Coach searched

[Old Car Nut]

Originally Posted by LeeOts

OCN, is your post directed to me?

Only in that giving in so as to not be arrested is exactly what they (bad cop) want you to do. Fear of that will not cause me to surrender. More as an example than directly at you. No offense meant.

As to SCOTUS let us all keep in mind:
Korematsu v. United States
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Wickard v. Filburn
(There are others, but some of them will only start a fight)

All of those were wrong and all of them a violation of constitutional rights. Just because they sit on the high court does not make it right. A black robe does not make you Lord and Master.

Heien v. North Carolina is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

[Chuck 1935]

Having been friends with a few LEO's over the years and having been stopped by a few, I can say that every one of them that I have had contact with have all had an attitude. They have to portray a superior force or they will get a push back. This is true for the honorable ones. You get a bully and it will not end well at all if you try to push back !
That is why I love the suggestion that I will not submit to search but you are more than welcome to let me show you around my Motorhome.
Fortunately I have never been asked to search my MH and I hope I never will.

[flynnwalter]

Freebird
As you found out, everybody thinks he/she knows an awful lot about traffic law and searches. Grandpere got it right, the officer asked and you gave him permission, which makes the search legal. How so many folks decided the officer had no probable cause, etc. tells you just how emotional folks are about this subject, and how poorly a number of folks understand this issue. There are no hard and fast rules about everything behind the driver's seat being considered a 'residence'. I don't know where folks come up with these things when most of us carry a computer in our pockets 24/7 and can Google just about everything. Suffice it to say each state has its own laws which change without any notice to us. I can say the Officer may have done a poor job of explaining what was going on, but we don't know just what information he was privy to. The information you receive here about search and seizure will be worth about what you have paid for it. Do your homework, and travel safe and wise.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by LakeKerrGuy

Moxy, I agree totally. California v Carney is about a search of a motorhome with probable cause. My problem with this case is that it ties a motorhome in with the original case that allows for warrantless searches of vehicles. That is Carol v United States.

As for the last part of your reply ..."higher expectation of privacy in a real motorhome being used as a residence by legitimate owners."

The SCOTUS ruled that a motorhome was no different than an auto when the mh is on the road. This is part of the ruling that I believe may be decided differently today. The "motorhome" in the case sited was a very small Class C. A far cry from a 45' Class A.

IMO, everyone should read both SCOTUS opinions. Carol v United States and Carney v California.

Originally Posted by Caroll vs United States

The Court held, however, that

[i]t would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor, and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search... . [T]hose lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official, authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.[4]
The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used.[5]

I think a key issue here is the line that states "The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used."So if you stated "I don't consent to a search but I'm willing to stay here while you get a warrant" might likely shut the LEO down.

I think SCOTUS made a very large error in that the police can still detain you or the vehicle while they are getting a warrant. This should be the overriding rule when dealing with a Motorhome and any other motorized vehicle.

One question I have is does the term Motorhome legally cover a Travel Trailer or 5th wheel. If not then they could search the tow vehicle but would have to wait for a warrant to search the trailer.

[powerboatr]

Originally Posted by Timon

I think a key issue here is the line that states "The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used."So if you stated "I don't consent to a search but I'm willing to stay here while you get a warrant" might likely shut the LEO down.

I think SCOTUS made a very large error in that the police can still detain you or the vehicle while they are getting a warrant. This should be the overriding rule when dealing with a Motorhome and any other motorized vehicle.

One question I have is does the term Motorhome legally cover a Travel Trailer or 5th wheel. If not then they could search the tow vehicle but would have to wait for a warrant to search the trailer.

Correct, just politely say no and agree to wait for the warrant...inside your vehicle or m/h. not along side the highway and especially not with my dogs on the side of the highway.

but then again i dont partake in behaviors that allow illegal items to be found,
so one they finished the warrant search...we would have copy of such warrant and depending on its verbiage..we would be filing a complaint and subsequent actions

again we as United States CITIZENS have rights, so lets not throw em out because of an overzealous leo person or persons.

practice patience and be polite but stand firm on your rights
if states surrounding those state where marjane is legal choose to target vehicles coming form those states based on simply that..we have a problem.

[flynnwalter]

Freebird et al.
As retired LEF here is what I would do: Advise the requesting officer that if he can articulate a sufficient reason for the search then I will consent to it. When he hears "articulate" that may trigger legal speak he studied in search and seizure class or read about. Wait for his/her response before deciding. While I don't like anyone coming into our coach and searching, I tend to look at what is the path of least hassle. Arguing before the Supreme Court is wonderful for folks to blow smoke about on this blog, but it means you have already lost big time just to get to the Supreme Court--even if you 'win'. Watching tv does not prepare the average citizen for what happens in our court system. I didn't like lawyers and courts when I was getting paid to appear, so I surely want to avoid them now. No, I don't believe my consenting to a search of our coach is going to cause our country to fall apart, thank you. The counterpart to awaiting a search warrant is 'exigent circumstances' such as hot pursuit when a suspect runs into a house. So, its not really necessary to advise an officer that you will await the search warrant, since he can either claim exigent circumstances (you could drive away) and make a warrantless search, or he could impound your motorhome and have it searched at "his" place and with you not in it. Police depts usually have contract cranes that work fine for cars or small trucks. Some heavy coaches require a huge flatbed to be towed or they will be damaged. What if your coach gets screwed up by the contract crane? Where will you stay if they don't search your RV right away at their evidence lot? Yup, you can sue for that, too. I bet that would be quick and easy as well--not! So, unless I smell a big rat, I would lean toward a consent search. I did not retire and get a coach to spend my time fighting lawyers and bureaucrats, who get paid for it. Okay, call me a coward. You go ahead and fight. Maybe I'll contribute to your cause a few years down the road. Believe me, you'll be needing money.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by flynnwalter

