Consent to search

[Nader629]

So today me and 1 of my buddies were drinking our coffee by my car when we were approached by 2 Chicago police officers. They asked for our info DL's/ID's and did a pat down and emptied out our pockets, and asked if we had any narcotics in our possession. Neither of us had anything also considering the fact were both in the middle of our testing process with different Depts. One officer asked if i had anything in my car i told him no, so he picked up my car key and went and searched my car his Sgt. began speaking to me as i told him i didnt consent to a search i wasnt in my car i was outside and where is the propable cause and they continued the search for a half hour and then told me a neighbor called us. Is there something i missed during Criminal Justice class lol any info would help thanks.

[TexasAggieOfc]

Um, assuming anything close to what you stated happened, it may have been based on the 'neighbors' report.

[Nader629]

so if the neighbors said "i think these guys are spoking pot" wont that just give them the right to interview until they get enough propable cause, or have reasonable suspicion?

[TexasAggieOfc]

Number one - it's Probable Cause, not propable cause. I will say, in theory, if they got a call that you were smoking dope and observed the odor of said dope about your person, yeah.

[Nader629]

lol thanks for the correction and answering my question.

[NORCOCOP]

(Neither of us had anything also considering the fact were both in the middle of our testing process with different Depts. One officer asked if i had anything in my car i told him no, so he picked up my car key and went and searched my car his Sgt. began speaking to me as i told him i didnt consent to a search i wasnt in my car i was outside and where is the propable cause and they continued the search for a half hour and then told me a neighbor called us.

Is there something i missed during Criminal Justice class lol any info would help thanks.)



I copied the part(s) that makes me question your status as a student in a college Criminal Justice class. I am not very bright, I did not attain a college degree, I in fact only have a GED and a smattering of non English college classes. I can however, construct a coherant sentances and punctuate the end properly!

I am not TRYING to be mean. I do hope you bring a better game than that when and if you decide to write a criminal report at some point if the future.

To actually answer the question, he gave you his justification for the stop, I did not see where he discussed his PC for the search. I often let people know why I performed a search to curtail complaints, especially if the people are polite and compliant. I don't always do so however, and that is a style thing not a mandate. Many other officers do likewise and are justified in not doing so.

The caller may have said any number of things to indicate prior suspicious activity. The officer(s) may have been watching for any period of time before the actual contact, awaiting back up or gathering intell. They may have observed what THEY considered suspicious activity (reaching under seat, into console, maybe they noticed you nervously eyeing the vehicle and it was a weapons or drug related call.

Did you ask them to not search the vehicle at any time? Unless you actually said I don't want you in my car or searching it at some point this is all moot, he probably assumed if you did not want him in it you would have said so. It is my job to investigate and "sniff" around as much as I can on every call. It is not my job to assert people rights for them, I let them do that themselves.

[Nader629]

What you have written does make good sense, but considering the facts that the vehicle wasn't moving, and we were just leaning on the side. I did tell the Sergeant that I didn't consent to a search while the officer was walking towards my vehicle to begin the search. So I just zipped my lips and let them proceed. I had nothing to hide any ways. I just wanted to get some insight on it, and see if it was reasonable?

[NORCOCOP]

Well then it would honestly come down to how the officer articulated thecircumstances up to and the reasons for the search. I have argued with other officers about vehicle "pat's" and alot of times it is how a specific officer is "percieving" events, and how he is able to convey them. One might make a legit search or stop and write a poor report and get in a load of trouble and never have done a thing wrong. A more experienced/seasoned officer is going to pick up on alot of cues and clues the rookie wouldn't. He will also be able to convey why he was justified much more clearly also. So what I am saying is one officer may have been in the same situation and have violated your rights by definition and another not just by what cues they took and how well they understood the nuances of the job.

Good luck, you seem like a nice enough guy and I am sure you will do ok for your self.

[creolecop]

Thats exactly why I tell people to stay away from BS criminal justice classes. If you want to be a cop you'll get educated the right way and all the GRAY area will be explained.

I love when I ask people to search their car and they say no and I start anyway. I ALWAYS ask even when I don't need it. Thats just to double up for a suppression hearing, if one is not good the othe will be. However, it's classic to see the look when jimmy the thug who has been arrested numerous times has been told by his lawyer if you say no, then they can't search. They are so confused it's funny when I do. An officer up on his A game has many ways of getting inside your vehicle. Movements made in a car as the lights come on innocent or not (reaching in glove box as you pull over for insurance or a woman reaching in the backseat for her purse) can be articulated to justify frisking a car and her purse for weapons, among many others. The other day a drug dealer was stopped by me and I asked to search his car. He had a sharpened machette in a sheath laying on the console. He got patted down. While patting him down he told me no I could not search his car. His license was suspended. I said nothing, pulled out my clip board and started doing his tow reciept. Then I asked him if he had anything valuable he wanted to get out. His face turned like this then he said no. I said alright I need you to stand back over by the other deputy while I conduct a thorough inventory of your vehicle. I started writing the flip screen deck and amp I saw in the console area. Then when I opened his console to check for money I observed a large bag of Xstacy cuffed and stuffed. All he could say was hey man that was an illegal search and seizure, that was an illegal search. I told him who ever taught him that phrase needed to pay for his bail and legal fees because they didn't teach him an 8th of the game. I said it's like they gave you a football helmet and that was it and sent you onto a football field with no familiarity of the game. Then I said, you know the beautiful thing, he said what, I said, you call that a search, but my cameras and the courts call it something else that made the discovery legal. Told him while he was in jail to hit the library and come out and play again. BTW, we seized his 07' chrysler 300 tricked out.

