Should Private Citizens Be Allowed To Search Each Other?

[Commodore]

This question is inspired by the episode of Cops I'm watching right now. This girl gave a guy a ride and she got pulled over. It turns out the guy she gave a ride had drugs and a concealed weapon without a concealed carry permit. Now the girl really had no idea the guy had these things on him and the police officer told her that she could be arrested as well since the owner of a vehicle is responsible for everything in the vehicle.

Now the cop didn't arrest her, but this begs the question: In a situation you are about to give a ride to someone, should you, a private citizen, be allowed to conduct a search of the individual and his/her possessions before allowing them to enter your vehicle?

 

[Boundless]

Well in general, you do. Anyone I am giving a lift, I wouldn't expect them to be carrying anything illegal!

 

[Commodore]

Well in general, you do. Anyone I am giving a lift, I wouldn't expect them to be carrying anything illegal!

But would it be a violation of their rights if I demanded to search them before allowing them in my vehicle?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

But would it be a violation of their rights if I demanded to search them before allowing them in my vehicle?

It's your vehicle and it's their inalienable right to not enter it.

 

[Skwink]

But would it be a violation of their rights if I demanded to search them before allowing them in my vehicle?

If you think they need to be searched for illegal things, I don't think you should be offering them a ride in the first place.

 

[Defiant47]

But would it be a violation of their rights if I demanded to search them before allowing them in my vehicle?

It would not be a violation of their rights because they do not have the right to be in your vehicle.

It's a choice, really. Let me search you (which I can't force you to), or I don't give you a ride (which you can't force me to).

 

[Commodore]

It would not be a violation of their rights because they do not have the right to be in your vehicle.

It's a choice, really. Let me search you (which I can't force you to), or I don't give you a ride (which you can't force me to).

I say rights because you know as soon as you asked someone to let you search them they would start shouting about their right to privacy and all that. People do it with TSA all the time.

 

[illram]

Yeah this is not a question of rights; you either let the person search you or you don't get a ride. You definitely do not have the right to put your hands on someone else without their permission.

Personally if someone would not take my word for it I would find another ride.

 

[Bootstoots]

It would not be a violation of their rights because they do not have the right to be in your vehicle.

It's a choice, really. Let me search you (which I can't force you to), or I don't give you a ride (which you can't force me to).

This sounds like one of those things that works in the abstract theory-world but doesn't work very well in practice.

Although you could demand such a thing, who does this while giving an acquaintance a ride? And is not knowing about a passenger's possession of drugs/firearms/etc considered a defense in court? I don't know the answer to that question, but I imagine others here do.

 

[Takhisis]

Search me.

 

[Abegweit]

This question is inspired by the episode of Cops I'm watching right now. This girl gave a guy a ride and she got pulled over. It turns out the guy she gave a ride had drugs and a concealed weapon without a concealed carry permit. Now the girl really had no idea the guy had these things on him and the police officer told her that she could be arrested as well since the owner of a vehicle is responsible for everything in the vehicle.

Now the cop didn't arrest her, but this begs the question: In a situation you are about to give a ride to someone, should you, a private citizen, be allowed to conduct a search of the individual and his/her possessions before allowing them to enter your vehicle?

This is all about the state scumbags spreading their net.
1) Of course she has the right to question the guy before giving him a ride. Isn't that obvious? If said possible rider doesn't like it then he can walk away.
2) The scumbags are scum. The guy she gave a ride to did nothing wrong. Nothing.

 

[Takhisis]

Drugs and an illegal weapon. Oh, I always forget that laws and such things are only for scum in your worldview.

 

[LucyDuke]

This question is inspired by the episode of Cops I'm watching right now.

Don't watch that show, it's bad for your mind.

In a situation you are about to give a ride to someone, should you, a private citizen, be allowed to conduct a search of the individual and his/her possessions before allowing them to enter your vehicle?

You're allowed to demand whatever you want before letting someone in your car.

The guy she gave a ride to did nothing wrong. Nothing.

You don't know that he didn't lie to her. Lying is wrong.

 

[Thedrin]

2) The scumbags are scum. The guy she gave a ride to did nothing wrong. Nothing.

He put her in a situation where she could be arrested without her knowing it. Even if his acts were a deliberate, justified, non-violent protest against the statists, involving her in his protest without her consent would be wrong.

 

[woody60707]

This is all about the state scumbags spreading their net.
1) Of course she has the right to question the guy before giving him a ride. Isn't that obvious? If said possible rider doesn't like it then he can walk away.
2) The scumbags are scum. The guy she gave a ride to did nothing wrong. Nothing.

There is no way on gods green earth you can say that a guy that is carrying illegal drugs and weapons, AND then involves an innocent person in the transportation of illegal drugs and weapons is doing nothing wrong.
Moderator Action: Calling someone a troll is, in itself, trolling. Please report posts rather than respond in anger.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hehehe]

the owner of a vehicle is responsible for everything in the vehicle.

How about you fix this law? I mean, imagine, for example, that a girl gives a guy a ride. He is carrying drugs and/or weapons without her knowledge. The girl would now be guilty of a crime ! Oh wait.

But seriously, I don't think she should have been held legally responsible in the first place, assuming she really didn't know about the drugs and the weapon.

 

[woody60707]

How about you fix this law? I mean, imagine, for example, that a girl gives a guy a ride. He is carrying drugs and/or weapons without her knowledge. The girl would now be guilty of a crime ! Oh wait.

But seriously, I don't think she should have been held legally responsible in the first place, assuming she really didn't know about the drugs and the weapon.

This isn't true. She wouldn't be found guilty. You still need mens rea (mostly lol) in the US to be found guilty of a crime. Simple being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty, or will even be charged with a crime.

Hell you could be selling girl scout cookies and if you happen to be really unlucky, if for those 5 secs you are at house and the cops storm that house for a drug bust, you and everyone else in that house is getting taken in.

 

[Hehehe]

This isn't true. She wouldn't be found guilty. You still need mens rea (mostly lol) in the US to be found guilty of a crime. Simple being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty, or will even be charged with a crime.

Hell you could be selling girl scout cookies and if you happen to be really unlucky, if for those 5 secs you are at house and the cops storm that house for a drug bust, you and everyone else in that house is getting taken in.

Good to hear. But then what was that "the owner of a vehicle is responsible for everything in the vehicle" business then? Cops just trying to scare that girl? And if what you're saying is the case, I don't see a problem here, given that the owner is not responsible for the passengers.

 

[woody60707]

Good to hear. But then what was that "the owner of a vehicle is responsible for everything in the vehicle" business then? Cops just trying to scare that girl? And if what you're saying is the case, I don't see a problem here, given that the owner is not responsible for the passengers.

Yes and no. You are responsible, with in reason. If everyone's sweet old grandpa whom you are just driving to church turns out to be Walter White with a pound of blue meth in his coat, no you wouldn't be responsible. If your friend, pot head dan, calls you up looking to be picked up from his friend's house "drug dealer dave", then yes you may be found guilty under the reasonable person test. Even tho you have no knowledge of any drugs on pot head dan's person when he is in your car.

 

[aelf]

This, if actually applied regularly (like through random checks at roadblocks or whatever), would basically make the jobs of taxi drivers impossible. Doesn't it?