General Discussion

safeinOhio

(37,651 posts)

25. You know officer, I don't want you to search my car.

Sun Dec 28, 2014, 02:15 PM

Dec 2014

Once I let a cop search my car because I shouldn't mind if I didn't have anything to hide. I didn't so I let him search it. He threw everything I had on the ground and broke some of my grandmothers old antique glass ware. It was terrible and I felt really hurt. Now I'm retired and have nothing but time, so if you think you have reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime, I'd be happy to wait for you to go to a judge and present that evidence and get a search warrant. You see I'm still pissed about the last time and I don't want my stuff tossed out and broken again.

You have a nice day too, officer.

I hate to argue, but I love a good story.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate 4th Amendment..... [View all] snappyturtle Dec 2014 OP

Know your rights. dawg Dec 2014 #1

or .. an aristocrat! unblock Dec 2014 #3

There's an actual term for that. Heywood J Dec 2014 #110

Heh tkmorris Dec 2014 #11

There are precious few remaining dickthegrouch Dec 2014 #87

Rutherford Institute is conservative bluestateguy Dec 2014 #2

I know that but my hesitation didn't last long! nt snappyturtle Dec 2014 #5

The driver GAVE permission for his car to be searched Lurks Often Dec 2014 #4

Helen shouldn't have been stopped period. The ignorance of the law on the snappyturtle Dec 2014 #8

If the driver had refused to consent to a search Lurks Often Dec 2014 #16

True ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #19

I have consented to a search as well Lurks Often Dec 2014 #23

Now ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #33

I was much younger then Lurks Often Dec 2014 #37

I'm sorry but drinking and driving is wrong. Quackers Dec 2014 #82

I'm sorry for your loss, though I do not wish to imply ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #83

Thank you Quackers Dec 2014 #84

They would have searched anyway and then lied later Nevernose Dec 2014 #29

Moot point, once the driver consented Lurks Often Dec 2014 #40

Look at this below. Interesting. Doesn't sound as if a warrant is needed for snappyturtle Dec 2014 #66

I wonder if that means deregulating vehocles reasserts their 4A protections. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #71

My cynic agrees. nt snappyturtle Dec 2014 #81

I knew that a warrant wasn't needed for a search of a vehicle and have for years. Lurks Often Dec 2014 #78

You do not have any idea what might have happened if the driver refused to give consent. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #34

Neither do you Lurks Often Dec 2014 #39

Thank you ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #44

You made a claim that if the driver did not consent, they would just have gotten a ticket. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #47

The actions of a few police officers Lurks Often Dec 2014 #52

Sorry, I don't understand the attitude. Was it something I said? nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #58

Take a class in Criminal Procedure treestar Dec 2014 #56

Thats horrible enough We should not be in the state of "I don't know" when it comes to the cops uponit7771 Dec 2014 #72

You have every right to say no and to refuse to answer their questions treestar Dec 2014 #55

I am not "advocating" any such thing. It's very easy for someone to say what rhett o rick Dec 2014 #60

They should know! treestar Dec 2014 #63

Legal and lawful Boreal Dec 2014 #85

Situations come up that are unclear treestar Dec 2014 #88

I guess we all need to carry the excepetions Boreal Dec 2014 #91

Is that so much to ask? treestar Dec 2014 #93

You're missing what I'm saying Boreal Dec 2014 #98

Yes you can treestar Dec 2014 #111

I wasn't thinking white cop or male Boreal Dec 2014 #115

The one time I refused to consent... reACTIONary Dec 2014 #80

Don't consent! treestar Dec 2014 #51

Better yet, speak to them through a locked screen door or a door chain Live and Learn Dec 2014 #73

True. If you smell like marijuana in a state where it is illegal treestar Dec 2014 #90

I agree with you, I don't think it's reasonable for the cop not to know the area of the law he is Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #70

One of my mentors said especially if you are innocent treestar Dec 2014 #112

yeah i'm curious to know the story there unblock Dec 2014 #14

I don't know what the driver was thinking either Lurks Often Dec 2014 #42

Along with not voting treestar Dec 2014 #57

imho, it comes back to the gun issue. people instinctively do what the guy with the gun asks. unblock Dec 2014 #76

and then the cops are armed and on edge because they know there are so many guns in society treestar Dec 2014 #89

ROFLMAO.. Do you have any idea what would have happened had the driver refused SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #41

Then you should have found a lawyer and sued Lurks Often Dec 2014 #45

Right... like I asserted my rights, I should get a lawyer and trust the system.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #62