OP there are many articulations that you may not have been aware of. All of which they actually don't need to explain to you (I don't, don't want to educate the wrong people). They always ask, how you just going to do this or do that, I tell them you'll find out all your answers in court. You don't know what information they were armed with upon contact with you. I also don't know what they observed in addition to information received to say but they obviously knew they would be able to articulate it. It's all about articulation.

[mikeymedic]

Look up Terry v. Ohio

[2wheeldep]

There are so many facts missing from this one sided story, good luck with your LEO career.

P.S. AJ classes don't teach you anything about being a cop, IMO it helps you decide if being a LEO is a career for you.

[leesrt]

What you have written does make good sense, but considering the facts that the vehicle wasn't moving, and we were just leaning on the side. I did tell the Sergeant that I didn't consent to a search while the officer was walking towards my vehicle to begin the search. So I just zipped my lips and let them proceed. I had nothing to hide any ways. I just wanted to get some insight on it, and see if it was reasonable?

It doesn't matter if the vehicle wasn't moving and you weren't in it. The vehicle has the ability to move so it presents an exigent circumstance.
Get a copy of the police report because they will have had to articulate that they had PC to search absent your consent.

Did they find anything or did you just get your feelings hurt?
You will have to decide how far you want to take this but absent an PC it was an illegal search. Of course, this is strictly based on your side of the story.

[iamacop]

Folks, you don't need probable cause to search or even stop a vehicle, you only need reasonable suspicion... Carroll Doctrine, Terry VS. Ohio, Michigan VS. Long, all deal with searches and seizures.. All of these deal with reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Make sure you read up so a defense attorney doesn't get you on the stand about searches and whether you need P.C. or suspicion. The only thing you need probable cause for is an arrest...

Also, my opinion and from experience, sometimes a defense attorney can say that your reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search a vehicle wasn't good enough, so you asked for consent, but once it was denied, you just decided to search anyways. The defense can say, "If your r.s. or p.c. was so strong, why did you ask, when case law says you don't have to? You have the authority to search without consent if there is sufficient and articulable reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause."

I've never asked to search a vehicle if I have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search a vehicle. I just do it, and the Prosecution can push that the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause so was evident, that consent obviously was not asked... It seems if you ask, and search anyways after they refused, you were second guessing yourself from the very beginning.

[mdrdep]

Folks, you don't need probable cause to search or even stop a vehicle, you only need reasonable suspicion... Carroll Doctrine, Terry VS. Ohio, Michigan VS. Long, all deal with searches and seizures.. All of these deal with reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Make sure you read up so a defense attorney doesn't get you on the stand about searches and whether you need P.C. or suspicion. The only thing you need probable cause for is an arrest...

Also, my opinion and from experience, sometimes a defense attorney can say that your reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search a vehicle wasn't good enough, so you asked for consent, but once it was denied, you just decided to search anyways. The defense can say, "If your r.s. or p.c. was so strong, why did you ask, when case law says you don't have to? You have the authority to search without consent if there is sufficient and articulable reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause."

I've never asked to search a vehicle if I have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search a vehicle. I just do it, and the Prosecution can push that the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause so was evident, that consent obviously was not asked... It seems if you ask, and search anyways after they refused, you were second guessing yourself from the very beginning.

R.S. will only cover the detention and a search for readily available weapons in the vehicle. A full search of the vehicle will require P.C. or one of the other exceptions. As to asking consent there is nothing wrong with it one way or the other. If the defense attorney asks about it trying to shake the confidence, no problem, "Just common curtosey". Never had a problem with it. I'm confident in what I do and have never allowed a defense attorney to shake me up on the stand.

[RoadKingTrooper]

So today me and 1 of my buddies were drinking our coffee by my car when we were approached by 2 Chicago police officers. They asked for our info DL's/ID's and did a pat down and emptied out our pockets, and asked if we had any narcotics in our possession. Neither of us had anything also considering the fact were both in the middle of our testing process with different Depts. One officer asked if i had anything in my car i told him no, so he picked up my car key and went and searched my car his Sgt. began speaking to me as i told him i didnt consent to a search i wasnt in my car i was outside and where is the propable cause and they continued the search for a half hour and then told me a neighbor called us. Is there something i missed during Criminal Justice class lol any info would help thanks.

Sounds like you would fair better as a defense attorney. Do the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois a favor and stay out of LEO work