Johnson County at it again....

[rambone]

As for vehicle searches, I have asked, but I always had a reason to search before I asked, about half the time they would consent. I don’t ever recall searching a vehicle as a fishing expedition.

There are too many others out there that may as well be waving a flag that says “Arrest me”

But I wasn’t a very good cop, I trusted people to do the right thing too much, but I am still alive, and still live in the county I worked, and even now retired I can go to the store and look those people I worked for in the eye and not feel guilty about the way I tended the flock on my watch.

Good for you for not searching people needlessly. Sounds like you did a good job of upholding your oath. I wish there were more like you on the job.

 

[redbaron]

oh by the way deer are running heavy out by Cato road watch it when you get there

Old Cato road! Thanks for your service!!

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Pigs will eat the whole lot of it. As long as you break the teeth out first, good to go!

 

[E5RANGER375]

This is a long one, and I am sure it will draw fire from both sides.

I am not an active LEO anymore; I was placed on disability after my return from an Iraq deployment.

Prior to that I was a road officer for 8 years and then a supervisor for 5 years.
I started out of the academy ready to save the world! It took about a year to realize the academy is one thing and the street was another.

Just a few tidbits for the grinder and y’all can have at it.

I always have agreed with the police telling the citizen their rights. Why? It also serves to remind and reinforce to the officer their lawful limits. (Implied Consent, Miranda, Pirtle, etc.)

I worked a rural county so after awhile you see the same people over and over. Through personal experience just because you arrest Snuffy Smith on Friday night DUI doesn’t mean that call to his house the next week is any the less of a call for assistance than from anyone else.

Stopped a lot of CCW permit holders, sometimes they told me, sometimes I seen the little pink paper in the wallet but the information wasn’t offered. My actions were always pretty much the same.

Are you armed? (Yes)

Where is it? (Hip, glove box, under seat, etc)

Leave it there and we will be fine. Then conduct the rest of the business of the traffic stop.

You have a permit and aren’t drunk, sick (I mean like going to hospital sick) injured, or have an active warrant then I don’t want to see, touch, hold, check, or molest your weapon in any way. It’s yours not the states, not the county’s, not the city’s, and not mine.

During emergencies like traffic accidents and situations where people have been hurt and need to go the hospital I have taken the weapon with me and delivered it to the spouse, son, daughter the permit holder wanted me to.

On a few severe crashes I have removed the weapon from a deceased or unconscious victim (and if the unconscious comes to at the hospital proceeded with delivering it to whom they requested)

The EMS system and Hospital have enough to do, and since it is a weapon I always felt by virtue of the victims bad luck I should assume responsibility for the firearm until the owner could direct disposition.

Some not all EMS people are uneasy with a weapon in their ambulance and even in slight injury cases I have done the delivery boy routine. (And I never ran the serial numbers)

As for traffic stops, as I said I worked a rural area, sometimes back up was 15 minutes or more away. On more than one occasion at zero dark thirty in the morning I have had Joe Citizen stop on the other side of the road, or in front of the stopped vehicle and shout out “You Okay?”

On a couple occasions a citizen that I had stopped previously or knew in passing has “watched” the stop until I released the vehicle or back up arrived.

I was not afraid to conduct the stops in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, but it was always was nice to see a regular person care enough to stop and at least be a witness.

I have had people come out on their front porch and watch and afterwards I have spoken to those who have stopped and watched. I always got the same story, man your crazy out here alone, and thought I would make sure your okay. Of course I thanked them and explain not all officers would react as I did.

The LEO’s here can tell me how lucky I am not to have been killed, and the non-LEO’s will probably find something they didn’t like.

I can only speak as a rural officer working in a small population where everybody knows you because you’re a LEO, and you see the same faces everyday because you’re working in the community and interacting with the people.

As an example I would see the same blue Ford truck going to work every day on the same road at the same time. I had my usual vehicles I seen every morning, after awhile there is the morning wave thing going on, maybe bumping into them at the gas station getting the morning coffee.

Then comes the morning an hour late a speeding blue Ford truck, going fast enough that I should issue a ticket and not a warning.

Of course I stop them,… on approach, Oversleep? Baby was up all night sick; I know how that is, slow down a bit okay? Yes Sir, oh by the way deer are running heavy out by Cato road watch it when you get there, okay thanks, you’re not gonna gimme a ticket? Just slow down and get to work, you’re late already.

