I would like to know if people have different opinions on what "abussive" and "uncooperative" are. If you answer the basic requirements, ie: hand over DL and ins papers and such, to me you are cooperating. Not answering questions that are unrelated to the traffic stop, and not required to be answered by law, and declining consent to search, is as far as i can tell, not being uncooperative. I am just curious as to other peoples opinions, as this is an argument ive had for years. I feel like the word "uncooperative" gets used as a crutch to reduce credibility and "abusive" added on may reduce umm... sympathy.. for lack of another word.. not sure how to put that one. If i threaten to charge an officer with something, using a firm tone, this to me is not abusive. Namecalling is abusive.

Cops HATE people you stick up for themselves. I would NEVER consent to a search and I advise my family members to do the same.

Strike down 172 and I just might become "cooperative" again. Might even smile now and then.

I can understand how they hate it, yes. Theyare doing a job and i am slowing them down. At least thats their perspective i guess. I work days and live the night life, so unfortunatly i can get picked off as i know i stand out at night. Its not always bad, usualy they just cut me loose with a tip or a warning. But some stops just stand out. Some seem to just disregard my answers and flip a nut like i am in the wrong for saying no.

Thats not what bothers me. If i do not consent to a search, why is it said in court that i am being uncooperative? If i say in a stop: "get your hands out of my truck, dont touch my stuff or ill have you charged with theft", why is it said that i am being abusive? Funny how that gets twisted heh. I make those remarks, just that, no insults or anything. Yet the reply to that sentence above was "oh im shakin in my boots".

Never saw the irony in that til i just typed it out, hah.

Like Bookm, I would never consent to a search of my vehicle. However, I would be extremely professional about it, asking the officer what his/her reasonable cause is to feel a search of my vehicle is necessary, but still refuse to consent. I am not of the "type" who would be targetted or arise suspicion as I'm just another Jane Public going about my business, but I know of enough case law that has thrown out entire cases as a result of searches that were brought on by an overzealous (and overly-broad) interpretation of what reasonable cause is. The most recent case was in Hamilton which was deconstructed the moment it was discovered that the reasonable cause the officers had was a comment made by an informant. The entire case fell apart.

There have been instances where threats of obtaining a warrant have been issued at roadside by the officer. I would still refuse until such time that a warrant was presented to me. What I am unsure of is whether or not they can hold you until such time as a warrant materializes. I imagine so, but the reasonable cause had better be good. If that were to happen to me, I would be on my cell phone to a lawyer.

If I were treated poorly by an officer, I would not make an issue of it other than to ask what it is he/she has perceived I have done, aside from any infraction they have stopped me for, that, in their opinion, warranted unprofessional behavior on their part. I'd wait for their answer and, if it was still combative, I would advise them that I was taking note of their badge number to contact their staff sargeant. If it was extremely unprofessional behavior, I would ask for their staff sargeant to come on scene.

In short, I'd always act professional, courteous, but mindful of the law and my rights under them. I keep in mind that these folks who wear the badge have a thankless job that is dangerous and that, for the large majority, are professionals and good at what they do. It's the small number of rogues that we hear about, and I'm not about to paint them all with a wide brush. I know (and am blood related) with too many of them.

ponyboyt wrote:

Thats not what bothers me. If i do not consent to a search, why is it said in court that i am being uncooperative? If i say in a stop: "get your hands out of my truck, dont touch my stuff or ill have you charged with theft", why is it said that i am being abusive? Funny how that gets twisted heh. I make those remarks, just that, no insults or anything. Yet the reply to that sentence above was "oh im shakin in my boots".

Never saw the irony in that til i just typed it out, hah.

Well, because, by definition, you are being uncooperative. It is up to your representative to point out that it is your right under law to refuse if no reasonable cause for a search is present. They can throw out anything to tip the scales. It's a spin. The prosecution knows you had a right to refuse a search, and the prosecution knows that there likely wasn't enough reasonable cause to obtain a warrant. It's up to your representation to point that out to put chinks in their armour.

Also, telling the officer in such a manner to get their hands out of your truck or they will be charged with theft is combative. It does not benefit you to behave in such a manner as, when it is presented in court, it WILL look poorly on the defendant. The comment is clearly combative and it does lend itself to an "uncooperative, abusive" defendant. It's so important to be professional, keep a cool head (because cooler heads really do prevail) and give them less fodder to help their case. If they are unprofessional to you have asserting your rights under law, report it. But always conduct yourself in these situations as if there is a camera recording everything, to be played at trial.

I definitly aggree with a lot you say. And i see a lot of good points. I've said it before also, im not trying to paint a wide brush either. I've had stops where officer's were decent, in fact had a warning for a headlight once. I got it fixed and brought it to him within 12 hours and he was happy. I'd guess I'm about 50/50 on what i would call.... good stops and bad stops.

I'm not just talking about consent to search. I'm talking about the ones who just start rummaging or open a door without asking. I have a habbit of locking my doors, but my drivers side back door does not lock. It's actualy kinda funny some times, i've had 2 open that door and set my alarm off. But the point is, no questions ask, there are some who just assume they can do these things. The example i made, well thats pretty much how t went down. When i asked him to not touch my stuff his reply was along the lines of "what are you gona do about it" and i gave him the above answer.

Now that i think of it, i can't remember a single time, not once, that they have asked for consent to search since i got my license almost 2 years ago. Some don't bother, some just charge in without saying a word. I had one that i didn't even realise was in my car until i turned to open my glove box. He had a knee on the seat, half in the car, going through my stuff.

I dont see myself as the "type" to be targetted either. Maybe 10 years ago i was. (well i guess not maybe). But these are different cops now, and that was a long time ago. I don't drive around revving the engine or squeeling the tires. But i do drive a lot at night. "I like the night life". I enjoy the view when its dark and the city is lit up.

Next time, i will test your suggestions. I will use the words: Please, Thank you, Sir, and such. We will see how that works

Oh, anything wrong with ME installing a dash-cam ?

ponyboyt wrote:

Oh, anything wrong with ME installing a dash-cam ?

I just installed a temporary one in my dads car yesterday, it's located in the rear seats so if they enter the car everything is visible to the camera, it automatically switches into night mode with a ambient light sensor.

The thing that scares me the most is if they ever try and plant something on me (ex: drugs) because their pissed off, that way i'll have evidence.

Check this video out

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhHd6M2Sjg[/youtube]

nexxen90 wrote:

The thing that scares me the most is if they ever try and plant something on me (ex: drugs) because their pissed off, that way i'll have evidence.

Check this video out

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhHd6M2Sjg[/youtube]

That's the lowest of the low from the cops

Marquisse wrote:

Like Bookm, I would never consent to a search of my vehicle. However, I would be extremely professional about it, asking the officer what his/her reasonable cause is to feel a search of my vehicle is necessary, but still refuse to consent. .

Now how to put this.

If I have an Act/law authorizing me to search I will do so, regardless of whether the driver likes it or not.

If I do not have an Act authorizing a search, I will ask the driver for a "consent to search", where I have a document the driver reads and signs. If there is no signature, no search and off they go.

Some cops have it in there heads that not consenting to a search is a sign of defiance and therefore is grounds alone for "probable cause"--they see it as trying to hide something- not one excercising there Charter of Rights.

damned if you do and damned if you dont. either way, hes the one with the gun.

hwybear wrote:

If I do not have an Act authorizing a search, I will ask the driver for a "consent to search", where I have a document the driver reads and signs. If there is no signature, no search and off they go.

Bear, we know you play by the book..........It's the ones that don't that spoil it for all.