Can Police search your RV

[DeWat]

Originally Posted by cruzbill

Police are people, agreed? And people, well intentioned, make mistakes, agreed? Police make mistakes, agreed? Fortunately, no one, including the officers in this case, were hurt.

Most realistic answer I've seen... +1!

[raineman]

Originally Posted by saddlesore

I on several occasions have endured LEO's attempting to use their badge/gun/uniform/authority as implements of intimidation, It can be very unsettling to individuals. Not all citizens are accustomed to having a frontal assault from "bully boy" LEO's that enjoy confrontations.

You are absolutely right. I have friends that are recently retired LEO. They were not the "bully boy" types. They will tell you in a minute that there are plenty of bullies on the force just as there are many good cops. Cops are human. Thus not perfect.

I don't agree with anyone trivializing someone's experience with a bad cop. That shows a lack of willingness or ability to try to see things from another's point of view. Not a great disposition for a person in law enforcement.

[ThePowells]

It took me every bit of three sentences to figure out where that one was going. Actually when it got to "hassled" that was the first big clue. I have ridden a motorcycle for years and years and only been stopped once on the bike. Not having loud pipes and redlining it in second gear along with a skull buster helmet usually makes a big difference.

Then reading through, it made me wonder how you as a motorist was doing everything right and this officer did (according to you) 90% wrong. It sounds like the officer was doing interdiction, and if so, by your account, he was the worst trained interdiction (and K9) officer I have seen since the infancy of interdiction as we know it now.

If everything is as you said, then I suggest you seek legal counsel, and this is coming from someone who started their civilian police career in 1984 and am still working. In fact, trot back down to the police department and file a written complaint about the stop and sign a release for the body cam and / or dash cam video. I love watching movies . In my experience as an administrator, when somebody comes in to complain, 90% leave when they find out that there is body camera or in-car footage. Of the remaining 10% that do complain, 95% the officer is cleared. I LOVE body cams. 2 years ago over the July 4 holiday, I racked up several complaints including from a present board member and a former board member at one call and a parks and rec board member at a second. Knowing what was coming, I had already downloaded and copied the body cam video onto discs. The Mayor had gotten messages and waited to return the calls until she was in the Chief's office. She returned all three calls from there and told them that they could come watch the body cam video with her, the chief, and me once they signed a public records release. when told it was on body cam and dash cam, one hung up on her. Then when it came up in a board meeting, they again refused to sign releases and also refused to share any of the cell phone video that was supposedly taken.

So, my suggestion is to request a copy of the traffic stop video and then post it to youtube. I'd like to have a copy as a "what not to do" video.

[johninsd]

Originally Posted by ThePowells

It took me every bit of three sentences to figure out where that one was going. Actually when it got to "hassled" that was the first big clue. I have ridden a motorcycle for years and years and only been stopped once on the bike. Not having loud pipes and redlining it in second gear along with a skull buster helmet usually makes a big difference.

Then reading through, it made me wonder how you as a motorist was doing everything right and this officer did (according to you) 90% wrong. It sounds like the officer was doing interdiction, and if so, by your account, he was the worst trained interdiction (and K9) officer I have seen since the infancy of interdiction as we know it now.

If everything is as you said, then I suggest you seek legal counsel, and this is coming from someone who started their civilian police career in 1984 and am still working. In fact, trot back down to the police department and file a written complaint about the stop and sign a release for the body cam and / or dash cam video. I love watching movies . In my experience as an administrator, when somebody comes in to complain, 90% leave when they find out that there is body camera or in-car footage. Of the remaining 10% that do complain, 95% the officer is cleared. I LOVE body cams. 2 years ago over the July 4 holiday, I racked up several complaints including from a present board member and a former board member at one call and a parks and rec board member at a second. Knowing what was coming, I had already downloaded and copied the body cam video onto discs. The Mayor had gotten messages and waited to return the calls until she was in the Chief's office. She returned all three calls from there and told them that they could come watch the body cam video with her, the chief, and me once they signed a public records release. when told it was on body cam and dash cam, one hung up on her. Then when it came up in a board meeting, they again refused to sign releases and also refused to share any of the cell phone video that was supposedly taken.