I hated writing tickets; I gave a ton of warnings. I preferred to patrol the county roads and look for people up to no good, like stealing from rural residences and farms, or making meth and the like.

Those folks that live out in the sticks notice a police car driving thru in the middle of the night, word gets out that patrols are being done, people know who the officer is and they will approach and say thanks.

That to me is what made the job worth doing. Or seeing a garage door open on some ones house you have passed a hundred times in the middle of the night and taking a closer via spot light only to met by the owner who over a cup of coffee tells you he has seen you patrolling in the night lots of times and appreciates it.

To me that is as rewarding as catching a criminal, and I caught a bunch over years.

Yes I run plates, I ran out of county plates on vehicles in rural areas near farm buildings and rural properties where I had never seen them before, if nothing came up missing then it was for nothing, if something came up missing the next few days then I had a possible lead to look into.

Some may have a problem with my nosey attitude, but in the areas I patrolled I always thought the people deserved someone watching over their stuff when they couldn’t.

As for vehicle searches, I have asked, but I always had a reason to search before I asked, about half the time they would consent. I don’t ever recall searching a vehicle as a fishing expedition.

There are too many others out there that may as well be waving a flag that says “Arrest me”

But I wasn’t a very good cop, I trusted people to do the right thing too much, but I am still alive, and still live in the county I worked, and even now retired I can go to the store and look those people I worked for in the eye and not feel guilty about the way I tended the flock on my watch.

Your right! you weren't a very good cop.


YOU WERE A GREAT COP! A Beacon of light for the rest to see and imitate!!! YOU are what police officers should aspire to be! A patriot Sir!

 

[Armed Citizen]

This is a long one, and I am sure it will draw fire from both sides.

I am not an active LEO anymore; I was placed on disability after my return from an Iraq deployment.

Prior to that I was a road officer for 8 years and then a supervisor for 5 years.
I started out of the academy ready to save the world! It took about a year to realize the academy is one thing and the street was another.

Just a few tidbits for the grinder and y’all can have at it.

I always have agreed with the police telling the citizen their rights. Why? It also serves to remind and reinforce to the officer their lawful limits. (Implied Consent, Miranda, Pirtle, etc.)

I worked a rural county so after awhile you see the same people over and over. Through personal experience just because you arrest Snuffy Smith on Friday night DUI doesn’t mean that call to his house the next week is any the less of a call for assistance than from anyone else.

Stopped a lot of CCW permit holders, sometimes they told me, sometimes I seen the little pink paper in the wallet but the information wasn’t offered. My actions were always pretty much the same.

Are you armed? (Yes)

Where is it? (Hip, glove box, under seat, etc)

Leave it there and we will be fine. Then conduct the rest of the business of the traffic stop.

You have a permit and aren’t drunk, sick (I mean like going to hospital sick) injured, or have an active warrant then I don’t want to see, touch, hold, check, or molest your weapon in any way. It’s yours not the states, not the county’s, not the city’s, and not mine.

During emergencies like traffic accidents and situations where people have been hurt and need to go the hospital I have taken the weapon with me and delivered it to the spouse, son, daughter the permit holder wanted me to.

On a few severe crashes I have removed the weapon from a deceased or unconscious victim (and if the unconscious comes to at the hospital proceeded with delivering it to whom they requested)

The EMS system and Hospital have enough to do, and since it is a weapon I always felt by virtue of the victims bad luck I should assume responsibility for the firearm until the owner could direct disposition.

Some not all EMS people are uneasy with a weapon in their ambulance and even in slight injury cases I have done the delivery boy routine. (And I never ran the serial numbers)

As for traffic stops, as I said I worked a rural area, sometimes back up was 15 minutes or more away. On more than one occasion at zero dark thirty in the morning I have had Joe Citizen stop on the other side of the road, or in front of the stopped vehicle and shout out “You Okay?”

On a couple occasions a citizen that I had stopped previously or knew in passing has “watched” the stop until I released the vehicle or back up arrived.

I was not afraid to conduct the stops in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, but it was always was nice to see a regular person care enough to stop and at least be a witness.

I have had people come out on their front porch and watch and afterwards I have spoken to those who have stopped and watched. I always got the same story, man your crazy out here alone, and thought I would make sure your okay. Of course I thanked them and explain not all officers would react as I did.

