TexasCHLforum.com

With all the open carry talk, reasonable suspicion, probably cause, detention, demanding licenses, etc., it is interesting that the SCOTUS weighed in this week:

If the police want to run a dog around the car, then they had better:

• Get it done in the time it takes to run license, registration and insurance, check for warrants, and write a citation or warning, or
• Be able to clearly articulate a reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity, aside from the basis of the traffic stop.

No specific time limit; no rewards of extra time for getting stuff done fast. When you're done, you're done, unless you've got another reason, and it better be a good reason.

Rodriguez v. United States

Dupe. Sorry

I've had cops tell me people usually consent to a search when they tell people it could take 30-45 minutes to get a dog there to sniff the car. People usually give in and consent to the officer search thinking it will save time.

Another tactic is to lie to the person and say it's much better for them and the cop can help them if they consent to the search rather than forcing them to get a warrant. Them a judge will be involved and the cop can no longer help them IF something is found.

I bet we would be surprised how many people consent based upon lies and thinking they can get on there way quicker.

Games some cops play.

mojo84 wrote:I've had cops tell me people usually consent to a search when they tell people it could take 30-45 minutes to get a dog there to sniff the car. People usually give in and consent to the officer search thinking it will save time.

Another tactic is to lie to the person and say it's much better for them and the cop can help them if they consent to the search rather than forcing them to get a warrant. Them a judge will be involved and the cop can no longer help them IF something is found.

I bet we would be surprised how many people consent based upon lies and thinking they can get on there way quicker.

Games some cops play.

It would not surprise me how many people consent based on a lie by an officer since LEOs are not required to be truthful to us. Are there any consequences at all for an officer that does lie to get consent for a search?

C-dub wrote:It would not surprise me how many people consent based on a lie by an officer since LEOs are not required to be truthful to us. Are there any consequences at all for an officer that does lie to get consent for a search?

I think that you already know the answer to that question.

C-dub wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I've had cops tell me people usually consent to a search when they tell people it could take 30-45 minutes to get a dog there to sniff the car. People usually give in and consent to the officer search thinking it will save time.

Another tactic is to lie to the person and say it's much better for them and the cop can help them if they consent to the search rather than forcing them to get a warrant. Them a judge will be involved and the cop can no longer help them IF something is found.

I bet we would be surprised how many people consent based upon lies and thinking they can get on there way quicker.

Games some cops play.

It would not surprise me how many people consent based on a lie by an officer since LEOs are not required to be truthful to us. Are there any consequences at all for an officer that does lie to get consent for a search?

Not in this life.

mojo84 wrote:I've had cops tell me people usually consent to a search when they tell people it could take 30-45 minutes to get a dog there to sniff the car.

"That's fine officer, I've got all day. You?"

Half the episodes on "COPS" are based on dummies allowing searches. Lies uttered by police are just one tactic (legal) to out the bad guys. If they fall for it let the chips fall with them.

I have wondered why it is against the law to lie to the police, but it's okay for the police to lie to you.

You don't have to lie, you don't have to say anything.

Stand there while he talks and lies until his shorts droop. Give the impression you are extremely interested in everything he says. When he is done talking, tell him he does not have permission to search. Then ask him if you are under arrest or free to go.

Be sure to turn the recorder app on your phone on when you see red & blue.

I am pro LEO but some of the things a few of them do makes me mad. They are destroying the respect people have for LE.

VoiceofReason wrote:You don't have to lie, you don't have to say anything.

Stand there while he talks and lies until his shorts droop. Give the impression you are extremely interested in everything he says. When he is done talking, tell him he does not have permission to search. Then ask him if you are under arrest or free to go.

Be sure to turn the recorder app on your phone on when you see red & blue.

I am pro LEO but some of the things a few of them do makes me mad. They are destroying the respect people have for LE.

Of course that's all true. And they don't have to lie to us either, but it is perfectly legal if they do. However, it does make me wonder, just a little, how many crimes would actually be solved if LE couldn't lie.

