6 ms·

I don't see how opening a glove box for a cop to look in is unreasonable.

by Aoyagi 10y ago

dgacmu 10y ago
He had no reason to look in there (no probable cause). It's going on a fishing expedition, and it's the start of the chain of events that leads to the "if you look hard enough, everybody's guilty of something" problem. The law is very clear that under the circumstances, the officer had no right to _compel_ me to let him look. If he had, anything he found as a result of the search would be inadmissible in court. But it's entirely within his right to ask, and if I voluntarily comply, then anything he finds can be used as evidence. Here's an example with a fairly good discussion about what the police can and can't do, and under what circumstances, during a traffic stop: http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehicle-searches-and-seizures.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehi... The problem is that "voluntary compliance" is very slippery (when you think of refusing a cop's request for something like that, do you imagine that there might be retribution? You might -- and if you're not in a relative position of power, it's almost certainly on your mind.) It's therefore easier for some people to assert their rights than for others, and that can lead to very unequal protection under the law.
- Aoyagi 10y ago
  No reason to look there? How do you know that? You think you, with your behaviour, can't be described as "acting suspiciously"? With that logic you might as well say he had no reason to stop you. Or to stop anyone unless the police officer has a very concrete reason for doing so. In other words, by your logic, routine traffic stops something you don't have to comply with at all.
  - dgacmu 10y ago
    Goodness, you're full of unfounded assumptions. You also seem unfamiliar with American jurisprudence and the basics of constitutional law - I assume you're not local? First of all, he did have no reason to stop me in particular -- it was a DUI checkpoint, and they were stopping everyone. DUI checkpoints are perfectly legit, but don't provide a basis for reasonable suspicion to search anyone thus stopped. (They were challenged, but deemed constitutional). Routine traffic stops are based upon an officer's observation of the law being broken, which provides a clear basis for stopping someone. You seem to be arguing a strawman that I'm not presenting (that this is a slippery slope that leads to nobody obeying lawful orders). But you are right on one thing: The police don't have the right to stop people unless they have a good reason to do so. This is legally well-established. See, for example, Delaware v. Prouse: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 DUI checkpoints that are pre-announced and publicized are a valid reason to stop people. Observation of breaking the law, even in minor ways, is another. A broken taillight is sufficient, as is speeding. A license plate scan showing that there's an outstanding warrant - stop away. But when it comes to expanding the search from a routine traffic stop, the 4th amendment guarantees the right to be free from _unreasonable_ search and seizure. Not from any search and seizure, but from searches and seizures lacking a reasonable basis and in which the search-ee has a reasonable expectation of privacy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment Note also that simple "nervousness" is a poor justification for expanding the scope of a stop and search (see State v. Moore, 4th circuit, 2013) http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.pdf http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.... Because of this, a police officer typically doesn't have reasonable suspicion to search your car if they just pull you over at a routine stop. (Obviously, if they see something suspicious -- open container, bag of pot, gun, whatever -- that provides a basis for further search.) But they're legally entitled to ask your permission to dig more -- and that's the behavior I object to, because it unfairly stacks the deck against people less aware of their specific rights under the situation and able to defend themselves legally.
    - Aoyagi 10y ago
      In other words, yes , I was right. You think you're the one who can set what is reasonable, what is a good justification, and when can an officer be suspicious. Thanks for clearing that up. Again, I'm not surprised American police acts the way they sometime act when they have to deal with the likes of you. Opening the glove box isn't an unreasonable request on any level. And yes, I'm fully aware of American culture of "muh rights".
      - dgacmu 10y ago
        "the likes of you" - yes, indeed. You're making some pretty big generalizations from behind that monitor of yours. You seem to be aware of a particular, negative stereotype of the culture, but you're woefully ignorant of the laws and their history, so why are you continuing in the debate? You're making assumptions about my behavior with the police based upon my factual statements about the limits on police powers for search and seizure. (for your edification: Had the officer had a reasonable suspicion, he wouldn't have needed to ask permission. In that case, it would have been an _order_, and regardless of whether it's lawful, when it happens, you follow an _order_ from a cop, and fix it up later in court.) I'm done - you seem to have a strange stereotype of americans that puts anyone with beliefs that differ from yours in the "gun totin' amemdment hollerin' crazy" camp. You may find it more useful to stereotype me as an ACLU (google it)-donating, left-leaning liberal that comes from a family of law professors, and believes that a constitutional protections are a cornerstone of guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Without that, it's too easy for one sort of justice to be administered to the wealthy (and white), and another sort to be administered to everyone else.
        Aoyagi 10y ago
        I'm not making any assumptions mate. You said, multiple times, that you deny doing anything but what you absolutely must. Clearly just out of principle. That falls right into that stereotype. And that's behaviour I find disgusting regardless of your "freedoms".
      - Nadya 10y ago

I don't see how opening a glove box for a cop to look in is unreasonable.

by Aoyagi 10y ago

I don't see how opening a glove box for a cop to look in is unreasonable.

