Can Police search your RV

[Txcirclem]

Originally Posted by mythplaced

Read post #120 and comment please....

Hope I am doing this right.

While my heart goes out to this person as he battled that terrible disease, the fact is that Marijuana is contraband. Refusing the search would not have altered the discovery as a k-9 would still smell out the drugs. And I believe that anywhere outside of California, possession of marijuana is illegal.

Change the law if you do not agree with it.

That's why we live in such a great Republic.

[Txcirclem]

Originally Posted by freebirdbus

Being stopped for a tail light out is being stopped for an equipment failure, not a intentional criminal act. Being stopped for a 'random safety check' is also not a stop for behaving unlawfully. Not wanting to be delayed or hassled by a curious LEO tromping around in my coach and handling my personal effects is not a crime or an attempt to hide one. Most cops out there are good ones, but not all are. Thank goodness that the Founding Fathers were not so naive as to think so, and afforded specific protections. I hope that you are never stopped by a cop overstepping his or her authority. But if you are, it might broaden your perspective.

Agreed!! Having been on the job for more years than I care to count, I can assure you that there are some out there who will overstep their authority. That why I conduct IA cases vigorously. They give all of us honest ones a bad name. Just read these comments.

Bottom line for this topic is this rule of thumb: if you are driving your MH, it is a vehicle subject to the same rules governing other vehicle searches. If you are parked, it is no different than your house.

You are not required to allow a search if no warrant has been issued. And you can only be detained for a "reasonable" amount of time. If the officer has articulable probable cause to search your vehicle, he can without a warrant. But if you are not committing any crime, he will not have any probable cause.

Be courteous and polite and expect the same.

[JadedDancer]

Originally Posted by freebirdbus

Being stopped for a tail light out is being stopped for an equipment failure, not a intentional criminal act. Being stopped for a 'random safety check' is also not a stop for behaving unlawfully. Not wanting to be delayed or hassled by a curious LEO tromping around in my coach and handling my personal effects is not a crime or an attempt to hide one. Most cops out there are good ones, but not all are. Thank goodness that the Founding Fathers were not so naive as to think so, and afforded specific protections. I hope that you are never stopped by a cop overstepping his or her authority. But if you are, it might broaden your perspective.

100% agreement.

[Ramblin]

Originally Posted by Txcirclem

Agreed!! Having been on the job for more years than I care to count, I can assure you that there are some out there who will overstep their authority. That why I conduct IA cases vigorously. They give all of us honest ones a bad name. Just read these comments.

Bottom line for this topic is this rule of thumb: if you are driving your MH, it is a vehicle subject to the same rules governing other vehicle searches. If you are parked, it is no different than your house.

You are not required to allow a search if no warrant has been issued. And you can only be detained for a "reasonable" amount of time. If the officer has articulable probable cause to search your vehicle, he can without a warrant. But if you are not committing any crime, he will not have any probable cause.

Be courteous and polite and expect the same.

Very succinct, and well stated. It's worth repeating here that consenting to a search of your vehicle (or house, cave, spacecraft, whatever) is NEVER in your best interest, from a legal standpoint. I will never consent to a search of mine.

[JadedDancer]

Originally Posted by mythplaced

Hypothetical scenario...

• 68 year old couple from CO....
• RV full time with a "domicile" in CO
• One of the couple has stage 4 lymphoma...
• CO MD prescribes marijuanna for pain management, as the patient is intolerant of opiates (Legal in CO)
• Couple is touring the USA before the patient dies
• Tail lamp burns out while driving across MO
• Stopped by MO LEO
• LEO asks to search
• Driver agrees, as he has "nothing to hide"
• LEO searches the vehicle,
• Finds prescribed "medicine".
• Arrests the 64 year old cancer patient and driver for possession and transportation of illegal controlled substances..
• Patient deprived of pain relief and incarcerated
• $1000's of dollars and more importantly months of the patients last remaining time subjected to the tortures of the legal system...

Justice???? I think not....

In this scenario the driver should have asserted his rights not to allow a search, don't you think?

As for the search itself and how that transpired, none of us were there so we don't know exactly what caused that action to take place, unless this was you, and I am not totally sure since you didn't' indicate.

If there was any reasonable cause that led to the search...the question is - did the patient have a prescription for this to show the officer? If not, it is totally understandable he/she was arrested, as I am sure MANY might claim it is "medicinal".

It is the onus of the user of the prescribed drug that is otherwise illegal to have that script available to show an officer.

IF he/she did have it available, then the officer should have verified the validity of the script before arresting him/her.

