Flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror can cause the blood to drain from your face, your hands to become clammy, and your heart to do a gymnast-style somersault. After the immediate physical effects of dread set in, questions begin to catapult forth from your mind. “How much will this cost me? “Did the officer see me texting?” “Am I going to lose my license?” The questions become louder and more frequent during that dreaded time waiting for the officer to approach your window and request your license and registration.

This is a nerve-racking situation that many will encounter during their years as drivers, which is why it is important to know your rights when a cop pulls you over. The following tips teach you what to do when you get pulled over and will make the anxiety-ridden experience more pleasant for you and the officer.

When Can an Officer Legally Pull You Over?

A cop needs probable cause — that is, a legitimate reason to believe you broke the law — in order to stop you. Speeding or driving with a broken tail light are both common examples of probable cause. Once you are pulled over, however, if a police officer observes something illegal in your vehicle such as drugs or weapons, he or she can arrest you and would not have to prove that you were speeding in court — just his account of the story suffices.

How and Where Should You Pull Over?

Unfortunately, due to the presence of crooked cops and police impersonators, it is of paramount importance to pull over in a well-lit, populated area. This promotes better safety for both the officer and driver. If you cannot pull over immediately, give a hand signal to the officer indicating that you plan to and drive the speed limit until you find a safe place; however, do not coast or drive for too long before stopping, as this could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Once you do stop, there is some dispute as to whether or not it is a good idea to get out of the car. While staying in the driver’s seat could lead to the suspicion that you are concealing a weapon, getting out of the car can also seem threatening to some officers. A retired State Trooper in Virginia told the AOL Autos section that he never wanted drivers to get out of the car, as to him this indicated that he or she had something to be afraid of.

I don’t care if you’re the baddest officer there is, there’s always someone out there who’s badder than you, and if we can keep them inside the car, that’s the best way to keep from being injured.

-Retired Virginia State Trooper

Be On Your Best Behavior

You’ve already been pulled over, and whether or not you think this action was justified, it is important to be courteous to the officer to avoid provoking him or her to slam you with a higher fine or charge. Take a few deep breaths, greet the officer kindly, and don’t make any snide remarks.

According to the same retired Virginia officer, a woman once harassed him while he was trying to write her ticket. “I had to roll my window up while she was yelling at me…Well, I guess she didn’t like that because she yanked my door open and said, ‘Don’t you ignore me, you m——- f——!’ Well, that was it, she crossed the line there, so I cuffed her and arrested her for disorderly conduct and took her in.” Had she kept her cool, the woman may have prevented an unnecessarily unpleasant experience for both her and the officer.

It’s important to remember that you have the right to remain silent. Choosing your words carefully can be beneficial, as officers often seek an admittance of guilt from the driver. The 5th Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination. This means that you can answer “no” to an officer when he or she asks if you know why you were pulled over and to similar questions.

After the officer issues a ticket, warning, or other penalty, ask him or her if you may leave. This avoids the chance of leaving any loose ends or seeming like you are trying to make a getaway.

When Can a Cop Search Your Car or Cell Phone?

A police officer can legally search your vehicle under five circumstances:

1. If the officer asks and you consent to the search
2. If you have an illegal substance or object in plain sight
3. If you are arrested for a legitimate reason
4. If the officer has adequate reasoning to suspect a crime
5. If the officer believes crucial evidence could be destroyed without a search

These five criteria also dictate when an officer can do a search on a home. Minor traffic violations on their own do not constitute just cause for a search. The 4th Amendment provides the right to refuse a search, but officers do not need to inform drivers of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether or not it is lawful for officers to search the contents of cell phones without a warrant. The justices determined that doing so is generally unlawful, except to physically examine the phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. If a police officer asks to search your phone, you can refuse to consent to the search until he or she has a warrant.

Know Your State Laws

Being at least slightly familiar with the driving laws in your state can be immensely beneficial in the event that you are pulled over. These laws can vary immensely from state to state, especially with regard to the use of electronic devices while operating a vehicle. For example, in New York, it is unlawful to talk on a cell phone whereas other states permit the use of hands-free devices.