The LEO’s here can tell me how lucky I am not to have been killed, and the non-LEO’s will probably find something they didn’t like.

I can only speak as a rural officer working in a small population where everybody knows you because you’re a LEO, and you see the same faces everyday because you’re working in the community and interacting with the people.

As an example I would see the same blue Ford truck going to work every day on the same road at the same time. I had my usual vehicles I seen every morning, after awhile there is the morning wave thing going on, maybe bumping into them at the gas station getting the morning coffee.

Then comes the morning an hour late a speeding blue Ford truck, going fast enough that I should issue a ticket and not a warning.

Of course I stop them,… on approach, Oversleep? Baby was up all night sick; I know how that is, slow down a bit okay? Yes Sir, oh by the way deer are running heavy out by Cato road watch it when you get there, okay thanks, you’re not gonna gimme a ticket? Just slow down and get to work, you’re late already.

I hated writing tickets; I gave a ton of warnings. I preferred to patrol the county roads and look for people up to no good, like stealing from rural residences and farms, or making meth and the like.

Those folks that live out in the sticks notice a police car driving thru in the middle of the night, word gets out that patrols are being done, people know who the officer is and they will approach and say thanks.

That to me is what made the job worth doing. Or seeing a garage door open on some ones house you have passed a hundred times in the middle of the night and taking a closer via spot light only to met by the owner who over a cup of coffee tells you he has seen you patrolling in the night lots of times and appreciates it.

To me that is as rewarding as catching a criminal, and I caught a bunch over years.

Yes I run plates, I ran out of county plates on vehicles in rural areas near farm buildings and rural properties where I had never seen them before, if nothing came up missing then it was for nothing, if something came up missing the next few days then I had a possible lead to look into.

Some may have a problem with my nosey attitude, but in the areas I patrolled I always thought the people deserved someone watching over their stuff when they couldn’t.

As for vehicle searches, I have asked, but I always had a reason to search before I asked, about half the time they would consent. I don’t ever recall searching a vehicle as a fishing expedition.

There are too many others out there that may as well be waving a flag that says “Arrest me”

But I wasn’t a very good cop, I trusted people to do the right thing too much, but I am still alive, and still live in the county I worked, and even now retired I can go to the store and look those people I worked for in the eye and not feel guilty about the way I tended the flock on my watch.

Sounds like Mayberry, It would be an honor to be stopped by you sir. A true role-model, a true American, and a good citizen.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your right! you weren't a very good cop.


YOU WERE A GREAT COP! A Beacon of light for the rest to see and imitate!!! YOU are what police officers should aspire to be! A patriot Sir!

I agree he did his job the right way. I have no issue with the way he went out his job, however, the way LE conducts itself in rural areas with a known populace vs urban areas full of strangers, must be noted.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I would have cooperated fully by letting him know I have my LTCH and firearm, but there is no way I would have let him search my vehicle (nothing illegal to find to begin with)... tough ****, get the dogs or a warrant "buddy".. I know my rights.

 

[Richard47]

You won't have rights if you don't have the character strength to assert them. A roadside stop is not the place to make friends. If you really want to be buddies, ask the cop for his business card and call him in a week and invite him to lunch.

If you are businesslike, you'll get respect. If you try to show him what a "great guy" you are after he stopped you, he'll just smile and regard you as a wuss.

 

[IndyGunner]

I dont know what dick is talking about ^ but showing respect and being friendly is about all you cant do. My question is... how can one county interfere with a state law?

 

[sonny27]

For the ump-teenth time, you have the option to say "no." If PC existed, trust, that I wouldn't be asking for permission.
I'm sorry that in as you grow older, you only see LE as agents of the govt. But lets be fair, the majority of the time people come into contact with law enforcement, it isnt for a good reason. That in itself helps create the image, as when LE shows up, typically some is in trouble.
I would suggest that anybody interested in the day to day workings of law enforcement (other than testaments here or from the media) take a ride-a-long. It's not all speed traps, consent searches, and let's see who I can **** off....

I'm game if anybody else is.

I'm game... I reside in Carmel, let me know what I need to do.

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[4690]

That officers screams made me sick to my stomach.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So you are in the habit of knowingly infringing on others rights & justify it with technicalities? I don't ever give neg reps but sometimes it is truly deserved.

Since apparently you thought I need a neg rep, I'd like to know exactly what right rights I have infringed upon due to a technicality? Is that technicality someone saying "yes" when asked if their vehicle can be searched?

