Pulled over for traffic violation... search -> arrest...

[Gallahad]

What is the name of your state? Missouri
I was pulled over for not having tags on my way to work ( i just got my car within a month from today, and was told by the dealer that i did not need 30 day tags... if i got pulled over just show them the proof showing i had just bought it.) The cop and i exchanged some words about what i was told by the dealer and then the cop asked me if he could search my car i told him not without a warrant... he goes back to his car and calls for backup, so his buddy then comes up to me and tells me i have one of 2 options... either i was going to tell them that they could search my car or they would bring a drug dog to the scene make me hop out and let the dog sniff and if he sniffs anything then they have probable cause. i asked the officer how long that would take and proceeded to explain that i had to be to work 2 minutes ago... (at this point i had been there for a good 15 minutes) he told me it could take up to an hour. Basically i was pressured into letting them search my car, for no probable reason on a traffic violation that gave them no reason to search my car... PS. i was pulled over 2 days ago for the same thing and the cop asked me if i was going to get it registered soon seeing as i only had a couple days left till my 30 days was up, and i said yes he said okay your good to go, gave me a head nod and proceeded on his way... Long story short i was pulled over for a traffic violation they asked me to search my car for no reason, violating my 4th amendment right, found marijuana and a pipe that i knew was in there but it wasnt mine (i know... we all say that right?... i have the piss tests to prove im clean... im in rehab) i was there for a good 20 mins before they searched my car... and on top of that they didnt read me my rights period... i was told what i was arrested for and then put into the squad car, and an hour later booked... I know this was long, but what do i do from here, and is what they did even legal by any means? Thanks for the advice... hell thanks for reading this...

[>Charlotte<]

Originally Posted by Gallahad

i have the piss tests to prove im clean... im in rehab)

Well, that doesn't really matter. Possession is illegal, whether you're using or not.

Originally Posted by Gallahad

and on top of that they didnt read me my rights period

Miranda warnings are only required if you are going to be questioned about your crime subsequent to an arrest. Even if Miranda had been required in your case, it would not get the case thrown out or the charges dismissed--it would only render your statements inadmissable.

As for the rest, stand by for further answers.

[outonbail]

This is a tough call, but frankly, I believe it should be considered an illegal search and seizure although I don't know if that will fly before a judge. If the stop was simply for no tags, there is no need to search the vehicle as there would not be any further evidence uncovered to support that the vehicle had no tags.
Also, most K-9 handlers have their dogs trained in such a way that they can get their dog to "false alert" as if they have hit on drugs in the vehicle. (This is a pretty convenient dog trick when they wish to search your vehicle without having to obtain a warrant first)

However, you mentioned being in rehab. If this was court ordered and you are on probation or parole, you may have lost your search and seizure rights anyway. It sure sounds unusual that the officer would detain you for half an hour to wait for a K-9 unit to check your vehicle if this stop was simply over a missing registration tag.

One thing is certain though, you need a good attorney like yesterday!

[>Charlotte<]

Originally Posted by outonbail

It sure sounds unusual that the officer would detain you for half an hour to wait for a K-9 unit to check your vehicle if this stop was simply over a missing registration tag.

I was thinking that probably had something to do with:

Originally Posted by Gallahad

The cop and i exchanged some words about what i was told by the dealer and then the cop asked me if he could search my car i told him not without a warrant...

I'm not saying it would (or wouldn't, for that matter) justify subsequent actions, but I doubt those words were "Why, good evening, Officer!"

[Gallahad]

Originally Posted by Clt747

I was thinking that probably had something to do with:



I'm not saying it would (or wouldn't, for that matter) justify subsequent actions, but I doubt those words were "Why, good evening, Officer!"

The words were more like explaining why i didnt have tags and what the officer said 2 days before when i was pulled over for the same reason

[Zigner]

You gave consent for the search. The search was valid and was not a violation of any rights.

