I am specifically talking about the amendments which protect individual from searches and seizures without warrants and what not. Or another way: What methods do law enforcement officers use to get around those amendments which at times impede their work. For instance: Suppose an officer pulls over a car on the road in the middle of nowhere, he suspects that something is not quite right. The officer, on a hunch, knowing that he's not suppose to without consent searches the vehicle while the driver opposess it saying that he doesn't give the cop permission to search the car. Lo And Behold the officer finds drug, after arresting the individual, the cop states in his report that the person did give consent, all the while the driver denies it. Who wins in court? Is it a matter of the cops word vs. the defendant? Thanks
2006-10-05 08:43:46 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yeah, unless you have proof, such as the dash cam from the cruiser or several impartial witnesses, the cop will usually (95% of the time) win. You are a drug abuser after all while he is a upstanding civil servant.
2006-10-05 08:48:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In a way, yes. Al Capone never gave the IRS permission to go over his second set of books, after all, and there's not many drug dealers who invite the cops in for tea.
If an officer has due cause to believe that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, he can investigate, even if the property owner objects. He will have to prove in court that he did have that due cause, however, and if he lies about whether the suspect allowed him to search the property, then he will cast doubt upon all his testimony from then on. He will also have to give a reason why he didn't wait and get a warrant, which would allow him to search no matter what objections the property owner made.
In the case of the car search you were suggesting, virtually all modern police cars have cameras mounted on their dashboards. It makes things much simpler on the jury that way and cuts down on some of the abuses that could occur in stressful situations like that.
2006-10-05 08:54:59 · answer #2 · answered by triviatm 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes the police can violate any invocation of civil or constitutinal rights, the police can invoke what they call "PROBABLE CAUSE". This is a very vague idea that means that the police can, for any reason, search any person, their vehicle, or domicile at any time simply because they think the person is suspicious. Of course suspicious can mean anything from soneone urinating in the middle of an intersection to someone wearing the wrong color (or BEING the wrong color) in the wrong part of town, or because you are wearing the wrong religious symbol.
As for consent, if the cop says there was consent then that is the end of it. The general concensus is that the person is only claiming that he didn't give concent to make an effort to discredit the officer and make the arrest invalid. In the wold of cops and robbers, the cops ALWAYS get the benefit of about a MILLION doubts, even when they are BLATENTLY discriminating against someone for ANY reason.
And people wonder why I HATE cops.
2006-10-05 09:00:57 · answer #3 · answered by kveldulfgondlir 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The officer needs to tell why he searched the vehicle. If he outright lies about the consent, then it may come down to word vs. word. A lot of police are wearing recording devices now, so that if the driver consents, it will be recorded. A driver knowing he has drugs in his car would be stupid to consent to a search.
2006-10-05 08:54:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As to the consent issue, if he did not have you sign a consent to search form (standard practice in some jurisdictions but not in all) and no one else was there, then it is your word against his. However, he does not have to have consent to search your vehicle if he has probable cause to believe you have committed a crime. In the case of the automobile exception, PC usually isn't that difficult to establish.
2006-10-05 09:38:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Largerly yes, someone may have narced you out so he knew anyway.
All he has to do is detain you there for the drug dog to come and it hits then he can search the car and if he finds some drug you SOL, charged processed arraigned arrested court date name in the paper and all the good stuff.
2006-10-05 08:50:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm falling into the parochial US ideas-set here! For a 2nd i presumed you meant the U. S. state! As I examine on I realised it wasn't in this social accumulating however the belief did ensue to me - " Given the main remarkable-wing religious morons in the U. S. on the 2nd, how long until now this takes place in Atlanta?"
2016-10-18 21:17:25 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's true cops can lie in court and say what they want. Heck he could drag you out of your car and toss you in handcuffs claiming you threatned him when you did not. But the reality is most cops are annoying but not corrupt.
2006-10-05 08:51:35 · answer #8 · answered by Funchy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They can search your car if they have probable cause, wether or not you gave consent. The cop will always win. Damn the man.
2006-10-05 08:52:32 · answer #9 · answered by Smitty 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are smarter than that, if they ask to look and you refuse, they just bring the drug dog. After he alerts the SCOTUS has ruled he may search without your permission.
2006-10-05 08:47:32 · answer #10 · answered by Meow the cat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