Consenting to be Abused

[rallen]

Saw this and thought it was pertinent to our current national condition: link

Consenting to be abused

Steve Chapman
July 31, 2008

If I approach as you pull into a parking space and ask if you'd mind my rummaging through your car, the chances are at least 90 percent that you'd decline. But if a police officer stops you with the same request, the chances are higher than 90 percent that you'd agree. Something about that badge makes citizens eager to be helpful.

Or maybe not. In civics class and 4th of July speeches, we are told that American democracy rests on the consent of the governed. But interactions with the police serve as a useful reminder that government rests less on voluntary cooperation than on fear and force. A nation is free to the extent it prevents the rulers from bullying and coercing the ruled. By that standard, American society still has a way to go.

The other day, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois issued a report on "consent searches" that sometimes accompany traffic stops. Relying on data provided by local and state law enforcement agencies, the report documented that black and Hispanic drivers are much more likely than whites to suffer such invasions—even though the cars of minorities are far less likely to yield contraband.

These treasure hunts are called "consent searches" because they require the motorist to give permission. They take place only when the police officer has no grounds for suspicion. If he has probable cause, he doesn't have to ask. Only when he's acting out of a vague hunch, racial prejudice or simple malice does he need the driver's consent.

But the term is fantastical in these instances. Stopped on a lonesome stretch of highway, at the mercy of an armed man who has the power to arrest, very few citizens feel free to refuse. The Illinois State Police report that 94 percent of white motorists and 96 percent of minority ones "consent" to such searches.

Is that because they have nowhere else they'd rather be? Is it because they get a kick from watching a cop take apart their cars in an effort to put them behind bars? Or could it be because they suspect that refusing a cop is far too dangerous?

More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that before interrogating a suspect in custody, police have to provide the now-familiar warning: You have the right to remain silent; you have the right to an attorney; anything you say may be used against you.

Said the court, "The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination." Only a firm safeguard, in the form of the magic words, could "dispel the compulsion inherent" in these situations.

The same inherent compulsion exists in traffic stops, but the court declined to follow its own logic. So the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches is virtually meaningless on the roadside.

But the court's myopia is no reason a state can't abandon this obvious abuse on its own. As it happens, "consent searches" are a fool's errand.

Fully 94 percent of the time, state police discover nothing illegal—meaning they inconvenience and humiliate 16 innocent people for every guilty one they turn up.

Nor is the Land of Lincoln unique. When the Texas legislature took up a bill limiting such searches, the Texas Municipal Police Association admitted that "the vast majority of the time, we found nothing."

Other states have found that effective law enforcement doesn't demand hassling citizens who have done nothing suspicious. In 2002, New Jersey's state Supreme Court recognized the obvious: these searches are "not voluntary because people feel compelled to assent." It ruled that police may not search a car without "an articulable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of illegal activity."

The following year, the Minnesota Supreme Court followed suit. Rhode Island banned them by statute in 2004.

As the ACLU argues, abolition is the only solution. In Illinois, the burden of these searches falls disproportionately on racial minorities, but achieving perfect racial equity would not alter their oppressive nature.

In a nation founded on respect for the rights of every person, these searches give all priority to the power and convenience of the government, while mocking the liberties we are supposed to have. Why would we consent to that?

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.

[ChamberedRound]

Great article, thanks for the post.

[Brown-Bear]

While I agree that these "consent searches" are bullshit, I hate that the ACLU seems to put the race card on the table for every issue. It can't just be about Americans being bullied it has to be the minorities.

I also agree that most of those searches are not consentual but rather agreed to under duress, whether it be explicitly stated by the LEO on scene or just that the driver feels as though he/she will undoubtedly face consciquences at the hand of an enraged officer who has been defied by this daring citzen.

Dave

[Dredly]

What happens if you say no?

[D-FENS]

What happens if you say no?

They detain you and your vehicle until they can get a drug dog on scene to do the searching they can't do.

You can't win.

[Brown-Bear]

What happens if you say no?

They detain you and call a 'friendly" judge that will agree that your refusal means you are have recently comitted a crime and the evidence is inside your vehicle. Then they do the search anyway,and you have wasted your time. Which is why I say its BS, because most will consent rather than wait and go thru all the trouble.

Dave

[Dredly]

They detain you and call a 'friendly" judge that will agree that your refusal means you are have recently comitted a crime and the evidence is inside your vehicle. Then they do the search anyway,and you have wasted your time. Which is why I say its BS, because most will consent rather than wait and go thru all the trouble.

Dave

Kind of surprising that its only 94% that say yes huh

[LittleRedToyota]

They detain you and call a 'friendly" judge that will agree that your refusal means you are have recently comitted a crime and the evidence is inside your vehicle.

if your refusal to consent is really all they have, they aren't likely to get a warrant. and, if they do, it will get tossed on appeal. the US supreme court has already ruled that refusal to consent does not equal probable cause--they need something else.

any judge who would routinely hand out warrants based solely on a refusal to consent...and thereby go against the supreme court...would likely not be a judge for long.

always refuse consent. the officer might grandstand and try to claim he is just going to get a warrant anyway, etc. well, make him get it. chances are he won't (if he actually had PC, he wouldn't need a warrant and wouldn't be asking for your consent). and, if he does get a warrant, you haven't lost anything anyway.

things aren't going to turn out any different because you consented vs. they had to get a warrant. the search is either going to turn up something or it is not.

[pex]

They detain you and call a 'friendly" judge that will agree that your refusal means you are have recently comitted a crime and the evidence is inside your vehicle.

Search warrants must describe a particular place to be searched and thing to be searched for, as best as it can be articulated.

[WhiteFeather]

If you know and exercise your rights Constitutional you will always fair better than those that don't.

nice find rallen


Some of you may find this one interesting reading, if nothing else knowing what not to do, to make it worse.


http://www.portaec.net/library/actio...ur_rights.html

Exercising Your Rights Of
Political Protest In Washington, DC
Prepared by the Washington, DC Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild


The Washington, DC Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) has prepared this document to give general legal information to people seeking to press progressive political issues in Washington, DC. The information is intended to assist people who have already independently decided to engage in civil disobedience.

1. Introduction

2. Important disclaimer -- do not skim!

3. Special considerations for non-citizens

4. Minors

5. DC Is Different

6. A Few Common Charges Resulting From Protest Activities

7. Know ahead of time what your rights are and how you plan to react to the threat of arrest

8. What happens when you are arrested

9. Precautions for Jail

10. A word on non-cooperation ("jail solidarity")

11. Court

12. "Forget this! How do I stay out of jail?"

13. The progressive legal community supports you!

14. About us