Commens on this site please..

[CashCrop]

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Let's please not jump up and down on the fat man please, I referred to this site in a previous post. Found after some googling....

I am not trying to piss anyone off, nor elicit "flames" or sarcastic retorts..

I simply want to know your response to this information..

Do you feel the information presented is true or correct?

How do you feel about citizens knowing or utilizing this information (normal people, not ACLU nuts)

Do you find yourself taking the mentality that if someone is making themselves aware of this information, then they must be doing some wrong or immoral?

And in conclusion, as a LEO (or those civilians aspiring to be one) what would your response be if a member of the public referred to this information (meaning one's constitutional rights) during a police encounter? Would your response be along the lines of "What, are you a lawyer now".

One more thing, I'm assuming LEOs recieve training in this information, if this is true, then what would be the CORRECT response to my last question?

Now, for my personal opinion, the driver surely left his JD degree at home, when he decided to take a joyride and smoke a joint... :D But the point is, that cannot be the appropriate response...

[CashCrop]

"What if the police call in drug-sniffing dogs?

Your rights do not disappear if the officer threatens to call in the dogs, so don’t let this all-too-common tactic intimidate you into consenting to a search.

Before the dogs arrive, you have the right to dismiss yourself by asking if you are free to go. But if the officer detains you until the dogs come, remain silent and refuse to consent to any searches.

If a K-9 unit arrives, you should never consent to a dog sniff even if the officer claims you have to (which would be a lie). Remember: Unlocking your car at the officer's request or handing the officer your keys is the same as consenting to a search."

I AM VERY curious about this passage, and now have many questions....

Do I have to unlock my trunk if I am asked to do so?

If I refuse, can I be charged with interfering with a police investigation?

Can the officer forcibly take my keys?

DC LAW mentioned that he often takes the drivers keys and places them on top of the car? Am I legally required to give the officer the keys at his request SINCE surrendering my keys is technically consenting to a search of my property?

[Zendik]

Very interesting.
What I'm gathering here is there is a possibility of LE manipulating the laws they are sworn to protect which in my opinion is just as bad as a gang banger doing a drive by but worse.

[corporal716]

Very interesting.
What I'm gathering here is there is a possibility of LE manipulating the laws they are sworn to protect which in my opinion is just as bad as a gang banger doing a drive by but worse.

It is not manipulating, its knowledge. Manipulating is what attorneys do. Cops do things and ask questions based on experience and training. There is a reason for it all.

I have no problem with people knowing their rights. That's why they teach government in the 10th grade.
Its not my fault if they did not pay attention.

[CashCrop]

But can someone answer these questions?

Do I have to unlock my trunk if I am asked to do so?

If I refuse, can I be charged with interfering with a police investigation?

Can the officer forcibly take my keys?

DC LAW mentioned that he often takes the drivers keys and places them on top of the car? Am I legally required to give the officer the keys at his request SINCE surrendering my keys is technically consenting to a search of my property?

[corporal716]

You can ask people to do almost anything. You have to have a lawful reason to make them.

Years ago consensual searches were very common. In California case law has changed a little over the years. I believe now you have to have a reason to ask for a search on normal vehilce stops. You can not delay them anymore than necessary.
But thats just here. I don't know about other states.

[CashCrop]

But if I have not consented to a search, and the officer asks for the keys to search because the dog would like to sniff the trunk, and BY HANDING OVER the keys, I am consenting to search, do I have to open the trunk or surrender the keys?

Again, by surrendering the keys, I am giving consent to search.. This is a BIG catch 22

[corporal716]

READ THE WEB PAGE YOU POSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It gives you the answers to your questions.

[Evnings]

The easiest way to avoid this quagmire, while not the most aggressive, is not to search unless you already have probable cause. If probable cause exsists, there is no reason to ask for consent. Also, if you have a doper stopped, its just not that hard to find probable cause to search. Dopers are basically stupid. They leave tail tell signs like roach clips, roaches, and a strong odor. On more than one occassions, the dumbies leave their bags laying in plain sight. the plain view doctrine is a key to the whole car. Why use consent when you have plain view?

Granted, I'm not an interdiction cop. But I find enough crime to suppress without having to use consent. In my opinion, the Constitution and the courts have given cops more than enough tools to use to fight crime and insurrection without having to employ consent. " Terry " is one of the best rulings to come down the pike in a long time. " Terry " is not hard to employ and when worded correctly in an arrrest report, it is hard to get things thrown out that were found as a result of " Terry".

Also once an arrest has been made out of a vehicle and the vehicle is going to be impounded, there is the neat little thing called " Vehicle Inventory." Inventory searches allow a law enforcement officer to find lots of neat little things and go search every part of the vehicle. I know I would sure hate to have a person claim he had a million dollars in his trunk after he's gone to the impound yard and its not there

When I am asked if I have the right to search, I tell the subject yes. If they start getting tacky with me, I ask them for their law degree. I tell them that my desicion on what to do tonight is the final one for tonight. If he has a problem with it, hire an attorney and go to court. I need the overtime. Tacky yes, but it is to the point. The street is not where legal desicions are made, its in the court room. Actions on the street are not open to debate while I am on the street making the desicion. Almost all the time, the reason for the search and arrest have been explained to them ahead of time.

