Quote Originally Posted by rockhound View Post
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.