Hey Cops...

[Kennedy 0]

I'm not going to attempt explaining the intricate workings of the four by one hundred medley when someone is sitll trying to understand the doggie paddle.

Likewise I'm not going to go into everything with those two.

It's not that they're not capable of understanding. They jsut aren't capable right now, because they have no foundation.

And yeah, every cop I ever met was absolutely brilliant. Really.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

You are both wrong... The exception you each confused is called the search incident to arrest.

I'm not confusing anything. It's not a search incident to arrest, it's a Terry search applied to a vehicle, or a "vehicle pat down". An officer can search the area within arms reach of the occupant, as long as they can objectively articulate that they felt it was for officer safety purposes, and it can only be within arms reach of the occupant (not in the trunk).

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[Kennedy 0]

The requirement is "reasonalbe articulable suspicion," or RAS.

Your statement is tenuous at best. At the very least it is not true in most jurisdictions. I'm not going to sit here and argue. Believe whatever you want.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

The requirement is "reasonalbe articulable suspicion," or RAS.

Close, but that's not the real issue with a protective car search. RAS is the basis for a Terry stop, the vehicle has already been stopped. A vehicle pat down is totally about officer safety. For instance, an officer has lawfully detained a vehicle with three occupants. The officer is alone, way out in the boonies. He then observes a box of ammo and an orange hunting cap on the seat, and one of the passengers is acting very nervous. He can't articulate that any illegal activity is going on, but he can objectively articulate that where there is ammo and orange hunting caps, there may be weapons. He can then search anywhere within arms reach of the occupants for the weapon. I can think of a hundred different scenarios like that. Once you can articulate that you believe your safety is in danger, you can conduct a limited search for weapons.

Oh, and btw, making assumptions about a person's "foundation" says more about you than the other guy.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[skycop 0]

I'd have to agree with the gman. As long as there is reasonable suspicion the driver and/or passenger "wingspan area" can be searched for weapons.

i.e.- as I'm approaching i see a driver or passenger moving around in a unusual manner. Such as stuffing something in or around the inside of the car. I can check the "wingspan", where ever the person can reach.

We don't do it unless we have a reasonable suspicion that there could be a weapon or contraband in that area. Or if the driver consents.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Granted, I've met my share of asshole cops, but I've also met really cool ones. A friend of mine flipped a car into a ditch right in front of his house (and in front of a cop) while extremely intoxicated. (That kind of accident, it's SOP to test for DUI). Cop had him simply make a statement and then released him to go in the house without doing anything .... very lucky. Same cop came out when we were shooting off a potato gun, and just wanted to see it go off. He said along the lines of "Boys will be boys." but also, that some cops, would arrest you for possession of an explosive device. We weren't doing anything dangerous with it, just shotting it off in an open field.

A cop letting people off for something innocuous is one thing. I like to see cops give people the benefit of the doubt.

A cop letting a guy off for a serious offense like driving drunk is NOT something I think is a positive thing! And the fact that the moron flipped a car into a ditch is proof that he was not the kind of drunk driver who could just "take it easy" and get himself home safely. Could there not have been a pedestrian on the side of the road? Could there not have been another vehicle nearby?

And the potato gun thing. I myself called the cops on some neighborhood idiots who were firing off a potato gun into the air in a densely populated suburban block where I live. How did I know they were firing a potato gun? ONE OF THEIR FUCKIN' POTATOES CAME DOWN [I]IN MY POOL,[/I] WHICH IS THREE STEPS OUTSIDE MY FRONT DOOR.

Let's take a moment to recognize that, less air friction, a potato will come back to earth at its terminal velocity, which is probably well into the "could fuck your skull up pretty bad" range.

The fact that it could have come down on my car's roof 40 feet away, or ME as I took out the trash, pissed me off bad enough. The cops responded to the house in the block behind me where they were shooting the thing off, but I doubt any kind of action was taken. I think that all that happened was they stopped firing the thing off. A couple of the guys spotted me as I was (unwisely) watching their interaction with the cops through the fence behind my house and across a few vacant lots. They said something like, "There he is, that's the guy," but fortunately, they never seemed to get interested in reprisals. (And a fuck of a lucky thing for them, it was.)