 

[finity]

Since apparently you thought I need a neg rep, I'd like to know exactly what right rights I have infringed upon due to a technicality? Is that technicality someone saying "yes" when asked if their vehicle can be searched?

You are a scam artist.

You, asking a person who may well be ignorant of the law & their rights, for consent to search given no PC is wrong. I don't really care what the SCOTUS says.

It's no different than a snake oil salesman taking advantage of the "simplicity" (IOW, ignorance) of people who aren't as savvy as the salesman. There are laws against fraud just as there ought to be a law against asking for "consent".

You even admitted your use of tricks, or should I say "art", to get consent when if you were otherwise honest then consent likely wouldn't be given:

You could have simply said no. I ask to search vehicles on a pretty regular basis. There's an "art," (pardon my coyness), to asking for consent into a vehicle when consent doesnt exist. Interacting with the public in such instances, is something that simply cannot be taught at the academy. That said, there have been plenty of times I've denied consent. I don't get butthurt, I don't try to get even, I simply conclude the traffic stop. Ive arrested people on consent searches when I honestly thought I wouldn't find anything (ie, I lacked the PC to search w/o consent), so the value in doing "random" consent searches is there.
My advice, know your rights. It's hard to place blame on LE for something you allow either because of your fear, ignorance, or indifference.

If you trick someone into giving up their rights then it is YOU who should be ashamed of yourself. It is you who give other LEO's like CVMA544 a bad name & it is you who makes his job much harder in the long run through the mistrust that you build.

I think it's funny that you throw out the idea that fear of repercussions from denying the police consent to search is a good reason for you to take advantage of that fear. The police want us to fear them. You want us to unquestioningly follow your commands, for your safety of course. Isn't that what the whole concept behind "command presence" is all about. We have been conditioned by the authorities since we were born to "trust officer friendly" & also that we're going to be in a world of hurt if we **** off the cops (even if by pissing them off we aren't doing anything illegal but merely not respecting "mah autoritah!"). Isn't that the general reason behind most of the people's comments in this thread when they say they don't know if they would be brave enough to say "no"?

So you get what you want - a compliant populace. Then turn right around & sneeringly say that if we're too afraid of you to forcefully exercise our rights then we get what we deserve. Bull****!!!

I dare you to be completely honest with people from now on & tell them up front that they don't have to consent to the search & they will have no other repercussions if they do say "no". I'll bet that your "consent" rate drops to pretty near zero. Very few people want somebody else snooping around in their stuff, especially the police & if they know for sure that they really can say "no" they will.

Go on. I dare you. Prove me wrong.

 

[Hotdoger]

Since apparently you thought I need a neg rep, I'd like to know exactly what right rights I have infringed upon due to a technicality? Is that technicality someone saying "yes" when asked if their vehicle can be searched?

Maybe he thinks just like me.IE.
It is called trust in an law enforcement officer.
If there is good enough a reason for you to ask to search, then that should be good enough reason to get a warrant. Otherwise you are abusing your postion by taking advantage of the ignorant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are a scam artist.

You, asking a person who may well be ignorant of the law & their rights, for consent to search given no PC is wrong. I don't really care what the SCOTUS says.

and you sir, are one of those that is "ignorant of the law." If an officer has PC to search a car, then consent isn't needed.

It's no different than a snake oil salesman taking advantage of the "simplicity" (IOW, ignorance) of people who aren't as savvy as the salesman. There are laws against fraud just as there ought to be a law against asking for "consent".

You even admitted your use of tricks, or should I say "art", to get consent when if you were otherwise honest then consent likely wouldn't be given:

If you trick someone into giving up their rights then it is YOU who should be ashamed of yourself. It is you who give other LEO's like CVMA544 a bad name & it is you who makes his job much harder in the long run through the mistrust that you build.

There most certainly is an "art" to gaining consent into a vehicle when PC isn't present. I don't retract that statement in the slightest. I see that your mind wants to run with the "pulling fast ones" idea, but talking to a person on the side of the road, RS or not, is something that one has to verse themselves in. There are no tricks involved, it's more about being comfortable and more importantly making the subject comfortable as well. But what do you know of way I ask for consent? Last I knew, you've never been involved in one of my consent searches.

