I never want us as a people to be at the place where some policeman yells- Put your hands on your head! get down on the ground! place your hands behind your back!....surrender your weapon...and gulchers just submit...ugh

thanks herb :)

You positive about the "no record check?" I have three friends who are cops, One State Trooper, one Wake County Sheriff's Deputy and one Harnett County Deputy. Their Standard Operating Procedure since WAY before 2009, is to 1), Call into dispatch give license vehicle type and location prior to stepping out of their car. Their laptops are used to pull up the records of the vehicle and person who "owns" the plate.

I am a conceal carry. When I am pulled over I am required to: Roll down window, Place hands on top of steering wheel, and tell the officer I have a permit to carry, and inform him/her if I am or am not currently carrying a weapon.

they KNOW before I even stop that I have a conceal carry, just like they would know that the plate was owned by someone and the assumption is the owner of the plate is driving.

You sure there was no record check on the plate?

you give a practical response. but it is not as it should be. This is wrong.

no -YOU as a citizen should have to pass the bar. that's how the law comes down. You get NO pass for not knowing the law. period. How is this productive. Do you know what laws you have already broken in Obamacare? no you don't. that you rest at night because they have not enforced the laws you have surely broken is the sleep of the oblivious. The laws under the Constitution and common law were originally set up to work for YOU. the police should have very NARROW leeway. they are the ones with the authority under the law to use force. thus, their actions must be strictly in line with the law.

hear, hear

law and order evlwhtguy-you do not disappoint

not him. the precedent now set for YOU. after all, I left the US in part because of the police state

You lose your bet. There was no record check in this case. If the search was denied and the driver detained you say the officer could "wait[] on a warrant." Really? And what would be the probable cause for the issuance of a warrant on those facts? Answer: None. So there would be no warrant issued or it would be subject to being quashed if issued and the subsequent discovered evidence (i.e. the cocaine) would be suppressed at trial and no conviction obtained.

I hope instead that you blame the legislators who passed the stupid law, right?

Yes, Miranda applies only after you are in custody. So what, you are still innocent, just like the driver of the car. I realize you understand you have the right to refuse a search. My point is that many many people do not understand that and they are, in effect, coerced into allowing the search. They literally think they will be arrested if they do not allow the search. I repeat, what harm does it do to inform them of their right to refuse the search? As for your joke, it's pretty funny, but we all know what would happen in real life: The officer would not call his captain. He would arrest the driver and search the car immediately. Upon finding nothing he would cuff and arrest the driver for providing false info to the police. And he would be convicted. Some joke.

Don't forget the fed govt goal that there will be no innocent citizens.

Well, the Miranda is WHEN your arrested. As far as the other, I have always known I can refuse any request for a search without a warrant and would certainly do so, then inform the officer that while we wait for the warrant I will be contacting my attorney.
Reminds me of a joke:
A police officer pulls a guy over for broken tail light and speeding 4 mph over the limit and has the following exchange:
Officer: May I see your driver's license?
Driver: I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my 5th DUI.
Officer: May I see the owner's card for this vehicle?
Driver: It's not my car. I stole it.
Officer: The car is stolen?
Driver: That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the owner's card in the glove box when I was putting my gun in there.
Officer: There's a gun in the glove box?
Driver: Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who owns this car and stuffed her in the trunk.
Officer: There's a BODY in the TRUNK?!?!?
Driver: Yes, sir.
Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached the driver to handle the tense situation:
Captain: Sir, can I see your license?
Driver: Sure. Here it is. (It was valid).
Captain: Who's car is this?
Driver: It's mine, officer. Here's the owner's card. (The driver owned the car).
Captain: Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun in it?
Driver: Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it. Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.
Captain: Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a body in it.
Driver: No problem. (Trunk is opened; no body).
Captain: I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told him you didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glove box, and that there was a dead body in the trunk.
Driver: Oh Yeah, I'll bet the liar told you I was speeding, too!!!!

I do not think he was hauled off for the trace amounts on his $20.00 bill. Also since the TSA went into effect I refuse to fly, I will drive 3,000 miles before I subject myself to that BS. If all the people who WHINE about the TSA stop flying for 6 months, I guarantee you that would all change, but if you put up with it, goodie for you. I refuse to tolerate it. And the only reason they continue is because people tolerate it.

I do my best. Guess what when I pay a fine for not wearing my seat belt, that is on me. I do not believe I should be forced to wear a seat belt. Scientific evidence is sketchy at best on the overall benefits of seat belts, but I pay my fine and don't blame the cops either.

There are traces of cocaine on most $20 bills. Bring in the cainine unit. What if he found oxycontin in my purse and I didn 't have the scrip on me. We are a nation of laws not law and order land. Do not pay you to see a criminal in every citizen. Pay you to stop people doing something criminal. You must relish your TSA patdowns.

Right, the driver knew there was cocaine in the car. Doesn't that imply that they didn't know they could refuse the search? Again, how could it be a bad thing to tell them that? Unless you oppose Miranda advisements also because it is the defendant's "fault" if they don't know they have a right to remain silent.

I am betting that when the officer pulled over this person, checked in with the central dispatch (SOP), ran the plate there were previous arrests or charges for drugs. You ever wonder what those laptops are that cops have on stands and what they are used for?.
So he "ASKED" if he could search, the person said sure. Now regardless of his knowledge, or fear there would be a warrant requested for a search, he/she COMPLIED, making the additional search legal.

Let's suppose they refused. The officer can detain that person or release them, If he detained and waited on a warrant, again no violation of rights.

I guess the REAL answer is DO NOT BE A BRAINDEAD MORON and carry around COCAIN in your car PERIOD!!!!

I stopped once to help another lady change a tire. We were both in heels. I pulled over to help when I saw her changing her tire with a state trooper pulled over behind her with his lights on for safety and doing paperwork in his car. He never helped. That was fine. Another time I had a blowout and a fireman who had just gotten off his shift would not take no for an answer. Put on the spare and followed me to Tireworld and paid for my tire. I found out after it was all done. All kinds of people in the world. Where I live the police are the school crossing guards. They also patrol the neighborhoods. They don't give out many tickets but if you 're in an accident you better have insurance. People have forgotten what freedom they had 30 years ago

I agree with the manner in which you represent the present reality, but I do think that the Next Time a member of the public is damaged by a ruling that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' a canny lawyer could now reply: Ah, but it is! Per the Supreme Court. (yadda yadda)

Jan

Yes we ' ll keep making laws and we can count on you to follow them impeccably wood. :)

It is reasonable to not necessaily know you have a brakelight out. And even if you do you have to drive somewhere to replace it.

Except there is overwhelming precedent against citizens on point. I appreciate woodlena's analysis nut the appellate court disagreed. They said the man should not have been stopped. Just as when you read someone their Miranda rights you should inform them they do not have to submit to searches where there is no warrant.

Such is the case of my Little Red character, though not quite the youngest of seven brothers. Due to circumstances I shall not divulge due to the lack of a copyright, Germans think she would make a great hostage but just kill themselves trying to catch her. Don't know if I'll finish the dang thing to my satisfaction, though I have completed a first draft with an ending. It also has holes I'm filling in.

This opens up another can of worms (one that's already perforated) - I certainly am not advocating "reaching out and bitch slapping" the cops, but the overall negative that the profession has been leaving in the lives of average American middle class is just not helping the cops at the time when they have also accumulated quite a baggage with the lower class, which, at the moment, happens to be well connected to the upper class.