[PT145SS]

Originally Posted by kalimus

"Probable cause" is pretty open to interpretation. I would be willing to bet, that every person reading this post would have assumed those guys to be smoking weed without Adam having to say so, just by the mention of them going outside, and coming back in stinking of body spray. In that case, I would agree with "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime" (which is what smoking weed is).

"Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Belief" are two very different things and are different enough to be defined by SCOTUS in Terry vs. Ohio. Reasonable belief, would have only legally bought the OP a chance to make legal contact with the individual and get a "Terry Pat" out of it. The OP would then only have a limited chance to gain probable cause during a very limited and short investigation which is afforded in a Terry Stop. At no point does the OP have probable cause to search a vehicle as described in the post.

Unfortunately there are no laws that I am aware of preventing LEOs from lying about what they know during an interview. There are some laws about false promises in regards to letting someone go or reduced sentences and such. But a LEO can lie about pretty much anything else.

I would agree with others, opening ones mouth....even if completely innocent... is fool hardy. Your words can only be twisted and used against you.

LEO: Do you know why I pulled you over?

YOU: Because you have an uncontrollable urge to violate my 4th amendment rights!