Do You Have Any Drugs or Weapons in the Car?

[Bogie]

It's the stupid crooks that actually tell the truth to cops. You are NOT under oath. If you can say with a straight face, in a convincing manner, that there is NOT a body in the trunk, the cop doesn't have to know about it unless it has started to ripen a bit...

[Spectre]

The truth is, anything you say can be used against you, so I must respectfully disagree about not being under obligation to answer an officer truthfully.

[mrat]

but she was trained at the academy to ask that question!

I believe that's a +1 for RR vs coronach and mrat

There is a big difference between being trained to ask a question in the academy and being REQUIRED by policy (per RRs assertion) to do something. Training is basically a general guideline on how to behave on the job. Training is not some holy grail on how to be a LEO. Some of the training we receive is absolute BS and the the flavor of the week. I am trained to shoot twice in the body one in the head, that doesn't mean I am required to do it nor do I run around doing it to everyone I encounter.

[mrat]

Cornach,
That was a great recap on what has transpired in this thread.

I am assigned to a gang unit and we are extremely busy, with all the violence by gangsters we are are up to our eyeballs in work. Betcha didn't know Mayberry had gangmembers.

[Jager1]

I answer the question (regarding the presence of drugs or weapons/firearms) with a question:

"Why are you asking me that question?"

This puts the officer on the defensive since it indicates that you understand that they are fishing for pc (probable cause). PC that you just might be stupid enough to provide.

Why give them any? Make them articulate their suspicions to you, instead. You have the right to know when officers suspect you of a crime. Or at least you should be smart enough to identify a fishing expedition in the making when you are confronted with one. The response is non-confrontational and genuine in nature. What citizen would not want to know why an officer was suddenly suspicious that they might be transporting illegal drugs or firearms (whether it is the case or not)?

The typical answer I get is "I'm asking for my own safety" or that "Well, we have a lot of drug traffickers moving drugs along this route". Well, gee, officer Fife, I thought it was your job to protect the public safety. If your safety has suddenly become my responsibility, then why the heck do I need you in the first place? And just exactly how do I match your departmental profile of a drug trafficker? Lets get real for a minute. The officer is now investigating the possibility that a crime has been committed greater than the one they have detained me for originally. I positively have no duty to participate or engage in any consent allowing them the nickel tour of my vehicle and its contents.

I insist that the officer articulate to me why they are questioning me. Do they actually have any probable cause to question me regarding drug or firearm violations during an average traffic stop? Sure, they may fish, but I am not required to take the bait. Rather, I insist that they let me in on their little secret (you know, the information that only they possess that I sometimes transport illegal drugs and firearms - sheesh). Since they aren't going to have anything of the sort, they have no legitimate answer to provide to my question nor will they gain an affirmative or negative response from me.

The net result is they have zero pc, which is what they had to begin with.

Regarding the request for consent to search the vehicle, the answer is always "no" (unless they can articulate a compelling reason, along the lines of an inmate has escaped or some other line that might appeal to my sense of civic duty). This again leaves them with what they have in front of them to deal with and the responsibility that they have in being able to articulate to a judge why they went ahead and searched my vehicle without my consent. Perhaps they may not feel the burning need to explain their pc to me at roadside, but I am willing to take the odds that they will be forced to articulate it in the future during the ensuing civil suit. Especially since they will find nothing illegal. In other words, if they want to sift now, it will always remain their decision. They run the risk of poisoning the fruit (if there in fact is some contraband located) or even being sued to the gills, not to mention the possibility of seeking employment elsewhere in the near future.

They either state their intent up front or they had best let me get on about my business.

In every instance, I have recieved my citation and went hastily on my way. It is the errant hope that officer inquisitive will possibly not write people a ticket (for the initial reason for the stop) if they are cooperative that has them consenting to blanket searches. The other predominant reason is the one concocted in the minds of some fools who think that consent to search will lead officer inquisitive to believe that no criminal with stowed contraband aboard would ever consent to a search. That the officer will say "Never mind", because their consent to search simply must indicate that there is nothing there. Like I said, fools. The prisons are full of them.

Don't play the game.

[Jeff OTMG]

If it were illegal to lie to a cop, people would be going to jail left and right. It would be officer descretion whether or not to arrest and you can bet that if they didn't like the looks of the person they would take them in. I can see it now. The cops would go around and ask the known gangbangers questions, any of them that lie, all of them, would be arrested. Remember free speech? You can say anything you want if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. There is no law against telling a lie to anyone, UNLESS it involves a conspiracy to commit an illegal act or are interferring with a criminal investigation, in which case you are better off excercising the right to remain silient.

