DOT right to search without prob. cause?? - Page 8 - Truckers' Trucking Forum

CMoore2004 · **^ Top** #71 11.20.2008

The simple fact that you indicate someone wanting to keep something safe is a "deceptive practice" is a perfect example of what's wrong with the police force in the country. Oh no, tinted windows, he must be hiding something! Uh-oh, a locked glove box! Nevermind the fact that some people live in their truck and carry quite a bit of cash on them. When fuel prices were up, it wasn't uncommon to see someone pull out $500 plus at the counter. And it likely wasn't the only time they'd fuel on that trip.

otherhalftw · **^ Top** #72 11.20.2008

Hello Aftershock sitting in Walnut Carl's JR next to the 60 yu gonna buy me lunch?

psanderson · **^ Top** #73 11.20.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfterShock

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?

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.

I understand this and agree. However this also meets the apples and oranges theory. You must admit that these loads carry documentation to the effect that simplistically, no person is to remove the seal under penalty of the U.S. Government. There is usually a phone number to call for verification as well.

AfterShock · **^ Top** #74 11.20.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by otherhalftw

Hello Aftershock sitting in Walnut Carl's JR next to the 60 yu gonna buy me lunch?

No kiddin"?
I was at that very Carl's Jr during the fires last Saturday when the 60 was plugged solid.
On Fairview street, I think.

I had to use the facilities, .......... BADLY!
I decided to take surface streets from there to avoid the traffic, and soon learned that that street took me right back INTO the fire burnin' in Brea canyon.
OOppps!
U-turn time.

Kinda like outta the pan and INTO the fire.

The next morning, I learned that the area WAS burned.
I finally took Pathfinder, and that path proved to be more congested than Highway 60.
I was a sittin' duck for a few hours.

And it ONLY took me 4 1/2 hours to go from Corona to Whittier.
A new record.

MGASSEL · **^ Top** #75 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by psanderson

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.

I disagree with you on making the drivers remove the seal or be arrested for refusing to remove the seal.

We as drivers must get the companies permission to break the seal it may be on the trailer that we are pulling and we have control and coustody of it.

If the driver removes the seal the driver could be held responsible to buy that load because the reciver can refuse the load for not having the correct seal on the trailer.

psanderson · **^ Top** #76 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MGASSEL

I disagree with you on making the drivers remove the seal or be arrested for refusing to remove the seal.

We as drivers must get the companies permission to break the seal it may be on the trailer that we are pulling and we have control and coustody of it.

If the driver removes the seal the driver could be held responsible to buy that load because the reciver can refuse the load for not having the correct seal on the trailer.

That's fine but when an officer tells you to remove it you'd better get on the phone to corporate headquarters.

AfterShock · **^ Top** #77 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by psanderson

I understand this and agree. However this also meets the apples and oranges theory.

How so?

Quote:

You must admit that these loads carry documentation to the effect that simplistically, no person is to remove the seal under penalty of the U.S. Government. There is usually a phone number to call for verification as well.

I ain't admittin' nuthin'.
I have the right to remain silent.

YuP.
There were phone numbers that could be called 24/7/365 by ANYone thinking of or wanting to break those seals. SOMEtimes, officers did call those numbers, and to my knowledge, they were told EVERY time that if the seal was presently intact,
LEAVE IT ALONE --- DO NOT BREAK IT.
No reason to.
If it was sealed after being loaded (usually NOT in the presence of the driver who usually wasn't allowed to be on the dock during loading), and the driver was shown the seal numbers matched the paperwork AFTER pulling away from the dock, and the seal is/was, in fact, still intact when an officer pulled the driver over ---- what could a driver have done to alter that load if the seal is still intact when an officer inspects it?

Yet a few of our drivers HAVE had officers call that number for PERMISSION to break a seal that isn't to be broken, and pout when they were told NOT to. Even went so far as to find SOMEthing to write the driver up for.

One such incident involved a shipment that was listed on the paperwork as
One Steel Desk With Locked Drawers ---
on a 48' trailer.
The officer said he wanted to inspect for fire ants, and demanded that the driver break the seal.
The driver refused.
The officer called the phone number on the paperwork, was told DON'T, and he told the government voice on the other end that he was gonna break it anyway because it was "suspicious".
The government voice said wait 15 minutes.
Within 10 minutes the FBI arrived and 'splained thangs to the officer.

Now I realize that incidents such as I've illustrated aren't all that common, and that many, if not MOST officers aren't prone to pushing their authority beyond it's bounds. But I think it IS possible that an officer could intimidate a driver into doing something that the driver will come to regret, while the officer skates.

I reckon this is what you were tellin' us about the competence of the different state's agencies?

psanderson · **^ Top** #78 11.21.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfterShock

How so? I ain't admittin' nuthin'.
I have the right to remain silent.

YuP.
There were phone numbers that could be called 24/7/365 by ANYone thinking of or wanting to break those seals. SOMEtimes, officers did call those numbers, and to my knowledge, they were told EVERY time that if the seal was presently intact,
LEAVE IT ALONE --- DO NOT BREAK IT.
No reason to.
If it was sealed after being loaded (usually NOT in the presence of the driver who usually wasn't allowed to be on the dock during loading), and the driver was shown the seal numbers matched the paperwork AFTER pulling away from the dock, and the seal is/was, in fact, still intact when an officer pulled the driver over ---- what could a driver have done to alter that load if the seal is still intact when an officer inspects it?

