On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:46:26 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 01/27/10 16:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Here's the thing.  In some parts of the US, there is a problem with
>> drug trafficking.  There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between
>> Omaha and Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state
>> license plates.
> 
> 	How can you be between Omaha and Nebraska?

Brain fart.  I meant Omaha and Lincoln. :-)

>> I consent to let them search the car.  They find the coat; I match the
>> suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description
>> of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.
>> Just for drifting out of my lane.
> 
> 	I would think that your matching the description, as well as your 
car,
> would be sufficient enough reason to stop, but am not sure.

It generally wouldn't be enough for probable cause, in the case of these 
random drug stops.  But in the hypothetical case I put forth, yes, it 
might be.

>> That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions -
>> because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and
>> think you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in
>> fact that is what it is.
> 
> 	Refusing to allow them to search your car is usually within your 
right.
> However, it can lead to an inconvenience. I remember years ago
> reading/being told that if you refuse, they have the right to hold you
> there until sniffing dogs come and sniff. The following seems to concur:

Oh, sure, and they often will inconvenience you for not cooperating as a 
tactic to get you to cooperate.

> http://flexyourrights.org/supreme_court/illinois_v_caballes
> 
> 	Although it implies a limit to how long you have to wait.
> 
> 	I should add that the site actually encourages you to decline a 
search.

That is almost always the best thing you can do.  If you consent to a 
search, *anything* they find can be used against you.  But nothing they 
find can be required to be used to help you.

>> in his car and sits there.  He's writing down everything from the
>> conversation in case you decide to challenge the ticket.
> 
> 	I think that's quite fair - I don't see a problem in that.

Oh, I don't see a problem with that either.  But most people don't 
understand that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message