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

You are both wrong... The exception you each confused is called the search incident to arrest.

I'm not confusing anything. It's not a search incident to arrest, it's a Terry search applied to a vehicle, or a "vehicle pat down". An officer can search the area within arms reach of the occupant, as long as they can objectively articulate that they felt it was for officer safety purposes, and it can only be within arms reach of the occupant (not in the trunk).

That would make every console, glove compartment and purse/bag on the passenger's seat fair game in every traffic stop.

Somehow I think that would never pass legal muster in court. And I'm glad for it.

I love it on "COPS" when the cops stop someone's vehicle, and they ask politely if they can search the vehicle, and they say, "You know, for my safety." This, after 99% of the time asking repeatedly if there are any weapons in the car or on the person that the cop "needs to worry about."

My answer would be no, even if I were carrying something. If they later found it on me, I'd say, "You asked about weapons you needed to WORRY about." As I intended the officer no criminal harm, my weapon was not one the officer "needed to worry about."

This bullshit about cops asking to intrude on people's rights "for their safety" has to stop. If the guy's weapon was a threat to you, you'd fuckin' know it already. And a guy who wants to keep his weapon from being known to you because he plans to be a threat to you is not going to admit its presence!

The really bad part is when on COPS they get permission to search the vehicle and then they DO find drugs or a gun. You gotta figure that the victim only allowed the search because he didn't know -- or was afraid -- to tell the cop to piss off.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

The requirement is "reasonalbe articulable suspicion," or RAS.

Close, but that's not the real issue with a protective car search. RAS is the basis for a Terry stop, the vehicle has already been stopped. A vehicle pat down is totally about officer safety. For instance, an officer has lawfully detained a vehicle with three occupants. The officer is alone, way out in the boonies. He then observes a box of ammo and an orange hunting cap on the seat, and one of the passengers is acting very nervous. He can't articulate that any illegal activity is going on, but he can objectively articulate that where there is ammo and orange hunting caps, there may be weapons. He can then search anywhere within arms reach of the occupants for the weapon. I can think of a hundred different scenarios like that. Once you can articulate that you believe your safety is in danger, you can conduct a limited search for weapons.

Wait a minute. We are way ahead of ourselves here.

Why would it be reasonable for a cop to suspect he is in danger from HUNTERS who have made no careful attempts to conceal the fact that they are hunters? Is it reasonable that the cop believes that suddenly three hunters, who engage in a legal activity that involves the use of firearms, are going to suddenly try to KILL him?!

Besides, why does the cop need to search for these weapons that hunters are likely to have with them in the vehicle? The cop has already made the default assumption that there are guns present! This is the same "knowledge" of the guns that he would end up with if he did a search and found them: he ALREADY believes they're there! Let him proceed based on that assumption. There is no need for a search to be performed to verify what he is already willing to treat as fact.

What would be more reasonable would be for him to watch them carefully as he tells them to step out of the car and explains that he would like to not hassle them, and would like them to simply remain in front of the car (or wherever tactically makes sense to him to keep them) while he does whatever he has to do about the traffic infraction. He could say, "I'd like you to all step out of the car and you passengers, please remain at the hood and keep your hands in my view at all times. Leave any weapons you might have with you in the vehicle. Once we get business concluded I can let you be on your way."

Or, do you think that the presence of hunters' caps and ammunition is cause to think they were up to CRIMINAL use of firearms?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Airman1270 0]

I hate it when people who don't know the law argue about it.

You are both wrong.

There are about a thousand exceptions and exclusions to the probable cause or warrant requirement for a search.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Actually, I WAS aware there are exceptions. My concern is that the list of exceptions continues to expand beyond Constitutional parameters.

I understand full well that you guys can get away with a lot of stuff that you have no Constitutional right to do. The Bill of Rights is meaningless if the courts do not require you to operate within its boundaries. To paraphrase some defense lawyer I once heard speak on the subject, there ARE no Constitutional rights on the side of the road (during a traffic stop.)

Sometimes I wonder: If the Bill of Rights was formally repealed, to what extent would life in America be any different than it is today?