Freebird et al.
As retired LEF here is what I would do: Advise the requesting officer that if he can articulate a sufficient reason for the search then I will consent to it. When he hears "articulate" that may trigger legal speak he studied in search and seizure class or read about. Wait for his/her response before deciding. While I don't like anyone coming into our coach and searching, I tend to look at what is the path of least hassle.

I like the suggestion to use the term "articulate" since that forces them to explain why they want to search however I still disagree to connect to the search. If I remember correctly if you consent anything they find can be use where in the case of a warrant only what the warrant articulates can be used.

You seem to forget that once you consent you're screwed if they find anything that is illegal even if you had no idea it was illegal or was not illegal in almost every other state including your home state.

The one example I keep using and for good reason is on prescription drugs. I bet that 95% of us transfer some of our prescription drugs into smaller containers such as weekly pill boxes so we take them at the right time. So lets say you take a drug that is restricted which you had put in to your pill box. Lets also say that you just put the last pills into the box so you tossed the empty bottle knowing that your refill will be waiting at your next stop. Now you get stopped and you consent to a search and they open your pill box and the officer finds the restricted drug but you can't supply the original bottle. Boom, you're screwed if he decides to be a hard ass.

You might say that the above example is silly but people have had this happen at their homes and some have had this happen when they put their pills for the day in a small bottle they carried with them. Sure it's technically illegal but it's something that really can happen to someone. And if you happen to be traveling through Tennessee or some other area where they try to confiscate property to fill the city coffers you could loose you coach.

Another dumb example but one that can happen. You have a tree on your private property that drops cones which happens to be the same as ones you're not allowed to take out of certain federal or state forests. You can legally have them since they came from your property but you get stopped and consent then they find them in your coach on something you use as a decoration. You can now be arrested and have lot your legal option because you let them in by consenting to a search.

So at least not consenting to a search gives you a possible out where consenting causes you to loose all of your protections. I see no upside to consenting to a search especially since 90% of the time if you refuse they will let you move on since they know they don't have probable cause.

I'm still wondering if a travel or 5th wheel trailer falls under the same rules as a motorhome.

[jimmyjnr]

Originally Posted by flynnwalter

Freebird et al.

As retired LEF here is what I would do: Advise the requesting officer that if he can articulate a sufficient reason for the search then I will consent to it. When he hears "articulate" that may trigger legal speak he studied in search and seizure class or read about. Wait for his/her response before deciding. While I don't like anyone coming into our coach and searching, I tend to look at what is the path of least hassle. Arguing before the Supreme Court is wonderful for folks to blow smoke about on this blog, but it means you have already lost big time just to get to the Supreme Court--even if you 'win'. Watching tv does not prepare the average citizen for what happens in our court system. I didn't like lawyers and courts when I was getting paid to appear, so I surely want to avoid them now. No, I don't believe my consenting to a search of our coach is going to cause our country to fall apart, thank you. The counterpart to awaiting a search warrant is 'exigent circumstances' such as hot pursuit when a suspect runs into a house. So, its not really necessary to advise an officer that you will await the search warrant, since he can either claim exigent circumstances (you could drive away) and make a warrantless search, or he could impound your motorhome and have it searched at "his" place and with you not in it. Police depts usually have contract cranes that work fine for cars or small trucks. Some heavy coaches require a huge flatbed to be towed or they will be damaged. What if your coach gets screwed up by the contract crane? Where will you stay if they don't search your RV right away at their evidence lot? Yup, you can sue for that, too. I bet that would be quick and easy as well--not! So, unless I smell a big rat, I would lean toward a consent search. I did not retire and get a coach to spend my time fighting lawyers and bureaucrats, who get paid for it. Okay, call me a coward. You go ahead and fight. Maybe I'll contribute to your cause a few years down the road. Believe me, you'll be needing money.

Well said , I am with you , life is too short to fight lawyers racking up massive bills that I will no doubt end up paying .

