper answer?

I will let him/her search my car, and I will answer yes when he/she finish reading the Miranda Right to me. But I do not like cops...period. Most of them are just cowards.....I remember in the early 90s when we have a bomb scare in the Holland Tunnel in NYC. Most of those damn cops ran away. Nobody know anything until the next day when the incident leaked to the Press. Then the Commisioner had the gut to say that they, the PIG, have family to.....wtf.......
:angry:

[Cantacuzene]

I meant I was driving to my home home from my college home. Not from actual school itself.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Here's an idea - don't have anything illegal in your car and don't do anything illegal to get pulled over. I haven't been pulled over in decades. It's not that hard.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Here's an idea - don't have anything illegal in your car and don't do anything illegal to get pulled over. I haven't been pulled over in decades. It's not that hard.

Or better yet just stay home and never go out and keep the door locked and...

Nice thought but it does not really matter if the office is behind on his quota. People do get pulled over all the time for no reason. Cops do just go fishing sometimes. I once had a friend who drove a exotic car and got pulled over and the cop pretty much said he pulled him over because he never saw a car like that and wanted a better look. Remember, cops are for the most part board, poor and have a chip on their sholder. They don't always need a reason.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by Merlin
Nice thought but it does not really matter if the office is behind on his quota.With all due respect, Merlin, that's a bunch of crap.

75% of all drivers exceed the speed limit. Cops don't need to pull over random vehicles to meet their quotas (which I don't believe exist) - they can nab any scoff-law at almost any given time.

Every person I've ever known who bitches about the cops pulling them over for no reason, drives like an idiot 99.9% of the time.

The only one who has a remote defense to their position that cops pull people over for no reason is DF.

[Burzhui]

can't i just pull a gun on em and tell em to leave me alone

[kame]

Whao!
:eek:

[Grimm]

Originally posted by le_stick


I will let him/her search my car, and I will answer yes when he/she finish reading the Miranda Right to me. But I do not like cops...period. Most of them are just cowards.....I remember in the early 90s when we have a bomb scare in the Holland Tunnel in NYC. Most of those damn cops ran away. Nobody know anything until the next day when the incident leaked to the Press. Then the Commisioner had the gut to say that they, the PIG, have family to.....wtf.......
:angry: WTF???

Oh, there's a bomb there so I should just stand here and get blown up.:confused:

I don't think so.

Cops know that the blue uniform they put on doesn't make them invulnerable.
They get paid to do a job, not to die.
A dead cop can't help anyone.
They are not paid enough to take the risks you unreasonably expect of them.
It's asinine to expect a cop to act like a soldier, they are not soldiers.
A cop's job is to enforce the law and render aid, not to make a pretty splatter on a wall.
A few specialists are traind to deal with bombs, they get paid extra.

[le_stick]

Originally posted by Grimm
WTF???

A cop's job is to enforce the law and render aid, not to make a pretty splatter on a wall.
A few specialists are traind to deal with bombs, they get paid extra.

You are correct in a way. But I think at least they should warn people about it or something. In this case, they all just disappear!!!
...:angry:

[mojo]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Here's an idea - don't have anything illegal in your car and don't do anything illegal to get pulled over. I haven't been pulled over in decades. It's not that hard. yet another myth i've seen here at the boards.

personally, i've been pulled over too many times for no reason to accept that as a rule. maybe things are different in minnesota, or maybe you just lucky. but some of us have gotten pulled over for nuttin...and maybe some non-believers can entertain the fact that it's entirely possible instead of deciding that the cop is always right for whatever bs reasons they come up with :P

[cheapie]

hmmm....i guess it's a white guy living in the midwest thing driving a boring looking civic thing....i've only gotten pulled over when going over the speed limit. i've never gotten hassled by the cops. BUT, i am not discounting the fact that it does happen to people!