If I get pulled over for making a rolling stop and the officer asks to search my vehicle?

Question

Will he really call for a warrant if I say no?

He said he would, and that it would be easier if I just let him search my car. I told him I'd rather he didn't, and he told me he would call for a warrant to search- But he got called away on "more urgent business", and let me go on my way.

Was this just an intimidation thing, or would he have really gotten a warrant? I am in CA.

Answer 1

It's your constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, so a police officer needs a warrant to search your car, home, body, etc. However, there are 3 exceptions.

1. You give him permission to search
2. There is something in plain sight to the officer
3. The officer has reason to believe that someone is in grave danger.

Based on what you said, it was probably intimidation. You did the right thing by telling him he needed a warrant. If he is suspicious that you may be hiding something in your car, he would have the right to get a warrant. However, as you noticed, this is a big hassle for him, so unless he thinks it's worth all the effort to get the warrant, he'll usually find "more urgent business". Police officers know what rights you have, but it's not uncommon that they will try to intimidate you into giving up your rights because it makes their job easier. It's especially common for them to do this to younger people since they are more likely to be intimidated and usually don't know their rights. For more info, research the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

I'm not a lawyer. I am graduate student studying accounting, but I've had to take a lot of law classes for my degree.

Answer 2

It was an intimidation thing. Unless they have some kind of probable cause they cant pull a warrant for something like rolling a stop sign. Cops will say anything to get what they want and they normally can get away with it, which is sad.

Answer 3

first of first the correct word is "I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH" however you did right. They don't have the right to search your vehical. If the police officer did do the search and you are not on probation or parole. The court would throw out the case, even if they did find something. Police are very corrupt. Their jobs are specifically given as"PEACE OFFICERS" now I ask myself what's the definition of peace?
Its thisThe absence of war or other hostilities.
An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.
Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations: roommates living in peace with each other.
Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace.
Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.
Not harrassement from police officers or shall I say the right term PEACE OFFICERS.
You definetly did the right thing! Good job. Its good to hear people will stand up for what is right and are not affraid. That in itself is a rare comodity. Tell him get the warrant next time. Sucker.

Answer 4

The supreme court deems that acceptance of a driver's license is implied consent to search of your vehicle. He asked to make it official. Yes he could get a warrant without any trouble and searched your vehicle, in fact the only thing he needed a warrant for was to search locked containers other than the glovebox and the trunk.

Answer 5

Yes he would have to get a warrant. but for what? Being a ex federal policeman.,The police have to ask for permission to search your vehicle on a routine traffic stop. There was no probably cause to search the vehicle, unless you had something illegal in plain view. It is your right to refuse. They can get a warrant, or wait for a canine unit for drugs. But this would be an unlawful detention charge on the Policeman.

Answer 6

If I remember a class in constitutions, and specifically in individual liberties I took in undergrad correctly, then I think that the only time that they have a right to search your car legally is when they visually "spot" something that could be conceived as illegal. I know this isn't very reassuring, but the police, constitutionally, do have alot of "wiggle room" when it comes to searches and seizures. In the end, I think he was just bluffing and legally he would have had to have had a warrant to admit anything in court.

Answer 7

If he had probable cause, he could ask for a warrant. But you did the right thing, no warrant no searching the car.

Answer 8

if you were rolling you did not stop. Theoretically before an officer can search your car he must have a reason. In practice - they tend to create reasons which do not typically hold up in court. In reality, it doesnt matter because even though the charges will be dropped - they still got your dope. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER consent to a voluntary search. Protect your rights to privacy. Rage against anything that threatens what you are constitionally entitled to - To be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is what the framers had in mind.

Answer 9

They can't search your car without a warrant. If they have a good reason to search, such as suspecting drugs, then they will call it in so its all legal. He might have just suspected you had something but didn't have any proof. If you have nothing in your car it's usually better to just let them search it.

Answer 10

to get a warrant he would have to have probable cause, on a traffic stop had he had the probable cause , he would have searched anyway, without a warrant.

He could have called for a drug dog, ( our state police do that often)

But he was just giving you a line of bull to search your car.