Your rights when the five O pull you over

I got this kid next door-hes a good kid, goes to college for auto tech, and works a full time job as well. The kid has spent ALLL summmer working 15 hr days 6 days a week. Last week who goes out and buys a Chevelle SS off some old man who sells it to him at a good price because the old guy liked the kid and knows he likes working on cars.

Only thing is when he comes in at 1 you hear him coming up the street-sounds like a real muscle car

anyway, two nights in a row he gets pulled over. Last nite, he was over at Kennedy Commons showin off his car in the parking lot having cofee with his buddies.

On his way home, he gets stopped near Scarborough Town Centre.

They ask him if he has drugs or alchohol in the car and he says no.

They then check his paper work-its all good and come back and ask to search the car.

he tells them to go ahead. all said and done, he had tool bags and other car stuff in the trunk, they left it on the road and said he could go.

I told himnext time-SAY NO

how do you appropriately tell a cop he aint gonna be searching your vehicle? First off, I dont trust cops in Scarborough and really, hes opening the door for them to plant something.

How does this kid excersise his rights without getting his face smashed into the hood of a cruiser?

becuse once he says no, then they think hes hiding something, then there going to do it anyway-correct?

He could ask them for the reason he being stopped, satisfy them on that could (i.e. provide docs, etc), then if they ask him about searching the vehicle he could ask them if he's still being detained, since it seems the reason he was stopped has been investigated and satisfied.

If he's not being detained then he's free to go. If he is being detained after the traffic stop is completed then his section 10 rights are being violated and if they search him his section 8 rights are being violated. He doesn't have to tell them all this, but if he audio records it he has a pretty good basis for making a complaint or dealing with any charges.

Off_Camber wrote:

how do you appropriately tell a cop he aint gonna be searching your vehicle? First off, I dont trust cops in Scarborough and really, hes opening the door for them to plant something.

How does this kid excersise his rights without getting his face smashed into the hood of a cruiser?

becuse once he says no, then they think hes hiding something, then there going to do it anyway-correct?

He asks for a lawyer.

Or to speak to one.

If they touch him after that start howling as lowd as possible.

Cheers

Viper1

There are laws that we must follow when driving. Most of us know about them. If we fail to follow the law and a police officer observes this we will be in trouble. Thing is at this time there are laws that Police officers must follow too when dealing with us. Unfortunately most people have no idea the laws as far as what the police can and can not do. A police officer can not search your car without a warrent unless he sees something illegal out in the open. He can ask to search, and usually people dont know their rights and feel pressured into waiving their rights in this situation. You can refuse. You never have to give up your charter rights. If you refuse and the police search anyways you stand on better ground in court when your lawyer starts filing motions in your behalf. If you allow police to search and they find something, you're screwed because that search was legal.

Most of us here are Honest citizens though (i would like to believe) and you may think "if you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem". but I think " if i've done nothing wrong why am I allowing someone to hassle me like a criminal?"

This province is getting scary insane. Where did these cops get the idea that they should search an innocent citizens' automobile? The freaking nerve! Some people are watching too much Cops on television.; they simply went fishing which is just plain wrong.

I would like to think that I would tell them to get stuffed when they politely ask "mind if we completely take away your civil right not to be detained by this agent of the crown?" But I'm probably too much a coward. I know I would be livid and appreciate law enforcement incrementally less every time. Way to build a rapport with the community.

hk111 wrote:

This province is getting scary insane. Where do cops get the idea that they should search innocent citizens' automobiles? The freaking nerve! .

Also the nerve is painting all police with the same brush. As like any profession everywhere there are those that taint the 99.9% that do the job properly. I have never searched without a lawful reason, there are so many "ACTS" that each have their own variables for search authority.

First to hk111: <I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but...> Be careful with the words you choose. You are coming across like a ne'er do well. The police have to follow the laws that govern their behaviour just like you have to follow laws that govern your behaviour. There are cops on this forum who spend their time posting valuable information free of charge and you don't want to come across like jerk to them.

