Pharmacy List: US List · International List · Canadian List · Black List | Drug List · Compare Prices
Recent Posts: Past 24 Hours · Past 48 Hours · Past Week
Maybe someone can clarify this, I have never understood this part of the law:
Let's assume in both cases, you had something illegal that you could be arrested for in the car (pot, for argument's sake):
1) Let's say a cop pulls you over for speeding or not stopping at a stop sign, whatever. Let's say the cop asks to search your car, and you say no. If he goes ahead and searches it anyway, who has to prove that you consented or didn't consent to the search? If the cop lies in court, do you have to prove that you didn't consent to the search? Or does he have to prove that you did somehow? Isn't it kinda impossible to prove this, it's really just your word against his?
2) Also let's say you get pulled over and the cop claims he smelled pot, but there really wasn't any burning, yet he goes ahead and searches the car. Does he have to prove that he really did smell pot? Do you have to prove there is no way he smelled pot?
I was never clear on how this is handled in court, since it's your word against the cop's. Let's say you have no witnesses, it's just you and the cop (and possibly his backup cop)- if the cops lie and say you consented or make up a story, what happens then? To me it seems like they should have to prove it somehow, to prevent them from abusing their power- although if that were the case, it would be pretty hard to enforce any kinda law involving searching a car.