I think it's funny that you throw out the idea that fear of repercussions from denying the police consent to search is a good reason for you to take advantage of that fear. The police want us to fear them. You want us to unquestioningly follow your commands, for your safety of course. Isn't that what the whole concept behind "command presence" is all about. We have been conditioned by the authorities since we were born to "trust officer friendly" & also that we're going to be in a world of hurt if we **** off the cops (even if by pissing them off we aren't doing anything illegal but merely not respecting "mah autoritah!"). Isn't that the general reason behind most of the people's comments in this thread when they say they don't know if they would be brave enough to say "no"?

And now your so bold as to make a claim that is an outright lie. Please link me anywhere that I have said or hinted the part I bolded. It's shameful that you resort to lying to prove a point. Perhaps you read someone else's posts, and attributed it to me. In this case, I hope so, as trying to pin that line of thought on me, fall nowhere near anything I've ever said.

Actually, in post #114, I said just the opposite of what you claim:

If I were to ask for consent, and you say no, contact terminates. If I detained you longer to have a K9 come to scene or call for back up, I would be exceeding the scope (and violating your rights). One cannot use threat of a citation of coerce, that decision is to be made before consent is asked for.

So ARE you liar (which I, personally, believe), or are you mis-attributing your claim? It's either one or the other.

So you get what you want - a compliant populace. Then turn right around & sneeringly say that if we're too afraid of you to forcefully exercise our rights then we get what we deserve. Bull****!!!

I dare you to be completely honest with people from now on & tell them up front that they don't have to consent to the search & they will have no other repercussions if they do say "no". I'll bet that your "consent" rate drops to pretty near zero. Very few people want somebody else snooping around in their stuff, especially the police & if they know for sure that they really can say "no" they will.

Go on. I dare you. Prove me wrong.

No need to dare, 'cause I won't do it. Consent searches are valuable tools. I've taken a bunch of bad guys off the street from it's use. If you you don't want your car searched when ask, then forcefully exercise your rights by whispering a simple "no." ....it's also apparent that you, as well as a liar, have no clue what "forcefully exercising" your rights means....

I guess every place has to have at least one "That Guy" enjoy the title champ

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe he thinks just like me.IE.
It is called trust in an law enforcement officer.
If there is good enough a reason for you to ask to search, then that should be good enough reason to get a warrant. Otherwise you are abusing your postion by taking advantage of the ignorant.

Just out of curiosity, could you tell me what reasons in your personal opinion, would qualify for asking for a search? And what reasons would qualify in asking for a warrant? Just so you know, and I'm sure you do know, a judge would ask during the application for a warrant, if the officer asked for consent. If he didn't, you can bet that the warrant wont be granted.

 

[finity]

and you sir, are one of those that is "ignorant of the law." If an officer has PC to search a car, then consent isn't needed.

I’m far from ignorant of the law. I know you don’t need consent if you have PC.

I said that if you are taking advantage of someone’s ignorance (fear, indifference, etc) by asking for their consent to search then you are wrong (as in “immoral” not “incorrect”). The reason you needed consent is because you don’t have PC.

There does that help you out on understanding a very simple concept that I wrote previously.

There most certainly is an

"art" to gaining consent into a vehicle when PC isn't present. I don't retract that statement in the slightest. I see that your mind wants to run with the "pulling fast ones" idea, but talking to a person on the side of the road, RS or not, is something that one has to verse themselves in. There are no tricks involved, it's more about being comfortable and more importantly making the subject comfortable as well. But what do you know of way I ask for consent? Last I knew, you've never been involved in one of my consent searches.

So it’s not a “trick” to make someone “comfortable” with you searching their car while at the same time knowing that you are trying to find something to arrest them for? Hmm...

Sounds like pulling a fast one to me & I’d venture to say that it sounds that way to most thinking people here, too. Especially if you use their ignorance and/or fear as an advantage against them.

And now your so bold as to make a claim that is an outright lie. Please link me anywhere that I have said or hinted the part I bolded. It's shameful that you resort to lying to prove a point. Perhaps you read someone else's posts, and attributed it to me. In this case, I hope so, as trying to pin that line of thought on me, fall nowhere near anything I've ever said.

