The OP is obviously not giving the whole story. The officer would not have arrested him unless the OP had committed a crime. He obviously had. Officers will often ask consent to search a person even though they have probable cause to arrest the individual, more as a courtesy to the arrestee to show in their report that the arrestee was being cooperative. However, once you are under arrest or detained, an officer can search you for weapons and contraband. That's why it is best to cooperate and not be an ass. Cops aren't going to take bullshit, they're trained not to, and it's important that they don't.

You're clearly a moron. Police officers do arrest people who have committed a crime and if you are too literal-minded to understand that I mean police officers arrest people for whom they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, then there is just no hope for you.

There's a huge difference between "The officer would not have arrested him unless the OP had committed a crime." and "The officer would not have arrested him unless he had probable cause to believe that the OP had committed a crime." That you meant the latter and wrote the former is in no way my fault. That you try to blame me for not being able to read your mind just cements your status as a moron.

No. There is not a huge difference. You are just splitting hairs and not adding anything to the argument at all. The general understanding of law enforcement, ask anyone, is that "they arrest criminals." Criminals are people who have committed crimes. An officer arrests people who have committed crimes is NOT an incorrect statement. However, it is up to the courts, to establish through a burden of proof, that a crime had indeed been committed.

if they arrest someone who is then acquitted, then they've arrested someone who has NOT committed a crime, haven't they?

So if an officer were to arrest you and throw you in prison without a trial because they thought they saw drugs in your car, even though it was something completely innocent, your protests that you did not actually break the law would be "just splitting hairs"? Probable cause just means that the police have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed. That evidence can, and often is, wrong. Police arrest criminals, yes. They also frequently arrest people who have not committed any crime. This is not a slam against the police, it's just a fact of life. The reason we have courts and juries is because probable cause is NOT proof.

Not necessarily. They've arrested someone who has not met the burden of proof to convict the defendant of the crime.

therealmike: Yes, I do feel you were splitting hairs. Saying that the police arrest people who commit crimes is a pretty well accepted explanation of what police do. As for your second paragraph, you and I are in complete agreement.

Saying that police arrest people who commit crimes is a completely different statement than your original one, however. Yes, police arrest criminals. Not only is this popularly accepted (something I personally place no weight in) but it is true. However, police ALSO arrest non-criminals. This is simply due to the nature of the work, and again not a criticism. Your initial statement that they would not have arrested the OP unless he had committed a crime is therefore simply wrong. Police arrest innocent people all the time. It's then up to subsequent parts of the system to determine their innocence and let them go. If the OP got arrested, it's not proof of criminality, simply proof of probable cause. Toss in corrupt police (and they do exist!) and it's not even that.

therealmike: while I understand what you are saying, and you are not incorrect, I still don't think I was incorrect to assume that the officer arrested the OP after he had committed a crime. I would have been more correct if I had said that they would not have arrested the OP unless they had probable cause to believe he had committed a crime. Now, when you factor in corrupt police, a tiny percentage, I suppose even that is incorrect. However, you can make exception after exception, and offer what-if after what-if, but it's not really productive. What if I'm dreaming right now and I'm just arguing with myself? What if you think you're a real person but in fact you're a crawfish? Like I said, just not productive to the argument. But I do understand where you are coming from.

That you compare the probability of the police arresting an innocent person to that of a crawfish dreaming he's a person is crazy. Police arrest innocent people all the time. Your assumption that he must be guilty if he got arrested is wrong, pure and simple.

I was more saying the "what if I'm a crawfish" to "what if the police were corrupt?" argument. But I can understand where you might have made that mistake. Like I said, we can throw what-ifs at the argument until we're blue in the face. What IF the police were corrupt and just didn't like his hairdo? What IF the police officer just witnessed him raping and executing a six-year-old girl? What IF he had just strangled six puppies with a telephone wire? What IF the actual perpetrator was his identical twin brother?

Right, so why make assumptions? All we know from the story is that he said "Officer, I do not consent to any searches" and that this caused him to be handcuffed. We don't know if he was arrested. We don't know if he committed any crimes. We don't know anything else. That you state without qualification that the OP "obviously" committed a crime means that you are making unwarranted assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

I guess the main problem with this is that there are no facts nor evidence. I'm still thinking it's quite possible that I am just a lonely crawfish in a remote mountain stream. If it means I can quite arguing, I will concede to you, but still maintain that the kid is a douche bag and I hope he was sodomized by the officer's 26" expandable baton.

