Consent needed for car search?

[JennK2009]

Wisconsin/Illinois/USA

Just curious because an acquaintance of mine, ex-cop, says that an officer of the law may search your vehicle, without your consent, simply if you are in the drivers seat with the key in the ignition. Something about being "prone/ready? to drive" position. Something to do with new homeland security laws.

After "please step out of the vehicle", can an officer search your car, without your consent, just because you are in the "ready to drive" position? I'm not including alcohol suspicions related stops or if something incriminating is visible.

I've stopped officers on two separate occasions from leaning into my vehicle for any of type of a search, telling them I did NOT consent to a search (just because I can) Both times, they withdrew with no further incident.

Can you refuse to let an officer search your car, after being stopped?

(In case anyone is wondering, I used to speed. It's been three years, no tickets, and cheaper car insurance! I still lapse, though...)What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[CdwJava]

Wisconsin/Illinois/USA

Just curious because an acquaintance of mine, ex-cop, says that an officer of the law may search your vehicle, without your consent, simply if you are in the drivers seat with the key in the ignition. Something about being "prone/ready? to drive" position. Something to do with new homeland security laws.

I don't know what your acquaintance is smoking, but either he is waaaaay wrong, or you misunderstood what he was talking to you about. But, maybe this explains why he is an "ex" cop.

There are a number of reasons a car might be searched, but simply because the driver is in the car with the key in the ignition is not - by itself - one fo them.

After "please step out of the vehicle", can an officer search your car, without your consent, just because you are in the "ready to drive" position?

No, he cannot. Not for that reason alone.

Can you refuse to let an officer search your car, after being stopped?

You can refuse to grant your consent, but if they have probable cause, or if you are on searchable probation or parole, you cannot really prevent them from doing so.

 

[BOR]

Wisconsin/Illinois/USA

Just curious because an acquaintance of mine, ex-cop, says that an officer of the law may search your vehicle, without your consent, simply if you are in the drivers seat with the key in the ignition. Something about being "prone/ready? to drive" position. Something to do with new homeland security laws.

No such law.

After "please step out of the vehicle", can an officer search your car, without your consent, just because you are in the "ready to drive" position? I'm not including alcohol suspicions related stops or if something incriminating is visible.

The 4th AM has been applicable to the states since 1949, so it applies in ALL 50 states, even Puerto Rico.

A search conducted without a warrant is "presumptively UNreasonable". To overcome that burden, the govt. must show it falls within one of the exceptions. One exception is known as the "Automobile exception". If an officer believes the auto contains contrabdand, s/he can search it without a warrant, trunk included, but some state constitution's, like mine, Ohio, will not permit a truck search just for the smell of MJ in the passenger compartment.


Other NON warrantless searches may include a "limited" search for a weapon, see Michigan v. Long, US SSC.

Can you refuse to let an officer search your car, after being stopped?

Refusal is limited to a verbal non consent statement or in a state that mandates a waiver be signed for a consent without cause. To attempt to physically attempt to stop them is very unwise. A crooked cop will LIE anyway if the search violates the 4th AM and they know it.

 

[JennK2009]

Thank you; I was pretty sure he was wrong. He is an over-the-top kind, and yes, I am glad he no longer carries a badge. I'm forever "snoping" or searching here to qualify his claims. Drives me nuts.

Thanks again for your prompt replies. JennK

 

[StreetJustice]

put a camera in your car. and notify any police officer to the camera's presence. that will make them follow constitutional requirements

 

[BOR]

Thank you; I was pretty sure he was wrong. He is an over-the-top kind, and yes, I am glad he no longer carries a badge. I'm forever "snoping" or searching here to qualify his claims. Drives me nuts.

Thanks again for your prompt replies. JennK

Don't mention it. I used to have a boss who was a former cop and he would tell me stuff, which he did not know I was a little knowledgeable in the 4th AM, that I knew was baloney.

Now, he was either mistaken and thought he was right, or knew he was mistaken, just trying to show off??

 

[BOR]

put a camera in your car. and notify any police officer to the camera's presence. that will make them follow constitutional requirements

OR you may be in legal trouble if it a two party consent state for videoing and they tell you to turn it off and you do not.

 

[StreetJustice]

OR you may be in legal trouble if it a two party consent state for videoing and they tell you to turn it off and you do not.

no trouble 4 that..... police are government officials, and the first amend. makes them fair game, just like Brittney Spears.

 

[CdwJava]

no trouble 4 that..... police are government officials, and the first amend. makes them fair game

Some states still hold that even when recording law enforcement on a public contact requires two party consent. The issue has not been definitively settled on a national level, yet. I suspect it will one day, but not yet.

Personally, I don't care if the driver has a camera - I have one, too,

 

[randolph76]

put a camera in your car. and notify any police officer to the camera's presence. that will make them follow constitutional requirements

As long as videotaping without their consent is legal. And in Illinois, at least it isn't.

 

[Zigner]

no trouble 4 that..... police are government officials, and the first amend. makes them fair game, just like Brittney Spears.

BOR and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I believe his information and knowledge on this subject is MUCH more reliable than yours.

 

[randolph76]

no trouble 4 that..... police are government officials, and the first amend. makes them fair game, just like Brittney Spears.

Cops are not like Brittney Spears.

 

[BOR]

Cops are not like Brittney Spears.

If they were, they could search me anytime!! I consent! Ha!

 

[randolph76]

If they were, they could search me anytime!! I consent! Ha!

Ooops you did it again

 

[StreetJustice]

Cops are not like Brittney Spears.

The short answer is yes, they are.

I've been out shooting police situations for over 20 years and I've seldom been confronted with this situation. When I have run into it, it has usually been private citizens or small town cops who don't know any better. During the hysteria following 9/11, some police thought that photography had somehow become regulated by the Patriot Act or their own policies. This was simply not the case.
In the United States there are no laws that prevent you from taking video and or photographs of the police, or police situations. With that said, there are times when this could be a problem. If you were just a third party at a scene and had nothing to do with what was happening you would be fine. However if you were a party to nature of the call then you could be asked to put the camera down. For example you were a driver or passenger in a traffic stop. The camera could be construed as a weapon and the officer would likely make you turn it off and put it down.
If you are out in public and you see police activity you have every right to videotape or photograph it. This is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Laws to prevent audio taping without consent would be not apply as long as you were clearly visible and were not going to any secret or extreme means to get sound. Some states have enacted wiretapping laws that law enforcement have tried use to prevent video being taken at scenes. I've heard of charges filed against videographers based on these laws but I've yet to actually see one of these cases get to court much less a conviction.
Most photographers that are arrested in these scenarios are usually being stupid and crossing police lines or willfully harassing the police. If you are out of the way most police officers could not care less and some are even glad to have you.
When police are in public they have no right of privacy just like everyone else and they also have the right to remain silent should a camera be rolling. I've seldom run into this problem other than requests not to show officers faces who might be working undercover and not shooting dead bodies. I don't shoot bodies anyway, and I always try to comply on the face requests although I'm under no obligation to do so. Sometimes crimes scenes may be expanded to get you further away from a scene or there may be genuine safety issues, if that happens or you're directed to leave because of a safety issue, you should comply and you may be subject to arrest if you do not. However, you can not be excluded from any area that the general public is being allowed in.
If you are a third party to an incident and are confronted with this situation you best bet is to not cut off the camera and move your finger away from the trigger so you don't accidentally cut it off. Should you be arrested the tape would be your best evidence.

Good luck and hope this helps, it can be a lot of fun and I've made a lot of police/fire friends doing it.