Knowing even your most basic rights as a driver can only serve as a benefit in the event that you are pulled over. Click here to see an infographic with a state by state overview of driving.

 —

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jace via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know What to Do When You Get Pulled Over? appeared first on Law Street.

The fourth amendment is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. You may think that law enforcement officials always need a search warrant, or at least probable cause, to confiscate and look through items like electronic devices. But if you live, or just happen to be, within 100 miles of the American border, you would be wrong.

Assisted by the ACLU, Pascal Abidor brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after his laptop was searched without probable cause after he returned from an overseas trip to Lebanon.

While on a train from Canada to New York, Abidor was approached. Officials told him to enter his password on the computer, and subsequently saw pictures from Hezbollah rallies in the Middle East. Abidor claims they were for educational purposes (he is an Islamic Studies student), but the officers proceeded to detain him for several hours, further searching the computer and questioning him. He was held for several hours and eventually released without being charged, but his laptop was not returned to him for over 10 days.

The government has historically been able to conduct searches for just about any reason if they take place at, or around, the US border. But this case, and others like it, has sparked a debate about 21st century searches: ones that involve electronic devices.

In this case, the ACLU contended that broadly allowing the government to search electronic devices at the border could lead to unfairly targeting individuals who may not be breaking the law, or using the “buffer zone” (the 100-mile radius in which these kinds of searches are allowed) around the US border, in which these searches without probable cause are allowed, as an excuse to search random persons.

But Judge Korman, who ruled on the case on December 31, 2013, thought otherwise. He noted that searches at the border have been common, as well as legally allowed, to take place at the border historically. It only makes sense, then, to extend that precedent to electronic devices like laptops in the 21st century, which were not previously accounted for only because they did not exist.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of pursuing electronic devices specifically, but there are two cases that are often cited in support of the government’s border-searching ability. In 2005, the 4th circuit Court of Appeals decided in U.S. v. Ickes that a search of a laptop in a man’s car, on which child pornography was discovered, was indeed legal.

In 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed a similar ruling in USA v. Arnold, which upheld the practice allowing US Customs and Border Control agents to inspect computers without probable cause.

So with this historical precedent, what is the confusion over these searches?

One problem might rest with the fact there is so much information stored on things like laptops and cell phones. Where historically searches were limited to physical items, searching electronic devices presents a difficulty in that they have virtually no boundaries. While some things, like files and pictures, are contained on the physical device, others, like email and social media sites, are connected to the Internet. Theoretically, a person’s contacts, connections, and other personal information could all be searched at any airport or border inspection, without probable cause. This amount of information has never been accessible to agents before.

Additionally, some believe that until the Supreme Court has reviewed and ruled on the practice, we have no way of knowing if it will be upheld Constitutionally. But there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will ever hear the matter, so for now, only rulings that matter are those handed down by the various appellate courts.

While proponents of these border searches point to the security benefits attached to them, it is important to question whether the information gained from these searches outweighs the personal liberty and security that has been lost by them.  We must take into account how an age filled with technology and near unlimited information accessible on mobile electronic devices may be a different ball game than searches and seizures at borders in the past.

 [Huffington Post] [RT] [U.S. v. Ickes] [U.S. v. Arnold] [Abidor v. Napolitano] [ACLU]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Office of Public Affairs/Shane T. McCoy/US Marshals via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Warrant Not Necessary appeared first on Law Street.

Stop-and-Frisk practice has recently taken another legal hit today, as federal judge, Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that the stop-and-frisk tactics of New York Police Department to have violated the constitutional rights of New Yorkers. Judge Scheindlin ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people without objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Judge Scheindlin has found the program demonstrates a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In addition, it also found violations with the 14th Amendment.

Judge Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan has designated an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution. Mr. Zimroth is a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter LLP. The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York follows a two month non-jury trial over the department’s stop-and-frisk practices earlier this year.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop-and-Frisk Takes Another Legal Hit appeared first on Law Street.