PDA

View Full Version : Today! The Supreme Court on Police "pat downs" for weapons (aka "Terry" Search)


Liberty1
01-26-2009, 7:40 PM
The decision :Arizona v Johnson (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1122.pdf) .


Hat tip to the Volokh Conspitacy (http://volokh.com/)

This morning the Supreme Court handed down the decision in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg. The Court limited its opinion to how this power applies in a traffic stop setting. It held first that the Terry v. Ohio power to detain is met in a traffic stop setting "whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation." Second, "To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." That is, the police can pat-down the passenger in a lawful traffic stop if the passenger is reasonably suspected of being dangerous regardless of what other crimes are suspected.

kermit315
01-26-2009, 8:00 PM
so, how are they going to make the leap from armed (ccw in free states, and those so lucky here) and dangerous? my guess is that some police will see this as a green light to pull anybody and everybody out of their cars for the purpose of patdowns and in that process, "find" reasonable suspicion to search peoples cars on the roadside without warrants.

DDT
01-26-2009, 8:10 PM
First thing that popped into my head too. Arm & Dangerous vs. Armed and Law Abiding.

Is Armed automatically assumed to be dangerous? If you are required to notify LEO that you are armed by CCW restriction does that immunize you from an assumption of being dangerous? Or does it simply mean that any armed citizen no longer has protection from arbitrary search?

AndrewMendez
01-26-2009, 8:15 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

hawk1
01-26-2009, 8:21 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

Damn! Talk about being :owned:

savageevo
01-26-2009, 8:31 PM
Here, you really need to look at these video's and understand your rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

Shotgun Man
01-26-2009, 8:32 PM
The Fourth Amendment means little to SCOTUS.

We should not cheer, for we are next.

Got Stuff?
01-26-2009, 8:38 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!
If they pulled you out at gunpoint even though you stated that the gun was locked in the trunk.......

Kinda scary when I think that if it was me and I told the officer "my weapon is on my right hip.":censored:

Gryff
01-26-2009, 8:44 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

And you filed a complaint the PD, right? Nothing you did justified having a loaded weapon pointed at you, and cops need to be made to understand that law-abiding gun owners shouldn't have that **** done to them.

dreyna14
01-26-2009, 8:46 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

...and did you file any kind of complaint or question their reasoning about pulling you out? ?I would've been mad beyond belief. But then, I probably would've told the officers nothing regarding where I was coming from, it's none of their business.

Regarding this, there appears to be nothing in the new ruling, from the above summary at least, that allows officers to search the vehicle, just you and your person. If they find no weapons then they won't be able to justify ANY vehicle search.

Theseus
01-26-2009, 8:47 PM
The way I read this they have to be able to articulate that someone is armed AND dangerous. If they can't articulate what made me dangerous then they don't have sufficient suspicion.

Certainly however they will make it up.

As for coming home from the range? Never tell a cop that. I am never, when talking to a cop on my way to or from a range. I am going to Wal-mart for some oil....I am going to the grocery store to get some bread. Anything but going to the range. And that is if I even tell them where I am going/coming. I may have to stop, but I don't have to cooperate.

Good Times
01-26-2009, 9:06 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

Ouch! I'm sure you learned a lot from this incident and hopefully the next time you get pulled over you won't say anything. Your own words ultimately got you in this pickle.

Next time you roll thru a dui checkpoint, roll your window down (half way or less) and provide your drivers license. When questioned where you're coming from, state that that question is irrelevant and ask if you are free to go. If the officer asks if you've been drinking state that you have not and ask if you are free to go. By clearly communicating back to the officer, the officer should be able to make a quick assessment that your voice is not slurred and should be able to let you thru. If the officer determines that "alcohol" is present then they'll pull you aside. At no point do you need to declare you have anything "illegal" in your vehicle because you don't. Do not open yourself to any illegal searches and if asked if they can search your vehicle, let it be known that you do not approve of any searches of your vehicle.

The absolute worst thing you can do is give them information that they can build a case against you. By providing no information outside of your drivers license (which they can since you're driving) they won't have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain you further.

Always keep a voice recorder handy (some cell phones have an audio recorder so that'll work too!).

SwissFluCase
01-26-2009, 9:54 PM
Makes me not want to be honest with people!

No good deed goes unpunished. :mad: Simple minds deserve simple answers. "These aren't the droids we're looking for..."

Regards,


SwissFluCase

yellowfin
01-26-2009, 10:06 PM
Is Armed automatically assumed to be dangerous? Not in the free states, no. The idea that armed = dangerous is only in despotic dictatorships like this one.
If you are required to notify LEO that you are armed by CCW restriction does that immunize you from an assumption of being dangerous?Not completely, but probably 75-80%. Can you think of much of any other way that communicates to the officer that you've passed mulitple federal background checks and come out clean?

SwissFluCase
01-26-2009, 10:08 PM
Not in the free states, no. The idea that armed = dangerous is only in despotic dictatorships like this one.

That's the true danger. Not so much the law, but the attitude. Very out of line indeed.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

DDT
01-26-2009, 10:15 PM
After reading the full opinion (and having dinner etc. I don't read THAT slowly) it would seem that the officer had what I would think is reasonable cause to believe the person posed a danger to her and that a weapons frisk doesn't seem like a 4A violation.

He admitted to having been recently released from jail, was wearing his gang colors, behaving suspiciously and had a police scanner in his shirt pocket.

I still think there needs to be some case law proving that the presence of a firearm is not an automatic relenquishment of your 4th amendment rights this is not the case you want for that purpose. The DUI checkpoint that Andrew wrote about is a much better case. (assuming the story is 100% accurate, we need Theseus video taping DUI checkpoints now) The only problem is I don't know if the detention he experienced would be adequate to prove harm.

mblat
01-26-2009, 10:18 PM
This is that reasonable word again. I swear I am starting to hate it.....
Reasonable pat-down...
Reasonable search
Reasonable gun-law...

CA_Libertarian
01-26-2009, 10:18 PM
The way I read it, this case was simply to determine: (1) can the cops detain a person for a moving violation, and (2) can they perform a Terry pat down of both the driver and passenger?

Sounds like a good ruling to me:

-- Traffic stop = Terry stop.

-- Terry pat down requires reasonable suspicion the subject is armed and dangerous.

I think this will be a useful citation in many future cases where an abuse of power is challenged.

tyrist
01-26-2009, 10:22 PM
Does not seem anything has changed.

DDT
01-26-2009, 10:22 PM
This is that reasonable word again. I swear I am starting to hate it.....
Reasonable pat-down...
Reasonable search
Reasonable gun-law...

Would you rather have unreasonable? Or do you simply think that NONE would be better? No pat-down? No search? Gee, like having dead cops much?

yellowfin
01-26-2009, 10:25 PM
Would you rather have unreasonable? Or do you simply think that NONE would be better? No pat-down? No search? Gee, like having dead cops much?
No search of legal firearms owners merely because they're firearms owners. Ya see where you're leading with that? The idea that CCW is some kind of hazard to cops is an idea we need to completely squash. As in do not repeat it, do not give it credibility.

DDT
01-26-2009, 10:26 PM
No search of legal firearms owners merely because they're firearms owners. Ya see where you're leading with that? The idea that CCW is some kind of hazard to cops is an idea we need to completely squash. As in do not repeat it, do not give it credibility.

I agree no search merely because they are firearms owners. But search of gangbangers with scanners in their pockets and erratic behavior even if they are firearms owners? YES. THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT LEGAL CCW.

mblat
01-26-2009, 10:42 PM
Would you rather have unreasonable? Or do you simply think that NONE would be better? No pat-down? No search? Gee, like having dead cops much?

Define reasonable. To Barbara Boxer your desire to have semi-auto rifle/handgun is totally unreasonable.

pullnshoot25
01-26-2009, 10:50 PM
Define reasonable. To Barbara Boxer your desire to have semi-auto rifle/handgun is totally unreasonable.