[Gallahad]

Originally Posted by Zigner

You gave consent for the search. The search was valid and was not a violation of any rights.

i was pressured into it seeing that i didnt want to lose my job, and i was already late... The police officer knew that and told me it would be an hour before the drug dogs would be there... The fact that there was no reason to even ask to search my car is what gets me... that and the fact that the police officer 2 days ago told me something totally different than the officer i dealt with last night.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Gallahad

i was pressured into it seeing that i didnt want to lose my job, and i was already late... The police officer knew that and told me it would be an hour before the drug dogs would be there... The fact that there was no reason to even ask to search my car is what gets me... that and the fact that the police officer 2 days ago told me something totally different than the officer i dealt with last night.

You freely gave consent. All the rest is "fluff" and excuses.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Gallahad

I was pulled over for not having tags on my way to work ( i just got my car within a month from today, and was told by the dealer that i did not need 30 day tags... if i got pulled over just show them the proof showing i had just bought it.)

The lack of tags makes the stop valid - regardless of what the dealer told you.

comes up to me and tells me i have one of 2 options... either i was going to tell them that they could search my car or they would bring a drug dog to the scene make me hop out and let the dog sniff and if he sniffs anything then they have probable cause.

They cannot detain you for an unreasonable amount of time. If you were not being issued a citation, and the officer could not articulate any reasonable suspicion to prolong the original detention, then this could well be unlawful.

PS. i was pulled over 2 days ago for the same thing and the cop asked me if i was going to get it registered soon seeing as i only had a couple days left till my 30 days was up,

In many states they can tow an unregistered vehicle - those that can't tow can cite for it ... you got lucky on this second stop as it appears the 30 days was up (or within hours of being so).

Long story short i was pulled over for a traffic violation they asked me to search my car for no reason, violating my 4th amendment right, found marijuana and a pipe that i knew was in there but it wasnt mine (i know... we all say that right?

The law does not penalize you for OWNERSHIP of contraband, but, for possession. This is what can happen when you hang with dopers and are involved with dope. Better to leave the stuff hidden inside your house than carry it in the car with you.

The stop was good, and at a stop the police can ASK for anything. However, from what YOU describe, there was no true consent given the pressure involved. I suspect that unless the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention that you can get the evidence of the search suppressed.

and on top of that they didnt read me my rights period...

Miranda rights are required when you are arrested and they intend to interrogate you. Unlike TV, MOST arrests do NOT require Miranda.

At this point you need to consult an attorney and see about getting the search suppressed. However, I suspect the officer's account may well be different than yours.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Zigner

You gave consent for the search. The search was valid and was not a violation of any rights.

Consent has to be freely given. If he can successfully argue that he was threatened with a 1 hour detention while they waited for the dog, then this is clearly not voluntary - especially since there appears to have been no lawful reason to prolong the detention ... they could have held on for as long as it might take to write a ticket and run his info for driving status and warrants. Usually, this is no more than 20 minutes ... an hour will almost certainly be seen as unreasonable absent further articulated good cause.

- Carl

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

The stop was good, and at a stop the police can ASK for anything. However, from what YOU describe, there was no true consent given the pressure involved. I suspect that unless the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention that you can get the evidence of the search suppressed.

Carl -

The detention was not prolonged. The officer "stretched the truth" - pressure, yes. Unreasonable pressure? Unknown (based on the bias of the OP).

Officer: We could bring a dog to search
OP: How long would that take?
Officer: Oh, it could take an hour.
OP: Oh well, just search it.

Had our OP continued to deny consent, he might have been sent on his merry way

[Gallahad]

In many states they can tow an unregistered vehicle - those that can't tow can cite for it ... you got lucky on this second stop as it appears the 30 days was up (or within hours of being so).









The 30 days is to this day still not up. i purchased it on Jan 02, 2008 meaning i would have until Feb. 1st.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Carl -

The detention was not prolonged. The officer "stretched the truth" - pressure, yes. Unreasonable pressure? Unknown (based on the bias of the OP).

Officer: We could bring a dog to search
OP: How long would that take?
Officer: Oh, it could take an hour.
OP: Oh well, just search it.