Jon

[argon 0]

This thread will never stop. There are dumb cops and dumb people. I'm permantly disabled as a reason of being a cop. The average citizen doesn't realize that police work is paramilitary and you do as you are told. Memos aren't issued-General Orders are. For those that talk the shit about-no you can't search my car-wanna bet? My attitude was I did as amuch as I had to and if you don't fuck with me I won't fuck with you. But, if people hate the cops so much-why do so many call 911 when the shit hits the fan? No-there are always bad apples and there are always assholes,be they skydivers,deadheads,lawyers-cops from outside the juridiction whatever. This is america and it is not a police state,but it isn't anarchy either. My advice is if you are directly going to challenge a cop-especially when they are called as a direct result of a citizen complaint-you had better have your facts straight. There are thousands out there in blue ,male and female and I agree alot of them have no business in the job but the majority are out there FOR you and not against you. I can't change your mind, and personally I don't really care. But just remember-as the street vernacular states: don't hate the player-hate the game. And until Terry vs. Ohio gets overturned-which it never will, and any cop can articulate a potential danger to his or her safety you can make a warrantless search of a person and the pasenger area in a MV within direct reach of the passengers or driver. There is a famous Ziggy cartoon,where Ziggy is walking down the street and a police car drives by. On the car is written: "We are the Police and You are NOT......

***********
Freedom isn't free. Don't forget: Mother Earth is waiting for you--there is a debt you have to pay...... POPS #9329 Commercial Pilot,Instrument MEL

[Airman1270 0]

In the interest of fairness, here's an example of a cop who (I think) helped me. The story begins long ago, on a Georgia street in April 1997...

I was driving a Camaro (that was my FIRST mistake.) As I made a right turn onto the street in question, there was a large Blazer-type SUV waiting to make a left onto the same street. More than a mile down the road, as I was doing about 45 on a 40mph zone, I saw the motorcyle guy with his radar gun and blue lights on. I almost drove right past, because I knew he wouldn't stop me for going 5mph over the limit and I wasn't doing anything else wrong. After briefly sharing eye contact, I stopped as the Blazer passed us by.

He said he had me on radar doing 63. I was stunned. I politely & firmly told him that he was mistaken. He asked how the radar could be wrong. I remember once reading that guilty people will try to come up with an explanation that deflects blame, and I didn't even try; I just said "I don't know." (This exchange happened several times.)

Once he began writing the ticket, I stopped protesting my innocence and switched to asking procedural questions (what happens next, etc.) I asked what he thought about my chances in court. He said it could depend on the judge, and what they thought about be calling him a liar. I said no, if his radar read "63" I take him at his word; it's just that I didn't cause it to do so. He spoke with me another moment about court dates, etc. I thanked him for his help, and departed.

The prosecutor tried to offer me a sweet deal, $50 fine & no other penalties. I was facing a fine in excess of $120 plus "points", but I took a chance and told her I didn't do it and wanted to speak with the judge. No lawyer, just a clean record to back up my claims. I was given another court date.

The next time, she met with me one last time to offer the $50 special. I turned her down, and half-jokingly said that for going 5mph over the limit I'd had to miss two days of work and pay for parking, and can we call it even? She smiled and said the judge would be with me shortly.

During this time, as I waiting my turn, I thought I saw the cop in the hallway behind the courtroom, looking out at me. Wasn't sure it was him, though, because he didn't have his helmet on.

By this time I had figured out that the Blazer, which had caught up to me just as we came into the radar's view, had probably triggered the "63" reading. I had prepared some papers illustrating the profiles both vehicles would have presented to the unit, and the probability of the Blazer dominating the system while the cop was reacting to the fast-looking Camaro.

I never got a chance to explain. The judge told me the witness against me had failed to appear and I was free to go. I almost said "No, he's back there, I just saw him!"

I ASSume these guys develop a sixth sense which enables them to sniff out a bullshit story, and he decided mine had a ring of truth. My cordial demeanor and clean record probably didn't hurt, either.

His name is Rickets, with the Cobb County P.D. If you see him, tell him I said "thanks."

By the way, while waiting my turn I saw a bunch of people in their late teens/early 20's who had accumulated a string of violations in their short driving careers. It provided a glimpse of what these guys deal with on a regular basis.

