Here is an example of why you never consent to a search
 

Officer in Jackson County FL has been planting drugs during traffic stops for years. Finally got caught last year and got fired, no charges yet. It will cost millions of dollars. I shudder to think how many lives he has destroyed. I hope he dies of old age in prison and is assaulted every day he is there.

Here is a link to an article about the POS LEO in Florida ruining lives for years

Just watched "Righteous Kill" last night with Dinero and Pachino. A little more extreme than planting meth, but in some cops' twisted minds this is how you get trash off the streets.

What a fargin dirtbag.

I'm all for cops, and get grumpy when I see some of the folks that just can't stop their cop bashing and assume that every cop is dirty. But this is horrible. This goes way, way past the line. This guy absolutely deserves to be in jail. Hell, I'm almost thinking, take the sentences that everyone that he arrested that were convicted, add them together, and that's his sentence.

There's absolutely no excuse for that sort of carp.

Back in college I had a New York State trouper follow me 20 miles after I crossed the Vermont border. Had a Grateful Dead sticker on my car which I’m sure is why he followed me and then pulled me over. First things he asks me is “got any nuclear weapons in the car?” I said no. He said “mind if i double check?” I said yes I mind and to get a warrant. No idea how I had the instincts at 18 to say that but, I was coming across the Vermont border and had something under my seat I knew he shouldn’t find. He mad a comment about me and my friends long hair “what are you a couple of girls?” Just like Easy Rider and left. 30 years later I’m a lawyer and see a lot of this crap....no more Grateful Dead stickers just 2 Grateful Dead license plate frames...these youngster cops today never heard of the Grateful Dead I suspect so no one bothers me. Anyway the lesson is always say NO-whether carrying or not

Just an FYI, the police may not need a search warrant to search your car in the event they have probable cause.

From the Web (answers.com)

“Police may not need a warrant to search a vehicle according to the mobile conveyance doctrine. A vehicle must be in a public place, readily mobile, and the Officer must have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime is contained with in the vehicle. If all of the above is met, the Officer will not need a warrant to search the vehicle.”

They have a gun and a badge, they can and will do WTF they want, count on it.

They ostensibly are supposed to articulate the rationale for the PC. You can still contest it and request a supervisor.

If the cop wants in the car, 9/10 he will get in the car. Yes, he needs a reason, and has plenty of ways to get that reason.

Um... I'm no lawyer (and I can prove it), but it is my understanding that the extent of a roadside search is what they can see from the outside of the car "in plain sight". If it is under the seat, in the glovebox, even in a bag or container of some kind in plain sight, it's off limits without a warrant. We have what is known as a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that the courts have held very dear. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that even bringing out a police dog now requires a warrant. If it is not visible and perceptible to a human, they have to get a warrant to look for it. Even then, they can only detain you for a "reasonable amount of time", which the courts have ruled is about ten to fifteen minutes, before they have to arrest you or let you go.

Those are of course, your rights, and while it pays to know them, it also pays to know when to stand up for them. Or not. "You have to know when to hold, know when to fold, know when to walk away, know when to run...". A dark lonely road is no place to assert those rights with a power tripping cop. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of videos out there on the web showing just what happens when folks do that.

That's interesting; I didn't know the rules about calling out the dog. I thought they would let you sit there for as long as they please while they wait for the dog.

"Mind if I look in your car?"
"Mind if I see your warrant first?"
That is the only right answer.

He may insist and you my not have a choice because... guns, but it violates the 4th amendment unless he can prove probable cause. Judges can get pretty prickly about this. If he searches without your permission and plants evidence he is taking a big risk for a case he is unlikely to win and putting his badge on the line.

Yeah, that ruling on the dogs was long overdue. In the plethora of "bad cop" videos on the interwebs, there is no shortage of dog handlers using various tricks to get the dog to false indicate. When they do, boom - grounds for a warrant. One of the most abused techniques in law enforcement. Thank God the Court recognized that and shut them down. Now they need a warrant explicitly stating just what the dog is searching for before they can even bring him out.

It gets complicated for example cop sees Chong or Cheech driving down the road smoke billowing out and pulls him over, confirms smoke smells like grass, has PC to look inside...looks in trunk, pulls up carpet and finds a pound of coke in the spare tire.....there a lot of nuance to this stuff. Whether you go to jail depends on what the PC was, the extent of the search and what was ultimately found and what you were charged with. Fruit of the poisonous tree as they say.

But yea the bad cops will find a way to get in and find what they want. Never give them a reason to stop you even if your abiding by the law 100%

Ok - maybe I'm the dumb one here but what is his motivation to do so?

That is a mystery to me too

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is entirely correct. AFAIK, Police can (and do) still deploy K9's for perimeter sniffs without any warrant required. The dog usually comes out after a suspect refuses consent for a vehicle search. I believe the only difference now (as of a couple years ago?) is that you can't be detained for any unreasonable amount of time to wait for a K9 to show up. If the K9 is already there, or arrives prior to a citation being written/given (or what would be considered a "reasonable" amount of time to issue a citation), then it's fair game. Of course, if/when a dog indicates during a perimeter sniff, that gives further PC for an interior search.

It's still a method with plenty of potential for abuse and rights violations, IMO. Not only can a dog's "indications" (hits) be up for interpretation (or completely made up), but another "trick" is to leave a suspect's car door wide open if/when pulling them out prior to a K9 walk-around. The dog then pokes it's nose in and "indicates", legally allowing it to go inside the vehicle (and then a subsequent full search by the officer).

Another trick is when someone refuses consent to search during a citation that has the potential for the vehicle to be towed/impounded.
If an officer makes the call to have a car towed, they are typically allowed to "inventory" the contents prior to the tow.

True but it depends what the PC is for, and other factors. Here’s a typical law school exam type question:

What if someone mistakes your identity with someone they thought just committed a crime with a gun and your car matches the description. You get pulled over and they find an unregistered and stolen handgun in the smugglers box that your work buddy gave you in return for helping him install some brake pads. Meanwhile, the guy who committed the crime earlier in the day gets caught and confesses. Are you in trouble for the gun found in your frunk? What if they had found your stash of bald eagle feathers?

What if you actually are the guy who committed the crime and they find the gun on the passenger seat but Look in the frunk and see blood stains on the carpet which leads to you being connected to a body found in the woods a year earlier

This stuff is very fact specific and there are exceptions to the 4th amendment. The case law on this stuff is voluminous

Btw, I’m not looking for you to answer that. Just showing how this stuff gets complicated fast sometimes

Anyone have an answer for 'gambler's question? I'm curious too.

The motivation of the cop in the news article? Probably to make himself look like a great cop for promotional reasons. Thats my guess.

Why do expert witness lie at trial? Same reason....fame and recognition

Anyone see The Staircase on Netflix?

Promotion?