Something's wrong when peaceful. law-abiding people need advice on how to survive police encounters. Something's wrong when peaceful, law-abiding people are required to carry ID when walking their dogs around the neighborhood or walking to the store 1/2 mile away.

And something's wrong when you advise people that they can refuse to allow the police to search their vehicles. In Arizona, at least, refusal to allow a search gives the police probable cause to do so. Refusal to allow a search results in either (a) Being detained by the highway for hours, until the K-9 Unit arrives, or (b) Being arrested on some bogus charge, which gives cops an excuse to impound your vehicle. Even if you get out of jail the next morning, a vehicle impounded, for most of us mere mortals, means a vehicle lost. And good luck finding an attorney at any price who will fight for what's right.

is busy fighting for the right of one female high-school senior to wear a tuxedo for her yearbook picture.

to search, as stated by Scott in reply to Rita, even though they are lying when they say that. I bet that most people don't know that. I knew they can lie about evidence when questioning a suspect, but didn't know they could lie about ground rules for conducting a search. Thanks to Flex Your Rights and stopthedrugwar.org for helping to make people aware of their rights.
Even if there's nothing in my car, I don't want cops searching it because there's no guarantee there won't be anything it in when they get done.

I've been called a LOT of things in my 56 years, but "without a backbone" is definitely a first. In fact, most people who know me say I'm mostly TOO stubborn for my own good.

I KNOW my constitutional rights. It's all right there on paper. I also know how cops operate, which apparently none of YOU do. My daughter, right now, is close to the end of 4 years probation, 6 months of it spent in county jail, because of a marijuana seed found in her boyfriend's car AFTER she refused to consent to a search. Even as she was saying, "NO, you may not," to cop #1, cop #2 was pulling her stuff out of the car.

And when any one of you finds him/herself on the side of a highway, as I did, given a choice between consenting to a search of YOUR vehicle or being arrested and your car impounded (whence it will be searched anyway), let me know what you decide. And next time it happens to me, can I borrow your car? And can I have your phone number, so I can call you from jail and YOU can call my employer? Because I'm pretty sure they don't accept collect calls from correctional facilities, and one no-call, no-show is enough to get me fired. I've been there, done that; you're talking theories; I'm talking about reality.

Cops lie under oath all the time. They lie on affadavits, they lie on police reporrts, they lie in court. No, they CAN'T cite refusal to consent as a reason to search; they don't HAVE to. All they have to do is say that you were "acting suspiciously." In Arizona, driving on the Interstate with out-of-state tags is sufficient.

A 26-year-old man I know was recently gunned down by a Chino Valley cop because the brave officer THOUGHT that the man MIGHT have had a gun. (He didn't) Jonathan Ayers was murdered by 2 cops in Georgia because they, the cops, not Ayers, had bought cocaine. Please do NOT tell me what cops can and can't do. They do as they damn well please, and I, for one, think there's something very, very wrong in a society where the populace has to be taught how to survive encounters with those sworn, trusted and paid to protect us.