C-dub wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:You don't have to lie, you don't have to say anything.

Stand there while he talks and lies until his shorts droop. Give the impression you are extremely interested in everything he says. When he is done talking, tell him he does not have permission to search. Then ask him if you are under arrest or free to go.

Be sure to turn the recorder app on your phone on when you see red & blue.

I am pro LEO but some of the things a few of them do makes me mad. They are destroying the respect people have for LE.

Of course that's all true. And they don't have to lie to us either, but it is perfectly legal if they do. However, it does make me wonder, just a little, how many crimes would actually be solved if LE couldn't lie.

It's hard for me to respect and trust people who lie to me and try to take advantage of my ignorance combined with intimidation to coerce me into giving up my rights. I want to believe LE has my best interest at heart. But I know they are only interested in making an arrest. In reality its to easy for innocent people to get caught up in the system because they trusted the police, "cooperate and everything will be fine, I've done nothing wrong" or so they thought.

Those who willingly give up freedom for protection deserve neither. Those who use trample rights in the name of "protection" do not deserve my respect and trust.

mojo84 wrote:I've had cops tell me people usually consent to a search when they tell people it could take 30-45 minutes to get a dog there to sniff the car. People usually give in and consent to the officer search thinking it will save time.

I had it happen to me locally. Allow us to search or we wait for the dog, ETA 30min or so.
Waiting for the dog didn't bother me. When they told me that the dog would search "all over" the car - including the hood, trunk, I caved.

They found nothing. Upside: Didn't issue a ticket. I considered it a wash, but installed recording equipment soon after.

Glad this ruling is out there. Next time we wait for the dog.. :-)


Makes me wonder how many of those huge stops where they find 30KG of cocaine and the driver "agreed" to be searched were actually agreed to...

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I've had cops tell me people usually consent to a search when they tell people it could take 30-45 minutes to get a dog there to sniff the car. People usually give in and consent to the officer search thinking it will save time.

I had it happen to me locally. Allow us to search or we wait for the dog, ETA 30min or so.
Waiting for the dog didn't bother me. When they told me that the dog would search "all over" the car - including the hood, trunk, I caved.

They found nothing. Upside: Didn't issue a ticket. I considered it a wash, but installed recording equipment soon after.

Glad this ruling is out there. Next time we wait for the dog.. :-)


Makes me wonder how many of those huge stops where they find 30KG of cocaine and the driver "agreed" to be searched were actually agreed to...

The secret is, sometimes they are just bluffing with no intention of waiting for the dog either.

Probably true. I probably should have waited a few minutes in to see if they'd actually make that call. That guy was quite sure he had something, the full range of what he tried included:
1) I already have probable cause to search the vehicle. Please sign this consent form.
2) I know I'm going to find something. If you show me where it is, I'll just write you a ticket and you can be on your way. If I find it, you're going to jail on upgraded charges.
3) We'll call the dog and it WILL alert, then we'll search. And during that search, we're going to make sure we search all of it - the hood, the roof, the trunk....
4) He started to search my packaged mail (in the car) before a supervisor stopped him.

My guess is that whole game show probably nets some bad guys. We're taught to shut up, not answer questions, and exercise our rights. They're taught how to be effective police officers by using "creative" ways to motivate people into doing what they want. Is searching one innocent good guy justification enough if it actually catches 10 bad guys? If it wasn't effective, they wouldn't be doing it.

He was polite enough.. And again, probably felt bad as he didn't even issue a ticket.

And before people think I'm a complete push-over, I'm willing to be VERY assertive about it, but I won't do it without a camera or recording device. I'm either that smart or that paranoid - you pick which one.


I only had something like that happen one other time about 25 year ago. As a college kid, I was driving home on I-35. Stopped for speeding 7 over (ugh?) - asked to step out and the car searched without being asked for consent. When I asked why he had permission to search, he told me that I was on a "known drug route" on I-35.... Ugh-huh...


I'm a big fan of body cameras..