Aurora PD

Give consent if you want to.

Refuse if you choose.

Either option is legal, and it is perfectly acceptable for the police to ask for consent. The big disincentive for a warrant-less search is the real possibility of losing any evidence obtained by a bad search.

Everyone talks about hating thieves. Why do some of those same people insist on making police out to be bad when they are trying to catch bank robbers?

Everyone here is a grownup. Make your choices and live with the consequences. [Beer]

Be safe.

This is serious shiit.
Surprised that civil rights division is not investigating this yet.

This case brings huge externality to the society (or this case, people who was held against their will).
This definitely shows that there were Greater social marginal cost relative to the marginal benefit.
I sure don't want to get held against my will on a handcuff till they find a guy for hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

while i am generally on the side of personal rights, i don't see the police doing anything wrong here, handcuffed for everyone's safety with a felon on the run

---

there is so much wrong in that statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

hmmm,

Would you have felt differently had the suspect had been in a building and the persons in the building were detained until the police searched the building,

sounds like the police had probable cause and thus do not need a warrant.

I think they were giving more than they should have by even asking.

we have probable cause to believe there is a bank robbery suspect among the 19 cars at this intersection, we will be searching your car to ascertain whether you are the person in question.

while i am generally on the side of personal rights, i don't see the police doing anything wrong here, handcuffed for everyone's safety with a felon on the run

---

I respectfully disagree.

Probable cause (PC) will get you a warrant, if that PC is specific to the thing and place you believe contains evidence of a crime. Police are obliged to take that probable cause to a judge who then decides whether or not to issue a warrant to search or arrest. This can and often is done over the telephone, and can happen in less than two hours.

There are very well spelled out exceptions to obtaining a warrant, but the risk in using one of these exceptions is that after the fact (many months later) in an evidentiary hearing, a judge may disagree with your decision on not obtaining a warrant and throw out all of the really good evidence that you really need to convict a real criminal.

As a police officer, why would I risk doing all that good police work to not get a conviction? My motto (and many other officers share this philosophy) Get consent, or get a warrant. It saves a lot of wasted effort and makes your case much easier in the long run.

Be safe.

Hmmm, let's see here-
Comply, get cuffed and detained.
Refuse to comply, get cuffed and detained.


Helluva choice eh?

good thing we live in the freest nation in the world
You know, otherwise people might start to think that is resembles a police state.

but luckily, we're just fine, the government said so.

I thought I got banned for posting this!

If the police are stopping 19 cars at an intersection, and detaining the drivers/passengers and searching the vehicles, then they don't have "probable cause" at all. If you can't identify a subject vehicle enough to sort out your suspects, you don't have cause to stop any of them. Aurora PD was out of line and they know it.

I'll be writing the city council to inform them of my opinion of their out of control PD.

So if you refuse consent, besides saying "no you cannot search my car am I now free to go" what else should come out of your mouth?

Interesting how you can always tell who fell asleep in civics... Some of our board members have a terrifying concept of what constitutes "probable cause".