Second, to hwybear: Right on - as always. I am not a cop, so I don't speak from personal experience, but my father was, and that was word-for-word what he used to say. I appreciate everything you have done to help us all out. I always look for your posts - and Simon's too! lol

hk111 wrote:

This province is getting scary insane.

No, it's not. Try, for example, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Burma, etc. THOSE are scary-insane. I do have issues with lots of things that the government has done, but, on a relative scale, it's not that bad.

As for the original post, if the kid does not want to be searched, he does not have to voluntarily submit to a search. If the officer has reasonable grounds, he can still search the vehicle, but it can't be just based upon "I don't like that guy."

If he continues to get stopped and searched, put together a letter to the Toronto Police, to the Superintendent in charge of whatever division is stopping him (probably 41 Division), outlining the problems. This has worked in the past quite effectively.

The magic here is how the officer phrases the question, "May

I search your car?", you have the right to say no.

fourmat wrote:

First to hk111: <I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but...> Be careful with the words you choose. You are coming across like a ne'er do well. The police have to follow the laws that govern their behaviour just like you have to follow laws that govern your behaviour. There are cops on this forum who spend their time posting valuable information free of charge and you don't want to come across like jerk to them.

...lol

A ne'er do well? Merely because I assert that a right should hold in Ontario that has been extant since Magna Carta? That doesn't make me a ne'er do well; it makes me a citizen.

I'm pretty sure that most of the peace officers who read this forum are big people who won't lose a lot of sleep and have dealt with bigger jerks than you have painted me to be. Nonetheless, I get hwybear's point and have modified the second sentence of the original post. I will say, I've seen other folks on the forum generalize. (What is an "ACTS?")

Reflections wrote:

The magic here is how the officer phrases the question, "May

I search your car?", you have the right to say no.

IMO, the only acceptable way to phrase this is: "May I search your car? You have the right to say no and, if you do, there will be no consequences."

Many of us more seasoned, 50-something, people know that we have the right to say no. But "the kid next door" in the original post is just a college kid. Put yourself in his shoes: he sees a guy with a powerful badge and, in all likelyhood, a partner on scene with an equally powerful badge. It's probably dark out (the poster mentions that it's night time when the search happens.) This kid likely has little knowledge of his rights or of what is best for himself. He's been stopped twice in a row and in neither case was there enough evidence to warrant any charge. (Even the most profound peace officer supporters in this forum will admit that there is something unsettling about this. And, just to set the record straight, I like most of the cops I've ever dealt with.) It's not at all clear that, under the circumstances that I've sketched, simply politely asking "May I search your car?" is sufficient to ensure that "the kid's" rights are fully respected. There is a certain coercive power that exists simply because the person asking the question has a dark uniform and a badge. And for a young person, that power could cloud his judgment.

Anyway, what I object to in your post is the fact that you did not include the "you have the right to say no" in the phrase you put in the the officer's mouth.

hk111 wrote:

What is an "ACTS?")

Acts = various laws that have search and arrest authorities

(ie: Highway traffic Act, Liquor Licence Act, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, etc..)

My job is not to teach the kid his rights.

If I ask to search and he consents I am doing just that.

I know my rights and when I can search. I have a job to do and will do it.

Besides if anything is found and he is charged the courts will most likely toss the search anyways.

ops

I know my rights and when I can search. I have a job to do and will do it.

Still comes back to what are the average joe's rights.. I know 99.9% of officers are just doing the job they have to do and following hunches are part of that. But if an 18 yr old kid, possibly nervous, is pulled over he may or may not know how these situations will unfold.

My view of an officer is of respect unless given a reason to think otherwise, and that respect usually means co-operation. That doesn't mean that I'm going to consent to a search "just cause" though.

Just a funny thing I remember about my first "questionable" search.

Heading home for thanksgiving diner last year I stopped for a pee break on the 400. Upon entering my car again to leave I had an OPP cruiser pin me in from behind. He asked for my ID, asked me to get out of my car, another cruiser showed up, and finally he opened my back door and climbed in to do a search. This is when he asked if he may search my vehicle.