EXACTLY!

tyrist
01-26-2009, 10:51 PM
Reasonable means they will decide if the evidence is admissable on a case by case basis.

odysseus
01-26-2009, 10:54 PM
...was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from...

Again, more of the slippery slope these DUI check points can be problematic of. What business is it of LE where you are going to or from at a DUI checkpoint? It simply is to examine you to see if you were intoxicated, right? Of course yes they can ask for your license as well.

It is this type of behavior which will continue to put LE and the public further on edge against each other.

.

DDT
01-26-2009, 10:54 PM
Define reasonable. To Barbara Boxer your desire to have semi-auto rifle/handgun is totally unreasonable.

What does that have to do with a terry stop? Did you read the facts of the case? Do you feel that if you were the cop in this situation it would have been reasonable to continue the questioning of the subject without a pat-down to ensure your safety?

Reasonableness is a common standard in these types of cases. It is completely separate from "reasonable" legislation.

What standard would you want to see for such searches? If not reasonable standards would you rather have unreasonable standards?

kermit315
01-26-2009, 11:05 PM
I think the point trying to be made (and that you are missing) is that in the given case, yes, it was reasonable. next time, what if it isnt so reasonable, but the cop thinks it is. now he has case law backing him that says it was "reasonable", even though it may not have been. Reasonable is by definition subjective, you cant apply a blanket definition to it. it is a totality of the circumstances judgement. what if some officer down the line, even in a free state (because it has been demonstrated that all police are not onboard with CCW) determines that CCW=armed=dangerous=patdown on a 5mph over the speed limit stop with nothing else out of the ordinary.

the problem is the subjectivity of the standard, and who is making the call.

mblat
01-26-2009, 11:18 PM
What does that have to do with a terry stop? Did you read the facts of the case? Do you feel that if you were the cop in this situation it would have been reasonable to continue the questioning of the subject without a pat-down to ensure your safety?

Reasonableness is a common standard in these types of cases. It is completely separate from "reasonable" legislation.

What standard would you want to see for such searches? If not reasonable standards would you rather have unreasonable standards?

Listen...... I understand what you are saying..... And I am not disputing the fact that in THIS particular case officer actions were justified.
I was just trying to say that this word reasonable was and IS used way to often to justify completely unreasonable actions/laws, IMHO. I am not sure what the answer is, really.... I just know that I don't want to be searched just because I am talking too much, or by accident dressed in some unknown to me gang color or something stupid like this.....

yellowfin
01-26-2009, 11:22 PM
Reasonable means they will decide if the evidence is admissable on a case by case basis.Making consistency of the law impossible. It's inherently abusable like another word we have come to hate: discretion.

DDT
01-26-2009, 11:41 PM
Listen...... I understand what you are saying..... And I am not disputing the fact that in THIS particular case officer actions were justified.
I was just trying to say that this word reasonable was and IS used way to often to justify completely unreasonable actions/laws, IMHO. I am not sure what the answer is, really.... I just know that I don't want to be searched just because I am talking too much, or by accident dressed in some unknown to me gang color or something stupid like this.....

I agree that the word reasonable is oft abused. We can only look at this decision based upon the case at hand. If you acknowledge that in this particular case the officers actions were justified then you must agree that the decision was proper.

You'll notice that I stated in previous posts that I believe we need good case law stating that possession of a firearm is not automatic reasonable cause for a search or detention. As I also stated before the DUI checkpoint case might make a great case if the person detained wanted to make case law. The fact is that a gangbanger recently released from prison with a police scanner in his pocket is not a place to make a stand on this issue. I WANT people like him detained and searched by the police in a traffic stop.

Perhaps the Open Carry case in WI will be a good case for "armed doesn't necessarily mean dangerous." Assuming he gets to federal court.

tyrist
01-26-2009, 11:49 PM
Making consistency of the law impossible. It's inherently abusable like another word we have come to hate: discretion.

Judge does'nt have the ability to define ever single situation that will occur (does any human being?) so they use reasonable inorder to give lower court judges the ability to decide case by case.

yellowfin
01-26-2009, 11:52 PM
^ Which like bungee jumping and sky diving is just fine so long as it works out...

DDT
01-26-2009, 11:54 PM
^ Which like bungee jumping and sky diving is just fine so long as it works out...

Or until a police officer abuses the standard of "reasonableness" and the wronged citizen takes it to court and gets case law that better defines where the line is.

fairfaxjim
01-27-2009, 12:37 AM
Or until a police officer abuses the standard of "reasonableness" and the wronged citizen takes it to court and gets case law that better defines where the line is.

The standard of "reasonableness" has become that any civilian with a firearm is both armed, and a danger to the officer. If you doubt that, then read the Orange County Sherif's memo on legal open carry (to cite just one.)

The reasonableness of our society is now driven by a consensus of fear - fear that is sustained and promoted by those who are and who aspire to be our "leaders" - it is their stock and trade, they have nothing else to offer to make them useful to us. Society is content to attempt to trade reasonableness for a false sense of security. The "war" on drugs, the "war" on crime, the "war" on gangs, the "war" on terrorism, and so on and so on. It is not a mistake that the label "war" is chosen for all of these assaults on individual rights, as "of course everyone must make sacrafices for a war." "What is a simple consent to search if you have nothing to hide?" The "reasonable" assault on reasonableness continues to escalate.

As for the "wronged" citizen taking the case to court and getting case law that better defines where the line of reasonableness is, ask yourself how many of the defining cases (remember, just a lower court win does not provide defining case law) are the result of a "wronged" citizen versus a guilty, convicted felon fighting to suppress evidence or overturn an existing court conviction? Our justice system is there to convict, not vindicate.

aileron
01-27-2009, 6:45 AM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

Had similar experience. Came out of a grocery store with this one officer checking license of kids in lowered car in the parking lot. He sees us in a raised 4X4 and watches us leave, gets in his car follows us for a mile or two then pulls us over. He asked if we had any guns in the car, we said that we were going shooting and camping in the mountains, which of course is what we were doing. He pulled the driver out of the car, then bunches of cops showed up and they made the two of us left in the truck stick our hands out the car doors get out and walk backwards towards them.

While I was walking backwards with my hands up with five or more officers pointing their guns at me I was thinking... I hope I don't trip and fall backwards. They'll shoot me.

I was really pissed when a cop stuck his 9mm Beretta into my back. Then was bummed when he told me to put my fingers on my head then grabbed my fingers holstered his firearm patted me down and proceeded to cuff me and sat me on the cold ground (night time, and winter) for half and hour while they went through my buddies truck. :(

When they were done they gave us a lecture on how well the whole thing went.

I was polite but inside I disagreed since we hadn't done anything wrong, they didn't have probable cause based on seeing us leave the grocery store, and they had endangered my life for no reason.

I really feel the 4th needs to be re-invigorated. :( We are suppose to be able to travel unencumbered.

freakshow10mm
01-27-2009, 6:52 AM
Perhaps the Open Carry case in WI will be a good case for "armed doesn't necessarily mean dangerous." Assuming he gets to federal court.
This has already been addressed in case law. I don't think it's in Terry but a similar case thereafter where someone was armed and they used that to perform a frisk. The officers couldn't articulate beyond "he was armed therefore he was dangerous" to the court and the court laughed.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 10:32 AM
GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO IRRITATE ME!!!!

Look...i don't post here much but i am starting to get sick of the "woe is me" attitude that i'm seeing. Time and again someone will post that "cop pulled me over for no reason i told the cop that i had a gun and that it was in the trunk and then he cuffed me and my friend and I didn't record the conversation and it was cold out and they were mean and WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"

then there are all of you complaining about "reasonableness" and what it means.

some of you guys are either plain ignorant or just love getting knocked around by the cops.

So here's primer on the police. I'm only gonna do this once, so PAY ATTENTION.