Personally, I doubt I would say no to a search. You are opening up an even bigger can of worms in my opinion. Sure, somethings are within our rights, but it is a question of which is the most logical course of action: go ahead and consent since you know you are innocent and they won't find anything or 2) don't consent, and whether this is your legal riight or not you have suddenly just raised the suspicions of the officer, and we all know that the attitude of the officer in any incident is very key. I'd rather not sour that attitude by not cooperationg.

JMHO. A lawyer might not 'congratulate' me for this action, but I will hopefully not have to have him congratulate my payment either.

[Txcirclem]

Originally Posted by JadedDancer

As for the search itself and how that transpired, none of us were there so we don't know exactly what caused that action to take place, unless this was you, and I am not totally sure since you didn't' indicate.

If there was any reasonable cause that led to the search...the question is - did the patient have a prescription for this to show the officer? If not, it is totally understandable he/she was arrested, as I am sure MANY might claim it is "medicinal".

It is the onus of the user of the prescribed drug that is otherwise illegal to have that script available to show an officer.

IF he/she did have it available, then the officer should have verified the validity of the script before arresting him/her.

Personally, I doubt I would say no to a search. You are opening up an even bigger can of worms in my opinion. Sure, somethings are within our rights, but it is a question of which is the most logical course of action: go ahead and consent since you know you are innocent and they won't find anything or 2) don't consent, and whether this is your legal riight or not you have suddenly just raised the suspicions of the officer, and we all know that the attitude of the officer in any incident is very key. I'd rather not sour that attitude by not cooperationg.

JMHO. A lawyer might not 'congratulate' me for this action, but I will hopefully not have to have him congratulate my payment either.

Absolutely!!

It is my extensive experience that no one prosecutes a 4th ammendment claim more vigorously than a law breaker.

[JohnQ]

Originally Posted by Mr_D

In WA a PO CAN search your vehicle "for his protection" during a traffic stop. This has gone to the state supreme court.

I don't agree with it, but it is the law here.

Not Without Very Clear Probable Cause!!!!!

[Ramblin]

Originally Posted by JadedDancer

Personally, I doubt I would say no to a search. You are opening up an even bigger can of worms in my opinion. Sure, somethings are within our rights, but it is a question of which is the most logical course of action: go ahead and consent since you know you are innocent and they won't find anything or 2) don't consent, and whether this is your legal riight or not you have suddenly just raised the suspicions of the officer, and we all know that the attitude of the officer in any incident is very key. I'd rather not sour that attitude by not cooperationg.

JMHO. A lawyer might not 'congratulate' me for this action, but I will hopefully not have to have him congratulate my payment either.

1) If you are not guilty of anything, consenting to search introduces the opportunity for the unscrupulous LEO to 'find' that little baggie of dope to justify his search. Do you think his job is more important to him than your freedom? You bet it is. You don't know who the good guys with badges are. Why would you hand him this opportunity when it is within your rights to refuse?

2) If you are not guilty of anything, why would you care if the cops suspicions are raised by your refusal to consent? Doesn't matter to me. If this is one of the good cops (which I believe make up the vast majority), he will not press further unless he has some legitimate reason to believe you're guiilty of something. Refusal to consent is not probable cause to search.

Good cops go on fishing expeditions just like bad cops do. They ask uncomfortable questions to judge your response, they use their nose to detect your scent, they use their eyes to see what is visible in your vehicle. The difference is, the good cop knows when he's got something he can legally act upon. The bad cop will make something out of nothing to cover his own [censored], at your expense.

[Txcirclem]

Originally Posted by Ramblin

1) If you are not guilty of anything, consenting to search introduces the opportunity for the unscrupulous LEO to 'find' that little baggie of dope to justify his search. Do you think his job is more important to him than your freedom? You bet it is. You don't know who the good guys with badges are. Why would you hand him this opportunity when it is within your rights to refuse?

2) If you are not guilty of anything, why would you care if the cops suspicions are raised by your refusal to consent? Doesn't matter to me. If this is one of the good cops (which I believe make up the vast majority), he will not press further unless he has some legitimate reason to believe you're guiilty of something. Refusal to consent is not probable cause to search.

Good cops go on fishing expeditions just like bad cops do. They ask uncomfortable questions to judge your response, they use their nose to detect your scent, they use their eyes to see what is visible in your vehicle. The difference is, the good cop knows when he's got something he can legally act upon. The bad cop will make something out of nothing to cover his own [censored], at your expense.

And if that is the type of "Cop" with whom you are dealing, your consent or refusal is moot.

