Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

Logic fail. Hardened criminals are more likely to know how to play the game so are far less likely to consent to a search. The people that we need to lock away are not dumbass 20 year olds with a small amount of drugs but rather violent professional criminals that are running crime rings and are not likely to be busted in a traffic stop. You are just making up scenarios that fit your own biases.

My point in this post is that it’s better for criminals to be caught than not caught, and if consent searches allow more criminals to be caught, that’s a good thing. You seem to disagree, and think it’s better for at least some of them not to be caught. If so, we just disagree—I’m not sure where my “logic fail” was though.