[jimpeel]

The easiest way to avoid the question is to simply not communicate with the officer at all. When he walks up to the window, simply roll the window down enough to hand him your license, registration, and proof of insurance and, when he grabs it, roll the window back up and turn your back to him.

When he writes the cite, lower the window enough to accept the book, sign it, and hand it back. When he detaches your copy and hands it to you with your paperwork, roll the window up again.

There is nothing in the law that requires you to communicate so much as a grunt to the officer regardless of what he asks you. Your ONLY responsibility during a stop is to present your license, registration, and proof of insurance. Once you have complied with those requirements, you have completed your responsibility as codified in law.

[Coronach]

1. Don't lie to the cops. It gets them POed at you if they catch you. Yes, its your freedom of speech, but its also your freedom of speech to call him every name in the book the instant he walks up to your car. Would you call that wise?

Also, if you lie to an officer in an official capacity, you can be charged with falsification...so you have to be heads-up enough to know when the officer is fishing and when he is taking down information for a citation (guess what that is- a criminal investigation) if you want to play that reindeer game.

And, last but not least, if caught in a perfectly legal falsehood, you can damned well bet that everything else you have said to the officer can and will be checked, thoroughly, before you are released. This is called "good police work," though I've been told that it can also be satisfyingly punitive as well.

2. Jimpeel, with all due respect, that is a very quick way to explore the US Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania v Mims and its ramifications for a motorist's personal comfort and convenience at 0-dark-30 on a blustery night.

Whatever happened to being polite and (within reason) cooperative? It is perfect legal, acceptable and polite to decline a consent search without lying or being a boor.

Mike

[jimpeel]

That would be Mimms, not Mims.

PENNSYLVANIA v. MIMMS, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

After police officers had stopped respondent's automobile for being operated with an expired license plate, one of the officers asked respondent to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. As respondent alighted, a large bulge under his jacket was noticed by the officer, who thereupon frisked him and found a loaded revolver. Respondent was then arrested and subsequently indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and unlicensed firearm. His motion to suppress the revolver was denied and after a trial, at which the revolver was introduced in evidence, he was convicted. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed on the ground that the revolver was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Held:


1. The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order - the officer's safety - is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.

2. Under the standard announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 -22 - whether "the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate" - the officer was justified in making the search he did once the bulge in respondent's jacket was observed.

Certiorari granted; 471 Pa. 546, 370 A. 2d 1157, reversed and remanded.

A.If asked to step out of the vehicle, I will do so.

B. There will be no suspicious bulges in my jacket.

C. If the officer continues to attempt to communicate with me I can continue to ignore him as though he isn't there at all.

D. If he asks to search the vehicle, I have the option of any of the following:

1. Annunciate the word "No"

2. Shake my head vigorously in the universally understood motion meaning "No".

3. Continue to remain mutely silent.

In the event that I remain mutely silent, there is no implication of permission to search. The officer can only search if I actually give him/her that permission. They cannot assume that the absence of an answer is an answer in the affirmative.

When I exit the vehicle, I merely have to push the lock button and slam the door locking my keys inside. I do not have to tell them of the existence of a key hidden on the outside of the vehicle nor do I have to give them permission to shatter my window in heir unconstitutional pursuit.

Know this. I would not necessarily do this. This is merely a hypothetical instance wherein one so inclined could refuse to cooperate with the authorities further than that which is codified in law.

[KSFreeman]

1. Is coffee a drug? If so, yes to both.

2. No drugs, but I carry a really cool Les Baer. Want to check it out?

3. Yes to both, but the neighbor's dog said to chill.

[Coronach]

Jimpeel-

Exactly. Good catch on the spelling, too. I can never remember if it is on M or two...kinda like Cincinnati...or is it Cincinnatti? Anyway...

You are quite correct in your interpretation. You can do all of those things. Furthermore, I know you're using this as a demonstration of what is possible versus a demonstration of what is wise. The end result would be you standing alongside the shoulder while a very POed officer issued you a citation, rather than waiting in the safety and comfort of your car for a non-POed officer to either issue you a citation or let you off with a warning. Your choice, I suppose. And yeah, your actions once you're pulled over shouldn't influence the cite/don't-cite decision, but lets face it, they often do.