[JohnQ]

Originally Posted by Txcirclem

And if that is the type of "Cop" with whom you are dealing, your consent or refusal is moot.

and in addition if it is a "Bad Cop" or a "Power Trip Cop", your refusal makes it mandatory for other cops & the courts to become involved, i.e., the warrent process. And if the search turns up nothing, it only reinforces your future action which as a good citizen should be a complaint against the officer. Police management does root out bad power tripping cops, or even inept cops (be surprised at how many) and citizen complaints are one of the most effective tools in that arena. Just look at the recent Philly Cops dressing down with mandatory remedial training regarding firearms in the State of Pennsylvania. And that Judicial Mandated training applied especially to the Philly Chief of Police. Power Tripping bad cops in Seattle are now in the process of remedial training at the behest of the Federal Justice Department scrunity.

[freebirdbus]

Originally Posted by Txcirclem

Absolutely!!

It is my extensive experience that no one prosecutes a 4th ammendment claim more vigorously than a law breaker.

So if I have my Forth Amendment rights trampled on by one of those 'bad' cops (" And if that is the type of "Cop" with whom you are dealing, your consent or refusal is moot. "), I should just forget about it, for I must be as much of a criminal as that cop is, just because I complained?

Wow. No prejudice in that or in your previous statements at all. I guess that says something about your respect of the Constitution. And for your fellow American.

[RickO]

Originally Posted by JadedDancer

As for the search itself and how that transpired, none of us were there so we don't know exactly what caused that action to take place, unless this was you, and I am not totally sure since you didn't' indicate.

What Mythplaced did indicate clearly was that this was a hypothetical situation and not a real experience...

If there was any reasonable cause that led to the search...the question is - did the patient have a prescription for this to show the officer? If not, it is totally understandable he/she was arrested, as I am sure MANY might claim it is "medicinal".

Here too, I think the point is that a prescription from a Colorado MD would do no good outside of that state and the "medicine" would still be illegal.

It is the onus of the user of the prescribed drug that is otherwise illegal to have that script available to show an officer.

Doesn't work when a drug is legal in one state but not in another. Prescriptions will do you no good.

IF he/she did have it available, then the officer should have verified the validity of the script before arresting him/her.

Personally, I doubt I would say no to a search. You are opening up an even bigger can of worms in my opinion. Sure, somethings are within our rights, but it is a question of which is the most logical course of action: go ahead and consent since you know you are innocent and they won't find anything or 2) don't consent, and whether this is your legal riight or not you have suddenly just raised the suspicions of the officer, and we all know that the attitude of the officer in any incident is very key. I'd rather not sour that attitude by not cooperationg.

Isn't that logic the same as assuming a citizen has something to hide when they don't take the stand while on trial? A 5th amendment violation.

JMHO. A lawyer might not 'congratulate' me for this action, but I will hopefully not have to have him congratulate my payment either.

Freedom isn't free.

Rick

[Txcirclem]

Originally Posted by JohnQ

and in addition if it is a "Bad Cop" or a "Power Trip Cop", your refusal makes it mandatory for other cops & the courts to become involved, i.e., the warrent process. And if the search turns up nothing, it only reinforces your future action which as a good citizen should be a complaint against the officer. Police management does root out bad power tripping cops, or even inept cops (be surprised at how many) and citizen complaints are one of the most effective tools in that arena. Just look at the recent Philly Cops dressing down with mandatory remedial training regarding firearms in the State of Pennsylvania. And that Judicial Mandated training applied especially to the Philly Chief of Police. Power Tripping bad cops in Seattle are now in the process of remedial training at the behest of the Federal Justice Department scrunity.

I believe you broke the code!!

Cops do not live and work in a vaccum. If one has overstepped his or her authority, it is absolutely your duty to report the violation to their superior officers. Many times this type of violation is a matter of inferior training, but if they are violating your civil rights, I will stand at the head of the line to remove them from the force and prosecute them. I already do. But if no one reports this activity, it is tantamount to condoning the activity.

As for me, I have nothing to hide and welcome the opportunity to show this to any law enforcement officer. I also warn them ahead of time that there are NO unloaded firearms in my vehicle as they are all loaded.

"A well regulated Malitia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If he wants to search, have at it!

[RickO]

Originally Posted by Txcirclem

And I believe that anywhere outside of California, possession of marijuana is illegal.

Change the law if you do not agree with it.

That's why we live in such a great Republic.

Just a point of clarification... I believe there are now 11 states with laws approving medicinal use of marijuana under certain circumstances. However, I think that no type of reciprocal agreements are in place which means that even though one has a legal prescription to posses in one of those states... once they cross their state line they are just like any other citizen in possession of a controlled substance.... toast.

Rick