Cheers,
Jon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Your statement is tenuous at best. At the very least it is not true in most jurisdictions. I'm not going to sit here and argue. Believe whatever you want.

You seem to be the expert, yet there are some police officers disagreeing with you. I am assuming you would consider them capable enough of dealing with this very complex subject matter. Will be interesting to hear your side of the argument.........

[freethefly 6]

Quote

For example: The legislature passed a law imposing additional penalties for using a gun "during the commission of a crime." The law was sold to the public as a deterrent to misuse of a firearm. Yet, I read of a guy arrested at his home on a drug charge, and is additionally charged with a weapons violation simply because he happens to have a gun in the house. He didn't threaten anyone and didn't misuse the gun, yet was charged anyway.

This sounds like the guy in Utah who got life for having a gun (deer rifle in the case in the closet) during the commission of a drug crime. He sold three ounces of marijuana to an undercover cop over a period of one year. They spent thousands of dollars of the taxpayers money and kept cops, who otherwise could have been on the street, to arrest the lowest level of dealers. The undercover police badgered the guy to sell him weed. Not actually being a dealer he had to get it from someone else and then give it to the narc. They arrested the guy on their third buy and herald this as a major dent on the so called "war on drugs". I believe the guy was 24 or 25 years old. Life in prison. A feather in the prosecutors hat. What an unjust punishment. The state of Utah and all Americans who support this type of government bravado should be ashamed.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

***The narcotics guys are a world unto themselves. I've noticed that they frequently don't even bother to offer a justification for an automobile search. Most of the other guys will at least articulate a reason for the search, such as the smell of pot, a crack pipe in plain view, etc. The drug teams will offer some vacuous reason for making the stop, such as "failure to maintain lane" or a broken tag light, but everybody knows they stopped the guy just to check him out and see what they can find.

Years back I was pulled over for speeding. The cop asked if I had anything such as bombs, guns or drugs in my truck. I told him "no". He then said " Then you won't mind me searching your vehicle". I told him he could not search my truck. He then called another officer to the "scene". They talked and then asked me again stating that if I had no drugs or weapons in my truck I shouldn't be worried about being searched. I told them no way are they going to search me because I was speeding. They then called a drug sniffing dog and more cops. After about 2 hours of them wasting the taxpayers money they found nothing and I got a speeding ticket. My lawyer got it dismissed. I believe because of my long hair and tattoos I was prejudged. It is profiling. The officers time could have been better spent. He should had just wrote the ticket and moved on. In the end the court got zilch and my lawyer got about $200.00. I can think of better ways to spend my money.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[miked10270 0]

On the car is written: "We are the Police and You are NOT......"

Oh yeah... "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" or "Reasonable Cause to Suspect" for vehicle searches....

"The driver / passenger(s) appeared very nervous and agitated M'Lud. A persons check via computer was made and we searched the car with the accused's initial consent, which he did try to withdraw when he realised that we WERE going to search the vehicle and occupants."

Or in REAL life:

"Can we have a look in the car son?"

"Err... No."

"Sorry son, did you think it was a question? Start by turning out your pockets."

Then it moves to a "Thanks very much." or a "What's this?" The "Cause of Search" can quickly & easily be changed based on what's found.

I remember going to a "Suspected Drunk-in-Charge" (of a motor vehicle). Car parked, engine off, intoxicated male in drivers seat. Suspect out of car but he swept a bag off his lap into back footwell as he got out. He was kind of out of it and his head kept nodding which came in handy when we "asked" if we could search the car. Ounce of Cannabis in the bag and 4ounces of Heroin in the trunk!!!!! $50,000 worth. The expected complaint came in that the search was illegal, but both "Professional Standards" and later the judge laughed it out. Usually this depends on who's complaining and what's found rather than the "legality" of the search.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

Or, do you think that the presence of hunters' caps and ammunition is cause to think they were up to CRIMINAL use of firearms?

I never said that. I just made the scenario up as an interesting possibility. In that scenario, a limited search within arms reach of the occupants would be upheld. Given the gravity of the 4th Amendment protections at stake, the applicable case law is plentiful and clear.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.