How to Refuse a Police Search (USA only)

You know bro, that's all I was trying to say originally, but I guess my message got lost in the details. I added that if a driver knew he was drunk and would fail, he would nothing further to lose but to refuse all tests and do not cooperate. Cops gathering evidence against you for a DUI will prove to be a very bad experience. What you said is true. You were probably tested by an Intoxilyzer 5000, which has been challenged in court for it's accuracy more times than I can count. But the courts will admit it as evidence anyway. But ya you're right! Don't drink and drive! Take care bro!

 

Thanks Sheriff. I value the opinion of LEO's, both current and former. I know my state is leading the country in alcohol related fatalities in regards to operating a MV. At least that's what they tell us. We're also leading in domestic violence related deaths. But the penalties for a CDV aren't nearly as stiff as those for DUI. Our ADSAP program, which is mandatory after either pleading guilty to dui or refusing a breath test, is currently costing $5k and that's in addition to the $2k fine for 1st offense dui. And they make it so easy to get one too. Just in my section of the county, there are 3 private clubs and 4 restaurants that serve alcohol. Have a beer or glass of wine with dinner, you'd better not drive. They say zero tolerance and they mean it.

Now with the proliferation of COPS type reality shows like Alaska State Troopers and Montana Lawmen, I see the attitudes of places like those are a lot more lax than those here. If you get pulled over in Alaska with a dime bag of pot in your pocket and a beer in your lap, they will write you a summons and send you on your merry way. I mean, you have to be fall down drunk before you go to jail up there and even then they are likely to let you call someone to come get you. Must be nice.

 

Your kidding right? All a cop would have to do is parlay reasonable suspicion. In who's mind? The cops of course. This is how it works, and sadly there isn't much one can do about it.

It's the same with charge pandering. Something the DOT is really getting big on now.

Example: Say Mr. DOT pulls you over and insists you get on his/her portable scales... They now know many of us will fight the ticket. So what do they do? They write you multiple tickets for the same issue (ie a Ticket of over Gross, a ticket for over Bridge, a ticket for over axle ect. ect.) Mr. DOT knows your lawyer will plea bargain... and you'll end up with paying only the over Gross violation and the other tickets will get file 13.

Ok, here it is....

Does such action violate the Constitution? Certainly

 

Simple answer, no. I started in law enforcement in 1979, and that was known back then. However we called it stacking tickets. You write someone for every law violated. However most of the time the prosecutors frowned on this. However you're not fabricating violations, just citing them for what they violated. The prosecutor would then dismiss all but the major violations.

Where I worked, the traffic ticket/citation, is properly called a Complaint and Uniform Notice to Appear, we called them NTAs, (Notice to Appear). The final determination on what charges are actually filed in court, is made by the prosecutor, not the officers.

For misdemeanor offenses, a Complaint and Information, Affidavit had to be submitted to the prosecutor, seeking an arrest warrant. Of course these would have all violations listed. The resulting documents issued by the prosecutor would have numerous charges. Again the prosecutor had the discretion of dismissing any of the minor ones, ie; plea-bargain.

So are you saying that officers should not be able to issue citations for all violations committed by someone? There are jurisdictions that do not allow officer discretion. They must write all violations they observe. In fact there were some laws (statues) that used to allow for officer discretion, and now prohibit officer discretion. Officers could find themselves in a lot of trouble doing so. Example where I'm from and used to work as a LEO, we used to be able to just issue a ticket for reckless driving, or we could arrest and take the person to jail. Shortly before I left law enforcement, that was changed to they must arrest. Most Misdemeanor offenses now dictate that the person must be arrested. The actual statutory language is something like, taken immediately before a magistrate. However at 1am in the morning there is no judge or court in session, so that means to jail.

Long drawn out explanation I know, but reality is, that it is not, just as simple as you want it to sound.

 

Sorry, but that sleeper since it is part of that CMV, does not qualify as being your home, therefore is not protected by the 4th amendment. The main rule that governs CMV is that you're engaged in interstate commerce. Most police officers will not have the same "inspection authority" as a DOT enforcement officer does. However you can not prohibit them from entering into that vehicle, period!!

You do have some privacy, and that goes to luggage, briefcases, containers that are closed and secured. They must first try to get your consent to look into them. If you do not consent, then they must obtain a search warrant to open them. To do that they need probable cause.

I was taken by surprise when I first learned of just how CMVs do not have an expectation of privacy, which is what the 4th Amendment is centered around. I don't know if this still applies. I had a truck stopped, the driver was suspected of pointing a gun at another motorist. A DOT officer came to assist, along with a few other officers. I was of the understanding that I would need to impound the semi, get a search warrant, to look inside. The DOT officer told me, nope, there is no expectation of privacy for CMVs, even in the sleeper. He stated that regulations state that the sheets must be white, and we can check to make sure they are. I thought what?? The sheets must be white, and we can check to see? Ok.. But that was confirmed over the years, through several training courses with DOT.

 

Oh my goodness for those of you that don't get it DON'T DRINK OR REPRODUCE. No one said go drink a bottle of jack &go cruising a round for kicks. And I did say don't refuse a drunk quiz. If you don't have an alibi and cops come to your house on a Monday night asking you about a dead girl you had better talk with an attorney be for you say a word. Even though you were watching tv in your house the time of the killing and you don't even know the chippy that's why we have the bill of rights.

 

I agree captw900, never talk to a cop without an attorney. The deck is stacked against you. Believe the officer is hoping that you will talk to him without one, it makes his job much easier. But it could make your life much harder.

After posting all that above about searching... (just remembered this), I've had numerous people ask me, even my close friends, regarding searching cars, not CMVs. This was when the Drug Interdiction programs first started. You have the right to refuse this search. In fact I told them if I was stopped, and was asked permission to search my car, I would reply, no sir you can not. CMVs and personal cars are totally different.

 

The simple answer is Yes it does violate the Constitution.

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ok, now please reread the example I used in the previous post.

If the truck is over gross, it's a safe bet that it's also over axle. Moreover, also likely to be over bridge. (Pick one... not freaken all of them).

With all of this in mind, have you ever known an officer of the law to write themselves a ticket for speeding?

 

White sheets! Please share why!

(It just won't die, will it!)

 

I posted that the DOT officer advised me of this, and that I wasn't sure if this still was in affect. Checking FMCSA 393.76 makes no mention of the color of sheets. It just states that there must be adequate bedclothing and blankets.

Sorry shredfit1, simple answer is no that it doesn't. Especially the 8th Amendment. Cruel and Unusual Punishment? You really believe that? Excessive bail or fines, does not mean that they can only fine you for one violation. You can be find an amount that is not excessive for each and every violation. The punishment should not be unusual for the crime or violation committed. That is more like, they can't sentence you to 100 yrs for a defective headlight.

Nope sure don't, not even me. You want to apply constitutional protections to where they don't apply, how about where they do. You can not be compelled to be a witness against yourself. You have to be familiar with that. You've heard of the first Miranda Warning, "You have the right to remain silent". That's what that is warning you about, that you don't have to be a witness against yourself.