This assumes, however, that you don't match the description of someone for whom the police are actively searching. Everyone here seems to assume that they exist in a bubble, that people in their vicinity who resemble them don't commit violent crime, or that if they do, that Officer Coronach won't blunder into them as they drive down the highway. This is, alas, incorrect. Pull a stunt like that in such a situation and the end result would be the same as before- you'd be released with, at most, a citation. But you could easily spend the intervening period of time in handcuffs. And it sometimes takes quite a while for the witness(es) to be ferried out to your position to say "thats not him." Or, worse, to misidentify you and say "yeah, thats him."

Could it happen? Yup. Would the officer be justified in detaining you thus? Yup.

Anyway, I know from what you wrote that you're just saying what you can do, as opposed to what you would do. And for that I am appreciative...I dislike inconveniencing people any more than necessary. And, in the 'active search' scenario, every minute I have to spend determing that you aren't my guy is one less minute I have to search for my guy.

Mike

[Coronach]

FYI, for those of you unfamiliar with Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the main issue of the case is whether or not a motorist can be required to leave their vehicle during the course of a routine traffic stop. The CCW and subsequent search aspect was handled in Terry v. Ohio. There is a similar case (Maryland v. Wilson) regarding vehicle passengers.

I just wanted to avoid confusing the issue.

Mike

[Zander]

The difference, however, is that I ask the question when I have a sense that this person might be a critter, ...

And by implication, we should trust other officers to be as honest and thorough in protecting the Rights of citizens as you.

No insult intended, but unfortunately there are those of us who have had distinctly different experiences and observations.

Are such officers/deputies answering to departments who issue such "guidelines" in the minority?

Maybe...but maybe that minority is growing.

[David Scott]

IMHO this is highly jurisdictional. I told a deputy at a traffic stop that I was armed, he just handed me back my permit and said "OK". Never even asked where the gun was.

Some departments may have rules that, if the driver says there's a gun in the car, that they have to look at it or even secure it. IMHO, however, the mere presence of a legally owned firearm, transported in compliance with the law, is not probable cause for a top to bottom search of the car. There's no evidence that the driver is carrying contraband or otherwise breaking the law. I think a lawyer could argue this in court.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT OFFERED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

[ckurts]

1. Is coffee a drug? If so, yes to both.
2. No drugs, but I carry a really cool Les Baer. Want to check it out?
3. Yes to both, but the neighbor's dog said to chill.

KSFreeman, since you are a practicing attorney, can I take this as your legal advice?

Kurt

[RR]

.

[man of steel]

So, I'm confused. You stated that the officer is required to ask this of everyone, and then later state that this is not what you meant. Please, for the sake of clarity, explain what you do mean.

I think procedure he is talking about is what happens AFTER the citizen answers yes to the question "do you have any drugs or firearms?"

I was stopped once for suspicion of drunk driving. I crossed the centerline.(it was under 6" of snow with no other cars around). My uncased 7mm rifle was on the seat with the bolt on the dash next to a box of shells. I was patted down and my rifle and bolt and shells were taken away(even though I was legal) I also was read my rights.

Cop didn't think it was legal so without checking up on my assurtion he took it. I had to go to court to get my stuff back. LEOs don't know all the laws. I think a good share of them don't care

Now in MI it has to be cased. I wonder if mine was the one that changed that

[12-34hom]

If there's valid & legal reason to check a firearm in a persons possession , then yes i would do so.

I've never encountered an agency that requires thier officers to do so " each & every time".

From the officers i've worked with and met, i can't recall one that stated or indacated to me, that they were against private firearm ownership or CCW.

I'd like to know where this is occuring at... ie... Departments name or State & city.

In Iowa, lying to an officer after being LEGALLY detained can get you arrested and locked up. [interference with offical acts].

Lying to the police or anyone else for that matter is very poor form.

12-34hom.

[Veloce851]

I'm kind of suprised at some of the responses to RR here.
My thoughts when I first read his post was that he brought up an interesting question.

Granted most of the country isn't effected by such tactics, and most of us will never face such an inquiry. However all it takes is one or two episodes of COPS or worlds wildest, and it would be easy to assertain that this kind of treatment happens often.
Even though we hardly ever truely know what the motive of the initial pull over by the LEO was. I don't care what the explanation Mr. narrator gives, contrary to popular belief the media CAN be wrong, and DO make assumptions.

Of the LEO friends I have, I know they have asked the same question posed by RR often. However it was at THEIR discretion. Not a departmental policy.