Yet a few of our drivers HAVE had officers call that number for PERMISSION to break a seal that isn't to be broken, and pout when they were told NOT to. Even went so far as to find SOMEthing to write the driver up for.

One such incident involved a shipment that was listed on the paperwork as
One Steel Desk With Locked Drawers ---
on a 48' trailer.
The officer said he wanted to inspect for fire ants, and demanded that the driver break the seal.
The driver refused.
The officer called the phone number on the paperwork, was told DON'T, and he told the government voice on the other end that he was gonna break it anyway because it was "suspicious".
The government voice said wait 15 minutes.
Within 10 minutes the FBI arrived and 'splained thangs to the officer.

Now I realize that incidents such as I've illustrated aren't all that common, and that many, if not MOST officers aren't prone to pushing their authority beyond it's bounds. But I think it IS possible that an officer could intimidate a driver into doing something that the driver will come to regret, while the officer skates.

I reckon this is what you were tellin' us about the competence of the different state's agencies?

Because an enforcement officer has the right to inspect the cargo for not only security reasons but also to see if the cargo is properly secured under the 393 rules. Or what if you had a pre-loaded trailer with cocaine on it & a dog smelled it? You can document & confirm the trailer was pre-loaded thereby relieving you if responsibility, but that drug detection dog created a reasonable suspicion. that happens all the time in the border crossing states i.e. MI, TX, MN, ND, MT, AZ, NM etc.

roadkill439342 · **^ Top** #79 12.01.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by perry_411

No such thing in America as implied consent. You are innocent until proven guilty in court. Refuse all tests, they arrest you, run a blood test, then charge you for not taking a sobriety test. If any of the so-called judges have ever opened the Constitution they realize how such laws are illegal in American Justice, they assume guilt instead of innocence, which happens to be the opposite of American justice.

Try keeping your drivers license after refusing a BAC or drug test.

Quote:

Implied consent statutes have been attacked for a variety of constitutional reasons, usually unsuccessfully. Courts have held that the statutes do not violate a driver's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and

Seizure,or Fifth Amendment right against Self-Incrimination. The statutes usually are upheld on due process grounds, although courts have struck down statutes that permit the revocation of a license without a hearing. Arguments that implied consent laws are an invasion of privacy or an undue burden on interstate commerce have also been rejected by the courts.

Courts generally look to one of two theories supporting the validity of implied consent laws. According to the first theory, driving on public roads and highways is a privilege, not a right. Only those who adhere to state laws, including laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated, are entitled to the driving privilege. Under the second theory, courts consider implied consent laws to be a reasonable regulation of driving pursuant to the state's Police Power, so long as the laws do not violate due process. Courts have weighed the interests of society against the interests of individuals, and have determined that drunk or drug-impaired drivers are enough of a danger to society that a slight infringement on the liberty of individuals is justifiable.

The liberty of individuals is protected somewhat by the requirement that before a law officer can request a blood, urine, or breath test, the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the driver is intoxicated. What constitutes reasonable grounds is determined on a case-by-case basis. If a driver loses her or his license after refusing to comply with a chemical test and a court later finds that reasonable grounds for the test did not exist, the court can invalidate the revocation or suspension of the license.

Courts generally hold that a revocation or suspension of a license caused by a driver's refusal to test for drugs or alcohol is separate and distinct from a prosecution for driving while intoxicated. Therefore, in most states, it makes no difference whether a driver pleads guilty to, is convicted of, or is acquitted of the crime: refusing to take a test for chemical impairment may result in a revoked or suspended license, and this punishment must be paid despite a subsequent acquittal of driving while intoxicated or in addition to any punishment that comes as a result of a conviction.

Many states require that a law officer warn a driver of the consequences of refusing to take a chemical test, and if that warning is not given, the license cannot be revoked or suspended. Some states offer drivers a limited right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take a sobriety test. This right is not absolute, since a significant delay would render ineffective a blood, urine, or alcohol test. Several states offer drivers the opportunity for a second opinion—the right to have an additional test performed by the driver's choice of physicians.

States differ in their approach to implied consent laws, but their goal is the same: keeping dangerously impaired drivers off the roads. Courts and legislatures are reluctant to frustrate this goal.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

roadkill439342 · **^ Top** #80 12.01.2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostNfound

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

At least the raucous laughter would cease.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Trucker Forum	Replies	Last Post
CAB Search???	Streamo	Trucking Industry Regulations	43	04.05.2008 09.15 PM
Search for trucker continues	Cybergal	Canadian Truckers Forum	0	02.21.2008 08.25 AM
Got a "Pre-hire" letter today. (background prob.)	ModularMike	Questions From New Drivers	10	08.19.2007 12.54 PM
Freightliner Search Help	korex_UA	Trucks [ Eighteen Wheelers ]	14	06.17.2007 07.49 AM

Truckers' Trucking Forum/Message Board - The Premiere Truck Driver Forum

The Following User Says Thank You to psanderson For This Useful Post:
AfterShock (11.20.2008)

The Following User Says Thank You to MGASSEL For This Useful Post:
psanderson (11.21.2008)

The Following User Says Thank You to roadkill439342 For This Useful Post:
psanderson (12.01.2008)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)