Cop searched my uhaul just cause my tag light was dim.

[AngelC]

What is the name of your state? Texas. Got pulled over for tag light on uhaul being dim. The cop asked for id and insurance. I turn to my purse and just as i am about to touch my purse, he asked if I would step out of the truck. I comply and am led to the back of the truck. I get my drivers license out and the cop is asking for the combination to the lock on the back door. Said he pulled me over for the tag light being dim on a rented uhaul. But threatens me to cut the lock off if I don't hurry and give him the combination. By this time, there are several cops surrounding me. Me and several other people had been loading the truck for a few days with stuff a business was giving away. All the cops and businesses in the area new that business had been giving everything away for a few weeks to clear the warehouse.

Was it legal for him to treat me like that just because the tag light on the Uhaul was dim.

 

[HighwayMan]

You can file a complaint with the officer's department.

Why did you post this under "drug charges"? Were you arrested and drugs found in the vehicle?

 

[Zigner]

It sounds like you consented to the search. What happened as a result of the search?

 

[AngelC]

But that wasn't my question. My point is, when you get pulled over for your tag light being dim on a rented uhaul, you get a warning or a ticket which uhaul would usually be responsible for. I've never heard of someone having to get out and then threatened that they would cut the lock off if you don't give them access. I thought they had to have probable cause to threaten someone like that. And a dim tag light is not probable cause.

 

[Zigner]

You didn't have to consent.
What happened as a result of the search?

 

[AngelC]

I never said i consented. I said he was threatening to have my lock cut if i didn't give him access. I wanted to know if it was legal for him to do that. I had a drug charge on my record from over 10 years ago, just cause the house that i wasn't even at was in my name. And nothing after that. And I feel like I was being treated like that because of that. Once you are out and it's been over 10 years, isn't there some kind of protection from a cop treating you like that.

 

[LdiJ]

I never said i consented. I said he was threatening to have my lock cut if i didn't give him access. I wanted to know if it was legal for him to do that. I had a drug charge on my record from over 10 years ago, just cause the house that i wasn't even at was in my name. And nothing after that. And I feel like I was being treated like that because of that. Once you are out and it's been over 10 years, isn't there some kind of protection from a cop treating you like that.

It sounds like the cop made that threat before the cop ran your license, so that probably had nothing to do with it. Maybe the guy was just having a bad day.

 

[westside]

I never said i consented. I said he was threatening to have my lock cut if i didn't give him access. I wanted to know if it was legal for him to do that. I had a drug charge on my record from over 10 years ago, just cause the house that i wasn't even at was in my name. And nothing after that. And I feel like I was being treated like that because of that. Once you are out and it's been over 10 years, isn't there some kind of protection from a cop treating you like that.

To threaten to do so is legal. To actually have done so would not have been.

 

[Zigner]

I never said i consented. I said he was threatening to have my lock cut if i didn't give him access. I wanted to know if it was legal for him to do that. I had a drug charge on my record from over 10 years ago, just cause the house that i wasn't even at was in my name. And nothing after that. And I feel like I was being treated like that because of that. Once you are out and it's been over 10 years, isn't there some kind of protection from a cop treating you like that.

Did he search?

 

[AngelC]

Did he search?

I really was hoping an attorney would answer

 

[Just Blue]

I really was hoping an attorney would answer

Read the ToS of this site.

 

[FlyingRon]

To answer your question, since you refuse to answer our prompts to try to get essential information to provide a better answer. It appears nothing illegal happened here. To stop you, all he needs to have is an articulable and reasonable suspicion that an offense has occurred. Equipment violations are certainly often used. He's free to ask to search the vehicle or do other things to elicit incriminating statements from you. Threatening to cut a lock or statements that "I can get a warrant" are not likely be seen as sufficient duress to invalidate your consent to the search.

If you are unhappy with the behavior of the officer, you may always file a complaint with his department. But otherwise, we have no indication of anything else that you could do. Feel free to contact an attorney and pay for his advice.

 

[quincy]

But that wasn't my question. My point is, when you get pulled over for your tag light being dim on a rented uhaul, you get a warning or a ticket which uhaul would usually be responsible for. I've never heard of someone having to get out and then threatened that they would cut the lock off if you don't give them access. I thought they had to have probable cause to threaten someone like that. And a dim tag light is not probable cause.

The police might have had reason to suspect that the UHaul was being used for an illegal purpose. But you are correct that any search without consent and without a warrant could be questionable and worth an attorney’s review.

Did you let the officers search your UHaul? What became of the search?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Was it legal for him to treat me like that just because the tag light on the Uhaul was dim.

All the cop needs to pull you over is reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed. The dim bulb might have provided that. But when it comes to the search of the locked U-haul the cop needs either (1) consent from you, (2) a search warrant issued by a court, or (3) the circumstances are one of the relatively few in which the courts have said a search may be done without a warrant.

You've provided no facts to suggest that the cop could rely on (3), but we don't have the cop's side of it to know if he thought there was some exception to the warrant requirement that he could rely upon.

So if (3) does not apply, then the cop needed a warrant or consent from you. Whether you are considered to have given consent here would depend on all the facts. Giving the cop the combination to the lock might be argued as implied consent to do the search.

The cop is allowed to threaten to cut the lock. You don't have to agree to open it for him. You can call the cop's bluff and refuse when he doesn't have a warrant. Then the cop is put to a choice: does he feel he has the circumstances needed to search without a warrant, does he want to get the warrant (and for that he needs probable cause), or will he give it up? Cutting the lock without a warrant or circumstances allowing for an exception to the warrant requirement would make the police liable for the cost of the lock and any other damages that occur during the unauthorized search.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to an outline of your rights when stopped by the police, published by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police/