question about random drug stop

[jokerb19]

I am a resident of utah, but my mother in law lives in nevada. My wife and i met my mother in law in wendover nevada and left my son with her so that she could take him back to elko for the weekend. While they were on their way back to elko, they were randomly stopped by nevada highway patrol for the purpose in the officers words "to search random vehicles for drugs". They then ordered my mother in law out and my 2 year old son out of the vehicle and they proceeded to search everything in the vehicle for 20 minutes. THey dumped out my sons bag of toys and the diaper bag we had packed for him. he was quite distraught and didnt know what was going on. I was under the impression they can stop a vehicle and check for drivers licesnse info, even walk a drug dog around the vehicle, but unless they had probable cause, or consent from the driver, they could not enter the vehicle and search personal possesions, even though i was not there, i feel extremely angry about this situation as it caused my son distress. Is this something they can get away with or is this something i should pursue with a lawyer.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

I am a resident of utah, but my mother in law lives in nevada. My wife and i met my mother in law in wendover nevada and left my son with her so that she could take him back to elko for the weekend. While they were on their way back to elko, they were randomly stopped by nevada highway patrol for the purpose in the officers words "to search random vehicles for drugs". They then ordered my mother in law out and my 2 year old son out of the vehicle and they proceeded to search everything in the vehicle for 20 minutes. THey dumped out my sons bag of toys and the diaper bag we had packed for him. he was quite distraught and didnt know what was going on. I was under the impression they can stop a vehicle and check for drivers licesnse info, even walk a drug dog around the vehicle, but unless they had probable cause, or consent from the driver, they could not enter the vehicle and search personal possesions, even though i was not there, i feel extremely angry about this situation as it caused my son distress. Is this something they can get away with or is this something i should pursue with a lawyer.

How do you know consent was not given?

 

[JennK2009]

If consent was NOT given, then it would be a violation of the 4th amendment. Are you sure she didn't somehow give consent? Highway Patrol can be tricky - you pretty much have to state it clearly, "I do not give consent for a search."

 

[HighwayMan]

Highway Patrol can be tricky - you pretty much have to state it clearly, "I do not give consent for a search."

Highway Patrol can be tricky how? Which Highway Patrol?

If one does not get asked for consent and one does not come out and say "go ahead and search my car" then there is NO consent.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

they were randomly stopped by nevada highway patrol for the purpose in the officers words "to search random vehicles for drugs".

If this is indeed what occured, they should contact a civil rights attorney.

The police cannot randomly stop vehicles to search for drugs.

 

[tranquility]

Highway Patrol can be tricky how?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe a quick, "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" as he begins searching the car. Implied consent.

 

[HighwayMan]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe a quick, "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" as he begins searching the car. Implied consent.

Certainly not unique to highway patrol or state police agencies, and one can still refuse.

 

[JennK2009]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe a quick, "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" as he begins searching the car. Implied consent.

Precisely.

Most people (I would like to think) are taught to respect law enforcement officers. Immediate cooperation is the key to most encounters. Be meek, answer the questions, and get the heck out of the situation. The problem is: while cooperating, many people do not exercise their basic rights because they don’t want to be seen as being difficult.

And to clarify, I think all LEO’s can be tricky.

I’m also wondering if they (cops) had a sanctioned day of detaining – like when you hear on the news they are setting up checkpoints at wherever to check for whatever. Because you were traveling through, you may not have heard about it.

If you do want to *complain*, do so nicely. “Hello Highway Patrol, I was wondering if you had a sanctioned day for a checkpoint on highway whatever. Oh, you did not? Well, that’ funny because…”

I most certainly would inquire. Let’s keep everybody honest.

 

[HighwayMan]

I’m also wondering if they (cops) had a sanctioned day of detaining...

That's ridiculous.

 

[JennK2009]

Okay. Just trying to figure out how these crooked cops may have been justified in their illegal search. I have heard on the news about various checkpoints at a variety of areas. Usually for drunks, or seatbelts, or one time I remember in Colorado for illegals.

These rotten cops probably trampled your mom’s rights. I would definitely bring this to a civil rights attorney. If you don’t, this corruption will be allowed to spread. After all, we have to keep those private prisons up to capacity…

I didn’t want to have to go into how LEO’s intimidate civilians with their authority of “probable” suspicion, cause, or whatever.