Now I'll tackle the hypithetical situation:

I'm pulled over (for what I assume to be a minor traffic violation or defective equipment on my vehicle)
The officer, unless he's a complete moron, would easily notice my "I'm the NRA and I vote" sticker, along with the current Rightwing candidates for AG and Gov stickers, and NRA sticker in the window along with the US parachuters assoc. sticker.
I currently live in a NON CCW state. And this state requires unloaded locked in trunk transportation of firearms. More than likely I would not be carrying because if I can't carry on me.. whats the point.
At any rate if asked "Doyou have any illegal drugs or weapons in the vehicle" I would answer truthfully NO.
Had I actually had my M2 in the trunk perhaps heading to the range. I would say, " no drugs of anykind sir, however I do have my Mauser M2 locked in the trunk.

Specifically stating the make and model in case he's a fellow gun guy/gal.
Should the officer decide to make an issue of it and want to search my car, I think I would request that his supervisor be present before any further acion was taken. I would hand him my keys and say I'll be waiting right here till he shows up.
Personally I doubt it would escalate to that point, unless I fit the "profile" of someone they would be concerned about.

RR does that help?

[adept]

i think there is 1 very important question that hasn't been asked of RR, and that is WHERE DO YOU LIVE? i want to make sure that i avoid this town and state if i am traveling.


Adept

[Edward429451]

Here in Colorado Springs it is allegedly illegal for a citizen to lie to a police officer. It is entirely legal for an officer to lie to a citizen. I got this from an officer, and from the department over the phone.

I say it is allegedly illegal/legal because I didn't get it in writing. It went something like this...

Its illegal for a citizen to lie to an officer because it interferes with his ability to carry out his lawful duties...

Its legal for an officer to say anything he wants, even an untruth, to a citizen to get the citizen to cooperate and allows the officer to carry out his lawful duties...

Yes, of course there was an incident in which this occured. I lied to them, they lied to me. I got charged. They were 'immune' because they were doing their job.:barf:

No aska' for details, please. I'd rather not on a public forum.

BTW, I did prevail, but it sure cost a lot. Oh, to answer the question, I decline the search, politely ask for PC, and play it by ear.

[Faustfeuerwaffe]

Coronach wrote:

The only thing I can think of that would give cops the right to have access to a cased weapon in the trunk of a car without consent from the driver to go there is if there is some state law that requires motorists to offer the weapons in question up for inspection if the cop requests to see them.

This is an important issue that has yet to be addressed in this thread. I heard from somebody that this is actually the case in California. Perhaps at least one of the members reading this could authoritatively confirm or refute this and perhaps also point out in what other jurisdictions such a requirement exists.

A good approach might be to interpret the phrase "illegal drugs or weapons" in such a manner that the word "illegal" applies to both the drugs and weapons and furthermore that the plural, rather than the singular case, is being asked about.

However, experienced officers tend to ask rather explicitly if they raise the issue at all. Sometimes a rookie-type will add on the caveat "...that I should know about?", in which case one can assuredly answer "No!"

In any case, I agree that the best response, to avoid the possibility of a fishing expedition, is simply to put the cop on the defensive by posing the legitimate counter-question, cited earlier, "Why are you asking me this question?"

[Fred Hansen]

Drugs? No. Weapons? I'm an American, surely you must be joking.

[Faustfeuerwaffe]

In the meantime I've confirmed that my suspicion, alluded to above, was correct.


Here is the full text of California Penal Code 12031(e):

In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

Assuming the original poster (RR) lives in California or any other jurisdiction where the laws are as quoted in the California Penal Code, it probably isn't unlikely that departmental procedure would entail an inspection of the firearm once its presence has been acknowledged by the motorist in response to a question by the officer. It's probably then up to the officer to determine whether he or she wants to temporarily detain you (in handcuffs or in the back of their squad car) while they perform the inspection.

But I doubt that California would be the only jurisdiction in this country with such a consensual inspection requirement. So the big question remains: Where else is this the case?

[BogBabe]

One thing I haven't yet seen mentioned is in regard to our right against self-incrimination. Wasn't there some Supreme Court case (or perhaps some state supreme court) some time back in which it was held that convicted felons who are not legally permitted to own firearms cannot be required to register their illegally held firearms, because of their right against self-incrimination?

Would this be in any applicable here? For ex., if you have an illegal gun in your car, or a legal gun that's being "transported" illegally, you would have a right to not tell the officer about it?