Probably Cause Question

[Zigner]

Also back to my original point, if I had no priors, no signs of drug smuggling, nothing, how could the officer even present the question of searching my vehicle?

All that means is that you've never been caught

 

[tranquility]

You voluntarily told the officers, not only that they could search, that you were in possession of Marijuana.

This is the key question and why I posted the citation to Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (1973) where the issue was, "The precise question in this case, then, is what must the prosecution prove to demonstrate that a consent was "voluntarily" given. "

Here, the answer is not clear. But, the case gives the criteria to decide.

 

[Legal23]

Yea that's a great point, and something I agree with. I know I'm guilty of posession, but I feel as though the search was conducted not because I "gave consent" on my own accord, but out of fear.

*Is my best bet to just go with the judges ruling and not question my verdict?*
*What will my trial be like?*
*Are there any things I should do to look better in the eyes of the judge?*

 

[ERAUPIKE]

This is the key question and why I posted the citation to Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (1973) where the issue was, "The precise question in this case, then, is what must the prosecution prove to demonstrate that a consent was "voluntarily" given. "

Here, the answer is not clear. But, the case gives the criteria to decide.

The answer is pretty clear.

When the subject of a search is not in custody and the State would justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact, voluntary; voluntariness is to be determined from the totality of the surrounding circumstances. While knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the State need not prove that the one giving permission to search knew that he had a right to withhold his consent.

The OP knew that the consent was voluntary, by his own admission he was compliant with the officers. His two refusals are evidence that he knew the search was not mandatory. He gave consent, in my opinion, after he knew the dog would give the officers probable cause to enter his vehicle.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Yea that's a great point, and something I agree with. I know I'm guilty of posession, but I feel as though the search was conducted not because I "gave consent" on my own accord, but out of fear.

Fear that you were going to be caught anyway. In my opinion, a reasonable person in the same situation, would not feel the same amount of fear. A dog sniff on my car, if requested by an overly vigilant police officer would not worry me. I also do not ever possess illegal drugs.

*Is my best bet to just go with the judges ruling and not question my verdict?*

That is never the best option. Get an attorney.

*What will my trial be like?*

You will either, sit and watch your attorney work or try to navigate through the system yourself and fail miserably. I recommend option A.

*Are there any things I should do to look better in the eyes of the judge?*

Do not show up to court with drugs in your system.

 

[tranquility]

The OP knew that the consent was voluntary, by his own admission he was compliant with the officers. His two refusals are evidence that he knew the search was not mandatory. He gave consent, in my opinion, after he knew the dog would give the officers probable cause to enter his vehicle.

Apparently, you have not read the cases. I have. The answer is not clear. At least to one who has read a LOT of cases regarding the 4th amendment. Clearly, the worst issue to the OP is the fact he did not allow the search at least twice. Yet, persistent questioning and demand for search is a huge problem. That YOU think the answer was voluntary, makes me think you are not as sophisticated as you believe.

(By the way, his knowledge of the dog giving probable cause long after the purpose of the stop is an element in the OP's favor.)

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Apparently, you have not read the cases. I have. The answer is not clear. At least to one who has read a LOT of cases regarding the 4th amendment. Clearly, the worst issue to the OP is the fact he did not allow the search at least twice. Yet, persistent questioning and demand for search is a huge problem. That YOU think the answer was voluntary, makes me think you are not as sophisticated as you believe.

(By the way, his knowledge of the dog giving probable cause long after the purpose of the stop is an element in the OP's favor.)

Apparently, you did not read the same situation that I did.

1.

out of nowhere the officer who pulled me over asked if he could search my vehicle and the other officer (dodge challenger officer) said it was only because they are part of the drug task force (a drug division of some sort) and that this road was heavily sued for drug trafficing, I said no

The second and third time the officer approached the OP, according to his own account, the officer only stated that if the dog found anything he would not be able to help him. He did not ask to search a second or third time.

Please explain or provide any case law, since you are so well read on the subject at hand, where asking a suspect once is considered persistent. I would also like to see where in the OP's story there was a demand for a search. The officer requested to search once and the OP refused twice. He consented to the search after the officer offered some leniency.

The OP was in a well known drug area, the officer was just doing his job. Marijuana also has an unmistakable odor, I would be interested to see what the drug task force officers reports looked like in this case.

 

[tranquility]

Before I do more work, perhaps you should give your theory of voluntary. I say that only because I've already provided the answer according to the Supreme Court. Maybe you have a better one.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Before I do more work, perhaps you should give your theory of voluntary. I say that only because I've already provided the answer according to the Supreme Court. Maybe you have a better one.

I'll make it easy for you,

Florida v. Bostick, 111 S.Ct. 2382 (1991).
Holding: Even when officers have no basis for suspecting particular individual of any criminal activity, they may generally ask questions of that individual, ask to examine his identification, and request consent to search his luggage, as long as police do not convey message that compliance with their requests is required.

The OP did not paint a picture of required compliance for a search.

Reynolds v. State, 592 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1992)
Holding: Generally, voluntariness of consent to search must be established by preponderance of evidence; however, if there is illegal detention or other illegal conduct on part of police, consent will be found to have been voluntary only if there is clear and convincing evidence that consent was not product of the illegal police action.

There was no illegal conduct or illegal detention by the police, unless you know something we don't.

Gonzalez v. State, 578 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991)
Holding: Police had authority to seek voluntary consent to search constitutionally protected premises without prior proof of criminal wrongdoing.

The police had a right to request, one time, to search the OP's car.

State v. Stregare, 576 So.2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
Holding:The defendant did not relinquish the cigarette pack voluntarily, but merely acquiesced to authority.

The officers knew the OP was in possession, he acquiesced to their authority.

I might add your "citations" are not relevant to the OP. If a sniff search had been conducted than you would have provided something of value, but there wasn't one. I suggest you eat some humble pie, then read the citations I provided that are relevant to the situation that is posted. After that, you can "do some more work" or just move along with the taste of foot ever remaining in your mouth.