So, my suggestion is to request a copy of the traffic stop video and then post it to youtube. I'd like to have a copy as a "what not to do" video.

Actually as a BMW rider forever my bikes have always been quiet and no I don't wear a skull helmet - perhaps "hassled" wasn't the right word as I have been stopped for a reason every time I was stopped on the motorcycle, usually speeding - hey I can't help it if my bike is so smooth and quiet that it doesn't feel like I'm going as fast as I am.

As far as bodycam footage the chief told me that there wasn't any - seems kind of convenient to refrain from keeping any kind of record of traffic stops. That way if they make 100 stops and only one produces an arrest or a ticket they can claim 100% efficiency.

Whether there will be a next time I can't say - I hope not. As far as the guy who laughed at my discomfort - never mind, can't say it here -

[Deep Water D]

I would never, ever let the cops in my RV without a search warrant. I don't care what kind of probable cause they spout or what their dog alerts on. Warrant. Period. If they make me get out of the RV, I'm locking the door behind me and leaving the keys in the RV. I have a spare set in a lockbox.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by okcnewbie

not to be mean or anything. I thought for sure the story was going to end with, " You have to come with us to the station or something similar." It ended up with, " Have a nice day."

I guess you missed the part, before the "Have a nice day," where he was locked in the police car even though he was not under arrest, while they did a dog sniff and searched his RV without his consent.

Here's an easy-to-read analysis of a 2015 Supreme Court case on canine sniffs during traffic stops:

Opinion analysis: Traffic stops can’t last too long or go too far, and no extra dog sniffs! - SCOTUSblog

If, as the OP says, the cop said he was going to issue a verbal warning, then he had completed the traffic stop mission. A dog sniff that prolonged the stop past that point violated the Fourth Amendment.

I'd be interested in the police chief's explanation of how this stop complied with Rodriguez v. United States.

The police may not have a written record of it, but there's a local newspaper in Childress. The top news story right now is letters to Santa; maybe they'd like an opportunity to publish some real news.

[Mr_D]

Originally Posted by Deep Water D

I would never, ever let the cops in my RV without a search warrant. I don't care what kind of probable cause they spout or what their dog alerts on. Warrant. Period. If they make me get out of the RV, I'm locking the door behind me and leaving the keys in the RV. I have a spare set in a lockbox.

My door locks with a fob, get out, be sure the steps are set to retract, close the door and lock with the fob.

[ThePowells]

Originally Posted by Deep Water D

I would never, ever let the cops in my RV without a search warrant. I don't care what kind of probable cause they spout or what their dog alerts on. Warrant. Period. If they make me get out of the RV, I'm locking the door behind me and leaving the keys in the RV. I have a spare set in a lockbox.

And if I have probable cause on a motor vehicle, I do not need a warrant due to the mobility of a motor vehicle on the roadway. If needed, the fire department has a tool to open it but it wouldn't be the first time I have broken a window to get into a locked vehicle for a search. If you are camped, I will treat it as a home and pull everyone out and go get, or send someone for a search warrant.

[okcnewbie]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

The police may not have a written record of it, but there's a local newspaper in Childress. The top news story right now is letters to Santa; maybe they'd like an opportunity to publish some real news.

News story;

Man in RV gets stopped for who know what? Dogs sniffs RV and finds nothing and man is sent on his way with a " Have a Nice Day. " ....... Did I miss something?

I agree it wasn't a pleasant experience. I wouldn't have been happy and the whole time I would have been at least a little worried that the cops were up to something. In the end they weren't IMO.