1. Don't be rude. Keep smiling.
2. Don't be a *****. Get in your head that in this country YOU are the sovereign, the top dog, the rulemaker, and government only exists because of YOUR consent to be governed.
3. Take the initiative. When a cop pulls you over, the first words spoken should be BY YOU in the form of a question. Here's the scenario. You have a dozen scary-looking guns in your trunk covered by 100 lbs of cocaine and marijuana. There is a loaded pistol in the glove box. you have a folding knife in your pocket. Oh, you also have a dead body in the back seat covered by a tarp. You're doing 110 MPH and weaving through traffic. You see the cop and hit the brakes, he radars you somewhere in the 90s and pulls you over. Now cop approaches, all pissed off. Keep your hands on the wheel and you get to choose to say ONE of the following:

a. What seems to be the trouble, officer?
b. Why did you pull me over, officer?

THAT'S IT! NO APOLOGIZING, NO WHINING, NO CRYING. ASSUME THAT THE COP HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO HAVE PULLED YOU OVER.

cop: do you know the speed limit here?
you: yes it's 70.
cop: do you know how fast you were going?
you: yes sir.
cop: How fast?
you: Officer, how can I help you?
cop: I got you on radar at 94 mph. what's the emergency?
you: SILENCE! or again: how can I help you, officer?
cop: do you have any guns in the car?
you: officer, am I free to go?
cop: where are you coming from?
you: officer, am i free to go?
cop: where are you heading?
you: that's irrelevant to this contact and I don't have to answer that question.
cop: have you had anything to drink today?
you: (and this actually happened to me 2 weeks ago) Am I required to answer that question? i don't believe I am required to answer that. I'm invoking my 5th amendment protection against testifying against myself.
cop: (trying to administer a field sobriety test) I want you to follow my finger.
you: (looking down, NOT looking at finger- and mind you, I hadn't had a drink in at least two weeks.) Officer, I understand that according to california's "implied consent" law, any time I am pulled over for suspicion of a moving violation, that by the very act of driving a car I have implied that I will consent to a sobriety test. Now, I don't happen to agree with the constitutionality of that law, but at this point I'm willing to submit. However, I know that field-administered sobriety tests are notoriously inaccurate and are subject to officer interpretation, so I will not submit to that. But in compliance with the implied consent law, let's go down to the station and do a blood test.

cop: step out of the car.

you comply, rolling up the windows and locking the doors.

now this part just happened to me two weeks ago with a CHP officer.
cop: I'm going to contact you to search you to make sure you're not carrying any weapons.
me: hold on one second. I don't consent to any search.
cop: Well, I'm going to search you for my own safety.
me: what is your probable cause for a search?
cop: well, california case law grants me the right to search you if you are outside the vehicle.
me: Officer, I understand what you are saying but you ordered me out of the vehicle. I'm perfectly happy to return to the vehicle so that your safety is assured and my 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is not violated.

This latest supreme court ruling is horrible for the idiots who give up their rights, and it's golden for those of us who invoke our rights.

If this same situation happened today, I'd tell the officer:
Maybe you are not aware of the latest supreme court ruling. It just came down last week, and though ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens like me, I am not an unreasonable person and I wouldn' t expect you, an officer of the law to actually know the law forwards and backwards. So I don't mind taking the time to educate you. According to the Supreme Court, you may search occupants of a vehicle during a routine traffic stop only if you have reasonable suspicion that the occupants are armed AND that you reasonably assume that they are dangerous. Now, if you want to proceed with your search I would first like to know on what your suspicion that I may be armed is based on, and second, I would like to know on what your belief that I am dangerous is based. Clearly, I am the calmest, most reasonable person here and I have presented no threat to you or anyone else. The video camera in your cruiser will show that. Now, I am willing to wait quietly here or in my vehicle while you contact your police chief regarding this latest supreme court ruling to ascertain the limits of your powers. It is my belief that you have no right to search me at this time and if you force me to submit i will not resist but you should be advised that you will then be facing a section 1983 lawsuit against you personally, in federal court.

and on, and on, and on. KEEP INVOKING YOUR RIGHTS. If you don't use your rights, you don't have them!

cop: you don't mind if I search the vehicle, do you? You've got nothing to hide, have you?
THIS IS A HUGELY IMPORTANT POINT!!!!!!! NO COP WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER whew i'm getting tired EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER ASK TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE UNLESS HE DOESN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. IF HE HAS PROBABLE CAUSE, HE WILL JUST PROCEED WITH THE SEARCH. PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDES BLOOD DRIPPING FROM THE BODY YOU HAVE IN THE BACK SEAT, IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT IS VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE CAR, OR AUTOMATIC AK-47 FIRE COMING FROM THE TRUNK FROM ROUNDS COOKING OFF FROM THE HEAT OF THE CATALYTIC CONVERTOR UNDERNEATH THE ASSAULT RIFLE YOU WERE TOO DUMB TO UNLOAD, OR THE WHIFF OF COCAINE MELTING OR MARIJUANA BURNING FROM THE SAME CATALYTIC CONVERTOR.

In a nutshell, if the cop asks for your consent, it's because he doesn't have probable cause and is bound by the 4th amendment and is trying to see if you are dumb enough to give up your rights so he can screw you over. Just imagine him asking this: Will you let me search your car so that i might find your 100 lbs of drugs, your 12 assault rifles and the dead body in the back seat, then handcuff you, box your ears, beat you with my nighstick, put you in a cage with 10 other miscreants and let you emerge months later as something less than an anal virgin, at which point the state will use all it's power and money to condemn you FOR LIFE to another, somewhat more private but smaller cage, OR should I just go piss into the wind?
you: That anal rape thing sounds pretty good, and in prison I'd get 3 square meals a day. It seems a fair deal, I'll be honest with you. But....no, I think I'm just gonna tell you to piss into the wind. Am I free to go now?

back to our story-
you: Officer, I don't consent to any search.
cop: well, you refusing a search gives me probable cause through reasonable suspicion.
you: No, it doesn't. Invoking a right does not carry any penalty with it.
cop: are you trying to tell me the law?
you: I'm trying to tell you that conducting a search with no probable cause and against my consent is a mistake and will be fruitless and potentially damaging once I file a section 1983 lawsuit against you personally in federal court for willfully violating my Constitutional rights, the Constitution being the highest law of the land, having been written for my benefit as the sole and exclusively named beneficiary and to which you have been sworn to uphold. Now, am I free to go?


Freaking know the law. If you're not willing to do a little research to cover your own ***, then you have no right to complain when a cop mistreats you after you TOLD HIM all the bad things you're doing.

And don't dream of goin' along with the cop in the hopes you'll get off with a warning. Unless you've got double-D breasts in a B-size halter top, no panties and long, luscious blonde locks, plus no wedding ring and come-hither eyes, you're getting that ticket. It's better to take the ticket and you, your dead body, your assault weapons and 100 lbs of illegal drugs just roll on down the highway.

grr.

kermit315
01-27-2009, 11:00 AM
GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO IRRITATE ME!!!!



then dont come here. if it irritates you so bad, dont click on the posts.

yellowfin
01-27-2009, 11:09 AM
Elsensei, it's not so much the traffic stop that we object to in and of itself if one is speeding, it's the witch hunting of firearms owners.

jasilva
01-27-2009, 11:15 AM
then dont come here. if it irritates you so bad, dont click on the posts.

Sorry but the man is right. People are amazingly stupid about giving up their rights.

1911su16b870
01-27-2009, 11:19 AM
Very enjoyable reading thus far. Just wanted to make the point that the standard for reasonable suspicion is lower than that for probable cause. The reasonable suspicion standard of judgment will involve that particular officer, the circumstances of the encounter, the actions and behavior of the interviewee, the officer's mindset before and during the encounter, any other pertenant history regarding that area of the encounter, and the officer's training and experience.

aileron
01-27-2009, 11:49 AM
GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO IRRITATE ME!!!!

grr.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it is unconstitutional for them to even ask to search your car without probable cause? This would be the naive view you get when your told you have rights to begin with. Reality kicks in after you have been through a few stops.

The whole idea that our legal enforcement branches shall trick people into giving up their rights is abhorrent. In fact I will say its criminal because unconstitutional doesnt seem to hold criminal intent behind it. The Bill of Rights doesn't say, "Unless you trick them into giving up their rights , 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.

