View Full Version : NEVER NEVER NEVER consent to a search.
QuietShootr
12-21-11, 07:36
Sorry for the crosspost, but this is vital information.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1267246_This_is_why_you_never_consent_to_a_vehicle_search.html
ForTehNguyen
12-21-11, 08:10
direct link to article. Ironic that his name was Glass rofl
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=448157
Former Haskell Officer Found Guilty of Planting Drugs as Evidence
Reported by: Jessica Reyes
Monday, December 19 2011
A former Haskell police officer was found guilty after pleading no contest to fabrication of physical evidence charges.
Bill Glass resigned from the Haskell Police Department in March of 2010, saying allegations he'd planted methamphetamine in a car during a traffic stop were "baseless." When the drugs were sent off for testing, a chemist at the lab traced them back to the officer.
...more at link...
QuietShootr
12-21-11, 08:17
direct link to article. Ironic that his name was Glass rofl
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=448157
Let me save some guys some trouble here:
"Isolated incident"
"you're a cop basher"
"You have 5 warning points for anti-LE trolling"
This is about self-defense. Self-defense includes not putting yourself in situations where someone with power can **** you. If this post saves one person from going to prison unjustly, it's worth it.
Let me save some guys some trouble here:
"Isolated incident"
"you're a cop basher"
"You have 5 warning points for anti-LE trolling"
This is about self-defense. Self-defense includes not putting yourself in situations where someone with power can **** you. If this post saves one person from going to prison unjustly, it's worth it.
With you 100%
There are scumbags in EVERY profession, LE is not immune.
I never give consent to anything. Know your rights & stand your ground.
Being an LEO myself I think this shitbag should have gotten a lot more than probation. I mean seriously what the **** is the motivation to plant evidence? Guys like this make my job a lot harder.
QuietShootr
12-21-11, 10:10
Being an LEO myself I think this shitbag should have gotten a lot more than probation. I mean seriously what the **** is the motivation to plant evidence? Guys like this make my job a lot harder.
I assume you meant 'what is the motivation NOT to plant evidence?' Anyway - Agreed. Probation????
This is so offensive to good order. All kidding aside, if you can't trust the police to do the right thing, your society is lost.
Being an LEO myself I think this shitbag should have gotten a lot more than probation. I mean seriously what the **** is the motivation to plant evidence? Guys like this make my job a lot harder.
That bugs me too, ****er should've got 7 years of prison time.
glockshooter
12-21-11, 10:35
I assume you meant 'what is the motivation NOT to plant evidence?' Anyway - Agreed. Probation????
This is so offensive to good order. All kidding aside, if you can't trust the police to do the right thing, your society is lost.
A really cop doesn't need any motivation to "NOT" violate his oath. The "assumption " that one does is asinine. To judge one group of anything based on the actions of one or even a few is just stupid.
As a side note just remember if and when the call comes to save you or your loved ones, a cop will come and put his life one the line. His only motivation will be helping you and yours. Hell it may even be me.
Stay safe,
Matt
CarlosDJackal
12-21-11, 11:03
As a former LEO or 9 years, I echo the warning of not consenting to a search unless they have a warrant and in extreme cases - someone with a video camera present. Especially if the reason for the consent is not articulated to you.
If they were to tell me that there is an APB for a car that fits my car's description or a kidnapping suspect that fits my description; I would only consent to a search if: (a) They have someone with a video camera present; and (b) Their shift supervisor is also present. Even then the most I would allow is a view inside the trunk of my car just to prove that I had not kidnapped anyone.
While the number of scumbags that are on the force reflect the same percentage as the society they serve; there is a reason why we are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Use your best judgment and common sense if you are ever in this type of a situation.
But the best move you can make is NOT to give anyone probable cause to pull you over in the first place. JM2CW.
Eurodriver
12-21-11, 11:13
But the best move you can make is NOT to give anyone probable cause to pull you over in the first place. JM2CW.
Not always possible.
My dad was pulled over and hassled for almost an hour one night because a call came in about a white lincoln town car speeding away from a B&E down a certain road.
He happened to be on that road in a white lincoln town car...it was not a fun night for him. Luckily he had absolutely nothing in the car that even the most dirtbag LEO could drum up as evidence.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-21-11, 12:09
What is the usual term for possession of that much meth?
There are scumbags in EVERY profession, LE is not immune.
Comparing sworn law enforcement to any other profession doesn't really work but I do get your point.
Evil Colt 6920
12-21-11, 12:19
Sadly its stories like this that go mainstream and not the stories of their heroic actions... cause then their just doing their job right, no news to report. Its the media's fault the public views LEO's this way :mad:
Sadly its stories like this that go mainstream and not the stories of their heroic actions... cause then their just doing their job right, no news to report. Its the media's fault the public views LEO's this way :mad:
That's such a cop out. If you're looking to blame someone for the way the public views LE than look no further than the shitbag cops who break the law. For the past month there hasn't been a day I can remember that a cop isn't in the news for being a pedophile or getting busted for child pornography. If the police would remove the protection racket, commonly called the union, and actually suffer the same consequences the general public did when they ****ed up then they'd get rid of the trash and keep the good guys eliminating a lot of the issues.
There are also many, many good police officers out there doing a very good job for the public and living up to their sworn oath. But it's just like any profession in the fact that the shitbag is the one who gets paid the most attention to and it only takes one person to screw it up for everybody else. Simple solution, get rid of the bad cops instead of making excuses for them and these perceived issues will fade into the collective memory hole.
Did he have a bunch of Crown Royal bags in his duty gear too? :D
Scary, and does anyone think this was his first time planting evidence?
Forgive my ignorance, as I don't exactly have encounters with law enforcement very often. What is likely to happen if you do not consent?
What is likely to happen if you do not consent?
Search you anyways and plant a big chunk of meth.
:p
Sadly its stories like this that go mainstream and not the stories of their heroic actions... cause then their just doing their job right, no news to report. Its the media's fault the public views LEO's this way :mad:
That's not true. There are plenty of "hero cop" stories, I've posted more than a few here myself.
There are all kinds of reasons that "some" of the public has a negative view of LE. Some of those problems are the fault of LE, some of those problems are the fault of the public.
Forgive my ignorance, as I don't exactly have encounters with law enforcement very often. What is likely to happen if you do not consent?
There is a reason they need your permission, without it they can't search without a warrant or probable cause, but I'm not LE so I'll let one of them explain the details.
Comparing sworn law enforcement to any other profession doesn't really work but I do get your point.
I wasn't really trying to compare the two per se, just pointing out that assholes are everywhere.
I'm no cop basher, 99.99% of them are great people doing a tough job for honorable reasons, and those reasons certainly aren't glamor or high pay.
Unfortunately, the .01% of scumbags who are power hungry badge polishers do make the spotlight and taint the image of the honorable majority.
glockshooter
12-21-11, 15:08
Forgive my ignorance, as I don't exactly have encounters with law enforcement very often. What is likely to happen if you do not consent?
Consent is just that. For a consentual search to legal your permission must be freely given. If you say no then there is no legal search. If you are searched without consent or without probable cause then any evidence recovered can not be legally used against you. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists that say they just lie about your consent, but again 99.99% of the officer act lawfully. Is it a perfect system? No but there truly isn't a perfect system for anything.
