UK Laws - USA Laws - Police State

Stormee wrote:In UK police can stop and search you if they suspect you of committing a crime, they say 'suspect you' even when they are just being pig headed and do not have evidence.
They can stop you whilst driving and ask for your driving docs, search your vehicle even though you have not committed any crime, you must let them do it or be arrested,

My understanding is that in USA you can refuse the above by quoting the 'Constitution' Amendments.

Police state or not???????????????

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Stormee wrote:In UK police can stop and search you if they suspect you of committing a crime, they say 'suspect you' even when they are just being pig headed and do not have evidence.
They can stop you whilst driving and ask for your driving docs, search your vehicle even though you have not committed any crime, you must let them do it or be arrested,

My understanding is that in USA you can refuse the above by quoting the 'Constitution' Amendments.

Police state or not???????????????

In the U.S. there's no sure-fire way to stop a police officer in his/her tracks besides, in some cases, demanding to see a warrant to search your property. There are all sorts of circumstances in which no warrant is required, including the suspicion that a crime is occurring on your property.

If you're charged with a crime and you believe the police had no right to enter your property, that would be used by your legal representation to try to have the trial thrown out, which is actually a great incentive for police to follow the law. They don't want to apprehend someone who clearly did something bad and then see them evade justice on a technicality.

Aaron Nisenson, General Counsel, I.U.P.A. wrote:Recently the Supreme Court threw out decades of case law involving searches incident to a vehicle stop and arrest. In Gant v. Arizona, the officers had stopped and arrested a suspect for driving with a suspended license. As a result of the arrest, they searched the car and found drugs. This common occurrence caused the Supreme Court to revisit the law surrounding vehicle searches, and to formulate a new rule regarding these searches.

Previously, the Supreme Court had determined that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of an arrest of the vehicle’s recent occupant in order to ensure that the occupant could not gain access to weapons or destroy evidence. Under the new rule whether the suspect may gain access to a weapon or destroy evidence is to be determined at the time the officer is searching the suspect, and not at the time of the arrest. However, as the Court noted, the suspect is almost always searched after the suspect is removed from the car, arrested, and handcuffed or otherwise secured. Because the suspect cannot gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence while secured, there is no basis for searching the compartment of the car incident to the search of the suspect. Therefore, generally searches of the compartment of the car cannot be conducted if the suspect is secured prior to the search.

However, the Court explained that there are a number of exceptions to this new rule. First, the Court recognized that a car could be searched if there was the possibility that the suspect could reenter the car. Therefore, if the suspect is physically searched before he is arrested and secured, then the compartment may be searched, However, as the dissent noted, this exposes the officers to greater danger because “the ability to search the car turned on whether an arresting officer chooses to secure an arrestee prior to conducting a search, rather than searching first and securing the arrestee later, the rule would “create a perverse incentive for an arresting officer to prolong the period during which the arrestee is kept in an area where he could pose a danger to the officer.”” Therefore, the Court recognized that these situations are “rare.” Similarly, if a suspect is stopped and searched, but is not arrested and may therefore return to the car, the officer can search the car to ensure that there are no weapons where the officers reasonably believe the suspect is dangerous and may gain access to a weapon. Of course, this presents the odd result that a suspect’s car is less likely to get searched if he is arrested than if he is not arrested.

Second, the Court held that “that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.”” The Court recognized that “In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” On the other hand, the Court explained that the arrest of individuals for a drug offense may create a reasonable belief that evidence of that crime may be found in the vehicle. Unfortunately, as the dissent noted, the Court did not flesh out how this standard would work in practice.

Third, the Court acknowledged that if “there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 ( 1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. . . Ross allows searches for evidence relevant to offenses other than the offense of arrest, and the scope of the search authorized is broader.”

Fourth, the Court did not disturb certain other exceptions to this rule. As the dissent explained,

“[I]t is not uncommon for an officer to arrest some but not all of the occupants of a vehicle. The Court’s decision in this case does not address the question whether in such a situation a search of the passenger compartment may be justified on the ground that the occupants who are not arrested could gain access to the car and retrieve a weapon or destroy evidence. [Also], there may be situations in which an arresting officer has cause to fear that persons who were not passengers in the car might attempt to retrieve a weapon or evidence from the car while the officer is still on the scene.”

Finally, there may be other avenues for reviewing the contents of the car, such as by inventorying the contents if the car is taken into possession of the department.

Stormee wrote:Interesting.

Can you answer this, IYO is the Supreme Court overriding the Constitution?

Can a driver under the Constitution legally refuse his consent to his vehicle being searched by a police officer if he has not been arrested or genuinely suspected of a crime?
In other words, can a cop just stop someone and say there has been burglaries in this area so we are searching your car to see if you have something you should not?

Stormee wrote:Interesting.

Can you answer this, IYO is the Supreme Court overriding the Constitution?

Can a driver under the Constitution legally refuse his consent to his vehicle being searched by a police officer if he has not been arrested or genuinely suspected of a crime?
In other words, can a cop just stop someone and say there has been burglaries in this area so we are searching your car to see if you have something you should not?

Stormee wrote:Can you answer this, IYO is the Supreme Court overriding the Constitution?