Traffic Stop
 

While I see your point, many law enforcement officers do not see any distinction between your two examples.

Take the illustration of a standard traffic stop. The peace officer, for whatever reason, asks you for permission to search your vehicle. You say No -- which is 100% your Constitutional right.

Now, you could say No in the most polite, humble and contrite manner possible, but it will make no difference. That officer is about to spend the next 40 minutes harassing you in every way he thinks he can get away with, because you dared assert your rights.

In the LEO mind, you have shown "disrespect" and sent the "wrong message" about your ability to follow the law. However, in the eyes of the law, you have done nothing wrong and have, in fact, preserved your Fourth Amendment and other rights.

That's my issue: Many LEOs will interpret any conduct other than total compliance with their requests to be "suspicious" behavior. To my mind, that's not the rule of law, that's fascism.

This has been an interesting and enlightening discussion on many different levels!

I'd had something out of the norm happen to me yesterday. Anyone, please feel free to comment as to what you would do in this situation.

My work for the past 3 years takes me to our local army post. The gates are manned by a private security firm. Always when you are entering the gate, you stop, they check for DOD window sticker and you show them your ID. When you leave, you just drive out observing the 10 mph speed limit.

Yesterday, the security personnel was also stopping exiting vehicles. No ID check, but were looking into backseats and trunks.

My question is:

Would you have willingly opened your trunk for inspection or would you have questioned them as to why they were checking backseats and trunks or would you have just plain refused and risk never to be allowed on post ever again?

Keep in mind, entry onto the army installation is not a right, it is a privilege.

I can't help but think the same way about the Statue of Liberty. While I hate overzealous, overbearing LEOs, in all actuality, public access to the Statue of Liberty is optional. At any time, it could be considered not worth the bother as far as security goes and closed for good to the public leaving us to view it from Battery Park.

I don't know that you have much choice exiting a military installation or some other restricted gov't installation. I know at the agency I used to work at, just showing up at the checkpoint without proper ID indicating you're supposed to be there was considered probable cause for a search. Even if it was just a wrong turn onto their exit. You had to go to their checkpoint and they searched your vehicle. I know deliveries on post and to the agency had to be searched before being permitted to come in.

I guess in my case, it would depend if I wanted to keep my job or not. Mine may depend on keeping my clearance or access to the facility so I might be stuck letting them. Don't like it, but what else can be done?

A lawyer's perspective would be helpful here.

Thank you, Superguy, for your reply.

A good point to consider, is yes, it is a choice. I had no problem with the military installation's procedures regarding entering or exiting. I have an SUV, so I didn't have a trunk to pop! I did feel a little ashamed that my vehicle was messy.

I think I get less bunged up about security policies and procedures than many of our FTs seem to though!

Thank goodness we live in a county where we aren't forced to do anything. Not forced to work for Company X, not forced to travel to Destination Q, not forced to use Z as a form of transportation! We should consider ourselves fortunate.

CorrectDoes the name -- Statue of Liberty mean anything to you? Do you see any irony in locking up a symbol of liberty and freedom so that those who it was meant to celebrate can no longer visit? :confused:

I would pop my trunk and allow them to search the vehicle.

Why you might ask?

a) Travel to said base is related to employment;
b) I am visiting a US Military installation.

In another scenario, when I was younger (in college) I was working for a cargo airline. Setting aside that I passed background checks, etc., there was security going into the facility and security leaving the facility. Employees were subject to search upon leaving the facility. If I didn't want to be subject to random search, I could have quit. No one forced me to work there. FWIW, it was rare that I got searched leaving -- the exit search was a random pick.

The security leaving the facility was a risk management measure. The position I held at the time was one of the few positions where packages could be opened (export audit).

I see the security leaving the military base to be similar in nature. They're checking to see if you might have walked off with something (or someone). A military base is different than being in a public space. Working in a controlled export area with access to an aircraft ramp (private aircraft ramp) on private property falls under in similar category.

I've had my car searched going into the parking structure of the Bellagio. Pop trunk, quick look underneath, off I go. In this case, it is not law enforcement or the government, but private security related to parking in a private garage. I didn't have to go to the Bellagio -- nor did I have to use their parking garage. I could have parked elsewhere. It was a choice I made.

Searches conducted in the public by the government or govt employees is another issue. The Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, is public and belongs to the United States and its people. I understand it is in the public interest to protect the Statue of Liberty, but at what cost?

One should not have to give up liberty to visit the Statue of Liberty.

Some LEOs doubtlessly will make that interpretation, I wouldn't say many, as it would be difficult to factually quantify such a statement. Those few officers may very will give you a hard time about it, but ultimately they aren't legally allowed to, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it fascism. People still have their rights, it seems they just don't choose to exercise them very often.

Regardless, anyone posting on flyertalk probably doesn't have to worry about a police officer requesting to search their car. After all, people on this forum are outraged about having to take their shoes off to go through security - shows you how hard life around here is, eh? ;)

Not necessarily. I know of folks that have been asked that when stopped for speeding.

You know of? You don't even personally know anyone who as? What does that tell you? :)

I think that tells me you don't know who was telling me the story. :)

The guy who was telling me was a Utah Highway Patrolman and the busts he made simply because people didn't say no when he asked to search their cars when he stopped them for speeding.

I believe the source. Take it for what you will.

Well, my original statement was that the denizens of this forum likely do not ask to have their cars searched by police officers during routine traffic stops - so in that sense your statement is not germaine to the conversation.

Regardless, so long as the patrolman is merely asking, there's nothing wrong with it. After all, the majority of felony arrests occur during traffic stops, everyone else is a felon waiting to be caught. :D

Unless you made that statement somewhere else, that's not what you said.

You said:

So yes, the statement is germaine to the conversation.

Cop can ask all he wants. That doesn't give him the right to hassle you if you say no and he doesn't have probable cause or a warrant to search the car.

My statement was that the people of this forum most likely don't have cops asking to search their cars.

You replied that a cop you talked to said he asked people if he could search their cars. While that is interesting, it isn't necessarily a valid reply to my statement unless that cop likes to ask rich white guys if he can search their cars, and then of course we have to ask with what frequency rich white guys are asked by cops to search their cars when compared to the general population.

I wouldn't make that assumption of folks on FT.

I might be white, but I'm certainly not rich. And I know a lot of other people on this forum that are in the same or similar boat.

And, of course, Utah is probably one of the whitest states in the nation. Might not be the richest, but lets just say minorities really are small minorities there.

Bottom line: being rich and/or white doesn't make one immune from cops asking to search cars.

I'd say most police offers do a good job reading people, plus they have time to size someone up when asking for a drivers license, insurance, etc., when making a traffic stop. Call it a gut feeling (no pun, ala Chertoff intended).

I suspect that plays a role in whether or not they ask to search your auto, ticket, or issue a warning.

When I evaluate performance (or status of a project) in the workplace, I can usually tell who has their stuff together (and who doesn't) in the first seconds of a conversation. Tone of voice, confidence (or lackof) and other verbal signals say a lot. It's my gut feeling.

SDF_Traveler