[K9Cop]

[QUOTE=CashCrop]http://www.flexyourrights.org/

How do you feel about citizens knowing or utilizing this information (normal people, not ACLU nuts)

I personally think that all citizens should know what their rights are....but nothing frustrates me more then having a citizen that thinks they know the law who then tries to "school" me on the side of the road as to what I can and cannot legally do. If I had a quarter for everytime a suspect that I have placed under arrest, who was subsequently being transported to appear before the magistrate tells me "You did not read me my rights, this case will get thrown out" - or "I did not give you consent to walk your partner around my car so the judge will throw this out" - I'd be rich. Or how about those who read on some site that the officer is required to show you the radar to prove the speed that you are being cited for? If you feel that your rights have been infringed upon, by all means take mental notes and relay your information to either the Magistrate or to your lawyer so that it can be presented - but don't argue your case/your interpretation of the law to me on the side of the road.

Do you find yourself taking the mentality that if someone is making themselves aware of this information, then they must be doing some wrong or immoral?

Not necessarily - I don't think that everyone who knows their rights and asserts them is a criminal or is "up to something" - even though most of the citizens that I personally deal with are known (by us to be) dopers. Heck, it usta be a saying that was recited by many that if IA calls you in - take no poly, waive no rights, make no statements.

And in conclusion, as a LEO (or those civilians aspiring to be one) what would your response be if a member of the public referred to this information (meaning one's constitutional rights) during a police encounter? Would your response be along the lines of "What, are you a lawyer now".

I may be thinking that (What, are you a lawyer now) but I would never say that to a person. There have been occassions where a person thinks they know the law and I attempt (only once) to explain what my reasonable suspicions or probable cause is/was for the action that I took. Not that I am required to do this, nor do I attempt this more then once which takes maybe a couple of minutes of my time, but I do make an effort to explain the reasoning behind my actions (ensuring of course that officer safety remains) which is pretty easy because I tend not to delve into the gray area.

In reference to the K-9 sniff:

I don't ask for the keys so that my partner can sniff the trunk - don't need the trunk to be opened for him to sniff. The only time that I would request the keys to the trunk would be if he indicated on any part of the trunk (seams etc). No problem in me getting a search warrant once he indicates.

[CashCrop]

Edited because the answer is in the above post,

so basically, if the dog gets a whiff, and the person will not surrender the keys or waive their right to consent, then a warrant is requested based on the PC of the dog getting a whiff?

Does one need PC to perform the Dog search in the first place? Doesn't the driver have to consent to that too?

So if the driver will not consent to the search, and their is not PC to search, on what grounds will you get the search warrant to perform the canine search?

[K9Cop]

I've listed these Supreme Court rulings in other threads - bare with me for those of you that have read these already:
United States vs. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106 (5th circuit), dog sniff is not a search....Furthermore, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to the dog sniff.
Unites States vs. Sharpe, 105 S. Ct. at 1575 the court said; one the dog had alerted to a controlled substance, there was plainly probable cause to believe there were controlled substances in the car.
U.S. vs Place, 103 S Ct.2637 the Supreme Court stated...Use of a trained narcotics canine to sniff suspicious items or containers is NOT a search, therefore there are no 4th Amendment ramifications. Additionally, the stated the following: A positive alert by a narcotics sniffing dog does elminate the need for a search warrant. Canine searches intrude only into the airspace sorrounding a person's belongings to which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

US vs Lyons

Jusifications
1. A dog sniff does not involve physical intrusion.
2. Any intrusion on an individual's privacy is inoffensive.
3. Any intrusion is restricted because the dog's sniff is indiscriminate.
4. Any intrusion is not aimed at the person but inanimate objects.
5. Use of the dog is not like using complicated electronic equipment.

Before a K-9 can begin sniffing for evidence, the handler must be in a place which the handler has a right to be. If another officer or myself stops a vehicle for a traffic violation - then I have a right to be there along with my partner as long as we don't unnecessarily detain the driver just to conduct the sniff . Most K-9's walk around the vehicle faster then any officer can request and receive a return on DL info or Registration.

[acreature]

A person has no expectation of privacy in the air around there belongings while in a public place.

[CashCrop]

So basically, so I understand, the dog sniff, is just that, a sniff and not a search thus no PC is needed...

and...

before I can be detained, or even ask if I am free to go, the K-9 is on the scene, already had done the sniff, and if there is something there, then you therefore have grounds to detain AND search the car?

[BryGuy]

I just took a quick look at that website, and I really see nothing wrong with it. They are not teaching sneaky tricks to fool police or to specifically break the law. They are merely informing people of their basic constitutional rights. I know, for me anyway, I always act in a legal manner...I avoid gray areas like the plague. I know when I'm right and I know when I'd be wrong and making an "gray" arrest just isn't worth the possibility of violating someone's rights. That being said, when I get the jailhouse lawyer arguing on the side of the road, I do tend to get very aggrivated. Not because he is defending his rights...but because he is WRONG and doesn't know what he's talking about. Any officer that acts within the limits of his authority and within the rights of the citizen would never have a problem with a subject actually knowing their rights.