I told him that he may as well since he already was and didn't seem to care what my opinion was. I really get a kick out of messing with peace officers sometimes when I know i've done nothing wrong and was starting to crack up as he searched my car. He found a ghram cracker crumb on the floor and he examined that thouroughly. As well he found a spoon in the center console with some dried up apple sauce on it and asked me what I thought it was. Apparently he was on a drug search and I was weazing a bit from trying to stop my laughing. The cop was notably flushed and as he went to leave I asked why he searched my vehicle. Apparently I threw my dress shirt on my passenger seat in a rather conspicous manner, as if I wanted to hide drugs. I had a sort of exaggerated laugh when he said this and he did not stick around any longer.

I guess the other way to treat a situation like this is to have fun with it if you know you are not in the wrong. Maby not though. Just a story I thought might be interesting

OPS Copper wrote:

My job is not to teach the kid his rights.

If I ask to search and he consents I am doing just that.

I know my rights and when I can search. I have a job to do and will do it.

Besides if anything is found and he is charged the courts will most likely toss the search anyways.

ops

I really, really want to be as respectful as possible here. I am NOT trying to be a ne'er do well or a jerk (see earlier posts); I would just like to ask a few questions and I genuinely hope that I do not offend you.

What sort of circumstances would be in play where you would ask for permission to do a search? Would you be playing a hunch or would you have something fairly close to "probable cause" to believe that the vehicle contained evidence that an offense had been committed? I guess that I'm asking: what sets off your radar?

If you believe that a court would most likely toss the search, what is the point of the search in the first place? Are you looking for something that would help you find a secondary route to the evidence that the court would toss?

Finally, and probably most contentiously, I understand that it is not your job to teach anyone his or her rights. But would it be particularly deleterious to the execution of your duty to let "the kid" know that he has options?

Again, I respect the job that you do and I am asking these questions because I am genuinely interested in your point of view.

When would I search or as to when to search? Well lets go back to the good kid from the beginning...

Perhaps he is not so clean cut. Perhaps he has been stopped in the past and drugs found on him or his friends. It could be that a joint was found either on him at school or if he was picked up for shop lifting. Perhaps he was with a friend who was a dealer and was stopped with him.

We keeps very good records about those things and they are available to me on the road.

We are taking the posters word that the kid was squeaky clean. People always scream that just as the hand cuffs go on them. There is a lot about your neighbors you do not know.

Some times it is just a feeling...based on the totality of the situation and not just one sign

Why would we search if it gets tossed...We most searches are tossed on obscure leaps of logic under the charter. ie one was tossed because a drug dog was walking past a closed trunk and got a drug hit... But even if a search is tossed the bad guys do not get their drugs or firearms back.

OPS

lots of consented searches get tossed in court. The man above is right, even if they find something it will likely get thrown out. Consent is usually determined to have been given under duress. (The guy had a gun, how could i say no?).

All i can say is, at least they were nice enough to ask.... Niagara cops didn't even give me that.

The answer is already here. Ask if you are being detained, then ask if you can speak to a lawyer. After that, hope for the best.

ponyboyt wrote:

lots of consented searches get tossed in court. The man above is right, even if they find something it will likely get thrown out. Consent is usually determined to have been given under duress. (The guy had a gun, how could i say no?).

All i can say is, at least they were nice enough to ask.... Niagara cops didn't even give me that.

The answer is already here. Ask if you are being detained, then ask if you can speak to a lawyer. After that, hope for the best.

I probably should not scratch this open sore, but can you elaborate on the NRP searches you are aware of? They didn't even ask? Can't you tell them to just get stuffed? There has to be a way to stop clear violations of citizen's rights.

Consent via coersion or intimidation "he had a gun, of course i said yes" is not informed consent.

But that will change. Now it will be "he had a tazer, of course i said yes". Because.... you know... a Judge in Niagara Falls said its ok to tazer people to compel them.