Ok since you can’t read your own posts, I’ll copy the same post that I did above again:

You could have simply said no. I ask to search vehicles on a pretty regular basis. There's an "art," (pardon my coyness), to asking for consent into a vehicle when consent doesnt exist. Interacting with the public in such instances, is something that simply cannot be taught at the academy. That said, there have been plenty of times I've denied consent. I don't get butthurt, I don't try to get even, I simply conclude the traffic stop. Ive arrested people on consent searches when I honestly thought I wouldn't find anything (ie, I lacked the PC to search w/o consent), so the value in doing "random" consent searches is there.

My advice, know your rights. It's hard to place blame on LE for something you allow either because of your fear, ignorance, or indifference.

Notice the bolded part.

You are saying it’s not your fault that people are either too ignorant or afraid to tell you “no” when you ask to search their vehicle. You are using their fear of “you” to your advantage.

I’m standing by waiting for an apology for being called a liar.

Actually, in post #114, I said just the opposite of what you claim:

I never said that you were going to come right out & tell the person that you will give them a ticket unless they agree to let you search. I don’t think you’re that stupid.

However, coercion takes many different forms. Even the SCOTUS has said the same thing. Just the fact that you are an authority figure is enough to make many (most?) people feel “coerced” into doing something (i.e. give consent for a search) that they wouldn’t otherwise do.

Which is EXACTLY the point of this thread. YOU use fear & ignorance as an advantage to coerce consent to do a search that you otherwise wouldn’t have the PC to perform.

No need to dare, 'cause I won't do it.

I didn’t think you’d have the balls to actually do the right thing.

Consent searches are valuable tools. I've taken a bunch of bad guys off the street from it's use.

Valuable to who? If they are so valuable & you also have nothing to gain by using fear & ignorance then why not be up front? I guess you don’t agree with the Miranda warnings then? There is NO DIFFERENCE. It’s exactly the same thing as what I’m saying you should do when asking for consent, correct?

You can’t figure out that something is just plain wrong without being told as much by a higher authority?

As someone else said already, the ends don’t always justify the means. Especially when we’re talking about police powers & someone’s freedom being at stake. That’s why we have a Constitution. Otherwise we’d be completely at the mercy of cops who have no problem doing what they have to do to get “bad guys” off the street.

Asking for consent to search may sound like a minor thing to you but it’s still an infringement if the people you’re asking DON’T KNOW THEY CAN SAY “NO”.

I also have personal experience with your “I just asked – you could have said “no”” kind of crap.

A couple of years ago my son was out riding with his friend who was driving & the owner of the car. They got stopped & during the course of the stop the cop asked if they had anything illegal & they told him no. He then asked if he could search. They told him yes. He spent 45 minutes taking everything out of the car & throwing it on the road for them to put back in when he, in fact, found nothing illegal.

Later I asked my son why they gave permission. He said they thought they had to or he would have used that as an admission that they were hiding something & searched anyway. Besides they were so nervous they really didn’t know what to do.

So yes, my 18 YO son was ignorant & scared of the authority figure with a gun & badge at his window & was doing nothing illegal aside from the traffic infraction. I’d much rather 100 bad guys get away with having “contraband” than to have 1 innocent person like my son go through that kind of degradation at the hands of an overzealous cop on a fishing trip.

I will forcefully exercise my rights & I will do my best to make sure my kids also know their rights to protect them from that kind of crap happening again.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I’m far from ignorant of the law. I know you don’t need consent if you have PC....


I’m standing by waiting for an apology for being called a liar.

Dont hold your breath. You certainly are a liar, and no amount of spin changes that.

You don't even have enough self-respect or honor to admit that you were wrong, when you said... "for consent to search given no PC is wrong," after I informed you consent ISNT needed if PC is already attained. Your response to me correcting you. "I know you don't need consent if you have PC"..... sure you did.

There no need even talking you, your type is well known to me, I deal with self serving, "always right" guys like you all the time.

and for the all the "knowledge" you seem to like passing along here, I'd suggest your time would be better used teaching your family... (ie your son).

 

[SMiller]

Letting him search the truck means you have to stand outside, this means NO you can NOT search the truck, bring the K9 and walk it around, have fun, I will stay in here where it is warm, the cops will get bored and go away eventually...

Why was the cop digging so hard?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Letting him search the truck means you have to stand outside, this means NO you can NOT search the truck, bring the K9 and walk it around, have fun, I will stay in here where it is warm, the cops will get bored and go away eventually...

Why was the cop digging so hard?

I suspect it was a "favor" for a friend....That's part of the reason I played along, to send a message that he is barking up the wrong tree.