Plain and Simple: If There’s Something To Find, Don’t Consent To The Search

We have all seen the episodes of the television show "Cops" where the police pull over a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and the police officer asks the driver whether the driver will consent to a search of his vehicle. Despite the fact that the vehicle contains drugs or drug paraphernalia, the driver consents, the contraband is found, seized, and the driver is taken off to jail. When these individuals are asked why they consented to a search of their vehicle, the usual response is that they didn’t think they had a choice and that the police would find the drugs anyway. This reasoning clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding by most citizens regarding their constitutional rights.

With certain narrowly tailored exceptions, without a warrant, probable cause, or consent to search, a police officer has no right to search your personal property. What this means is that without a warrant, a police officer must rely upon your consent or probable cause to conduct a lawful search. If the police officer lacks probable cause (a reasonable belief that the area to be searched contains illegal contraband), than he must rely upon consent to conduct the search. If the individual refuses to consent, then without probable cause or a warrant, the police officer must return to his duties and let the driver go. If the driver consents to the search, then their defense attorney does not have much to work with in attempting to suppress the seizure of any illegal contraband. However, if the driver refuses to consent, and a police officer goes forward with the search anyway, a defense attorney can attack the search, arguing that the police officer did not have actual probable cause. If successful, the illegal contraband seized will not come into evidence and the charge will most likely be dismissed. For more information on Arizona drug offenses, including typical charges and possible defenses, please visit my web site at www.win-law.com.