To all the anti police folks I understand your suspicion, but do you really believe every cop is out to get you? The same people you are bad mouthing would die and lose their families to protect you. Remember that the next time you call the police or start bad mouthing officers.
Consent is just that. For a consentual search to legal your permission must be freely given. If you say no then there is no legal search. If you are searched without consent or without probable cause then any evidence recovered can not be legally used against you. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists that say they just lie about your consent, but again 99.99% of the officer act lawfully. Is it a perfect system? No but there truly isn't a perfect system for anything.
I see what you did there. The officers acting "lawfully" only means that they've used whatever obfuscation, tricks or lies they've been taught to circumvent the 4th Amendment and to get you to agree to a search. A typical American citizen thinks that the police for some reason must simply "tell the truth" which couldn't be any further from the truth. Police are taught to lie and in some instances it's a very effective tool in order to help bring about a confession from a bad guy. It is illegal for a citizen to lie to the police but perfectly legal for the police to lie to the citizen.
Most people are intimidated when confronted by the police and will simply acquiesce rather than standing up for their Constitutional rights of which they're unaware of. Techniques to shame or guilt the person into going along with the search are common as well, "If you're not guilty then you won't object.", and work on most people even when they know they have something to hide.
Here at M4C we're supposed to be dealing with facts and saying 99.99% of police officers are good guys is just a blatant lie. Anybody who reads the news and sees the amount of police corruption and how many officers are caught breaking serious laws, up to and including multiple felonies, would dismiss this claim in a second.
To all the anti police folks I understand your suspicion, but do you really believe every cop is out to get you? The same people you are bad mouthing would die and lose their families to protect you. Remember that the next time you call the police or start bad mouthing officers.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "anti-police" but in case it's me I'll try to clarify my position and answer your comment. Are the same people you're talking about who would give up their lives for us the pedophiles, rapists, thieves, drug dealers and murderers that are busted every single day wearing a badge the same people? From what I've read and researched there are on average about 20 different reports every day where police are involved in criminal activity. I find it hard to believe that old Officer Meth from the OP would jump to someone's defense in the same way you would and I wouldn't want to lump myself in with him. It has nothing to do with "bad mouthing" officers and has everything to do with living in reality and being critical of the government employees in which we pay their salary and they work for us.
All that being said I'm not anti-cop but I am critical of every government agency that takes my money with or without my consent. Everyone from the dog catcher up to the POTUS should be held under a microscope as far as I'm concerned. If you don't like working for the public, who is often critical of how their tax dollars are spent, there are plenty of other professions out there.
glockshooter
12-21-11, 19:50
Irish,
Let me start by saying I appreciate that you are so passionate about your rights. I wish everyone care as much as you do, but it sounds to me that you are not happy with the law and how it is applied. You imply that ALL officers try to circumvent the 4th amendment because they operate within existing law. If you disagree with the law then that is one thing but to say cops are wrong for operating by existing rules and laws is another.
We are both in agreement that all public servants should be held to the highest standards. I can also tell you there is nothing I hate more than a cop that violates his oath. You obviously won't and don't believe that most cops do act and live the way they should but they do. I can assure you that if it were up to me every cop convicted of criminal activity would receive the maximum sentence.
Matt
outrider627
12-21-11, 22:56
Forgive my ignorance, as I don't exactly have encounters with law enforcement very often. What is likely to happen if you do not consent?
Usually nothing, as it should be, but if they really want to press the issue, they'll call a K9 unit. If the K9 alerts to a possible positive hit in your car, then you get searched anyway. SCOTUS has ruled that a K9 sniffing around your car is not a search, but its enough to give probable cause to search your car if signals a hit.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-11, 01:21
How do searches for officer safety figure into all this. I've asked the question elsewhere, but haven't gotten the definative answer that I was looking for.
If a cop feels threatened ( ? ) can he get you out of the car and search you? Search around where you where sitting if he thinks you have a weapon?
Usually nothing, as it should be, but if they really want to press the issue, they'll call a K9 unit. If the K9 alerts to a possible positive hit in your car, then you get searched anyway. SCOTUS has ruled that a K9 sniffing around your car is not a search, but its enough to give probable cause to search your car if signals a hit.
I actually had this happen to me. The guy that pulled me over was a K9 unit anyway, so when I refused permission to search my bike, he fetched the dog. I'm a little foggy as to what constitutes a "signal" (I always thought it was scratching and barking for drugs and sitting for explosives), but the handler trotted the dog around the motorcycle a couple times the dog only stopping to sniff the areas the handler was pointing at and the handler claimed he had alerted and searched my bike. I'm not a drug user, so there was nothing to find (and I don't believe the dog "signaled" anyway), but it was a 2 hour hassle as the officer proceeded to toss all my stuff onto the shoulder of the highway and then dropped my motorcycle on its crash bar to search the underside. No apology for handcuffing me (for his safety of course), throwing my stuff all over the place, tossing my bike over on its side and scuffing the chrome on the crash bar, or waylaying me for hours on my way home.
Irish,
Let me start by saying I appreciate that you are so passionate about your rights. I wish everyone care as much as you do, but it sounds to me that you are not happy with the law and how it is applied. You imply that ALL officers try to circumvent the 4th amendment because they operate within existing law. If you disagree with the law then that is one thing but to say cops are wrong for operating by existing rules and laws is another.
We are both in agreement that all public servants should be held to the highest standards. I can also tell you there is nothing I hate more than a cop that violates his oath. You obviously won't and don't believe that most cops do act and live the way they should but they do. I can assure you that if it were up to me every cop convicted of criminal activity would receive the maximum sentence.
Matt
He's right about one thing, LEO's can lie to you legally, but you'll be committing a crime if you return the favor. Now, having been through basic and advanced investigative courses, I can tell you that lying to a suspect in order to get them to confess or allow a search is a risky gamble. If you play it wrong you'll have screwed up whatever chance you had to get the truth, or any cooperation from the suspect.
Personally, I think it's a shitty copout to prosecute someone for lying to the police just because you can't get them on anything else. But, I guess I'm in the minority among LEO's. Double standards suck IMO.
I actually had this happen to me. The guy that pulled me over was a K9 unit anyway, so when I refused permission to search my bike, he fetched the dog. I'm a little foggy as to what constitutes a "signal" (I always thought it was scratching and barking for drugs and sitting for explosives), but the handler trotted the dog around the motorcycle a couple times the dog only stopping to sniff the areas the handler was pointing at and the handler claimed he had alerted and searched my bike. I'm not a drug user, so there was nothing to find (and I don't believe the dog "signaled" anyway), but it was a 2 hour hassle as the officer proceeded to toss all my stuff onto the shoulder of the highway and then dropped my motorcycle on its crash bar to search the underside. No apology for handcuffing me (for his safety of course), throwing my stuff all over the place, tossing my bike over on its side and scuffing the chrome on the crash bar, or waylaying me for hours on my way home.
The only difference between people like that and the gestapo is that the gestapo probably would have thanked you for your service and let you be on your merry way.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We will amend this to...
"The right of the people to be searched, and persons or things be seized."
Take the reverse of whatever the constitution says, and that's what we have these days.
