If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
That is Pa. case law, not Ma. there fore not applicable to Mass. Mass already has its own case law on this.
am i being detained?
no...
am i free to go?
we just have some questions
am i being detained?
no, we're just talking.
then am i free to go?
We should practice saying "no". We should get together and role play "traffic stop" scenarios. MFS could offer courses, perhaps to train the cop role as well as the driver role.
Actually a class somewhere on that is not a bad idea. inerlogic's post above is pretty much exactly how I had it playing out in my head if last night ever happened to me, how i actually handled it wasn't even close. I blame that on a long drought of getting pulled over and dealing with cops, never mind getting pulled over for something way beyond a tail light out. Just didnt see that coming at all so between all the confusion and "wtf is this guy talking about" thoughts that whole "am i being detained - am i free to go" circle jerk never entered my mind. It just degraded it into a dick size contest fast.
I have a kid with her sister so that idea would make make the whole encounter with an entire shift of a police department all over me seem like a relaxing vacation. Pass.So did you still get it done with the "friend"?
I just assumed there on. I swear my uncle told me they turn on with the lights or some thing else . I might be fuzzy .
Roland what's the deal with the dash cam.
Hold on Officer, I need to read this. Oh s- hit I need my reading glasses. Hold on, Reference 1A,lolCredit card sized "quick reference guides" would be helpful out there, especially one with some sort of flow chart on how to respond when questioned.
no one rises to the occasion, you fall back to your training.....
We don't have them, neither does the local PD, sheriff's office, or tribal police. Beyond that, don't bet that it's working, especially when the recordings would work to your favor.
EDIT: Also, nice work by the OP. I just want to mention for anyone that isn't aware, if you do give consent to search, either intentionally or by accident, you ALWAYS have the right to revoke that consent at any time. Additionally, you can limit the consent to only specific locations. So you can say, "You may search my glovebox, but no where else." That would be stupid, though, so it's best to just refuse consent. And to repeat, if you find that you've granted consent without intending to, you absolutely have the right to revoke that consent.
I seem to recall having read a case where once you have given consent you can't change your mind because that's evidence you were getting nervous about them getting close to finding something... or something stupid like that.