If you're that cynical, you will be a victim always treestar Dec 2014 #64

And you filed a complaint ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #46

Ask him if he has a warrant treestar Dec 2014 #59

People need to start standing up for their rights treestar Dec 2014 #50

People think that they are going to talk their way out of stuff with the police Trekologer Dec 2014 #99

Is 'reasonably mistaken' an oxymoron? CurtEastPoint Dec 2014 #6

I think so...I think the word reasonable in law should be outlawed. nt snappyturtle Dec 2014 #9

The law would collapse without that word! treestar Dec 2014 #61

no, but that would be a reasonable mistake. unblock Dec 2014 #77

Rights? randys1 Dec 2014 #7

I predict an epidemic of "reasonable mistakes". nt bemildred Dec 2014 #10

that's really ridiculous. a traffic cop should know the legal grounds for pulling someone over. unblock Dec 2014 #12

I agree. Cops should know the traffic laws. snappyturtle Dec 2014 #13

hadn't heard "removed", but have heard high iq as a job disqualifier unblock Dec 2014 #18

Thank you! I usd the word 'removed' for lack of thinking of anything snappyturtle Dec 2014 #24

jesus christ marym625 Dec 2014 #15

That's NOT what the SCOTUS ruled ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #17

not that part. the stop in the first place. unblock Dec 2014 #21

And that is fucking scary considering how much power a cop has over a civilian Rex Dec 2014 #27

This decision does not change that ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #31

Yes... yes it does, it opens the door further for "opinion" stops or excuses for them... uponit7771 Dec 2014 #74

No it doesn't ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #79

So there's LESS potential for opinion based stops? A cop can't just say they stopped me because uponit7771 Dec 2014 #86

Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #92

Thx, so the police can stop you for any reason .. but to search you they need to state SOME unlawful uponit7771 Dec 2014 #95

I don't think they can stop you unless they at least have the Terry v Ohio standard treestar Dec 2014 #113

You need a probable, a terry stop, something JonLP24 Dec 2014 #100

True; but this wasn't a Terry stop ... it was a traffic stop ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #104

A traffic stop is a subset of a Terry stop JonLP24 Dec 2014 #106

Reasonable Suspicion is not Probably Cause ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #107

What do you need for a Terry Stop? JonLP24 Dec 2014 #108

What? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #109

The court specifically stated it had a to cstanleytech Dec 2014 #32

... only if the numbers are kept and the "mistakes" reach a critical mass, people of color... uponit7771 Dec 2014 #75

Holy crap. Baitball Blogger Dec 2014 #20

Interesting opinions during that read... MrMickeysMom Dec 2014 #22

You know officer, I don't want you to search my car. safeinOhio Dec 2014 #25

I had a similar experience once. Curmudgeoness Dec 2014 #36

The SCOTUS does not care about the citizens of America. What do they care about? Rex Dec 2014 #26

Sorry but its hyperbole to claim that the court did away with the 4th amendment cstanleytech Dec 2014 #28

I would love to read the arguments in this case. Wouldn't you agree that there snappyturtle Dec 2014 #38

No, they would have only had a 4th amendment argument if the officer had pulled them over cstanleytech Dec 2014 #101

True, they didn't do away with it...just watered it down now. Rex Dec 2014 #43

Nope it still exists and if any police department tries to exploit it I would advise them not to cstanleytech Dec 2014 #102

This is the most dangerous, naive, agenda focused, activist SC in what was once a real world wide wally Dec 2014 #30

So much for 'Checks and Balances.' n/t PeoViejo Dec 2014 #35

Checks and balances are between branches of government. Igel Dec 2014 #54

I'm going to miss America when it's gone. nt TeamPooka Dec 2014 #48

Nonsensical headline treestar Dec 2014 #49

I agree. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #105

It will save money on police training Turbineguy Dec 2014 #53

Posters have disputed me before... MrScorpio Dec 2014 #65

I agree with you over all. I think this case may have come down to having snappyturtle Dec 2014 #67

You are correct. old guy Dec 2014 #69

They commit a logical error. Igel Dec 2014 #68

Why is it that every amendment in the constitution can be tampered with except the 2nd? nt jillan Dec 2014 #94

It's just a goddamn piece of paper. Scuba Dec 2014 #96

Fascism. JEB Dec 2014 #97

Shocking! 1step Dec 2014 #103

Can't find decision online yet treestar Dec 2014 #114

I've read this and found it most interesting in light of the lower courts' snappyturtle Dec 2014 #116