I was 21 at the time, and didn't know what to say to stop it, I wasnt driving either, so I wasn't asked, though at the time I don't think I would of tried. Our public education system didn't seem too keen on walking me through how to avoid being searched. But I still hold they don't have the right to ask, but the fox is guarding the hen house, so we are getting our just rewards for not fighting back, and saying No you will not.

Personally I have come to the conclusion we need a citizens court and citizens prison. To hold government officials accountable by force of citizen law; not federal or state.

freakshow10mm
01-27-2009, 11:59 AM
Elensei, thanks for wasting my time with that post. You do not have a clear idea of how things work.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 12:00 PM
Personally I have come to the conclusion we need a citizens court and citizens prison. To hold government officials accountable by force of citizen law; not federal or state.

I think we just need our grand juries to be independent again.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 12:16 PM
If I may present a more accurate portrayal of the hypothesized traffic stop...

I wouldn' t expect you, an officer of the law to actually know the law forwards and backwards. So I don't mind taking the time to educate you...

I'll educate you, punk!

POP! crack! crack! crack! crack! crack!

Owwww! Don't tase me bro!!! Heeelp!!

What do you think you're some sort of lawyer or something!?!?!

AAAARRRGGH!!!!!! Sock! Punch! STOOOP!!!

That what you get for physically attacking a cop!

But I didn't...

Tell it to the judge, Punk!

Smack! Kick! AAARGGGHH! NOOOOOOO!!!!


I don't mean to offend, but that is precisely what I would expect if I tried to be a roadside lawyer. I don't approve of the above actions, but contempt of cop is a reality. Even good cops can only be pushed so far.

The problem is that they should not be harassing us in the first place. We are not criminals or dangerous.

Consider this:

The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment is to avoid the need for the agents of the state to be in our affairs in the first place. More CCW means less need for cops.

Now we are not threatening their safety, but rather their jobs, and their authority. The statists have the power, and they want to keep it. That is why they harass us. It needs to stop.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

elsensei
01-27-2009, 12:21 PM
Elensei, thanks for wasting my time with that post. You do not have a clear idea of how things work.

yeah right dude. I've only been through it a dozen times now. why don't you inform us "how things work," oh wise one?

regarding what you were taught in school: well, they're GOVERNMENT RUN schools. Do you really think that you're going to learn how to resist usurpation of your rights in a government school? HAHAHAHAAAaaaaaaa!

regarding witchhunting of firearms owners, yeah i agree it's crap. all the more reason to NOT volunteer such information to cops or other governments agents. I'd call it common sense but sense is getting to be pretty uncommon these days.

regarding citizen courts, etc. It'll never happen. The best chance you'd have for that happening is through a new constitution (post revolution), and i can guarantee that that roll of the dice will go much worse for anyone who values liberty.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 12:28 PM
If I may present a more accurate portrayal of the hypothesized traffic stop...



I'll educate you, punk!

POP! crack! crack! crack! crack! crack!

Owwww! Don't tase me bro!!! Heeelp!!

What do you think you're some sort of lawyer or something!?!?!

AAAARRRGGH!!!!!! Sock! Punch! STOOOP!!!

That what you get for physically attacking a cop!

But I didn't...

Tell it to the judge, Punk!

Smack! Kick! AAARGGGHH! NOOOOOOO!!!!


I don't mean to offend, but that is precisely what I would expect if I tried to be a roadside lawyer. I don't approve of the above actions, but contempt of cop is a reality. Even good cops can only be pushed so far.

The problem is that they should not be harassing us in the first place. We are not criminals or dangerous.

Consider this:

The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment is to avoid the need for the agents of the state to be in our affairs in the first place. More CCW means less need for cops.

Now we are not threatening their safety, but rather their jobs, and their authority. The statists have the power, and they want to keep it. That is why they harass us. It needs to stop.

Regards,


SwissFluCase


well, it's as simple as this. you either roll over and take it (a certainty) or you do what I've done plenty of times and be non-threatening, invoke your rights and stand your ground. Cops overstep their bounds all the time, and as a citizen you're got the right and responsibility to show them the error of their ways. Again, a right not invoked is nonexistant. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

I've been through scenarios similar to the one i outlined a number of times, and it's always gone my way...be it traffic stops, a ranger in a state park wanting to search my vehicle for firearms, federal BLM guys wanting to search a huge camp for fireworks and illegal drugs, whatever.

What many of you seem to be doing isn't working for ya. You can either keep bending over or find some sack, know your rights and invoke them politely and consistently. It's up to you, I know what I'm gonna choose.

Ironchef
01-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Elsensei,
There's people on this forum who have complied literally as you have outlined in your detailed, yet harsh criticism. But unlike you, who would willingly go to jail to test the law and pay thousands to defend yourself, possibly losing your job and not being able to feed your family, some people exert their rights in a REALISTIC manner that isn't outlined in the FLEX YOUR RIGHTS videos you're regurgitating to us.

So while you are correct and well versed in a textbook approach to a traffic stop, you lack little reality in them. It's hard to believe you've gone through that kind of stop multiple times "educating" cops and smart mouthing them as you describe. But it sure sounds impressive.

As for the fine line you crossed in criticizing forum members here, that's simply going to get you nowhere so you should stop. This topic is not an easy one for many reasons..it's simply not as clear cut as you think it is.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 1:00 PM
I'm not trying to "get anywhere". I'm right where I want to be. You don't have to believe anything I wrote. It's really immaterial to me. Every supreme court case is based on precedent and extremely limited interpretations of laws, so in that respect it actually is clear cut. I'm not saying the police are going to like it or that you won't get hassled if you stand up for yourself. You might. But I 100% guarantee that if you roll over and give up your rights to the police, you will get f****d Every. Single. Time.

It really is that simple.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 1:12 PM
well, it's as simple as this. you either roll over and take it (a certainty) or you do what I've done plenty of times and be non-threatening, invoke your rights and stand your ground. Cops overstep their bounds all the time, and as a citizen you're got the right and responsibility to show them the error of their ways. Again, a right not invoked is nonexistant. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

I've been through scenarios similar to the one i outlined a number of times, and it's always gone my way...be it traffic stops, a ranger in a state park wanting to search my vehicle for firearms, federal BLM guys wanting to search a huge camp for fireworks and illegal drugs, whatever.

What many of you seem to be doing isn't working for ya. You can either keep bending over or find some sack, know your rights and invoke them politely and consistently. It's up to you, I know what I'm gonna choose.

I understand your position. I don't think anyone here disagrees that we should let the police trample our rights. There are two fronts to this issue, however.

The first one is that we need to cooperate with the police to the full extent of the law.

Read those last words carefully. That means do what is legally required of without delay or protest, and then nothing more! We do not have to consent to a search. We do not even have to talk to the officer, beyond name, rank, and serial number. A simple "sorry, I'm really busy and I have to go. Am I free to do so?" works a lot better than than trying to stick your rights to them.

I have not been pulled over very many times, and each time it is "sorry sir, I'll get you on your way, sorry again to inconvenience you sir, have a nice day, sir". My attitude and demeanor says I repect the badge, but I am not willing to play roadside games. Never been an issue.

The second one is making sure the courts enforce our rights.

It is not our job to teach the police what our rights are. We live in a republic, and in a republic that is the job of the court system. It is our job to tell the court what we expect. If the courts fail, then we can alter the governement to fit the needs of the citizenry. A lesson in constitutional law on the side of the road with a paranoid cop with his hand on his gun is just not going to sink in.

The bottom line is that our freedoms cannot depened on your average citizen asserting their rights 100% of the time. Some people just have weak constitutions, and will roll in the face of authority, every time. We need to make sure the system as a whole respects our rights.

That is what we are doing. The discourse you are involved in is the messy and complicated process of exchanging ideas, so that we may have the information and arguments to fight this good fight.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

truthseeker
01-27-2009, 1:20 PM
Define reasonable. To Barbara Boxer your desire to have semi-auto rifle/handgun is totally unreasonable.

