re: Question about getting pulled over

quote:

---

When the police stop someone can cops open locked compartments?

---

No. They can only search within your arms reach as well for "safety".

No, without probable cause they cannot open closed or locked areas or items within the vehicle. You can consent to them opening things, but they cannot open without your consent. "Line of sight" used to be the standard, but that has been stretched over the years.
If they attempt to open closed areas, you are within your rights to demand that they stop the search of closed or locked compartments. They will attempt to convince you that they have the right because you consented to a search of the vehicle. You only consented to a "line of sight" search, however.
It is YOUR responsibility to know your rights when interacting with law enforcement. It is not their job to inform you of all rights you have. Likewise, it is not your responsibility to do their job for them or to even help them do their jobs.
In any instance of dealing with LE, be it pleasant or pointing out your lawful rights, it is wise to be as respectful as possible, even in a situation that you know you are within your rights.
In reality, though, you have little recourse on the side of the road. You can protect yourself to the best of your ability by knowing your rights.

quote:

---

When the police stop someone can cops open locked compartments?

Curious what the law is on this.

---

shite man, Jay Z wasn't even fricking cryptic.

"Well do you mind if I look around the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you goin' need a warrant for that

fricking kids these days.

Here is the actual answer for those interested. In sum, if they have enough PC to get a warrant then they don't need the warrant. The exception is called the Mobile Conveyance rule. It basically says, "if we wait around on a warrant the car might get away, so we don't have to get one. We just have to prove later that we had enough Probable Cause that we could have gotten one."

In the monumental case of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) the Supreme Court found that a warrantless search of an automobile was reasonable if it was based on probable cause. In Carroll, law enforcement officers ripped up the upholstery of the defendant’s automobile after they developed probable cause that he was transporting bootleg alcohol. The Supreme Court held that this search was reasonable, even without a warrant, because of the inherent mobility associated with automobiles. Today, the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is well known. Yet does the exception allow law enforcement officers to open locked containers found while engaged in a lawful mobile conveyance search? Based on the many cases decided since the Carroll decision, the answer is yes. The Carroll case itself dealt with the destruction of the defendant’s property. To find the evidence sought, the officers had to rip into the automobile’s upholstery, which is even more intrusive than a search of a locked container. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found the search to be reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

In California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its opinion in Ross by stating that if an
officer has probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile, he or she may also conduct a warrantless search of any containers found therein that may contain the item sought. In reviewing its decision in Carroll, the Court reasoned that if the destruction of the interior of the automobile was reasonable, then looking inside a closed container was reasonable. Logically, opening a locked container would be no more unreasonable than destroying the interior of an automobile.

quote:

---

This is so true. The law is they have to have probable cause, but the k9 will hit on 100% of the cars they inspect.

---

that's because their handlers can give a hand signal the dog is trained to respond to and alert even without smelling anything.

these "fake alerts" are standard training and used to get around illegal search issues the same way a cop can just say he "thinks" he smells weed

most car searches are illegal and unconstitutional but the courts wont say shite about it

do you realize they can use your refusal to consent to a search as probable cause to search since you wouldn't refuse unless you were hiding something illegal? I shite you not, its true

Not without probable cause, but if they ask and you have nothing to hide its best to allow them because if they REALLY want to, they will find a reason.. Or say they have PC. But at that point be cool with them.. Will you video it. Try to video the area before they start just because you never know if they will try to plant shite on you (odds are they will not, but you really never know).

That's the best way to approach it if you don't feel like having to deal with a bunch of bullshite.

There is a difference between what they are/are not supposed to do and what happens. Arguing with them will only make the situation in the moment worse and if you stopped by some emotional frick boy cop he might end up doing something stupid that could seriously injure you.

“Probable Cause”

Back the Blue.