DOT right to search without prob. cause??

If you quit wearing see-through pants you probably would have fewer problems.

 

That could very well be it.

 

With the new border crossing regulations (C-TPAT/F.A.S.T.) you need none of these things therefore this becomes moot. Passports are not needed to enter the U.S. in a commercial vehicle unless the Dept. of Homeland Security has begun requiring that but the last I knew that was postponed until 2010 and subject to enforcement by DHS authorities, not DOT authorities.

And while a 15 year-old may be able to do this it is a different problem and subject to the apples and oranges theory. My problem was transportation rules enforcement not B&E (breaking and entering). Transportation enforcement personnel do not deal with B&E. Regardless of your contention, I still had the right to look in that safe, assuming you have/had one under the federal implied consent laws of the U.S.! If you are driving a commercial vehicle in the U.S. you comply with the U.S. laws. This is no different than an American driving in AB, BC, ON, PEI, or PQ.

There is a transportation attorney/barrister in Toronto that he and I have had many such discussions. He finds it remarkable that people fail to understand such simple laws as implied consent and/or probable cause in the transportation industry.

The only other thing I could suggest to you is that if you don't like the laws/rules, then get then changed. Until that happens, U.S. federal transportation officers have that right. This is not to say a safe would be inspected. It still depends on many circumstances not addressed in this forum.

 

As you're so fond of pointing out to people; you should read what is actually written. Nowhere have I stated any position on implied consent/probable cause, nor any other such laws. What I have stated a position on is your assertion that a driver is engaging in a deceptive practice (giving rise to probable cause) because they might choose to have a safe in a vehicle such as for the security of their personal documents or cash (given that they sell these things in truck stops I am assuming a number of drivers must have them). Also note that at no time have I stated any position on a lawful request to search such a safe.

 

Quite simply; a safe is not a normal item found in a truck. If I inspected your vehicle because you had an inoperable light and when I came to the tractor you had a smell of alcohol on your breath as well as in the cab, then I saw the safe, I may reasonably assume under federal U.S. law a deceptive practice to wit: you're hiding the booze in the safe. The safe becomes the deceptive practice in that it's intent was to hide something illegal.

Then I not only discovered the booze in the safe, but a prescription bottle for codene under the name of Joe Blow (and Joe Blow was not in the truck and your name is Jimmy Billy Bob then the codene is your possession) and 1 pound of cocaine. That is a deceptive practice Re. the safe.

Deceptive practice may have a very broad term meaning, depending on the laws under which governmental entity they are written. I know nothing about many state laws and less about provincial law. What I do know is the U.S. federal rules for transportation and under those rules/laws a safe in a truck could be construed as a deceptive practice depending under the circumstance.

 

I am not sure about that comment. I have thought about putting a safe in my truck. They are quite common in truckstops. Maybe you have not seen them. Or the trucks you have only inspected are the ones that don't own it.

The reason for the safe, is that these trucks are all keyed the same. Anything of value is at risk.

How would you feel if you knew 1 out of 3 people had a key to your home or car?

 

I drove for a truckin' company that hauled sensitive, government, military loads that had government seals, and I was instructed to NEVER break those seals for ANYone for ANY reason, --- not even upon arrival at my destination, or all HaiL would break loose.
ONLY the receiver could break that seal after inspecting it for being tampered with.
NO one else, NO exceptions!

If that seal wasn't intact, I'd have a LOT of 'splainin' to do to the armed personel who would be demanding a GOOD explanation.
And I doubt that the devil made me do it would suffice.
I'd have been escorted to the brig.

So, are you sayin' that for me to refuse to follow those instructions would have subjected me to arrest for failure to comply?
And, if so, why is it not legal for an officer wanting to inspect the contents of my trailer to break that seal, and thereby relieving me of the responsibility? IF it would.
I didn't even have the authority to okay ANYone to break that seal.
Therefore, I CANNOT give permission.
It would have had to be under duress and AGAINST my wishes, --- totally OUT of my control.
And even then, I would have to answer to SOMEone for that broken seal. What would I tell them?
What are the chances they'd accept my explanation?
NO one and NEVER for ANY reason are pretty explicit instructions, and not too hard to understand.

If I break the seal myself, for ANY reason, I'm in BIG trouble.
And, if I don't break the seal, when ordered to do so by someone NOT authorized to do so, I'm in BIG trouble.
What would you suggest a driver do in that situation, considering that government seals cannot be broken and resealed, by ANYone, while in MY custody?
Penalties for doing so, or ALLOWING ANYone ELSE to do so, are quite severe.
Meanwhile, the officer of the law escapes punishment because he/she didn't have custody, and/or the right to do what they DEMAND that I do?
Or, would said officer accept ALL ramifications of their actions?
And KNOWING the ramifications of their actions, WOULD they be inclined to do so?
It COULD cost an officer their job and career.
What's wrong with this picture?
Danged if I do and danged if I don't?

And, what about those stainless steel cable seals which I had NO tool that COULD break them?
Would that constitute a refusal? :smt102
Man-0-Man ---- not even big bolt cutters will cut through those S/S cable seals. And if attempted, the seal would destroy the bolt cutter blade.
Only special cutters would break those seals.
And, I was informed that even possessing such a cutter would be considered being in possession of burglar tools.

If I'M NOT supposed to break those seals for ANY reason, what reason would I have to possess one of those tools in the first place?
Not to mention their high cost to purchase.

 

If I were under a gov seal and an officer of the law instructed me to break it.

I would first show him the load manifest and explain to him the situation. If he persisted I would then ask him to give me a written and personally signed note that specifically states I was under orders by an officer of the law to break the seal.

Most officers would probably not force the issue and most would probably rather not go on record with their signature that they ordered you to open it.

But if they do then you are covered and I don't think anyone would blame you for doing all that you reasonably could to secure the load.

Another thought that in this situation I would also request that the officer reseal the load after he looked in the trailer as well as have this info written and signed also.

 

And if he refused?

But, as Mr. Anderson has stated, they could still ORDER a driver to break the seal.
Which, it would seem to me, would be an illegal order.
Can an officer legally order ANYone to break the law?

I reckon the big question is WOULD they assume ALL responsibility for breaking a seal that they're NOT allowed to break? Or, as I understand it, can't legally order anyone else to break it.

When the paperwork indicates:
SEAL NOT TO BE BROKEN AND/OR RESEALED,
do you think an officer is going to sign ANYthing indicating they were involved?

If it's a choice betwixt going to jail for refusing to comply with a civilian officer, or the brig on a military reservation, which would be the best to choose?

The military is likely to hold a driver until the event is investigated.
If there's no proof that a civilian officer ordered the seal broken, even if it WAS resealed, how would a driver explain that?

 

Wow, you guys are going on here. I do like to watch ping pong. I have beenrequested to remove the seal for an inspection, then the officer said,he would do it himself. After the inspection I was handed a form from the investigating officer which proves he inspected, removed, then resealed with the seal showing on the form.
This is different from a government load, under security seal. Most times with the manifest is a directive to any law enforcement agency to call a specific number before breaking the seal. And the officers do make the call. All bases are covered.
The issue at question here is a portable safe, alcohol was brought in the discussion too. Now if the driver smells of booze (high or low grade doesn't matter) that is the probable cause for a complete shake down of the equipment, but a locked safe would require a search warrant to open the safe. Probably wouldn't have any problem getting a warrant.