Right, so you think that invoking your Constitutionally-granted rights justifies anal rape. Nice. I think that this discussion has demonstrated the quality of your character quite forcibly.

Yes, you're exactly right. I support police brutality. I would never dare to invoke sarcasm, it is the lowest form of humor.

And fine, I will continue playing your silly game. There is nothing in the FML to suggest that he was invoking his constitutional right. He may not have had right to refuse the search in the first place.

"I was more saying the "what if I'm a crawfish" to "what if the police were corrupt?" argument." except one is ridiculous if not impossible, while the other is fact. some police ARE corrupt. that is a fact. that you would compare that statement to "what if i'm a crawfish just IMAGINING i'm human and on a website and all these people interacting with me are just figments of my tiny little crawfish imagination?" is insulting. and EVERYONE has the right to refuse a search, even if they've got a bloody orphan's head in their hands.

SOME (a tiny percentage) police are corrupt. But, since you want to place such an emphasis on burden of proof, there is nothing in this FML to suggest the officer was corrupt and you must, by your reasoning, be incorrect. And NO, not everyone has the right to refuse a search. That is patently false. If the police have probable cause to arrest you, you have absolutely NO right to refuse a search.

No. You're wrong. I mean, I don't know how else to put it, you are just plain wrong. The funny thing is you are basically saying what I am saying, just unwilling to admit that you are incorrect. Saying that it "doesn't matter if you give consent or not, you're going to be searched anyway," means you have no right to refuse the search, so I don't really understand what your argument is. You have none. If the officer "has the right to disregard your non-consent" that means you had no right to refuse in the first place. Seriously, get a grip.

This "do you have the right?" stuff is a semantic argument that's not going anywhere. The important question is this: what legal penalty is there for refusing? The answer is quite simple. If the officer has no probable cause, then there is no penalty. Nothing happens. If the officer has probable cause, then he can detain (note: NOT arrest) you for a "reasonable" amount of time while he carries out the search. If the search turns up nothing, then nothing further happens, and you are free to go. If the officer has probable cause, then there is essentially no difference as to whether you consent or not. If the officer has no probable cause, then he cannot do anything to you. Thus we can conclude that there is never a reason not to refuse consent. We can also conclude that if the officer discussed in the original post did not have probable cause, he was wrong in detaining the poster simply for refusing consent.

Ahhh the wonderful Objective Reasonableness and hindsight 20-20 which applies to more that UOF

You are just another liberal weenie who says, "Oh I wouldn't consent to a search, I'm a tough guy with a pony tail and a neck beard and I know my rights!" When in reality you would just bend over and let them search you or your car anyway. Knowing that you're a liberal weenie, the stench of dope coming from your car would be so overpowering that the officer would have probable cause to search your vehicle anyway and then take you to jail after they recover the pound of marijuana in your car.

What do we have here? Another one of your long and pointless comments supporting abuse of power without a second thought. You would probably suck a cop's dick if he asked you. Perhaps the OP had done something to warrant an arrest, we can't tell from this short anecdote. However from the information provided it is very possible that the police officer did overstep his boundaries. Refusal to consent to a search is not a crime, you said yourself that cops arrest those who commit crimes.

There was no information provided.

You're wrong.

Alright Harvey, how about instead of your "You're wrong" shit you properly explain with your apparently limited ability to form coherent thought a slightly cohesive reason why a poster is wrong. Five times, as I casually scrolled down this list of comment, I saw single sentences from you stating that the poster you are replying to is misinformed or otherwise incorrect. That said, I believe the OP should have elaborated a bit more on the situation and that due to the omission of information it is fairly pointless to make an argument either way. Sure you can make an assumption based on accurate information, but statistics are, ultimately, useless as probability is merely an attempt to order chaos. Let us say I have a one in six chance of rolling a six on a fair sie. I roll a six every roll for a total of twelve times. This does not alter probability, it just makes my individual outcome unusual. There is no real way to predict an outcome, you can only grasp at straws and make an educated guess. To make the last few sentences relevant: There is a something out of something chance that a cop will not detain you with out due process. This has absolutely no effect on every individual situation, it merely coddles the reviewer by helping them find a form of order in a universe that tends toward random on the large scale.