Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below I know you are never supposed to talk to the police, but at what point do you stop talking? Is it after they have officially placed you under arrest? For example, lets say you have really bad luck and get pulled over, then the cop searches your car and finds 100 Dbol and asks you what they are. Do you say they are vitamins, or your prescription, or do you not say anything from the beginning? If he keeps asking questions like where you got them without placing you under arrest, can what you say be used against you? Thanks.
What to do when you are busted.
- Thread starter NCLifter
- Start date
My Supp= Roids!
New member
first off, he needs a reason to search. (probable cause).....and needs to search only for things, places in the scope of his search that he may find what it is he is looking for.
but lets assume you were arrested and the guy does an inventory search.
dont say anything. they will test one for controlled substances and what not using valtox kits....they will all come up negative. They will return them to you no questions asked.
but lets assume you were arrested and the guy does an inventory search.
dont say anything. they will test one for controlled substances and what not using valtox kits....they will all come up negative. They will return them to you no questions asked.
LITTLEHUNK
New member
say nothing
my friend is a lawyer and he said dont tell the cops nothing until you speak to your attorney and then the cops will stop questioning you.say "i would like to speak to my attorney".
my friend is a lawyer and he said dont tell the cops nothing until you speak to your attorney and then the cops will stop questioning you.say "i would like to speak to my attorney".
hypertrophy
New member
Practically speaking there is no difference speaking to law enforcement pre-arrest or post-arrest. After arrest, you must be advised of your rights. Pre-arrest, no advisement necessary.
If you gave the officer consent to search, than he can search for anything and does not need probable cause.
One bit of learned advice: never consent to a search.
If you gave the officer consent to search, than he can search for anything and does not need probable cause.
One bit of learned advice: never consent to a search.
In Califrornia a law was recently passed that is in effect in a couple other states also, and if you are pulled over for any traffic violation no matter how minor, you can be detained in jail for up to 48 hours, and during this time they can search your car to see if they can bust you for anything else.
Y
Yellowbomber
Guest
agree with all , talk first to your lawyer
It has been a few years since law school but if I had to use one rule it would be "never talk". If you are being harassed, a good line is "I want to speak to a lawyer", or words to that effect. This is supposed to get them off your back.
The problem is, the U.S. Supreme Court is not real big on the rights of criminal suspects and they have poked all kinds of holes in the Bill of Rights. Another problem is that some cops will lie (they figure that the ends justify the means) and a cop's word is much more likely to be believed over the word of someone accused of a crime.
Also, cops don't always need probable cause to do a search. Another problem is that is is often easy to invent "probable cause". Plenty of people have been nailed for possession of marijuana even after it was found in an illegal search because the cop lies and says he "smelled the odor of burnt marijuana".
It is a common misconception that the cops "have to tell the truth when questioning a suspect". They are permitted to lie and pull all kinds of dirty tricks (good cop, bad cop; give us the goods on your parther and we will do what we can for you, etc.) to get a suspect to give up incriminating information.
You can't really blame the cops for pushing the legal envelope as far as the courts will allow. After all, their job is to make arrests and get convictions.
A couple of other people have mentioned that you should never consent to a search. Good advice. Very often people get stopped on whatever pretense and the officer sort of innocently says "Do you mind if I search your car". Some people think they cannot refuse or think that if they refuse, this will give the cop cause to search. It is true that many cops are going to search no matter what you do, but if they don't have "probable cause" or consent, there is a very good chance that your lawyer could have any evidence that is found thrown out.
This reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine during our first year of law school. He was driving in the desert near Las Vegas. My friend at that time had long hair, and the local cops apparently assumed that anyone with long hair was up to no good. They pulled him over on some pretense, I think they claimed his brake light was out when it wasn't. The officer spit out real fast "Do you have any weapons, do you mind if we search". My buddy said "No", denying that he had any weapons. Of course, the officer considered this a green light to search his car. If my buddy said "Yes", the officer would consider this an admission that my buddy had weapons. Anyway, the officer starts going through the whole car. In the meantime, my buddy starts thinking about what they've been teaching us in criminal procedure class, and when the officer starts looking into things much too small to contain a weapon, my buddy says "Why are you looking in that, it is obviously too small to contain a weapon." Cop says, "You consented to a search". My buddy responds "I withdraw my consent". If my buddy had been carrying contraband, this would have been a good move. However, the cop made it clear that if my buddy withdrew consent, the cop was going to arrest him on some trumped up charge or otherwise make life miserable. So, wanting to get on his way as soon as possible, my buddy decided to let this asshole go through everything until he finally gave up. Moral of story: never assume that law enforcement plays fair.