The only difference between people like that and the gestapo is that the gestapo probably would have thanked you for your service and let you be on your merry way.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We will amend this to...
"The right of the people to be searched, and persons or things be seized."
Take the reverse of whatever the constitution says, and that's what we have these days.
Eh. I wouldn't go that far.
He was just a dickhead who assumed a bearded, long-haired guy riding a Harley on a lonely highway at night was up to no good. Central/Southern Georgia is kind of known for this baloney anyway. Had I a Georgia tag I probably wouldn't have been pulled over and hassled.
The problem isn't the individual police officer per se, the problem is the "War" on whatever and the cop lobby that is always pushing for more authority, equipment, funding, etc.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 05:57
The problem isn't the individual police officer per se, the problem is the "War" on whatever and the cop lobby that is always pushing for more authority, equipment, funding, etc.
And in this we find middle ground and I completely agree. Unfortunately that the poor choices, criminal actions, unprofessionalism of the few affect the majority. I'm not naive enough to say 99% are GTG but the VAST majority take pride in their work and are there to serve their fellow man.
Eliminating the shitheads early would help but it damn near takes an act of congress to fire an officer, especially when civil service is involved.
Many LE I have come into contact with, generally, have a decent BS detector.
After Katrina, I was out and about checking on our synagogue, going to the hospital(****ing armed camp) to bring something to the wife(in Residency and not allowed to leave), checking on friends properties, and looking for supplies. I went through many, many checkpoints; most manned by non-LA LE's that were skittish(rightly so). Night was the worst for passing a CP. Everyone was on edge. When I rolled up, I would immediatley have both hands out of the window and say, "I'm one of the good guys." Coupled with the fact I'm clean cut and would look them right in the eye, I could usually see the tension leave their faces.
How one handles an encounter with LE plays a massive part in how they respond to you. I'm not saying roll over, forget your rights, and be a pussy. Quite the contrary. Know your rights and exercise them. Going about it in the right way may just let you do as you please without upsetting LE.
QuietShootr
12-22-11, 10:45
And in this we find middle ground and I completely agree. Unfortunately that the poor choices, criminal actions, unprofessionalism of the few affect the majority. I'm not naive enough to say 99% are GTG but the VAST majority take pride in their work and are there to serve their fellow man.
Eliminating the shitheads early would help but it damn near takes an act of congress to fire an officer, especially when civil service is involved.
And, the reason I said NEVER NEVER consent to a search is the same reason I carry a gun. MOST people, including cops, are decent, but there are enough of them that aren't, only fools don't protect themselves wherever they can.
platoonDaddy
12-22-11, 10:56
This summer upon returning from a west coast trip on my motorcycle, I took 160 to 83N to 70E in Kansas, just wanted to ride in the farm land. County Sheriff Department pulled me over for speeding and following lic & title search he said "I am not interested in your speeding, I am interested in drugs today. Therefore will you give me permission to search your saddle bags and backpack?"
Told him to knock himself out, well he came across my open bottle of gin, buried in the bottom of my saddle bag. He looked at me and I then realized that giving him permission to look for drugs, I was liable for any other violation. Fortunately he just moved on with the rest of the search.
Lesson well learned, never will I give up the right to have someone search my vehicle.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-11, 11:10
County Sheriff Department pulled me over for speeding and following lic & title search he said "I am not interested in your speeding, I am interested in drugs today. Therefore will you give me permission to search your saddle bags and backpack?"
Lesson well learned, never will I give up the right to have someone search my vehicle.
Tell him to get his own drugs he can't have yours.
In general terms, you should never consent to a search for no other reason than to retard the ever creeping erosion of our civil liberties.
Be polite, don't get belligerent, don't play the constitutional shit house lawyer, and don't go the 'sovereign citizen' route. Just simply refuse the search.
Now, a question for the LEO's in the audience. In general terms, let's say you are doing a traffic stop and then ask to conduct a search. What would your response be if the suspect asked what was your probable cause for doing the search?
Let me start by saying I appreciate that you are so passionate about your rights. I wish everyone care as much as you do, but it sounds to me that you are not happy with the law and how it is applied. You imply that ALL officers try to circumvent the 4th amendment because they operate within existing law. If you disagree with the law then that is one thing but to say cops are wrong for operating by existing rules and laws is another.
Matt,
Thank you, I think people often take their rights for granted and are truly ignorant of what our forefathers died for. If we do not exercise our rights they will be lost. Sometimes I don't think I convey my thoughts in written words as well as I do the spoken but I'll give it another try.
I wasn't trying insinuate that officers are trying to break the law but are in fact working within a legal framework that I don't agree with, the Supreme Court has referred to these sanctioned ruses as "strategic deception." Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990) and in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 434 (1973). ("Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer.") I am familiar with some, not all, policing practices and have studied some methods of interrogation, including the Reid Technique.
When police lie to a citizen they're within the boundaries of the law yet when a citizen lies to the police it's considered "obstruction of justice" and I don't think that's morally right. Officers are in fact taught to lie and obfuscate the facts in order to achieve their end goal which in most cases is the arrest of a guilty party or criminal. As an example here's an article and quote from Officer.com titled Training Cops to Lie (http://www.officer.com/article/10233095/training-cops-to-lie-pt-1) that details some of the techniques that are used on suspects, both innocent and guilty.
Police lie. It's part of their job. They lie to suspects and others in hopes of obtaining evidence. These investigative lies cover a wide web of deception - a web that can get tangled. Some investigative lies are legal, some are not, and some generate significant disagreement amongst courts, prosecutors, the public and officers themselves...
Effective interrogation of a suspect nearly always involves a deception - expressed or implied. The deception is that it's in a suspect's best interest to talk to police and confess without an attorney present. It's not. A completely truthful officer would tell suspects this. A completely truthful officer would also find confessions extremely rare.
I also realize there are times when it is appropriate for police to lie to suspects and I understand that it's necessary in order to get a confession out of real criminals and not someone who inadvertently broke the law. But why not be honest about it? The fact of the matter is police must lie to criminals in order to do their job effectively. However, I don't think those techniques need to be used on everyone and should be relegated to serious crimes and the career criminal.
We are both in agreement that all public servants should be held to the highest standards. I can also tell you there is nothing I hate more than a cop that violates his oath. You obviously won't and don't believe that most cops do act and live the way they should but they do. I can assure you that if it were up to me every cop convicted of criminal activity would receive the maximum sentence.
I'm in agreement with everything you've said here with the exception of thinking most cops don't act and live the way they should. I believe the vast majority of cops are not only good police officers but are good citizens as well. The problem I have is that when the subject of a problem with law enforcement comes up everybody whitewashes it and doesn't actually discuss the issue at hand like mature adults. Police are human and they make mistakes but everyone acts like you've committed a cardinal sin if you question their actions and intentions.
Maybe it's just me and maybe I read too much news for my own good but I need to offer a few examples of what has me frustrated with law enforcement and the unions that protect them. These examples are far from anomalies and happen all too frequently.
Ex-cop is a registered sex offender convicted of possessing and promoting child pornography and has received over $500k since 2005. He still receives $7200 a month in pension benefits. The article details many more ex-cops busted for a myriad of felonies and they're still getting their pensions as well. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111215/article/111219792
This guy's still on the police force. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111204/article/111139979
In two decades, the Opa-Locka Police Department opened 40 internal affairs cases on Bosque. Sixteen of them were for battery or excessive force.