Is this a better answer, HighwayMan? First, you’re offended, “What Highway Patrol can be tricky how? Which Highway Patrol?” Then, you’re stating, “Certainly not unique to highway patrol or state police agencies”

Which is it? No, they are not tricky? Or no, being tricky is not unique to just them?

 

[CdwJava]

Okay. Just trying to figure out how these crooked cops may have been justified in their illegal search.

You do not even know the facts, so how can you say it was an illegal search?

If mom-in-law was indeed stopped randomly and without cause, SHE should speak with an attorney.

This might have been at a lawful checkpoint for anything from a DUI checkpoint to a vehicle inspection checkpoint, or something else allowed under NV law. I seriously doubt that they are randomly stopping and searching vehicles traveling along the highway. if they are, then the ACLU and others would be all over them.

These rotten cops probably trampled your mom’s rights.

And you know that ... how??

 

[JennK2009]

Lawful checkpoint - that was the term I was looking for.

Also, I said PROBABLY. I don't know the facts because the OP does not either.

I just didn't like HM calling my statement ridiculous - there are "lawful checkpoints", where protocols are altered.

And you know as well as I do: There are LEO's that abuse their authority. Throw out a big enough net, and you're bound to catch something. And, many people have no idea what the ACLU is - they just complain amongst each other and no real remedy is ever sought, much less, found.

 

[CdwJava]

Lawful checkpoint - that was the term I was looking for.

Also, I said PROBABLY. I don't know the facts because the OP does not either.

I just didn't like HM calling my statement ridiculous - there are "lawful checkpoints", where protocols are altered.

And you know as well as I do: There are LEO's that abuse their authority. Throw out a big enough net, and you're bound to catch something. And, many people have no idea what the ACLU is - they just complain amongst each other and no real remedy is ever sought, much less, found.

But, your assumption is that these officers were in the wrong without ANY facts to support that claim at all. Most officers are not willing to risk their job, their property, and their freedom simply to stop and search some random person for drugs. And, in my experience, most people that claim they were "randomly" stopped were not - they were stopped with cause. No cause may have been apparent to the OP's mom-in-law, but that does not mean there was not any. The officer is under no legal requirement to articulate their cause with the person stopped. They tend to do so, but it is not required.

And CAN an officer abuse his authority? Sure. Some do. But, to begin with the presumption that they did break the law with no stated facts supporting such a belief infers some measure of bias.

 

[JennK2009]

My assumption is just like everyone else’s here, except the opposite. Many Seniors will immediately condemn a person seeking advice without having all the facts. You’re darn right I’m biased - on behalf of the poor souls coming here looking for advice, only to be told they are wrong.

And if you noticed, I did give sound advice on my first post. I then attempted, on behalf of the cops, to guess (legal checkpoints) on why they were stopped.

Now I have a question for you, Officer: An officer is under no legal requirement to articulate their cause when a person is stopped? They just approach the vehicle and don’t have to say anything?

Pay attention, anyone reading this: this is the trickery I referred to. Sorry, but that’s intimidation. But, I guess it's legal to bully people, as long as you are wearing a uniform.

 

[CdwJava]

You’re darn right I’m biased - on behalf of the poor souls coming here looking for advice, only to be told they are wrong.

Many people do operate under a false set of assumptions that are garnered by rumor, what their friends told them, and what they want to be true. What the poster wants to hear is not always the same as what the law says can or will happen.

I am not one to condone simply pouncing on an incorrect poster, but a lack of bedside manner does not make the information incorrect, only poorly presented.

Now I have a question for you, Officer: An officer is under no legal requirement to articulate their cause when a person is stopped? They just approach the vehicle and don’t have to say anything?

Correct on the first point, and not quite so on the second. Typically, the officer is trained to ask for required documents (which, in my state includes license, registration an proof of insurance). Training varies some, but that which I have had encourages that the officer explain the reason for his stop only after he receives the required documents. This is so the officer might avoid a roundabout argument about the violation and simply return to his vehicle to complete the citation (should that be his preference) rather than engage in a discussion that might be pointless.

Pay attention, anyone reading this: this is the trickery I referred to. Sorry, but that’s intimidation. But, I guess it's legal to bully people, as long as you are wearing a uniform.

Hardly bullying or trickery. If that's bullying or trickery to you, you need to get out a little more.