tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post114294885201296326..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: From the blogsGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1143115510463683542006-03-23T06:05:00.000-06:002006-03-23T06:05:00.000-06:00"You can't refuse a search. You can refuse a 'requ..."You can't refuse a search. You can refuse a 'request' to consent to a search."<BR/><BR/>That's correct. And since in Texas the officer can then arrest the motorist for the underlying traffic violaton and search their car upon impound, you've made a distinction without a difference. It's easier for officers to intimidate people into verbal consent. You SHOULD be able to refuse consent to search, but most drivers don't know they can without the written instrument. <BR/><BR/>I suppose, BTW, that the Supreme Courts of New Jersey and Minnesota, plus the Rhode Island Legislature and the California Highway Patrol are all pushing drug legalization, too, in your mind, right? Those jurisdictions all banned consent searches. Requiring written consent, like Austin PD does (as well as 29% of Texas departments in a recent survey by the Governor's CJAC), is a relatively modest reform by comparison.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1143087471368182512006-03-22T22:17:00.000-06:002006-03-22T22:17:00.000-06:00You can't refuse a search. You can refuse a "requ...You can't refuse a search. You can refuse a "request" to consent to a search. <BR/><BR/>The service provided is not very accurate...fair warning not to believe everything you read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1143006716547701182006-03-21T23:51:00.000-06:002006-03-21T23:51:00.000-06:00Before reading Grits, I didn't know I could refuse...Before reading Grits, I didn't know I could refuse a search. Scott provides a public service.Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18197370675477100853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1142995434615824552006-03-21T20:43:00.000-06:002006-03-21T20:43:00.000-06:00I couldn't pass this one up."What (the statistics ...I couldn't pass this one up.<BR/><BR/><I>"What (the statistics say) to me is that when people actually knew their rights, they didn't want to be searched."</I><BR/><BR/>And you base this statistical knowledge on what, Swami? You actually believe in this day and age the vast majority of people don't know that they have the right to refuse consent when ASKED? And those who "don't know" become educated by reading it on the side of the road?<BR/><BR/>Once again the hidden agenda of drug legalization is masked behind an alleged "civil rights abuse". <BR/><BR/>The bottom line: asking for consent to search a vehicle is a valuable tool for the police, especially for interdiction officers. If it were a non-issue (i.e. not effective) then the legalization crowd wouldn't care a flip. But it IS effective...very, very effective, when used the right way with the right training.<BR/><BR/>I don't care if you have a hidden agenda, but you're as bad as any special interest group when you attempt to legislate that which does not need it, solely for the benefit of your cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com