Fired five times and arrested three, he was charged with stealing a car, trying to board an airplane with a loaded gun and driving with a suspended license
The amount of pedophila and child pornography that I read about cops getting busted for is astonishing. I can't remember a day in the past month where at least 1 officer isn't arrested or convicted for one of these crimes or similar. I think that the same type of predators who become priests also become police officers for the uniform and trust that people have in them. Here are a couple of headlines from just the past 3 days.
Sexual indency with a child - http://www.ksla.com/story/16366550/former-deputys-arrest-prompts-more-allegations
Having sex with a 14 year old boy. http://www.woio.com/story/16364901/waite-hill-police-officer-charged-with-sex-crimes-against-a-14-year-old
Having sex with a 15 year old girl. http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20111220/NEWS01/111220012/Rayville-police-officer-jailed?odyssey=nav|head
Deputy sentenced to 10+yrs for enticing a 16yr-old girl to have sex with him then attempting to lure a 13yr-old girl while he was out on bond for that first case. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/Former_Grainger_Co_Deputy_sentenced_for_sex_with_16__13_year-old_girls_135885558.html
Are the vast majority of cops good guys? I honestly think so. I just don't understand people never wanting to talk about the bad stuff, keeping it hid in the closet and never wanting to deal with the bad shit that happens. Nothing will ever change unless people are willing to have honest, no BS discussions about the bad stuff that happens and how to correct it.
I am the exact same way in "real life" as I am on this forum. I have several friends who are police officers and a couple of them are on this forum. I have participated in ride alongs with them with the full intention of backing them up if shit went south. I'm also one of the people who would absolutely jump in to help an officer rather than being one of the spectators if and when that help was needed. I've also had these conversations with the cops that I know over beers. Typically we find a middle ground and agree on most things while I've helped them see things from a citizen's point of view and they've given me the cop's POV. I think open and honest communication about faults that we find will only encourage people to find a solution for those things.
Hopefully I've given you a little more insight into what I was saying earlier... I apologize for the rambling, lengthy reply but this is only 1/4 of what I'd actually like to write to try to better explain my position. Anyhow, if you're still reading this have a Merry Christmas and be safe out there!
Best,
Mike
And in this we find middle ground and I completely agree. Unfortunately that the poor choices, criminal actions, unprofessionalism of the few affect the majority. I'm not naive enough to say 99% are GTG but the VAST majority take pride in their work and are there to serve their fellow man.
Eliminating the shitheads early would help but it damn near takes an act of congress to fire an officer, especially when civil service is involved.
This is what I meant to say in a much more condensed way.
glockshooter
12-22-11, 12:24
Irish,
I believe we are of the same opinion on most of the stuff we have talked about. I definately understand the frustration that you and others feel when you read about dirty cops. What you probably don't realize is that the good cops are even more frustrated than you. One other thing to remember is most of the stuff you hear or read about is coming from the media, and just like with guns they have an agenda. That is not to say they are making everything up because we both know there are bad cops out there but they spin everything they can to make it seem like a better story for them and their agenda. I don't know where you are from but it has to be drastically different than where I live and work. We don't have any true union's here, and my department has no problem investigating and firing if necessary officers that violate their oaths.
Matt
Consent is just that. For a consentual search to legal your permission must be freely given. If you say no then there is no legal search. If you are searched without consent or without probable cause then any evidence recovered can not be legally used against you. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists that say they just lie about your consent, but again 99.99% of the officer act lawfully. Is it a perfect system? No but there truly isn't a perfect system for anything.
To all the anti police folks I understand your suspicion, but do you really believe every cop is out to get you? The same people you are bad mouthing would die and lose their families to protect you. Remember that the next time you call the police or start bad mouthing officers.
#1 - "not a cop basher"
#2 - to answer your question no. But that .0001% or whatever % label you want to put on it can really screw up your day and life. So the probability though very unlikely is catestrophic. I think we protect ourselves from that very small % every day in terms of National Security and Personal Security. This is good food for thought... and if you look at the sentence this officer recieved it is obviously not of major concern. I mean the guy did not even get prison time for possession of Meth, violating trust of the public and his sworn duty, illegally tampering with an investigation, planting evidence... $2,000 fine? HAHAHAHAHAHA Bullshit - the Police & Judicial System obviously do not give a shit which makes me worry about how widespread this could actually be.
Littlelebowski
12-22-11, 13:21
And in this we find middle ground and I completely agree. Unfortunately that the poor choices, criminal actions, unprofessionalism of the few affect the majority. I'm not naive enough to say 99% are GTG but the VAST majority take pride in their work and are there to serve their fellow man.
Eliminating the shitheads early would help but it damn near takes an act of congress to fire an officer, especially when civil service is involved.
Or unions..... Well said.
Somewhat on topic..... When every officer has a personal video camera, everyone will benefit.
Or unions.....
****in' right.
So a summary of this thread is...
"Never consent to a search because all cops are out to get, by way of lies and trickery. None can be trusted"
While i would advise everyone to exercise their 4th ad. rights, this thread is full of so much bullshit its hard to read.
Apparently its ok to make a blanket statement such as "all LEO's are evil and corrupt" but you'd get your ass chewed for say "all MIL personnel just joined for the g.i. bill/free college, not to serve their country"
Grow the hell up people. Stop pouting just because you cant smoke weed without looking over your shoulder. (because that seems to be the go to topic in LEO hate)
QuietShootr
12-22-11, 14:17
So a summary of this thread is...
"Never consent to a search because all cops are out to get, by way of lies and trickery. None can be trusted"
While i would advise everyone to exercise their 4th ad. rights, this thread is full of so much bullshit its hard to read.
Apparently its ok to make a blanket statement such as "all LEO's are evil and corrupt" but you'd get your ass chewed for say "all MIL personnel just joined for the g.i. bill/free college, not to serve their country"
Grow the hell up people. Stop pouting just because you cant smoke weed without looking over your shoulder. (because that seems to be the go to topic in LEO hate)
Feh.
Exercise your 4th Amendment rights, period.
It always comes back to "you must be a druggie/felon" with you people, doesn't it?
So a summary of this thread is...
"Never consent to a search because all cops are out to get, by way of lies and trickery. None can be trusted"
While i would advise everyone to exercise their 4th ad. rights, this thread is full of so much bullshit its hard to read.
Apparently its ok to make a blanket statement such as "all LEO's are evil and corrupt" but you'd get your ass chewed for say "all MIL personnel just joined for the g.i. bill/free college, not to serve their country"
Grow the hell up people. Stop pouting just because you cant smoke weed without looking over your shoulder. (because that seems to be the go to topic in LEO hate)
Did anyone actually say that all LEOs are evil and corrupt? If so, I missed it.
And to your first point, while I'm not saying that all are (because I strongly believe it is in actuality a very small percentage that are evil/corrupt), it's not like the ones that are douches have a big red flashing "I'm one of the douchebag LEOs" over their head for me to know who I'm dealing with.
And for the record, never touched any illegal drug, and wouldn't even if they were legal.