To me I think that they are trying to make Reasonable mean only 2 things:

1. Does the DA think the evidence was obtained under reasonable conditions.

2. Does the jury of your peers think the reasons for your arrest were reasonable.

grambo
01-27-2009, 1:22 PM
Interesting reading. At least a kernel of truth in many of the posts here. I agree with the posters that say the witch-hunting of firearm owners is horrible (wow- it really is bad in PRK!!!). I also agree with elsensei that people should know their rights. Although instead of playing roadside lawyer (which commonly elicits a "save it for the judge" response), I prefer silence or simply "am I free to go now?".

For all of you who would like some training in dealing with LEOs, sometimes they do advertise DUI checkpoint locations ahead of time. Educate yourself as to your rights through reading, practice, and/or videos, and drive through the DUI checkpoints with a voice/vid recorder rolling after you have made CERTAIN that you don't have anything illegal in your vehicle/person/history (i.e., warrant). As elsensei said, grow some sack, stand up for your rights, and hope that they don't plant anything.

As a side thought, if everyone did that at DUI checkpoints, the checkpoints would cease to exist! Another side note, make sure everyone you go to the range with knows their rights as well.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 1:26 PM
To me I think that they are trying to make Reasonable mean only 2 things:

1. Does the DA think the evidence was obtained under reasonable conditions.

2. Does the jury of your peers think the reasons for your arrest were reasonable.

The problem that I have here is that the average street cop displays a level of paranioa that the average reasonable person does not. I am not going to argue the validity of that point insomuch as it applies to officer survival. Trusting cops become dead cops.

The problem is, reasonable to whom? The average citizen, or the average cop that is expecting an ambush and acting nervously when he is waiting for his burger at In-n-out in one of the richest, safest communities in America? BTW, I did see this behavior the other day...

Therein lies the problem with "resonable".

Regards,


SwissFluCase

yellowfin
01-27-2009, 1:31 PM
2. Does the jury of your peers think the reasons for your arrest were reasonable.The interesting thing about "jury of peers" is that the definition of "peers" in use has changed dramatically from when the Constitution was written and in fact has nothing in common with the definition of that day at all. IIRC, it meant people of esteem and high regard of the community, implying education and good standing as to be reputable people. I think in England at the time it had even further meaning, like a quasi nobility. Applying that definition to the term and thus applying it to the law as written at the time would have a considerable change in the makeup of juries today.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 1:34 PM
I agree with you. My first rule was to be polite, even in the face of adversity. I am unfailingly polite.

If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll see that I don't advocate teaching an officer about the law until he's about to overstep his bounds. Then you must choose to have your rights trampled and your day ruined, or explain what you're not going to comply with and why.

You do have the right to decline a field sobriety test and opt for a urine or blood test. A cop can't force you to "follow my finger". Let me restate. Physically, he can, but legally he can't. And he's got to balance his desire to physically throw his weight around against the disciplinary action, financial liability, and potential loss of employment he'll face by willfully violating your constitutional rights.

It's not our job to teach the police what our rights are. It is, however, our responsibility to know our rights and invoke them. Otherwise, as I implied, people ought to quit complaining about poor treatment from the police. You don't hear me crying.

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention,that some of you may want to put in the "wow that sounds impressive but I don't believe it" file-

Every time I've invoked my Constitutional rights, I've prefaced it with, "It's pretty obvious that we're slowly losing our rights in this country wouldn't you agree? and we're going fascist and if things continue it'll be a big mess, right? I wouldn't want my kids to inherit a country like that, would you?"

Every time, I've had the cops nodding in agreement then shaking their heads "no". Don't forget, that at the end of the shift they're citizens too and they have to live in this country as well, whether it is a free state or a police state. Usually by the end of it all we're on a first-name basis and they shake my hand.

it is our job as citizens to know our rights and invoke them, or slip into some comfortable chains and wait for the cattle dogs. And that is for each person to decide for themselves. All I was trying to do was show the lunacy of giving up your rights and then complaining that the cops didn't respect your rights. What rights? Oh, the ones you gave up.

It's circular.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 1:41 PM
The problem that I have here is that the average street cop displays a level of paranioa that the average reasonable person does not. I am not going to argue the validity of that point insomuch as it applies to officer survival. Trusting cops become dead cops.

The problem is, reasonable to whom? The average citizen, or the average cop that is expecting an ambush and acting nervously when he is waiting for his burger at In-n-out in one of the richest, safest communities in America? BTW, I did see this behavior the other day...

Therein lies the problem with "resonable".

Regards,


SwissFluCase

No, the problem is the speculation. Reasonableness in each situation is legally defined and the definition is out there. I'll leave it to someone else to look it up as I've already spent too much time typing today.

Just because a cop is nervous does not mean that it is reasonable for him to be nervous. Just as if a lily-livered citizen faints at the sight of one of us peaceably open-carrying does not a. make it my problem. b. mean the reaction is reasonable or c. change my decision to quietly, peacefully exercise my rights in the least.

JDay
01-27-2009, 1:45 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

This is exactly why you should NEVER answer these kinds of questions, it is none of their business where you are going to or coming from. We do not live in Soviet Russia. The best way to answer would be to say nothing, ask if you're being detained and then ask if you're free to go.

JDay
01-27-2009, 1:46 PM
And you filed a complaint the PD, right? Nothing you did justified having a loaded weapon pointed at you, and cops need to be made to understand that law-abiding gun owners shouldn't have that **** done to them.

A lot of good a complaint does when its their fellow officers investigating it.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 1:49 PM
This is exactly why you should NEVER answer these kinds of questions, it is none of their business where you are going to or coming from. We do not live in Soviet Russia. The best way to answer would be to say nothing, ask if you're being detained and then ask if you're free to go.

Nice. You summarized in 3 sentences what I've been trying to say all day.

Ironchef
01-27-2009, 1:49 PM
So when you get pulled over at the DUI checkpoint, and you get pulled from your car, copy lying about "smelling" alcohol on you, then as you refuse the FST insisting on a blood/urine test at the station/hospital, and get your car impounded and are found out to not be drunk/intoxicated at all...costing you impound fees and lost time, lots of stress, being known as the smart *** or know-it-all to the local PD, and THEN you sue the city and PD spending your own money, so you can get your lost impound fees back and any punitive damages...that's something you're ok with? Cops don't always take your educational moments the right way..especially when they're among their peers and already bent on intimidating you and trying to trip you up.

Invoking your rights at ANY expense is not always the smartest thing..especially when those who trample your rights don't care at all. I believe there's a balance between standing up for or exercising your rights EVERYTIME and in ALL situations vs. humoring the cops and/or negotiating your rights for convenience. By negotiating your rights for convenience, I mean don't go to court everytime you need to prove the cop had no right to terry search you or order you out of the car or down to the hospital for a BAC test...especially when your efforts will be cost prohibitive. But then hey, maybe you're ok blowing lots of cash proving the cops wrong and invoking your rights?

Do you have a wife and children to take care of, and other meaningful life circumstances that would be disrupted because you decided to put a cop in his place, and go to court?

I am agreeing with ALL that you say, I just don't think it reflects reality much. I'm also basing the above scenario on one I read here not long ago where the balance I'm talking about was struck nicely at a DUI checkpoint where in the end, rights were both protected but yielded for considerable convenience.

JDay
01-27-2009, 1:50 PM
let it be known that you do not consent to any searches of your vehicle.

Fixed that for you. If you do not specifically tell them that they do not have consent you will have given them implied consent.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 1:53 PM
A lot of good a complaint does when its their fellow officers investigating it.

it does do good. A complaint, a real, written complaint goes in the officer's file. If more people did this, the bad cops would get weeded out in a hurry. But people are too scared or too ignorant or too...I don't know what.

And then there are always the courts. The great and horrible thing about the US court system is that you can sue practically anyone any time for anything. Now, it may not stick but the option is still there. Again, if more people did this we'd see much more respectful police in no time.

