Simply and agreeably assert your rights. More people do it than you think.
And then the cop calls for the drug dog, and suddenly, you're dealing with a dog trained to please it's handler, which in this case means telling the cop that you have drugs in your car. And off to jail you go. As far as the cop is concerned, his thuggish behavior is now vindicated because you're a drug dealing degenerate.
Given how rarely police blow the whistle on other police, I’d say there’s evidence that the majority are actively unlawful.
No, you aren't going to jail unless the search “justified” by the drug-dog “hit” reveals something that the police can spin into probable cause of a crime.
Needn’t be drugs, or even actual contraband.
You can sue anyone, anytime, for anything, but even if charges aren't filed or a court dismisses them at the preliminary hearing stage for lack of sufficient evidence, wrongful arrest suits against police are very difficult.
No, mere suspicion is not sufficient for arrest.
> "Probable cause" relates to searching or entering private property.
It also relates to arrest. The Fourth Amendment provision applying the standard explicitly applies to searches and seizures of persons, houses, and effects. Arrest is seizure of one’s person.
A drug dog’s indications provide probable cause for searching your car, but are not enough to arrest you.
Probable cause (of slightly different things; the threshold is the same but the subject is different) is the bar for both search and arrest.
You would need to actually be suspected of a crime. If the cops don't find drugs, what crime are you guilty of?
The usual full expression is something like “probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a particular crime”.
> "Probable cause" can be used to justify a search.
“Probable cause” is a constitutional requirement for search warrants, arrest warrants, warrantless arrests, and warrantless searches; for searches, the probable cause is that the search conducted will uncover evidence of a crime, which is different than the probable cause for arrest.
> You would need to actually be suspected of a crime.
Well, no, there needs to be probable cause to believe you've committed a crime. Actual suspicion is a much lower standard.
> If the cops don't find drugs, what crime are you guilty of?
There are...like thousands of other crimes, and millions of possible configurations of things that are not drugs that could support probable cause to believe you've committed one of them. Spray paint cans consistent with a recent spate of vandalism (graffiti) in the area is one I’ve personally seen used, beyond things that are inherently actual or apparent contraband, and the “actual or apparent contraband” category extends to more than just drugs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWyzPpYslYc
People have been arrested because the police claimed that a standard dose of Tylenol the night before was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If a police officer wants to take you to jail you're going to jail.
Are they operating under the assumption that everyone is on social media, and if you deny it then you’re lying?
Police culture in America is based around disgust and disdain for the notion of “rights”. You can try standing up for your rights, but that is likely to be responded to with “stop resisting!” and a subsequent (constitutionally protected) physical assault.
Then Ted Cruz will go to Jamaica.
All American culture increasingly feels disgust and disdain for the notion of rights. The police culture is the result of that broader problem.