I'm going to assume that in the instance of the motorcycle you are just SOL aren't you? Like there is no way to be reimbursed for the damage of a search that yielded nothing?
I ask because that's exactly what I assume is going to happen if I ever say no you can't search my car. They are just going to find a way in and then tear it apart (you may as well **** my gf if you're going to screw up my car).
I think the point of this is to exercise your rights and make sure that you are protecting yourself JUST IN CASE you happen to become involved with one of the few LEO's who may do things such as this. You are the only person who can fully protect yourself. It is up to you to do that. If you force a LEO to obtain a warrant to search your vehicle then you help to limit the possibility of being set up.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 16:07
So a summary of this thread is...
"Never consent to a search because all cops are out to get, by way of lies and trickery. None can be trusted"
While i would advise everyone to exercise their 4th ad. rights, this thread is full of so much bullshit its hard to read.
Apparently its ok to make a blanket statement such as "all LEO's are evil and corrupt" but you'd get your ass chewed for say "all MIL personnel just joined for the g.i. bill/free college, not to serve their country"
Grow the hell up people. Stop pouting just because you cant smoke weed without looking over your shoulder. (because that seems to be the go to topic in LEO hate)
I'm usually the first mod to step in when a LE thread jumps the shark (as I defend my profession) and I fail to see how your summary is a valid one. Yes, there have been posts that I don't agree with their content but for the most part it has been handled in a civil manner. When it's not longer civil it will get locked and trashed like any other thread.
Almost everyone who has posted has agreed that the VAST majority are GTG but a small percentage dominates the media and public eye and usually for appalling reasons, which then stains the profession.
The only blanket statement I've seen is to never grant consent to search and that is their right. I'm not one to deny that to anyone. Some here have had unpleasant experiences with consent searches and I'm sorry for that as not all handle them that way. Their experience drives their mindset. I've had some shitty run ins with traffic violators but it never jaded me against all that I stopped (when I was in uniform).
All are allowed to participate, disagree, argue, or sing kumbaya as long as they follow the CoC and so far everyone here has been grown up.
And where the smoking weed without looking over your shoulder comment came from is lost on me. So if you refuse a consent search you are a paranoid pot smoker? Sounds like a preconception to me.
Littlelebowski
12-22-11, 16:11
So a summary of this thread is...
"Never consent to a search because all cops are out to get, by way of lies and trickery. None can be trusted"
While i would advise everyone to exercise their 4th ad. rights, this thread is full of so much bullshit its hard to read.
Apparently its ok to make a blanket statement such as "all LEO's are evil and corrupt" but you'd get your ass chewed for say "all MIL personnel just joined for the g.i. bill/free college, not to serve their country"
Grow the hell up people. Stop pouting just because you cant smoke weed without looking over your shoulder. (because that seems to be the go to topic in LEO hate)
No. Do you not understand the ramifications of the "war" on drugs? It's been mentioned a few times in this thread. Folks are simply saying not to give cops carte Blanche to find something to charge you with.
Not everything said about certain LEOs means everyone hates LEOs.
Personally, I've never even tried weed and don't plan to but can readily understand we need a change of tactics on how we handle marijuana.
So a summary of this thread is...
"Never consent to a search because all cops are out to get, by way of lies and trickery. None can be trusted"
While i would advise everyone to exercise their 4th ad. rights, this thread is full of so much bullshit its hard to read.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. This whole thread has been a civil discourse between individuals who have similar and differing opinions on the subject matter including several police officers. I haven't seen anyone insulting one another or their chosen profession and statements like yours throw fuel on a nonexistent fire.
Apparently its ok to make a blanket statement such as "all LEO's are evil and corrupt" but you'd get your ass chewed for say "all MIL personnel just joined for the g.i. bill/free college, not to serve their country"
Grow the hell up people. Stop pouting just because you cant smoke weed without looking over your shoulder. (because that seems to be the go to topic in LEO hate)
No one made any remarks even close to what you're asserting. And grow the hell up? You sound like a whiny little kid because somebody might've suggested that there are actually bad cops in the world. Growing up would include not getting defensive when somebody doesn't agree with the actions of another person who has the same job as you do, big deal, get over it.
Glockshooter/Matt - Thanks for the good conversation. More than likely we're on the same page on most of this stuff but sometimes it doesn't come through on a forum thread as well as I'd like. Take care.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 16:14
I ask because that's exactly what I assume is going to happen if I ever say no you can't search my car. They are just going to find a way in and then tear it apart (you may as well **** my gf if you're going to screw up my car).
Assume. That's your key word right there. If you have an actual experience where you refused a consent search yet you still were searched then I would strongly encourage you to contact your DA and file a complaint for Official Oppression under color of law.
If it hasn't happened and you are just assuming and speculating then I would suggest dropping it down a notch or two as no one is out to **** you GF. Sounds more like melodramatics to me.
Littlelebowski
12-22-11, 16:17
On a positive note, this (http://farmwars.info/?p=3493) is an LEO hero of mine.
An officer buddy of mine (who was just over for dinner Sunday) is due to come by and pick up two free floating rails I'm donating to my local department. I'll make sure to take pics once the rails are installed on their duty rifles.
It's not so black and white with us who simply stand up for our rights, JDub and this ain't TOS.
In general terms, you should never consent to a search for no other reason than to retard the ever creeping erosion of our civil liberties.
Be polite, don't get belligerent, don't play the constitutional shit house lawyer, and don't go the 'sovereign citizen' route. Just simply refuse the search.
Now, a question for the LEO's in the audience. In general terms, let's say you are doing a traffic stop and then ask to conduct a search. What would your response be if the suspect asked what was your probable cause for doing the search?
Irrelevant question. If he had PC, he wouldn't be asking! :)
It doesn't bother me if someone refuses a search, but how they handle the question will invariably give me feedback on whether I'll find something during a search! :)
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 16:29
Now, a question for the LEO's in the audience. In general terms, let's say you are doing a traffic stop and then ask to conduct a search. What would your response be if the suspect asked what was your probable cause for doing the search?
Im not going to get into specifics on the errornet as my OPINION does not reflect any LE Agency, Officer, Policy, etc and I don't want to get called to the carpet like I spoke for anyone but myself.
First not every vehicle stopped is searched or do we even ask for consent. Sometimes a traffic stop is just that. If I'm working a high crime area then yes, traffic stops are used as a predicate means to contact a vehicle (and has been held up by the USSC).
If I have probable cause for a search then I do not ask to search. You are asked to exit the vehicle then I explain why I'm going to search. If I asked for consent and you grant it then I search until I'm done or you revoke consent. If I ask for consent and you deny it I finish my paperwork and traffic stop then send you on your way. One thing I always impressed upon rookies I trained was don't take it personally. Not everyone that refuses a search is a shithead. If they are and just drove away from my stop, well there's always tomorrow.
Some states make you tell a subject after youve asked for consent that it is their 4th Am. right to refuse that search.
And FWIW I'm always as respectful of others property as I can be. If I search the glove box or console I put their shit back. May not be exactly the same but it's close.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 16:32
Irrelevant question. If he had PC, he wouldn't be asking! :)
Typing at the same time brother.
People seem to get very confused between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 16:34
On a positive note, this (http://farmwars.info/?p=3493) is an LEO hero of mine.