E Pluribus Unum
01-27-2009, 1:54 PM
I agree with you. My first rule was to be polite, even in the face of adversity. I am unfailingly polite.

If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll see that I don't advocate teaching an officer about the law until he's about to overstep his bounds. Then you must choose to have your rights trampled and your day ruined, or explain what you're not going to comply with and why.

You do have the right to decline a field sobriety test and opt for a urine or blood test. A cop can't force you to "follow my finger". Let me restate. Physically, he can, but legally he can't. And he's got to balance his desire to physically throw his weight around against the disciplinary action, financial liability, and potential loss of employment he'll face by willfully violating your constitutional rights.

It's not our job to teach the police what our rights are. It is, however, our responsibility to know our rights and invoke them. Otherwise, as I implied, people ought to quit complaining about poor treatment from the police. You don't hear me crying.

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention,that some of you may want to put in the "wow that sounds impressive but I don't believe it" file-

Every time I've invoked my Constitutional rights, I've prefaced it with, "It's pretty obvious that we're slowly losing our rights in this country wouldn't you agree? and we're going fascist and if things continue it'll be a big mess, right? I wouldn't want my kids to inherit a country like that, would you?"

Every time, I've had the cops nodding in agreement then shaking their heads "no". Don't forget, that at the end of the shift they're citizens too and they have to live in this country as well, whether it is a free state or a police state. Usually by the end of it all we're on a first-name basis and they shake my hand.

it is our job as citizens to know our rights and invoke them, or slip into some comfortable chains and wait for the cattle dogs. And that is for each person to decide for themselves. All I was trying to do was show the lunacy of giving up your rights and then complaining that the cops didn't respect your rights. What rights? Oh, the ones you gave up.

It's circular.


Your ideas on the matter are good in theory, but I call BS on you going through it multiple times. If you had you would know that officers do not take the time to be "educated" by the public. They order you to put your hands behind your head and they pat you down without your consent or comments. If you begin to try to talk to them about it, they repeat their orders and wont take no for an answer. They have the misguided idea that they have a RIGHT to do it and anything short of Jesus himself appearing is not going to convince a police officer otherwise.

It is funny you mention your experience at a DUI checkpoint... it sound earily similar to my experience... especially the "I have not had a drink for two weeks". The difference between you and I is you POST about what happened... I post the recording. No one can question what was said because they can hear it for themselves.

If you want some credability, start recording these "numerous encounters". If you doubt what I have said, you simply need to click and listen:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=140927

yellowfin
01-27-2009, 1:56 PM
This is exactly why you should NEVER answer these kinds of questions, it is none of their business where you are going to or coming from. We do not live in Soviet Russia. The best way to answer would be to say nothing, ask if you're being detained and then ask if you're free to go.Another part of the problem is that we lack an official oppression law. For doing what they did to the guy coming from the range and merely telling them that, the officer who did that should have his badge yanked, spend no less than 30 days in jail, and lose at least a few months' paycheck. There is no excuse for that conduct OR that it go unpunished.

We apparently cannot rely on people to stand up for themselves here or courts to fix it after the fact for the next guy--the matter must be directly punishable. Qualified immunity blah blah blah-- the person doing the cuffing etc. knew perfectly well that what they were doing was wrong in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's one thing if a soccer mom in Berkeley who doesn't know any better freaks out. As an LE it's his job to know that it's perfectly normal and that the whole USA isn't inner city LA and he has ZERO RIGHT OR DEFENSIBILITY acting like it. This "public interest balancing" is 100% CRAP and the defending of it or even entertaining of it needs to stop right now.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 2:01 PM
So when you get pulled over at the DUI checkpoint, and you get pulled from your car, copy lying about "smelling" alcohol on you, then as you refuse the FST insisting on a blood/urine test at the station/hospital, and get your car impounded and are found out to not be drunk/intoxicated at all...costing you impound fees and lost time, lots of stress, being known as the smart *** or know-it-all to the local PD, and THEN you sue the city and PD spending your own money, so you can get your lost impound fees back and any punitive damages...that's something you're ok with? Cops don't always take your educational moments the right way..especially when they're among their peers and already bent on intimidating you and trying to trip you up.

Invoking your rights at ANY expense is not always the smartest thing..especially when those who trample your rights don't care at all. I believe there's a balance between standing up for or exercising your rights EVERYTIME and in ALL situations vs. humoring the cops and/or negotiating your rights for convenience. By negotiating your rights for convenience, I mean don't go to court everytime you need to prove the cop had no right to terry search you or order you out of the car or down to the hospital for a BAC test...especially when your efforts will be cost prohibitive. But then hey, maybe you're ok blowing lots of cash proving the cops wrong and invoking your rights?

Do you have a wife and children to take care of, and other meaningful life circumstances that would be disrupted because you decided to put a cop in his place, and go to court?

I am agreeing with ALL that you say, I just don't think it reflects reality much. I'm also basing the above scenario on one I read here not long ago where the balance I'm talking about was struck nicely at a DUI checkpoint where in the end, rights were both protected but yielded for considerable convenience.

Whew. OK. I never said "at any expense". This has gone too far afield. I was just advocating knowing and invoking your rights AT ALL. Most people don't, ever, and they get screwed and then wonder why, and come on the internet to whine about it.

I'm over it.

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may our posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 2:07 PM
Another part of the problem is that we lack an official oppression law. For doing what they did to the guy coming from the range and merely telling them that, the officer who did that should have his badge yanked, spend no less than 30 days in jail, and lose at least a few months' paycheck. There is no excuse for that conduct OR that it go unpunished. We apparently cannot rely on people to stand up for themselves here or courts to fix it after the fact for the next guy--the matter must be directly punishable. Qualified immunity blah blah blah-- the person doing the cuffing etc. knew perfectly well that what they were doing was wrong in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's one thing if a soccer mom in Berkeley who doesn't know any better freaks out. As an LE it's his job to know that it's perfectly normal and that the whole USA isn't inner city LA and he has ZERO RIGHT OR DEFENSIBILITY acting like it. You can't plead ignorance to JBTism.

There is such a thing. It's called section 1983 and it's federal law. If you'd really read my post you would have seen it mentioned twice. Look it up.

aw, to hell with it. I'll save you the trouble.

§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

State troopers and legislators are immune, and you can't sue a state. Any lesser government or officer thereof is fair game.

Ironchef
01-27-2009, 2:10 PM
Whew. OK. I never said "at any expense". This has gone too far afield. I was just advocating knowing and invoking your rights AT ALL. Most people don't, ever, and they get screwed and then wonder why, and come on the internet to whine about it.

I'm over it.

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may our posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Forgive me. It appeared in your posts that you were quite militant about invoking your rights..perhaps even in the face of serious inconvenience and the likelihood your rights still wouldn't matter to those trodding them under foot.

But yes, I've probably gone too far. I get your point and agree for the most part.

JDay
01-27-2009, 2:15 PM
Very enjoyable reading thus far. Just wanted to make the point that the standard for reasonable suspicion is lower than that for probable cause. The reasonable suspicion standard of judgment will involve that particular officer, the circumstances of the encounter, the actions and behavior of the interviewee, the officer's mindset before and during the encounter, any other pertenant history regarding that area of the encounter, and the officer's training and experience.

More to the point, basically anything can be used as "reasonable suspicion".

Salty
01-27-2009, 2:17 PM
As for coming home from the range? Never tell a cop that. I am never, when talking to a cop on my way to or from a range. I am going to Wal-mart for some oil....I am going to the grocery store to get some bread. Anything but going to the range. And that is if I even tell them where I am going/coming. I may have to stop, but I don't have to cooperate.

Furthermore, you don't have to say anything.

Even if you've done nothing wrong, answering questions just makes things worse.

Example:
I was once asked if I was taking any medications and I honestly answered yes. I was then pulled out of the car, yelled at as if I was some degenerate, and bullied into a DUI check. Of course I passed the DUI check because the meds I was taking had no effect on driving (otherwise I wouldn't have been driving). Then he calls for backup, and this other cop arrives with a list of meds that you can't take while driving. He went through every damn item on the list asking "are you currently taking ______", "are you currently taking _____", etc. By the time the ordeal was over I was not only late for class, but class was almost over! This was all for pulling into the school parking lot a bit spiritedly. Interestingly enough I left without a ticket.

