I'm sitting here watching this episode of Cops--literally nothing is on--and I can't help but wonder what makes people consent to warrantless searches of their cars, when they know they have drugs, a gun, etc. under the seat.
The fourth amendment protects the public against unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by the government. To enforce this amendment, the police are required to have a warrant, supported by probable cause, validating their search.
There are exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Among them are the automobile exception and consent.
But the automobile exception isn't as all-inclusive as it sounds. To search a car without a warrant, the police need probable cause, i.e. trustworthy facts or knowledge sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed or was in progress. So, more than a suspicion is required.
But the police rarely need the automobile exception. It's like a broken record:
1) A cop pulls someone over.
2) The driver is acting a little shady, but possibly just nervous.
3) Seemingly out of nowhere, the cop asks "hey, do you have any drugs in there? mind if i take a look?"
4) Almost inevitably, the person says "sure", despite having drugs or a gun, or something like that in their car
5) The cop finds it, the driver denies it, and the person is arrested.
I guess my point is...if you are pulled over and a cop asks to search your car for no apparent reason, just say no. They can't search your car without your consent, unless they have probable cause. If they have probable cause, they don't need to ask and they don't need your permission. So why give it to them voluntarily? After all, you never know what someone else may have left in your car!