DOT right to search without prob. cause??

True dat cuz!!!!

 

Good point, because anyone with a dirty truck or who's actually been working for the day, must also be a low-class citizen.

Strange enough, the milk, corn, beaf, wheat, and beans still sell.

 

It can happen. But one must describe probable cause.

Probable cause can be speeding, a light not working on the vehicle, a flat tire, improper passing, weaving in the lane, tailgaiting, careless driving, or a logging violation as simple as not being current to the last change of duty status. Just about anything can legally constitute probable cause.

If you carried a safe, ANY enforcement officer can demand you to open it because of ANY probable cause from a federal perspective. In this instance a cop would/could reasonably assume the safe had something illegal in the safe and to that extent, and as a retired federal DOT official, I would agree with that decision wholeheartedly. You would be held until you open the safe, or arrested for failure to obey a legal order.

This is no different than a demand for you to remove a seal from the rear of the trailer. If you refuse you will be creating nothing but trouble for yourself because that officer has the right to demand you to remove it and see inside the trailer. The officer may not remove it legally because the seal is under the drivers' custody and control, but he/she can demand the seal to be removed.

49 CFR (the majority of the transportation rules but not all) give that officer that right. You must also consider that the 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) is not all of which you must abide. You must also contend with 23 CFR, 17 CFR, 19 CFR, 15 CFR, 21 CFR, 27 CFR, and the USC (United States Code) which expressly prohibits refusing such actions by you from any federal enforcement officer.

In addition, and as a retired federal DOT official, actions such as you wish to do makes an officer more determined to search that much harder because of this potential deceptive practice. A safe in a truck, which has no reason to be in that truck, is a deceptive practice and therefore grounds for probable cause as well.

 

DOT regulations allow any authorized agent from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminstration, (DOT certified Police Officer) to enter any building, motor vehicle or property owned by a motor carrier for the purpose of conducting an inspection.
This blows search and seizure laws as we understand them out of the picture.
Searching without a warrant requires reasonable suspision or probable cause, conducting an inspection does not. Conducting an inspection is not searching. In the course of conducting an inspection, the officer has the right to look for prohibited items, he can open your refridgeator to look for beer, he can open your briefcase to look for controled substances. I know this law, I've read this rule. I will not consent to a search, most police officers are familiar with the search and seizure laws, many are not familiar with the FMCSA regulations.

 

Sometime's they are having a bad day. And they react bad which will cause the driver to counter the same way.
My husband had to run a light that went red. Cop sitting at the light. Now the cop did'nt see was a car merging in on him and was about to go under the trailer from the right. He hit his horns and blew the light. Everyone was still stoped at the light. This cop went to screaming at him. What if my wife was at the light and took off. You could have killed her.Now a car behind him saw what was about to happen and they all backed down. He came up to the cop and told him what was going on and the cop starting yelling at the guy to take off. He never even questioned the car that was about to be smashed. We took it to court and won.
We figure the danger could have been the car that merged over might have been drunk. I would have questioned the guy, But then I'm not a cop so what do I know.

 

Interesting choice of words. So you're saying that drivers have no right to safety and security of their possessions?

 

You need to read 49 CFR part 382.72 (implied consent for alcohol testing). In addition, most states have implied consent (Illinois comes to mind immediately). If you refuse an alcohol test you will lose your driving license for implied consent. Implied consent in this instance is legal because a driving license is legally a privilege and not a right.

 

I don't believe anyone said that. You know, as I stated in a different post. I was #2 person in an undercover sting designed to see if state DOT officers knew their stuff. I had many documents in my truck (when I did in fact drive) that were 15 times more sensitive than anything you'll carry in a truck. And I didn't carry a safe in the tractor either.

 

Then explain this:

 

I don't think anyone said that, or had any intention of saying that. Nor did I say that.

As I stated in a different post. I was the #2 federal DOT official in an undercover sting to determine if state DOT officers were doing their job properly. I did in fact drive a tractor/trailer on many occasions during that sting many years ago. I guarantee you I had more sensitive documents in that tractor than you'll probably ever carry, and I didn't have a safe in the truck.