Why refuse to be searched? Many reasons: - You can't know the law 100%. Perhaps you are breaking the law and are unaware of it. - You can't know your vehicle 100%. Perhaps there is something in it which you are unaware of. Maybe one of your friends dropped some dope under the seat, for example. - You can't know the police officer 100%. Perhaps he's horribly corrupt, has it in for you, is planning to plant evidence against you, but for some reason (being monitored by the station?) will not go so far as to make an illegal search. - The police may not be terribly gentle when searching. Technically you could sue for damages afterwards, which would involve a great deal of time, lawyer fees, and a fair probability of failure. - Because you can, because it's your right, because it's your property. I don't let strangers into my house or my car just because they ask. Police get no special treatment in that respect.

I love you.

#103 ftw

"If I am not under arrest". He was. He wasn't allowed to go. Just so you know, search warrants take time to get. I hope you'd be as understanding if it was a terrorist going into a public place your family was in, and the officer hurried off to get a search warrant, rather than following protocol and doing exactly what the officer in this FML did. I'm not assuming everyone is a terrorist or drug smuggler. I'm assuming the police officer isn't a power tripping jerk who is breaking the law. I'm pretty sure it's a more logical assumption to believe someone who hasn't even claimed they were innocent, like the OP, is guilty, than a police officer who is tested and and checked up on and paid to uphold the law.

he was only arrested BECAUSE he refused the search. i seriously doubt the OP would be coming here to complain if he knew he had done something to warrant being searched and arrested in the first place. he wouldn't have been SURPRISED by the officer arresting him if he had done something wrong. the officer wouldn't even need to request a search if he already had grounds to arrest him (such as contraband being in plain sight). what, are you and harveywallbanger getting together with a bunch of mule accounts to bury all the comments that disagree with you? i find it rather suspicious that only the comments supporting the OP, including articulate and in-depth posts with citations, are being buried while you guys can go around calling people morons and your comments stay visible. $10 says this comment gets buried too.

No otaku. I think the majority of people just think you're stupid. I guess you're just going to get cut and make yourself believe it's a conspiracy against you though. In-depth posts with citations? Rofl. A copy paste of the fourth amendment, misread so disgustingly there will no doubt be founding fathers rolling in their graves? That's cute.

Misread? Search and/or seizure without probable cause/warrant/consent is being misread? It's pretty ******* clear-cut to me. My founding fathers had to deal with a tyrannical government and its pawns quelling the spirit of liberty (and imposing taxation without representation). To suggest they would agree with your idea that a cop (or in their case, a British officer) be able to hold a person because the cop has a suspicion? That's just stupid. I've made it clear already that if there was probable cause, a warrant can be obtained and the person can be detained. Otherwise, it's Unconstitutional. It's just that simple. There's no misreading of the fourth amendment.

172- They weren't searched though.. Then you tried to apply the "unreasonable seizure of ... persons" part of the quote to it because he was arrested, as if was no reason. There was. He was refusing a search, and assuming (logically) that the cop was doing his job, that's entirely reasonable and standard. There's a lot worse things in the world, I know, but for some reason every time an American who clearly has no idea what they're talking about says "constitution" or "patriot act" I feel the bile rising in the back of my throat. "Your" founding fathers would agree entirely that someone suspicious refusing a search should be arrested and in no way should be labeled a "tyrannical government" (although, there are many, many things America does today I'm sure they would consider tyrannical. Supporting illegals occupation and attempted genocide in Israel, torture of uncharged inmates, you know, all that "trivial" stuff that pales in comparison to someone being able to refuse to a search by police protecting the community).

"They weren't searched though.." And that justifies being detained... how? If the cop didn't attempt to obtain a warrant, the person cannot be detained. "Then you tried to apply the "unreasonable seizure of ... persons" part of the quote to it because he was arrested, as if was no reason. There was. He was refusing a search, and assuming (logically) that the cop was doing his job, that's entirely reasonable and standard. There's a lot worse things in the world, I know, but for some reason every time an American who clearly has no idea what they're talking about says "constitution" or "patriot act" I feel the bile rising in the back of my throat." The refusal of a search is not probable cause. You cannot detain someone without a warrant or attempting to obtain a warrant. If the officer is trying to obtain a warrant, he can only hold the person until the warrant is denied, and if approved... then obviously longer. "'Your' founding fathers would agree entirely that someone suspicious refusing a search should be arrested and in no way should be labeled a "tyrannical government" (although, there are many, many things America does today I'm sure they would consider tyrannical. Supporting illegals occupation and attempted genocide in Israel, torture of uncharged inmates, you know, all that "trivial" stuff that pales in comparison to someone being able to refuse to a search by police protecting the community)." They would not have supported such a thing. They understood the abuses that government takes, so they made it required that there be probable cause. Suspicion is easy enough to fabricate. Probable cause is harder and the detainee would have a better chance at proving his innocence in being detained if he can prove no probable cause. I take every political issue seriously. Give me an FML that deals with torture of uncharged inmates, attempted genocide, and anything else, I'll argue that, as well. Just because this may be a "lesser" issue does not mean it's not an important issue. All it takes is one domino to fall to send the rest tumbling with it.

Yes, refusal to a search can be seen as probable cause. Go look up the legal definition. The refusal of a search can absolutely be seen as probable cause. If there are no other contributing factors, when it goes before a magistrate the police officer can be reprimanded, but the re usually will be. You don't even seem to understand what a warrant is. I very much doubt you have any idea what your founding fathers thought. A search warrant means the police can search the house or car and collect evidence. Searching because of probable cause does not require a search warrant, and does not allow then to seize anything or collect evidence. They don't even need probably cause to arrest you techincally. They can detain you for a while just with reasonable suspicion.

No, refusing to consent to a search cannot be used as grounds for a search. That would render the rights guaranteed under the 4th and 5th amendments moot. When you plead the fifth during a criminal proceeding (refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it may incriminate you), your refusal to do so cannot be read as evidence of your guilt. So if someone asks, "did you murder Aaron Burr", and you plead the fifth, that cannot be used as evidence that you, in fact, murdered Aaron Burr. So, your refusal to consent to a search (essentially pleading the fifth) cannot be used as grounds to search you. (I am not a lawyer.)

Mobius, again, you are proving that you are an idiot. It takes less than an hour to get a signed warrant. The ADA (That's assistant district attorney to you, illiterate loser) and the police have a list of judges they keep "on call" for just such situations.

#246 -Your talking about his Miranda Rights. Here it is strait from the little card that we are issued and must read from every single time otherwise it's our ass. "I am (Insert rank and name ) an member of the (Insert Law Enforcement Agency) and I am investigating the alleged offenses of( insert what he/she's being charged with )of which you are suspected . I advise you that under the Article 31 of the UCMJ/ Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that you have the right to remain silent, that is to say NOTHING at all. Any statement that you make oral or written, may be used as evidence against you in a trial or in other judicial or administrative proceedings. You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have a lawyer present during this interview. You may obtain a civilian lawyer of your choosing and own expense. If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one one will be appointed for to you by civilian authorities before any questioning. You may request a lawyer at any time during this interview. If you decide to answer questions, you may stop the questioning at any time. Do you understand your rights? Do you wish for a lawyer (note: if the answer is yes then cease all questioning at this time) Are you willing to answer questions?" We also tell the that asking for a lawyer is not an admission of guilt, that it is for their protection.

Hell we just call our Magistrate direct line, any time of day- no waiting or anythig