All that being said, if somebody was pulled over and foolishly had 100 dbols sitting in plain view and the officer asked what they were, it would probably be a better idea to say they are vitamins in the hope that he won't go farther. If you clam up, he will likely assume that they are contraband and may confiscate them and have them tested = trouble.
Keep in mind that another exception to the general 4th amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is that a cop has the right to pat people down or search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons that might be used against him. This is called a "Terry search". Moral of story, if you must carry something illegal in a car, keep it in the trunk.
Now if you are arrested, then there is no way you should say a word outside the presence of your lawyer, no matter what they may say or offer you.
All right, thats enough rambling.
The problem is, the U.S. Supreme Court is not real big on the rights of criminal suspects and they have poked all kinds of holes in the Bill of Rights. Another problem is that some cops will lie (they figure that the ends justify the means) and a cop's word is much more likely to be believed over the word of someone accused of a crime.
Also, cops don't always need probable cause to do a search. Another problem is that is is often easy to invent "probable cause". Plenty of people have been nailed for possession of marijuana even after it was found in an illegal search because the cop lies and says he "smelled the odor of burnt marijuana".
It is a common misconception that the cops "have to tell the truth when questioning a suspect". They are permitted to lie and pull all kinds of dirty tricks (good cop, bad cop; give us the goods on your parther and we will do what we can for you, etc.) to get a suspect to give up incriminating information.
You can't really blame the cops for pushing the legal envelope as far as the courts will allow. After all, their job is to make arrests and get convictions.
A couple of other people have mentioned that you should never consent to a search. Good advice. Very often people get stopped on whatever pretense and the officer sort of innocently says "Do you mind if I search your car". Some people think they cannot refuse or think that if they refuse, this will give the cop cause to search. It is true that many cops are going to search no matter what you do, but if they don't have "probable cause" or consent, there is a very good chance that your lawyer could have any evidence that is found thrown out.
This reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine during our first year of law school. He was driving in the desert near Las Vegas. My friend at that time had long hair, and the local cops apparently assumed that anyone with long hair was up to no good. They pulled him over on some pretense, I think they claimed his brake light was out when it wasn't. The officer spit out real fast "Do you have any weapons, do you mind if we search". My buddy said "No", denying that he had any weapons. Of course, the officer considered this a green light to search his car. If my buddy said "Yes", the officer would consider this an admission that my buddy had weapons. Anyway, the officer starts going through the whole car. In the meantime, my buddy starts thinking about what they've been teaching us in criminal procedure class, and when the officer starts looking into things much too small to contain a weapon, my buddy says "Why are you looking in that, it is obviously too small to contain a weapon." Cop says, "You consented to a search". My buddy responds "I withdraw my consent". If my buddy had been carrying contraband, this would have been a good move. However, the cop made it clear that if my buddy withdrew consent, the cop was going to arrest him on some trumped up charge or otherwise make life miserable. So, wanting to get on his way as soon as possible, my buddy decided to let this asshole go through everything until he finally gave up. Moral of story: never assume that law enforcement plays fair.
All that being said, if somebody was pulled over and foolishly had 100 dbols sitting in plain view and the officer asked what they were, it would probably be a better idea to say they are vitamins in the hope that he won't go farther. If you clam up, he will likely assume that they are contraband and may confiscate them and have them tested = trouble.
Keep in mind that another exception to the general 4th amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is that a cop has the right to pat people down or search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons that might be used against him. This is called a "Terry search". Moral of story, if you must carry something illegal in a car, keep it in the trunk.
Now if you are arrested, then there is no way you should say a word outside the presence of your lawyer, no matter what they may say or offer you.
All right, thats enough rambling.
Deepsquat
New member
Great advise ...How many of you watch NYPD Blue? If you do pay particular attention to what the cops are saying to the suspects...half the time the perp builds the case for the police! Or the cops will say (you see the this on Cops all the time ) I will speak with the da and things will go easier on you......THE POLICE ARE NOT THE PROSOCUTING ATTORNEY! They don't control your sentencing ...say nothing and be set free most of the time ...Never give the police consent to search your car . If they are asking for your permission that means in thier minds eye they do not have probable cause..if they say I'll get a warrent if neccassary...tell them go ahead...you'll wait...Do this even if you are innocent of what evr they suspect you of ...if you have nothing inn your car tell them no!