Had our OP continued to deny consent, he might have been sent on his merry way

Zigner, this is a classic example of why I encourage my officers NOT to regularly rely on consent, and when they do feel they need to use it, to make sure they either record the consent or have them sign a document asserting they were not pressured to do so - as well as articulating in their reports that it was freely given. It's also why I always tell people they have a right to refuse.

Consent must be freely given and not coerced. A decent attorney will certainly be able to argue that a detention for an hour would not only have been unlawful in the situation, and that even the threat could be sufficient to remove consent from the table.

First, you have to examine the detention. Was he originally detained for a lawful violation? Sure. There was reasonable suspicion to believe the vehicle was unregistered because it lacked proper tags.

What then comes next? If the officer was not issuing a citation or performing some other lawful operation (such as checking the driver for his license status or for warrants) then the detention was over. Any further detention absent articulable cause would be blatantly unlawful. If the officer was going to draw out his time in writing a citation or running the driver for the previously mentioned info, this detention MIGHT have extended to about 20 minutes - still no where near an hour which, allegedly, the officer said it might take.

If no citation was in the process of being written, I think a good argument can be made that the detention had ended. The threat to detain and wait for another hour for a drug dog without further suspicion would be blatantly unlawful in my state ... whether MO state or federal circuit courts have held such there, I cannot say. But, I seriously doubt that this would be seen as truly free and informed consent. One cannot use a ruse to gain consent.

From CPOLS:

On the other hand, if you wait and seek consent to search only after the traffic stop has been concluded--that is, immediately after issuing a citation and returning the license to the driver--there is a potential problem concerning voluntariness. Namely, if you do not obtain written consent or otherwise inform the driver that he is free to leave or not cooperate, some courts may find, based on all the circumstances, that the detention was unlawfully prolonged or extended, i.e., that a reasonable person in the driver's place would not have believed he was free to leave--despite having already been issued a warning or citation--and that this unlawfully prolonged detention "tainted" (i.e., rendered involuntary) any consent that followed. (See Chavez-Valenzuela (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F.3d 719, 724-728)

However, that being said, as I mentioned before, the officer would likely have a different take on things ... he may well say that he had good cause to believe there was something in the car - perhaps he smelled marijuana? Perhaps he asked nicely if they could search the car and asked if the guy could hang for a while - maybe an hour - and he'll claim the driver agreed to wait then changed his mind. Who knows?

But, it is not "consent" when you are told that you can wait for an hour or submit to a search.

Yes, an argument can be made FOR consent, but assuming the facts are reasonably represented by the OP, I think there is a stronger case for suppression here ... if the claims can be supported in some way.

- Carl

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Zigner, this is a classic example of why I encourage my officers NOT to regularly rely on consent, and when they do feel they need to use it, to make sure they either record the consent or have them sign a document asserting they were not pressured to do so - as well as articulating in their reports that it was freely given. It's also why I always tell people they have a right to refuse.

Consent must be freely given and not coerced. A decent attorney will certainly be able to argue that a detention for an hour would not only have been unlawful in the situation, and that even the threat could be sufficient to remove consent from the table.

First, you have to examine the detention. Was he originally detained for a lawful violation? Sure. There was reasonable suspicion to believe the vehicle was unregistered because it lacked proper tags.

What then comes next? If the officer was not issuing a citation or performing some other lawful operation (such as checking the driver for his license status or for warrants) then the detention was over. Any further detention absent articulable cause would be blatantly unlawful. If the officer was going to draw out his time in writing a citation or running the driver for the previously mentioned info, this detention MIGHT have extended to about 20 minutes - still no where near an hour which, allegedly, the officer said it might take.

If no citation was in the process of being written, I think a good argument can be made that the detention had ended. The threat to detain and wait for another hour for a drug dog without further suspicion would be blatantly unlawful in my state ... whether MO state or federal circuit courts have held such there, I cannot say. But, I seriously doubt that this would be seen as truly free and informed consent. One cannot use a ruse to gain consent.