An officer buddy of mine (who was just over for dinner Sunday) is due to come by and pick up two free floating rails I'm donating to my local department. I'll make sure to take pics once the rails are installed on their duty rifles.
It's not so black and white with us who simply stand up for our rights, JDub and this ain't TOS.
Well said. And FWIW thank you for the donations to that department. I'm sure they appreciate the generosity. Definitely need pics.
Doc Safari
12-22-11, 16:38
If I asked for consent and you grant it then I search until I'm done or you revoke consent. If I ask for consent and you deny it I finish my paperwork and traffic stop then send you on your way. One thing I always impressed upon rookies I trained was don't take it personally. Not everyone that refuses a search is a shithead. If they are and just drove away from my stop, well there's always tomorrow.
Some states make you tell a subject after youve asked for consent that it is their 4th Am. right to refuse that search.
And FWIW I'm always as respectful of others property as I can be. If I search the glove box or console I put their shit back. May not be exactly the same but it's close.
Question: what is the proper and polite way to refuse a search?
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 16:46
Question: what is the proper and polite way to refuse a search?
"Sir, part of my job as a Law Enforcement Officer is to stop the transportation of illegal contraband such as illegal narcotics, weapons, or even large amounts of currency. You don't have anything like that with you in you vehicle today do you?"
"No, sir."
"Would you mind if I searched your vehicle to check for any illegal contraband?"
"Yes, sir. I do mind"
"You do mind if I search?"
"Yes sir I do."
"Ok sir. That is your right. Please sign the written warning hear next to the X. Press hard now, four copies."
It's just as easy as that. Attitude and "street lawyer" arrogance dictate how smoothly a stop will go.
Littlelebowski
12-22-11, 16:46
Well said. And FWIW thank you for the donations to that department. I'm sure they appreciate the generosity. Definitely need pics.
Will do for certain. Just a YHM and an MI but they said they could use them. I tried getting them another K9 but there was no training money for the dog.
Doc Safari
12-22-11, 16:49
It's just as easy as that. Attitude and "street lawyer" arrogance dictate how smoothly a stop will go.
Kind of what I thought. When I was in law enforcement it was as much the person's reaction to the question as any real suspicion that determined what happened next.
"Sir, part of my job as a Law Enforcement Officer is to stop the transportation of illegal contraband such as illegal narcotics, weapons, or even large amounts of currency. You don't have anything like that with you in you vehicle today do you?"
The illegal narcotics is a no brainer, along with illegal weapons, but cash is considered illegal contraband? What is considered a large amount? I know there are laws pertaining to entry and exit of the country when you have $10k or more but wasn't aware that there were limits inside CONUS.
I'm assuming that the officer's assumption is that large amounts of cash go hand in hand with drug dealing and often times it does. Then again that brings us back around to the word assume.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 17:02
Will do for certain. Just a YHM and an MI but they said they could use them. I tried getting them another K9 but there was no training money for the dog.
We just added a K9 to our unit. I think my next assignment I want is a handler position. Always thought it would be fun. I was up for this one but I'm still having too much fun in plainclothes.
SWATcop556
12-22-11, 17:04
The illegal narcotics is a no brainer, along with illegal weapons, but cash is considered illegal contraband? What is considered a large amount? I know there are laws pertaining to entry and exit of the country when you have $10k or more but wasn't aware that there were limits inside CONUS.
I'm assuming that the officer's assumption is that large amounts of cash go hand in hand with drug dealing and often times it does. Then again that brings us back around to the word assume.
I would have to confirm with our interdiction guys but 10k undeclared across state lines is a no no. Falls under the money laundering statutes but there are exemptions such as proper documentation and receipts.
I would have to confirm with our interdiction guys but 10k undeclared across state lines is a no no. Falls under the money laundering statutes but there are exemptions such as proper documentation and receipts.
Gotcha, just curious as I'd never heard that. Thanks.
Bolt_Overide
12-22-11, 17:08
That's such a cop out. If you're looking to blame someone for the way the public views LE than look no further than the shitbag cops who break the law. For the past month there hasn't been a day I can remember that a cop isn't in the news for being a pedophile or getting busted for child pornography. If the police would remove the protection racket, commonly called the union, and actually suffer the same consequences the general public did when they ****ed up then they'd get rid of the trash and keep the good guys eliminating a lot of the issues.
There are also many, many good police officers out there doing a very good job for the public and living up to their sworn oath. But it's just like any profession in the fact that the shitbag is the one who gets paid the most attention to and it only takes one person to screw it up for everybody else. Simple solution, get rid of the bad cops instead of making excuses for them and these perceived issues will fade into the collective memory hole.
Ive got to take issue with you on this. It is my firm belief that the vast majority of cops are good people working a difficult job. You hear about just about every one of the "bad apples" but the only time you hear something good is when it involves something uber herioc, that usually costs them their lives.
The media, and peoples tendancy to like to spread negative stories is exactly what gives the police in general their public image, and i think its horse shit.
Ive got to take issue with you on this. It is my firm belief that the vast majority of cops are good people working a difficult job.
If you reread what you quoted, the 2nd paragraph, you'll see that I stated just about the same thing as you did. Also, through out the thread I also mentioned on several occasions that I believe the vast majority of cops are good guys. What I was contesting was the fact that 99.99% of police are the good guys as it's simply not the truth.
Patrick Aherne
12-22-11, 17:35
Let's think about this, people: if a dirty cop is willing to plant narcotics on you, he's probably willing to manufacture PC for a search. I wouldn't give consent, but I don't think refusing a search would have saved the wrongly-accused a trip to jail.
I can't believe the officer got only probation. He should be in prison, for a long time, like decades, for that stuff. Is there any way to go after him federally, for a civil rights violation?
I would have to confirm with our interdiction guys but 10k undeclared across state lines is a no no. Falls under the money laundering statutes but there are exemptions such as proper documentation and receipts.
Where are you supposed to declare it? Not like there are customs and similar stuff between state borders like there is when you leave the US and they warn you, have forms to fill out, people to take the forms etc.
platoonDaddy
12-22-11, 19:01
Where are you supposed to declare it? Not like there are customs and similar stuff between state borders like there is when you leave the US and they warn you, have forms to fill out, people to take the forms etc.
Note the following, I am still confused on why one must declare when crossing state lines:
http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/04/traveling-with-large-amounts-of-cash.html
If you're CCWing when you get pulled over, aren't you most likely gonna get searched anyway?
Assume. That's your key word right there. If you have an actual experience where you refused a consent search yet you still were searched then I would strongly encourage you to contact your DA and file a complaint for Official Oppression under color of law.
If it hasn't happened and you are just assuming and speculating then I would suggest dropping it down a notch or two as no one is out to **** you GF. Sounds more like melodramatics to me.
I think you took my post the wrong way. The GF comment was about how important my car is and how pissed I would be if it got ****ed up.
I've never been on the wrong side, so I am just ASSuming that if I said no, the cop is going to find a "legal" way in, and then rip my car apart, or let a dog do it, or whatever. The dilemma for me is weighing the chance of that happening when I have absolutely nothing illegal in my car, but I don't want anyone going through it anyway.
If you're CCWing when you get pulled over, aren't you most likely gonna get searched anyway?
