"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:49:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:47:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is not true.
MARYLAND v. WILSON says they can all be rousted and the passenger
compartment of the car searched "for weapons". While that is going on
they can have a dog search the car too. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.
At that point the cop will "ask" everyone for ID.
Have you ever said no to a cop on the side of the road?
Usually you end up in cuffs.
You can macho this as much as you like about what you would do but I
bet you haven't actually done any of it.

I've said no to cops on the side of the road before... Question: Have
you
been drinking? Answer: No. Question: Are you single? Answer: Ummm...
lol


The first one is the right answer to a question, the second one can go
either way. We have had cops harassing women here too. It is less
likely they get away with it these days but my nieces have some
stories where it didn't really work out.

The real question is whether you can say no when a cop "asks" you
something like "can I look in your trunk" or "can I see your ID".
A "no" is usually seen as reasonable suspicion that you are doing
something illegal. If you weren't you just have a long day and they
eventually send you on your way. If you are doing ANYTHING wrong, you
get hooked up and taken in.

You can say no, with the caveat that if he looks anyway, he better have
actual probably cause. The "can I see your ID" goes back to asking for
the
DL. Driving is a privilege not a right, so he's within bounds to ask for
it.
If you're walking down the street, there is a higher standard of probably
cause for asking for ID. That's the problem with the AZ law (well, one of
the problems).


You ignore the basic problem. It will always be your word against the
cop's that you said no. You will lose that one.
If your word was equal to the cop, there wouldn't be any traffic
tickets. They are all your word against his.

Well sure, but in our system you're innocent until proven guilty. Judges
_tend_ to believe the police over regular citizens, but he would still
have to produce something that caused him to get in your face.. Not that
it's much of an example, but I've seen people win in traffic court against
the testimony of an expert (police) witness.

Spend a lot of time in traffic court, do ya?

--
Harold