BTW d-bol looks suprisingly like aspertaime tablets you get to sweeten your coffee
BTW d-bol looks suprisingly like aspertaime tablets you get to sweeten your coffee
21inch_arms
New member
The best thing to say when the Police want to search your vehicle is "I would perfer if you didn't". That way you show proper respect to the Officer and he won't feel like you are trying to hide somthing by saying NO. This has got me out of harms way twice. If they dicide to search your car without consent the case will be thrown out.
nycdefender
New member
I agree with the premises stated above: 1) Don't speak to the police without a lawyer being present; 2) Do not consent to a search; and 3) Do so respectfully.
As for some of the legal principles stated above, I respectfully disagree. A general principle is that the police cannot pull a car over without reasonable cause to believe that criminal activity is afoot (i.e. probable cause). The police may execute a full-blown arrrest, even for a minor traffic infraction. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld such an arrest.
What search the police may execute pursuant to the full-blown arrest depends upon the jurisdiction in which you live. New York probably provides its citizens greater protections in car searches than other states.
Basically, the police may only search closed containers in a car if and only if they have probable cause to believe that either evidence of the crime is present in the container or the container has a weapon. Now for some exceptions: if the defendant is removed from the car (so he is unable to reach for any weapons in his immediate grabable area), the police may not search the car for weapons. Prior to pulling the defendant out, the police may search containers within the defendant's immediate grabbable area. Lots of drug arrests occur this way. The police, however, must articulate a reasonable suspicion to believe that weapons are present in the car. (Practically speaking, the police can say anything to articulate such a suspicion).
If the police pull you over for a minor traffic infraction (e.g., speeding), then they cannot search closed containers in the car for evidence, because no evidence related to speeding would be present inside of the containers. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Iowa law allowing for that type of search following a traffic infraction stop (Knowles v. Iowa). If, however, the police pulled your car over because you made a drug buy, they can open closed containers in your car to search for drug evidence. This is how my clients keep getting busted.
That's just a quick summary of some 4th Amendment law. There are tons of exceptions.
As for the suggestion that you say that you would prefer that the police not search your car, you need to be more direct than that. Your lack of consent must be unequivocal. Just say no.
As for the suggestion that you should keep items in the trunk of your car--that's not a saving grace in terms of suppression law. You are better off keeping items in a locked container, not in your immediate grabbable area. Better chance of suppressing items contained inside of a locked container. Unfortunately, the trunk doesn't work as well in 4th Amendment law as do other locked containers that are not part of the car.
As for some of the legal principles stated above, I respectfully disagree. A general principle is that the police cannot pull a car over without reasonable cause to believe that criminal activity is afoot (i.e. probable cause). The police may execute a full-blown arrrest, even for a minor traffic infraction. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld such an arrest.
What search the police may execute pursuant to the full-blown arrest depends upon the jurisdiction in which you live. New York probably provides its citizens greater protections in car searches than other states.
Basically, the police may only search closed containers in a car if and only if they have probable cause to believe that either evidence of the crime is present in the container or the container has a weapon. Now for some exceptions: if the defendant is removed from the car (so he is unable to reach for any weapons in his immediate grabable area), the police may not search the car for weapons. Prior to pulling the defendant out, the police may search containers within the defendant's immediate grabbable area. Lots of drug arrests occur this way. The police, however, must articulate a reasonable suspicion to believe that weapons are present in the car. (Practically speaking, the police can say anything to articulate such a suspicion).
If the police pull you over for a minor traffic infraction (e.g., speeding), then they cannot search closed containers in the car for evidence, because no evidence related to speeding would be present inside of the containers. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Iowa law allowing for that type of search following a traffic infraction stop (Knowles v. Iowa). If, however, the police pulled your car over because you made a drug buy, they can open closed containers in your car to search for drug evidence. This is how my clients keep getting busted.
That's just a quick summary of some 4th Amendment law. There are tons of exceptions.
As for the suggestion that you say that you would prefer that the police not search your car, you need to be more direct than that. Your lack of consent must be unequivocal. Just say no.
As for the suggestion that you should keep items in the trunk of your car--that's not a saving grace in terms of suppression law. You are better off keeping items in a locked container, not in your immediate grabbable area. Better chance of suppressing items contained inside of a locked container. Unfortunately, the trunk doesn't work as well in 4th Amendment law as do other locked containers that are not part of the car.
Similar threads