He had no reason to look in there (no probable cause). It's going on a fishing expedition, and it's the start of the chain of events that leads to the "if you look hard enough, everybody's guilty of something" problem. The law is very clear that under the circumstances, the officer had no right to _compel_ me to let him look. If he had, anything he found as a result of the search would be inadmissible in court. But it's entirely within his right to ask, and if I voluntarily comply, then anything he finds can be used as evidence. Here's an example with a fairly good discussion about what the police can and can't do, and under what circumstances, during a traffic stop: http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehicle-searches-and-seizures.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehi... The problem is that "voluntary compliance" is very slippery (when you think of refusing a cop's request for something like that, do you imagine that there might be retribution? You might -- and if you're not in a relative position of power, it's almost certainly on your mind.) It's therefore easier for some people to assert their rights than for others, and that can lead to very unequal protection under the law.

Aoyagi 10y ago
No reason to look there? How do you know that? You think you, with your behaviour, can't be described as "acting suspiciously"? With that logic you might as well say he had no reason to stop you. Or to stop anyone unless the police officer has a very concrete reason for doing so. In other words, by your logic, routine traffic stops something you don't have to comply with at all.
- dgacmu 10y ago
  Goodness, you're full of unfounded assumptions. You also seem unfamiliar with American jurisprudence and the basics of constitutional law - I assume you're not local? First of all, he did have no reason to stop me in particular -- it was a DUI checkpoint, and they were stopping everyone. DUI checkpoints are perfectly legit, but don't provide a basis for reasonable suspicion to search anyone thus stopped. (They were challenged, but deemed constitutional). Routine traffic stops are based upon an officer's observation of the law being broken, which provides a clear basis for stopping someone. You seem to be arguing a strawman that I'm not presenting (that this is a slippery slope that leads to nobody obeying lawful orders). But you are right on one thing: The police don't have the right to stop people unless they have a good reason to do so. This is legally well-established. See, for example, Delaware v. Prouse: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 DUI checkpoints that are pre-announced and publicized are a valid reason to stop people. Observation of breaking the law, even in minor ways, is another. A broken taillight is sufficient, as is speeding. A license plate scan showing that there's an outstanding warrant - stop away. But when it comes to expanding the search from a routine traffic stop, the 4th amendment guarantees the right to be free from _unreasonable_ search and seizure. Not from any search and seizure, but from searches and seizures lacking a reasonable basis and in which the search-ee has a reasonable expectation of privacy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment Note also that simple "nervousness" is a poor justification for expanding the scope of a stop and search (see State v. Moore, 4th circuit, 2013) http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.pdf http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.... Because of this, a police officer typically doesn't have reasonable suspicion to search your car if they just pull you over at a routine stop. (Obviously, if they see something suspicious -- open container, bag of pot, gun, whatever -- that provides a basis for further search.) But they're legally entitled to ask your permission to dig more -- and that's the behavior I object to, because it unfairly stacks the deck against people less aware of their specific rights under the situation and able to defend themselves legally.
  - Aoyagi 10y ago
    In other words, yes , I was right. You think you're the one who can set what is reasonable, what is a good justification, and when can an officer be suspicious. Thanks for clearing that up. Again, I'm not surprised American police acts the way they sometime act when they have to deal with the likes of you. Opening the glove box isn't an unreasonable request on any level. And yes, I'm fully aware of American culture of "muh rights".
    - dgacmu 10y ago
      "the likes of you" - yes, indeed. You're making some pretty big generalizations from behind that monitor of yours. You seem to be aware of a particular, negative stereotype of the culture, but you're woefully ignorant of the laws and their history, so why are you continuing in the debate? You're making assumptions about my behavior with the police based upon my factual statements about the limits on police powers for search and seizure. (for your edification: Had the officer had a reasonable suspicion, he wouldn't have needed to ask permission. In that case, it would have been an _order_, and regardless of whether it's lawful, when it happens, you follow an _order_ from a cop, and fix it up later in court.) I'm done - you seem to have a strange stereotype of americans that puts anyone with beliefs that differ from yours in the "gun totin' amemdment hollerin' crazy" camp. You may find it more useful to stereotype me as an ACLU (google it)-donating, left-leaning liberal that comes from a family of law professors, and believes that a constitutional protections are a cornerstone of guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Without that, it's too easy for one sort of justice to be administered to the wealthy (and white), and another sort to be administered to everyone else.
      - Aoyagi 10y ago
        I'm not making any assumptions mate. You said, multiple times, that you deny doing anything but what you absolutely must. Clearly just out of principle. That falls right into that stereotype. And that's behaviour I find disgusting regardless of your "freedoms".
    - Nadya 10y ago