Next time it's "sorry officer, but that's my personal business" (in a nice tone of course).

elsensei
01-27-2009, 2:21 PM
Forgive me. It appeared in your posts that you were quite militant about invoking your rights..perhaps even in the face of serious inconvenience and the likelihood your rights still wouldn't matter to those trodding them under foot.

But yes, I've probably gone too far. I get your point and agree for the most part.

I'm sure I came off as militant. I blew my top a little bit because while the country goes down the slide, all the sheople are wandering around wondering why it's happening when the reasons lie in themselves. Every once in a while it really gets to me.

I also said I'd not resist a cop, even one violating my rights, but there is nothing wrong with informing them while you're being illegally searched that you know what they're doing, you do not consent, and they're setting themselves up for any illegally obtained evidence to be excluded in court, followed by a civil suit. At that point, you're already getting searched so getting it on audio record is only going to help you.

Finally, as a guy who OCs and has been willfully false arrested for doing so (then released without charge) and is organizing more "inconvenient" OC events and is spending time studying the law in order to be able to represent myself in following up with legal action to seek remedy for my false arrest, you guys all ought to be cheering. Anyone willing to go through the pain in the *** to keep my freedom intact is someone I'll support.

If so many people died so we'd have the right to free speech, Americans ought to be shedding tears of gratitude when someone chooses to exercise it.

yellowfin
01-27-2009, 2:34 PM
There is such a thing. It's called section 1983 and it's federal law. If you'd really read my post you would have seen it mentioned twice. Look it up.

aw, to hell with it. I'll save you the trouble.

§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

State troopers and legislators are immune, and you can't sue a state. Any lesser government or officer thereof is fair game. I've seen it several times, but it is useless in this state for a few reasons. One, legislators and state troopers are immune--that's gotta go. The former needs a good whacking upside the head in ways they can't weasel their way out of: we can't toss them out of office quickly enough to keep them from doing the damage (and tossing them after the fact does not repeal laws) and we can't expend the resources 24/7/365 to keep an airtight lock on them. There must instead be punishment for infringing on our rights as they do. Two, the courts here are so sparse and fickle on what's a Constitutional and legally protected right in this state trying to put any grounds to bring up a 1983 charge is horridly difficult at best, and then once you do the courts can just word game your rights away capriciously because they can hold that a "right" isn't a right if they don't want it to be at the time. It isn't black and white like it needs to be; they can BS and scam their way out of anything. Incorporation will make this better but slowly, fractions of a milimeter at a time. Three, using a federal law requires everything to be a federal issue, and given how slow that moves while state law can move much faster to undercut the progress (The reverse is true in the free states!), trying to defend federally against Californian problems is like trying to catch a thrown egg with boxing gloves.

tube_ee
01-27-2009, 2:35 PM
Would you rather have unreasonable? Or do you simply think that NONE would be better? No pat-down? No search? Gee, like having dead cops much?

I'd prefer that the police get a freakin' warrant whenever they search any citizen, for any reason, unless that citizen consents to a search.

And saying "no" is not probable cause for a warrant to issue.

The 4th Amendment, as written, is an absolute proscription on the power of the State, and thus, on its agents.

To police officers: You are not special. Yes, your job is risky. So are lots of other jobs, but nobody is arguing for any special legal status for coal miners. If following the Bill of Rights, which are the limits we, the sovereign People have placed on our consent to be governed, increases the danger of your job, well...

You can always quit. It's just a job, like any other job.

This ruling is, like every other ruling that allows any search without either consent or a warrant, total BS.

--Shannon

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 2:39 PM
It may be that we have to disallow consensual seraches altogether. Too many "everyone consents" types out there.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Ironchef
01-27-2009, 2:44 PM
and they're setting themselves up for any illegally obtained evidence to be excluded in court, followed by a civil suit.

Yet another reason to cry...our 5 conservative judges in the SC just said illegally obtained evidence is now admissible. Olay. So when you're telling the cops about your civil rights, and he does an illegal search and finds that pipe bomb your buddy thought would be funny to put in your car, "woops!", says the cop, "i guess my accidental search found some newly admissible evidence!"

Sad stuff baby.

elsensei
01-27-2009, 2:51 PM
Criminy, if I had friends that dumb, the oppressive state would be the least of my problems. ;)

grambo
01-27-2009, 3:42 PM
"you guys all ought to be cheering. Anyone willing to go through the pain in the *** to keep my freedom intact is someone I'll support."

I am cheering elsensei, and thanks for helping inform people here of their rights. Indeed, those rights that aren't exercised regularly and defended will be lost.

kajvid
01-27-2009, 5:04 PM
GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO IRRITATE ME!!!!

Great advise......come try that crap in Oakland. OPD would LOVE you.

:rolleyes:

Sniper3142
01-27-2009, 5:35 PM
I agree no search merely because they are firearms owners. But search of gangbangers with scanners in their pockets and erratic behavior even if they are firearms owners? YES. THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT LEGAL CCW.

WTF are Gang Colors?!?

If I happen to be wearing something nice and colorful, that gives police the right to voilate my 4A rights?

What about having a legal piece of electronics waives my 4A rights?

I'm an FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operator (HAM) and having a radio scanner on me is (A) Legal, (B) Normal, and (C) not grounds to violate my rights.

What is considered "Erratic" behaviour?

The "Erratic" behaviour that some LEO will claim to justify a search is actually reasonable nervous behaviour (given the overaction often seen or read about by police). It alone should never be grounds enough to justify a search.

Outlaw Josey Wales
01-27-2009, 6:29 PM
Would you rather have unreasonable? Or do you simply think that NONE would be better? No pat-down? No search? Gee, like having dead cops much?

I'll take "The Wild West" over "Nazi Germany" any day! :rolleyes:

Doheny
01-27-2009, 7:58 PM
Here's an easy to read synopsis of the ruling from the Alameada County DA: http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/Johnson.pdf


.

DDT
01-27-2009, 11:56 PM
Yet another reason to cry...our 5 conservative judges in the SC just said illegally obtained evidence is now admissible. Olay.


That is an irresponsible statement and a terribly misguided interpretation of Herring. While I may agree that Herring was wrongly decided regarding the exclusionary clause to suggest that any illegally obtained evidence is somehow now admissible is a gross distortion of the case.

TheBundo
01-28-2009, 8:28 AM
To police officers: You are not special.
--Shannon

Actually, I have met a few that I wanted to enter into the Special Olympics.

1911su16b870
01-28-2009, 9:42 AM
Why do these discussions devolve into LEO bashing? :(

Ironchef
01-28-2009, 9:44 AM
That is an irresponsible statement and a terribly misguided interpretation of Herring. While I may agree that Herring was wrongly decided regarding the exclusionary clause to suggest that any illegally obtained evidence is somehow now admissible is a gross distortion of the case.

Feel free to explain then. THat's what I got out of the thread where the majority opinion seemed to be that the 5 to 4 vote pretty much raped our 4th amendment protections.

EOD3
01-28-2009, 10:46 AM
Why do these discussions devolve into LEO bashing? :(

Mostly because of the "fishing stories", one-upmanship, and problems with authority figures.

EOD3
01-28-2009, 11:11 AM
If we can dispense with the "I wish he'd of tried that with me, I'd of kicked his ***" and the "any controls are better than none" diatribe...

A good many of the posts here correctly point out that "in this case" the officer had reason to be concerned that little Cletus or his bro might be armed and therefore pose a greater threat to her life.

I would like to remind everyone that SCOTUS does NOT decide individual cases. They do create precedent. Their decision refers to ANY officer and ANY citizen.

IMHO, this decision is all bad as it allows an additional circumstance under which, less than scrupulous, officers can search now, pay later. You might also give some thought to the fact that "evil stuff" revealed during a legal search, even if not the subject of the search, is admissible. So, if ANYTHING is found, they are squeaky clean and if not, MOVE ALONG...