From CPOLS:

On the other hand, if you wait and seek consent to search only after the traffic stop has been concluded--that is, immediately after issuing a citation and returning the license to the driver--there is a potential problem concerning voluntariness. Namely, if you do not obtain written consent or otherwise inform the driver that he is free to leave or not cooperate, some courts may find, based on all the circumstances, that the detention was unlawfully prolonged or extended, i.e., that a reasonable person in the driver's place would not have believed he was free to leave--despite having already been issued a warning or citation--and that this unlawfully prolonged detention "tainted" (i.e., rendered involuntary) any consent that followed. (See Chavez-Valenzuela (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F.3d 719, 724-728)

However, that being said, as I mentioned before, the officer would likely have a different take on things ... he may well say that he had good cause to believe there was something in the car - perhaps he smelled marijuana? Perhaps he asked nicely if they could search the car and asked if the guy could hang for a while - maybe an hour - and he'll claim the driver agreed to wait then changed his mind. Who knows?

But, it is not "consent" when you are told that you can wait for an hour or submit to a search.

Yes, an argument can be made FOR consent, but assuming the facts are reasonably represented by the OP, I think there is a stronger case for suppression here ... if the claims can be supported in some way.

- Carl

I will definitely cede this to you - you definitely know the day-to-day operation of this better than anyone else here

[Gallahad]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Zigner, this is a classic example of why I encourage my officers NOT to regularly rely on consent, and when they do feel they need to use it, to make sure they either record the consent or have them sign a document asserting they were not pressured to do so - as well as articulating in their reports that it was freely given. It's also why I always tell people they have a right to refuse.

Consent must be freely given and not coerced. A decent attorney will certainly be able to argue that a detention for an hour would not only have been unlawful in the situation, and that even the threat could be sufficient to remove consent from the table.

First, you have to examine the detention. Was he originally detained for a lawful violation? Sure. There was reasonable suspicion to believe the vehicle was unregistered because it lacked proper tags.

What then comes next? If the officer was not issuing a citation or performing some other lawful operation (such as checking the driver for his license status or for warrants) then the detention was over. Any further detention absent articulable cause would be blatantly unlawful. If the officer was going to draw out his time in writing a citation or running the driver for the previously mentioned info, this detention MIGHT have extended to about 20 minutes - still no where near an hour which, allegedly, the officer said it might take.

If no citation was in the process of being written, I think a good argument can be made that the detention had ended. The threat to detain and wait for another hour for a drug dog without further suspicion would be blatantly unlawful in my state ... whether MO state or federal circuit courts have held such there, I cannot say. But, I seriously doubt that this would be seen as truly free and informed consent. One cannot use a ruse to gain consent.

From CPOLS:

On the other hand, if you wait and seek consent to search only after the traffic stop has been concluded--that is, immediately after issuing a citation and returning the license to the driver--there is a potential problem concerning voluntariness. Namely, if you do not obtain written consent or otherwise inform the driver that he is free to leave or not cooperate, some courts may find, based on all the circumstances, that the detention was unlawfully prolonged or extended, i.e., that a reasonable person in the driver's place would not have believed he was free to leave--despite having already been issued a warning or citation--and that this unlawfully prolonged detention "tainted" (i.e., rendered involuntary) any consent that followed. (See Chavez-Valenzuela (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F.3d 719, 724-728)

However, that being said, as I mentioned before, the officer would likely have a different take on things ... he may well say that he had good cause to believe there was something in the car - perhaps he smelled marijuana? Perhaps he asked nicely if they could search the car and asked if the guy could hang for a while - maybe an hour - and he'll claim the driver agreed to wait then changed his mind. Who knows?

But, it is not "consent" when you are told that you can wait for an hour or submit to a search.

Yes, an argument can be made FOR consent, but assuming the facts are reasonably represented by the OP, I think there is a stronger case for suppression here ... if the claims can be supported in some way.

- Carl

there was no trace of marijuana, only ciggarettes