In my experience, not necessarily. I've declared three or four times and they haven't cared.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-11, 20:27
I think you took my post the wrong way. The GF comment was about how important my car is and how pissed I would be if it got ****ed up.
I've never been on the wrong side, so I am just ASSuming that if I said no, the cop is going to find a "legal" way in, and then rip my car apart, or let a dog do it, or whatever. The dilemma for me is weighing the chance of that happening when I have absolutely nothing illegal in my car, but I don't want anyone going through it anyway.
How long can a LEO detain you for a K9 unit to show up?
Belmont31R
12-22-11, 20:41
Ive got to take issue with you on this. It is my firm belief that the vast majority of cops are good people working a difficult job. You hear about just about every one of the "bad apples" but the only time you hear something good is when it involves something uber herioc, that usually costs them their lives.
The media, and peoples tendancy to like to spread negative stories is exactly what gives the police in general their public image, and i think its horse shit.
The same can be said for almost any profession. There are plenty of shitbags in the military, too. LE is not immune from having its share of criminals.
The difference is, if you're say an engineer, you most likely don't have a union protecting you and you're not treated differently legal wise than a guy who works at McDonalds.
Often times when LEO's are charged with a crime they get "paid time off" while the case is pending sometimes racking up tens of thousands to over 100k in pay while they are charged with felonies. I doubt MOST private employers would keep paying a dude his full salary to sit at home while facing serious charges.
Irish is right that getting rid of the unions would solve a lot of these problems. Its not fair to tax payers to pay a dude to sit at home for 2 years facing felony charges or paying people pensions who got convicted.
On paid leave for 2 years while facing felony charges:
County records show Meemken has been paid more than $200,000 in salary and benefits during his time on leave. He has received one cost-of-living raise and one “step” increase, and his salary has increased by 5 percent while he’s been away from work, from $35.55 an hour to $37.33 an hour.
Meemken is accused of 22 felony counts of criminal sexual conduct, two counts of providing alcohol to minors and one count of child endangerment. The charges accuse him of providing alcohol to three teenagers and performing sex acts on them.
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20111217/NEWS01/112160031/Stearns-Co-deputy-s-trial-moved-again-Meemken-still-paid-leave
And before someone whines about "cop bashing" there is no profession on Earth where someone would sit at home while facing 25 charges and still be getting paid. No private employer I know of would do that, and its TAX dollars going to pay this guy for doing nothing for them.
And before someone whines about "cop bashing" there is no profession on Earth where someone would sit at home while facing 25 charges and still be getting paid. No private employer I know of would do that, and its TAX dollars going to pay this guy for doing nothing for them.
Besides teaching, or any other government job with a "public sector union".
Suwannee Tim
12-22-11, 21:00
....but cash is considered illegal contraband? What is considered a large amount? I know there are laws pertaining to entry and exit of the country when you have $10k or more but wasn't aware that there were limits inside CONUS.....
Indeed. It's called Civil Forfeiture. They take your money without a court order or warrant and it's your problem to go to court and get it back. Much of the money seized goes to the department which seized it which is a pretty strong incentive to search. I have read accounts of folks legitimately transporting tens of thousands of dollars of cash, to buy a car for example, or a farmer buying fertilizer, who were stopped and their cash taken. It happens all the time. Most of the time it is drug profits but not always.
platoonDaddy
12-22-11, 21:03
How long can a LEO detain you for a K9 unit to show up?
Cut & Pasted from another forum, don't how accurate it is:
C. Length of Detention
A routine traffic stop "must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." (Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 500; Bell (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.) Typically, this means no longer than the time it takes to perform the duties necessary to warn the driver or issue a citation. A detention "justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." (Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.)
It is impossible to set an absolute time limit for a reasonable detention because it depends totally on the circumstances. For example, a 20-minute detention might be reasonable under one set of circumstances but not under another. (Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 50; Soun (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1519-1520.)
The key is simply whether or not "the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly." (Sharpe (1985) 470 U.S. 675, 686-688; Russell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 96, 102; Alexander (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1315, 1321.)
In addition, even during a strictly routine traffic stop, you are permitted to run a radio or computer check on the vehicle and/or the driver, so long as "the check does not unreasonably prolong the detention." (Brown (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 493, 498; Valencia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 906, 918; McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 584-587; Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1227.) Courts will not view the few minutes it normally takes to obtain the results of a warrant check as unduly or unreasonably prolonging a routine traffic detention.
Other investigative activities are also permissible as long as they do not prolong the stop beyond the time it would otherwise take. (Gallardo (2005) 130 Cal.Appp.4th 234, 238.) For example, questioning the driver on matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop is allowed as long as the questioning does not unduly prolong the detention. (Mendez (9th Cir. 2007) 476 F.3d 1077, 1080; see Johnson (2009) 2009 WL 160434 [USSC No. 07-1122]--the officer's inquiries may not "measurably extend the duration of the stop.")
Rev. 1/09
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - VEHICLES 4.2i
Example: Mendez's car was stopped for failure to display a visible license plate or registration tag. While one officer ran a records check, the other asked Mendez questions related to gang membership and unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop. Mendez, a convicted felon, admitted that he had a firearm in the driver's door handle. HELD: The officer's questioning leading to the discovery of the weapon did not prolong the traffic stop. (Mendez (9th Cir. 2007) 476 F.3d 1077, 1080, [applying Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 to traffic stops]; accord, Turvin (9th Cir. 2008) 517 F.3d 1097, 1101--officer stopped writing his ticket for a few moments to ask the driver questions unrelated to the traffic stop.)
Suwannee Tim
12-22-11, 21:06
....Often times when LEO's are charged with a crime they get "paid time off" while the case is pending.....
Not around here they don't. In Duval county and most of Florida and the South for that matter they are fired within days if not the same day. The paid leave happens where liberalism is in full flower. NY, CA, MI, IL, MA, MN.....
Belmont31R
12-22-11, 21:18
Not around here they don't. In Duval county and most of Florida and the South for that matter they are fired within days if not the same day. The paid leave happens where liberalism is in full flower. NY, CA, MI, IL, MA.....
Often times doesn't mean in every state or region in the US. I didn't say "everywhere or every time".
I am quite confident there are departments out there who don't put up with BS or pay a guy a couple hundred grand over 2 years while he's facing 25 different counts, and isn't what I said. I would hope there would be 0 departments in the country that would pay a guy over 200k while getting charged with 25 different criminal acts.
Here in TX collective bargaining with public employees is illegal, and these types of unions in other states that pay out over 200k to a guy facing 25 charges would not happen here nor in many other states. One of the good things about the South is the general 'right to work' laws that are in place which has attracted a lot of foreign investment including BMW, Kia, Subaru, and many others. In fact Boeing tried to open a plant in SC and the Feds under Obama flipped out trying to protect the union racket in WA.
Where are you supposed to declare it? Not like there are customs and similar stuff between state borders like there is when you leave the US and they warn you, have forms to fill out, people to take the forms etc.
Legitimate business people move currency everyday as part of their operations. They do not, however, conceal it in the fenders of their cars, rubber band it on non-standard banking units of count, and vacuum seal it in bags and conceal it, in other packages in the trucks of their cars. I recently seized nearly a half million dollars in a stop in which every occupant of the vehicle disclaimed ownership of the bag it was in and the contents therein.
