iced said:
This is the way I see it - I'm not giving permission, and the fact that you have a warrant to search tells me you already thinking i'm implicated somehow. I don't fool around when it comes to my home and my rights. All it takes 1 bad apple to ruin the whole bunch, or only 1 cop out of a whole team that enters your house.
Love all your posts in this thread, but I just wanna highlight something that seems so simple and obvious but can be misinterpreted by some.
When we're talking about criminal investigations people typically refer to the suspect and the suspect's rights. That's not really consistent with the way the founders designed the system. Yes, I know that's how the media presents it, but they have their own agenda. In short, it's not about the suspect's rights to one thing or another, it really about Police, or gov't Powers.
Constitutions, at least those in the USA, deliniate what the gov't has the power to do, and how the gov't must give notice to an individual prior to exercising those powers. It's all about restraint of gov't, NOT about limitations of rights of an individual. So, when a suspect says he isn't given the police the power to search their home without a proper warrant, the suspect is telling the gov't that they must operate within the bounds of their Constitutional powers. In fact, in our system it's was intended that individuals would make it their duty to keep gov't power in check.
So, when a cop stops you and asks if he can search your vehicle, you politely tell him/her that they took an oath to upold the US (and probably their State) Constitutions, and that you would hate to see them break their oath.