[4x4van]

Originally Posted by ThePowells

And if I have probable cause on a motor vehicle, I do not need a warrant due to the mobility of a motor vehicle on the roadway. If needed, the fire department has a tool to open it but it wouldn't be the first time I have broken a window to get into a locked vehicle for a search. If you are camped, I will treat it as a home and pull everyone out and go get, or send someone for a search warrant.

And just what, in this instance, would that probable cause be?

I am 100% pro law enforcement, but this story pissed me off. They had absolutely no reason or probable cause to search the RV. They had no reason or cause to lock the driver in the LEO's vehicle. And they had no reason or cause to effectively ransack his home. What they did WAS illegal.

And ANY officer who claims that they were in the right, or somehow justified, in what they did, is a part of the reason that LEOs are getting the bad rap that they are lately.

[Pirate]

Cops are out of control. He should be lucky TX didn't seize the RV for some reason or another, like maybe he had a wad of vacation cash. Our rights are slowly being taken away in the name of pulic safety.

[4x4van]

Originally Posted by okcnewbie

News story;

Man in RV gets stopped for who know what? Dogs sniffs RV and finds nothing and man is sent on his way with a " Have a Nice Day. " ....... Did I miss something?

I agree it wasn't a pleasant experience. I wouldn't have been happy and the whole time I would have been at least a little worried that the cops were up to something. In the end they weren't IMO.

Yes, you did miss something. You forgot to mention the part where the officers, with absolutely no probable cause, no right, no suspicion, effectively locked him in their vehicle and searched his home from top to bottom, including operating a component (the slide) in a way that could have damaged it. THAT would indeed make for an interesting news story. In the end, they WERE up to something, they were just unsuccessful in it.

[johninsd]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

I guess you missed the part, before the "Have a nice day," where he was locked in the police car even though he was not under arrest, while they did a dog sniff and searched his RV without his consent.

Here's an easy-to-read analysis of a 2015 Supreme Court case on canine sniffs during traffic stops:

Opinion analysis: Traffic stops can’t last too long or go too far, and no extra dog sniffs! - SCOTUSblog

If, as the OP says, the cop said he was going to issue a verbal warning, then he had completed the traffic stop mission. A dog sniff that prolonged the stop past that point violated the Fourth Amendment.

I'd be interested in the police chief's explanation of how this stop complied with Rodriguez v. United States.

The police may not have a written record of it, but there's a local newspaper in Childress. The top news story right now is letters to Santa; maybe they'd like an opportunity to publish some real news.

I did contact the local newspaper in Childress but after they asked me if I had been physically injured and I said no they lost interest. I'm sure that in a small town in Texas the local press has to be careful about staying on good terms with the PD.

[ThePowells]

Originally Posted by 4x4van

And just what, in this instance, would that probable cause be?

I am 100% pro law enforcement, but this story pissed me off. They had absolutely no reason or probable cause to search the RV. They had no reason or cause to lock the driver in the LEO's vehicle. And they had no reason or cause to effectively ransack his home. What they did WAS illegal.

And ANY officer who claims that they were in the right, or somehow justified, in what they did, is a part of the reason that LEOs are getting the bad rap that they are lately.

Thousands of things add up to probable cause. That is for a court to ultimately decide. It could be anything from the small of marijuana or a bloody body part sticking out from under the seat.

If you bother to read my first post, IF, IF, and a really big BIG everything as was described by the complainer, then the officer screwed up on so many levels.
Also, if you read the reality part, that the number of officer complaints decrease by 90% when the complainer finds out there is video, and 90% of the complaints that are filed are either unfounded or the officer was justified.

And then something else that just popped into my mind. If the dog alerted to the exterior, then after a safety evaluation the dog would have been used to search the interior, plus if I had a dog alert on the exterior, I would have been crawling underneath to look. I don't mind getting dirty.

The problem is that too many people get their legal training from Law and Order rather than constant training and reading Supreme Court Cases and legal opinions from Police Law attorneys.