Legitimate business people deposit their cash at their banks. If it is over 10K, they file the form 8300 quickly, right there the counter as part of their transaction. They don't smurf their transactions, using multiple banks, transactions, and accounts, before co-mingling their proceeds into a single account.
Legitimate business people move currency everyday as part of their operations. They do not, however, conceal it in the fenders of their cars, rubber band it on non-standard banking units of count, and vacuum seal it in bags and conceal it, in other packages in the trucks of their cars. I recently seized nearly a half million dollars in a stop in which every occupant of the vehicle disclaimed ownership of the bag it was in and the contents therein.
Legitimate business people deposit their cash at their banks. If it is over 10K, they file the form 8300 quickly, right there the counter as part of their transaction. They don't smurf their transactions, using multiple banks, transactions, and accounts, before co-mingling their proceeds into a single account.
And? Your point please? This has nothing to do with the legality of moving > $10k over state lines, which was the original claim that we are wondering about.
The claim, which may be legit, I don't know, was $10k across state lines. Whether banded together in bank bands in a leather suitcase or rubber banded inside the bumper is immaterial to the claim.
How long can a LEO detain you for a K9 unit to show up?
Essentially, only as long as is reasonable. As an extreme example, if the only available canine is 90 minutes away and it takes 90 minutes for the officer to get there without undue delay, then that could be considered reasonable.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 - Supreme Court 2005, is the most recent guiding precedent for this issue.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10622335546539670066&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
And? Your point please? This has nothing to do with the legality of moving > $10k over state lines, which was the original claim that we are wondering about.
The claim, which may be legit, I don't know, was $10k across state lines. Whether banded together in bank bands in a leather suitcase or rubber banded inside the bumper is immaterial to the claim.
It is too much information to post here but the answer you seek lies within the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Essentially, only as long as is reasonable. As an extreme example, if the only available canine is 90 minutes away and it takes 90 minutes for the officer to get there without undue delay, then that could be considered reasonable.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 - Supreme Court 2005, is the most recent guiding precedent for this issue.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10622335546539670066&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
I did not read the details, just skimmed it, but that does not seem to support your example.
If it is a normal traffic stop, 90 min is an unreasonable delay as a normal traffic stop does not take 90 min. 10 min might be reasonable.
Please explain why 90 min would be reasonable for a traffic stop (when trying to get the 90 min away K9 there)?
It is too much information to post here but the answer you seek lies within the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.
Overview or CLIFF NOTES version?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
Don't see anything in there about moving more than $10k across state lines. Don't see anything in there that says that rubber banded cash in the bumper is not OK but that bank banded cash is OK.
Essentially, only as long as is reasonable. As an extreme example, if the only available canine is 90 minutes away and it takes 90 minutes for the officer to get there without undue delay, then that could be considered reasonable.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 - Supreme Court 2005, is the most recent guiding precedent for this issue.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10622335546539670066&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
90 minutes is unreasonable, absent an articulable reason to support the detention. Refusal to consent does not make articulable reason. If you detain someone for 90+ minutes on a routine traffic stop in my area, you'd damn well better have something more than refusal to search to stand on!
I will make a few comments to clarify a few questions I have read. I feel that I should chime in when I hear that, what I believe are law abiding citizens, becoming weary of police may not quite understand procedure.
Law enforcement is based greatly on common sense. The more common sense an officer has, the better the officer is.
Pa has VERY strict search laws. In most states, a K9 search is allowed if a driver refuses a consent search. In PA, if consent is not given, you may use a k9. If the K9 signals, the officer may NOT search the vehicle. The vehicle may be seized and a search warrant must be obtained.
someone asked about a wingspan search. That is when an officer removes occupants of the vehicle and searches where the occupants can easily reach. This is a tricky one. If you ate removing the occupants and taking them from the vehicle, you may not search the vehicle. If you plan on putting the occupants back in the vehicle, then you may search where the occupants could access the vehicle. Again this is a common sense issue. If I stop a car and there are 3 guys in the car reaching and shuffling around as the driver pulls over, common sense would say that I should check to see if they are hiding something that may cause me harm.
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are different. This is where most people get confused. A police officer does NOT need probable cause to stop a vehicle or ask for consent to search. A police officer needs to have REASONABLE ARTICULATEABLE SUSPICION to stop vehicle or ask for consent to search. There are a set of circumstances that would lead to asking for consent. Can an officer ask for consent on every stop? Yes. Is that ARTICULATEABLE? No. Again, common sense.
I can not recall in almost 14 years as a police officer anyone ever denying my request for a consent search. I have always followed the rules, been upfront and honest with the subject and told them that they could change their mind at any time. Have I found what I was looking for during a consent search? Yes. Have I had people that had nothing to hide let me search and I found nothing? Yes. I can only vouch for myself but I can say that when a citizen is stopped by me, they are treated like I would want to be treated and there are no questions what my intentions are or what I am doing. Officers that take pride in their work and are truly there to protect and serve will never have issues like the officer in the original post. And plain and simple, there are enough bad guys to to around that there is no need to fabricate, tamper with evidence and infringe on peoples rights.
90 minutes is unreasonable, absent an articulable reason to support the detention. Refusal to consent does not make articulable reason. If you detain someone for 90+ minutes on a routine traffic stop in my area, you'd damn well better have something more than refusal to search to stand on!
Length of time alone, does not make a length of detention unreasonable. In my example, I do not go into reasons for stop or detention as they vary for each individual stop and situation, and I agree, you better be able to articulate the reason for detention and lengthy wait, I merely used this extreme example, and I called it that, as an example of the SCOTUS methodology for determining reasonableness.
Not around here they don't. In Duval county and most of Florida and the South for that matter they are fired within days if not the same day. The paid leave happens where liberalism is in full flower. NY, CA, MI, IL, MA, MN.....
I'd suggest reading this 9 part special report on Florida. http://cops.htcreative.com/
NCPatrolAR
12-23-11, 10:13
Just to clarify something from a few pages back; just because you are asked for consent to search doesnt mean the officer doesnt already have Probable Cause to search you and/or your vehicle.
QuietShootr
12-23-11, 10:15
Just to clarify something from a few pages back; just because you are asked for consent to search doesnt mean the officer doesnt already have Probable Cause to search you and/or your vehicle.
Right, but consenting pretty much does away with any motions to suppress.
NCPatrolAR
12-23-11, 10:22
Right, but consenting pretty much does away with any motions to suppress.
Not really. Even in consent cases, a defense attorney will want to go through a suppression hearing IME
Littlelebowski
12-23-11, 11:06
We just added a K9 to our unit. I think my next assignment I want is a handler position. Always thought it would be fun. I was up for this one but I'm still having too much fun in plainclothes.
I would very much like to be a reserve K9 handler. Off topic, I know.
Patrick Aherne
12-24-11, 02:47
Right, but consenting pretty much does away with any motions to suppress.
Not really, consent must be voluntarily given, it cannot be coerced. There is a judge in my county who will watch a waiver of consent, on videotape, and still refuse to allow it. He believes that the presence of uniforms, guns and lights intimidates people into giving consent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.