[Freebird1958]

Originally Posted by flynnwalter

Freebird et al.
As retired LEF here is what I would do: Advise the requesting officer that if he can articulate a sufficient reason for the search then I will consent to it. When he hears "articulate" that may trigger legal speak he studied in search and seizure class or read about. Wait for his/her response before deciding. While I don't like anyone coming into our coach and searching, I tend to look at what is the path of least hassle. Arguing before the Supreme Court is wonderful for folks to blow smoke about on this blog, but it means you have already lost big time just to get to the Supreme Court--even if you 'win'. Watching tv does not prepare the average citizen for what happens in our court system. I didn't like lawyers and courts when I was getting paid to appear, so I surely want to avoid them now. No, I don't believe my consenting to a search of our coach is going to cause our country to fall apart, thank you. The counterpart to awaiting a search warrant is 'exigent circumstances' such as hot pursuit when a suspect runs into a house. So, its not really necessary to advise an officer that you will await the search warrant, since he can either claim exigent circumstances (you could drive away) and make a warrantless search, or he could impound your motorhome and have it searched at "his" place and with you not in it. Police depts usually have contract cranes that work fine for cars or small trucks. Some heavy coaches require a huge flatbed to be towed or they will be damaged. What if your coach gets screwed up by the contract crane? Where will you stay if they don't search your RV right away at their evidence lot? Yup, you can sue for that, too. I bet that would be quick and easy as well--not! So, unless I smell a big rat, I would lean toward a consent search. I did not retire and get a coach to spend my time fighting lawyers and bureaucrats, who get paid for it. Okay, call me a coward. You go ahead and fight. Maybe I'll contribute to your cause a few years down the road. Believe me, you'll be needing money.

First of all I thank all you that responded to this thread. And Flynnwalter, I am not 100% sure what LEF means? I feel your observation and suggestion is spot on. Please, put yourself in my friends shoes when he was approuched by this State Trooper and was asked to search their MH. My friends wife and two granddaughters were scared to death at what was happening. He had nothing to hide, but he knew of his rights. With having a great vacation and heading home. They just wanted to get it over and get home. The LEO did not exhibit the most professional demeanor. It was his comment "he is checking all MH`s he stops". Was it because of the state they were leaving has legalize marijuana laws? Or was it wrong place at the wrong time? Or was it human trafficking? One of the reasons I started this thread, is how many times is this happening. Or is it a single incident? I myself would not allow a search to be done without a very good reason, I can understand if there was a Amber Alert (child kidnapping) happened in the area! But did the officer abused his power, and how many other times did he do this to other MH owners? Again thank you all for some awesome responses, looking forward to more.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by Freebird1958

It was his comment "he is checking all MH`s he stops". Was it because of the state they were leaving has legalize marijuana laws? Or was it wrong place at the wrong time? Or was it human trafficking? One of the reasons I started this thread, is how many times is this happening. Or is it a single incident? I myself would not allow a search to be done without a very good reason, I can understand if there was a Amber Alert (child kidnapping) happened in the area! But did the officer abused his power, and how many other times did he do this to other MH owners? Again thank you all for some awesome responses, looking forward to more.

Once he made that statement it was proof he had NO probable cause and was just profiling and abusing his authority. This is why you want audio and video running. I would have told him no. No matter if he left or stayed and searched I would have taked the video, send a copy to several friends, posted on YouTube and then gone to the press and filed an abuse report because that's what it was, abuse of office.

That's the kinda of LEO that gives all LEOs a bad name and they needs to be removed from office.

As far as the possible reasons those are the ones that they put road blocks up for not random stops.

[BobGed]

It's a nice sunny day in AZ with the temperature around 100°. You've just told an officer that he cannot search your vehicle without a warrant, which of course you both have to wait for. What makes you think he's going to let you and your traveling companions sit in the air conditioned comfort of your coach with access to your bathroom and other facilities?

If he, or his superiors, are able to convince a magistrate to issue a warrant, then they have offered enough proof for probable cause.

I'd be willing to bet the officer would require you to exit the vehicle citing any one or more of a number of reasons. As an example if he suspects you are carrying illegal drugs, he would not want to give you the opportunity to flush them down the commode. He might cite officer safety. How does he know whether or not you're carrying a concealed weapon?

Now let's assume that after receiving the warrant and performing the search they come up with zip, nada? You're upset, so you want to sue. I wouldn't put money on your suit, but I sure would put money on a drastic change of your travel plans.

[koda59]

After reading these post I have come to realize I wasted over 30 years of my life in the military defending this country and the Constitution. I guess now if stopped I will just lay down and tell the cop to do whatever he wants because I now realize that I have no rights left in this country. Maybe, if I was in this country illegally I would have rights.

[powerboatr]

Originally Posted by koda59

After reading these post I have come to realize I wasted over 30 years of my life in the military defending this country and the Constitution. I guess now if stopped I will just lay down and tell the cop to do whatever he wants because I now realize that I have no rights left in this country. Maybe, if I was in this country illegally I would have rights.

AMEN

secondly the statement about prescription drugs and the original container

in texas there is no such law...trust me we have exhausted lots legal opinions trying to find the state statute , because one of us has some high powered meds.
now prudence would say if have 100 hydrocodones in a weekly container..you may have some issues

but a weeks worth....they have to prove intent to sell or distribute.
again attitude s everything

most police are just doing their best to do the job
there are BAD apples, so us good apples, need to spread the love and be nice....but never ever give up your rights just because some one asks you to......

[Old Car Nut]

The number of folks that don't want to be bothered to resist or afraid and will surrender astounds me.

SMH

Sure explains a lot about where we are today as a country.