No, it has to do with the defense of the search in court. Nothing is better (from the game warden's pov) than consent. Consent makes a search solid and one that can't be challenged in court. The only issue then being if the consent was given legally and willingly.
If he has Probable Cause, he can search without a warrant (usually) due to "exigent circumstances." Which means he couldn't get a warrant before you moved the vehicle. Same as looking for drugs, but the searching officer MUST have articulateable probable cause. Such as he sees contraband in your vehicle or too many ducks in your boat.
A warrantless search (without consent) is the most difficult to defend. But if the officer knows what he's doing and goes by the law, such a search will pass. Refusal to permit a consent search cannot add to probable cause...exercise of a right can't add to a motive for taking a right away.
As I said before, cops and I assume game wardens don't go about searching cars with or without consent randomly. Takes time, adds to paperwork, and just isn't generally done without some reason. If something is found on an warrantless search without consent, that reason will be tested in court. And it better be good.
There are numerous books written on Search and Seizure, and obviously the cans and can'ts cannot be explained by a few posts or by me, who isn't a lawyer.
Last edited by Genelang; 09/10/16 09:24 PM.