"Your papers please" :(

DDT
01-28-2009, 12:02 PM
I would like to remind everyone that SCOTUS does NOT decide individual cases. They do create precedent. Their decision refers to ANY officer and ANY citizen.

Yes, SCOTUS does decide individual cases. They can only determine the legality of the specific acts involved in the case at hand. Their opinion is quite narrowly written, have you read it?


IMHO, this decision is all bad as it allows an additional circumstance under which, less than scrupulous, officers can search now, pay later.

The reasoning above is no different that the anti-gun people use to grab our RKBA. You cannot strip the officer's right to be secure in his or her person. A bad cop can just as easily lie about something else if they are crooked, just like a bad guy will carry a gun no matter how many laws you create against it. If that cop was my mother or sister do you think I'd want her pat down a gang banger recently released from prison in the same situation? You bet your life. Oh wait, you wouldn't bet your life but you'd bet a cops life.

aileron
01-28-2009, 12:02 PM
Why do these discussions devolve into LEO bashing? :(

Don't know... I wasn't myself attempting such a thing only pointing out my experience which is shared by many, by doing so we can see the need to adhere to the meaning and intent of the 4th.

I think people have a right to be very upset at mistreatment because its our representatives, and judicial system that have allowed this to be a reality. Talking about the white elephant in the room is important, bashing LEO because of the white elephant is inappropriate.

The officers have been giving tools to do their job. They will use them. Its our job to get the legislators to rein in unconstitutional authority that has been granted to them.

DDT
01-28-2009, 12:06 PM
Feel free to explain then. THat's what I got out of the thread where the majority opinion seemed to be that the 5 to 4 vote pretty much raped our 4th amendment protections.

Herring said, in my layman's understanding, that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply when the search was based on information the officer received in good faith and had no reason to question. That's it. It doesn't mean that any cop can search any individual for any or no reason and use any evidence gathered in the search.

Please read the decision. I'd also recommend listening to the review (http://www.fed-soc.org/audioLib/SCOTUScast-10-31-08-Milligan.mp3)of the case by the Federalist Society in their SCOTUScast.

DDT
01-28-2009, 12:08 PM
Actually, I have met a few that I wanted to enter into the Special Olympics.

As the step-son of a cop and the father of a child with special needs I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your concern about both.

MudCamper
01-28-2009, 12:19 PM
Why do these discussions devolve into LEO bashing? :(

I think this answers that question:

The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment is to avoid the need for the agents of the state to be in our affairs in the first place. More CCW means less need for cops.

Now we are not threatening their safety, but rather their jobs, and their authority. The statists have the power, and they want to keep it. That is why they harass us. It needs to stop.

It's a power struggle. LEOs are agents of the state, and they have the power to enforce (often unjust) laws of the state. This naturally will create animosity between those agents and the citizens who don't have such powers, only rights which are tenuously protected by the Constitution.

vwynn
01-28-2009, 1:01 PM
Officer, " Where are you comming from son?"
You, "Just got back from eating sir"
Officer, " Oh yea?, what did you eat?"
You, " Your MOM!, OH SNAPS!... or watevers left of it! DOUBLE SNAPS!"
officer, <Pulls out gun> "you ****er! Get out of the car!"
You, " Sir is there a problem?"
etc etc etc

=] :owned:

im joking btw..

1911su16b870
01-28-2009, 1:22 PM
OP
The decision :Arizona v Johnson (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1122.pdf)
To…

...
To police officers: You are not special....
--Shannon
Actually, I have met a few that I wanted to enter into the Special Olympics.
To…its ok to bash because of…
…It's a power struggle. LEOs are agents of the state, and they have the power to enforce (often unjust) laws of the state. This naturally will create animosity between those agents and the citizens who don't have such powers, only rights which are tenuously protected by the Constitution.

First…you (through your elected representatives), Mr. Citizen have placed Mr. LEO in the place he is in, you have made him special by hiring him, sending him to the academy, and asking him to do his job and giving him the authority to detain, arrest, and use force to prevent escape, overcome resistance or effect an arrest…Second…Mr. LEO has the right to life…even in the performance of his appointed duties, and Arizona v. Johnson unanimously states that it is OK for him to search someone that he reasonably believes is armed or dangerous, because Mr. LEO does not want a bullet in the back of his head, and lastly remember Mr. LEO has sworn an oath to protect the COTUS and it is my sincerest hope he does not violate anyone’s rights in doing the duties you have appointed him to do.

If you have never ridden along with your local LE agency, do it, because just maybe you might understand what it is like to walk in a LEO’s shoes.

DDT
01-28-2009, 1:33 PM
Arizona v. Johnson unanimously states that it is OK for him to search someone that he reasonably believes is armed or dangerous

I didn't see this in the decision. I am fairly certain that it is OK to search if the officer believes the person is armed AND dangerous while it may seem a small distinction it is anything but small. There is no reason that an officer should have an automatic right to search a citizen legally carrying. The suggestion that exercising ones second amendment rights is grounds for losing your 4th amendment rights is as nonsensical as thinking one loses their 4th amendment rights for exercising their first amendment rights.

As I said in a previous post (I think it was this thread) we do need case law stating that armed and dangerous are not necessarily synonymous. One can be armed and not a danger to the detaining officer. We absolutely need this in our case law. It would be a travesty if anytime one chooses to carry a weapon openly or concealed they forfeit their 4th amendment rights.

tuolumnejim
01-28-2009, 1:36 PM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

You needed to take names and sue the living **** out all involved. :chris:

tube_ee
01-28-2009, 1:37 PM
IMNSHO, it's because:

a) Law enforcement has been pretty much the only community in our society attempting to restrict the application of the 4th Amendment, so those of us who don't want or rights whittled away end up in opposition to law enforcement.

and

b) The definition of "cop-bashing" seems to be "any statement that does not support allowing the cops to do whatever they want, whenever they want, or which does not support the idea that law enforcement officers are a special class of citizen, entitled by their jobs to rights and privileges not accorded to their neighbors who earn their livings in a different way."

I have seen nothing in this, or any other thread related to search and seizure that could be construed as "cop-bashing" unless your definition is as described in (b).

Nobody has bashed the cops here. It's not "cop-bashing" to assert that your status as a law enforcement officer entitles you a paycheck, health insurance, and a pension... and nothing else. Nor is it "cop-bashing" to state that the 4th Amendment must necessarily constrain how you do your jobs, and that that's exactly as it should be in a free society.

--Shannon

MudCamper
01-28-2009, 1:38 PM
To…its ok to bash because of…

I never said it was OK to bash cops. Read my post, troll. I answered the question as to why it is common that these threads result in cop bashing. Do you see me doing it? No. Don't try to draw me into your petty argument. You just got added to my ignore list (for the day). Goodbye.

aileron
01-28-2009, 5:02 PM
Someone open the window its getting kind of hot in here.

kermit315
01-28-2009, 5:19 PM
I didn't see this in the decision. I am fairly certain that it is OK to search if the officer believes the person is armed AND dangerous while it may seem a small distinction it is anything but small. There is no reason that an officer should have an automatic right to search a citizen legally carrying. The suggestion that exercising ones second amendment rights is grounds for losing your 4th amendment rights is as nonsensical as thinking one loses their 4th amendment rights for exercising their first amendment rights.

As I said in a previous post (I think it was this thread) we do need case law stating that armed and dangerous are not necessarily synonymous. One can be armed and not a danger to the detaining officer. We absolutely need this in our case law. It would be a travesty if anytime one chooses to carry a weapon openly or concealed they forfeit their 4th amendment rights.

You are right, it shouldnt automatically result in search. However, my question from before still stands: How hard is it for a (bad) cop to make the jump from legally armed to armed and dangerous. See, that is the problem, it is subjective, and as long as it is, there is never a clear answer. There are alot of police that believe that citizens dont need guns, and this is one more way to harrass those that carry legally.

Tell me I am wrong, and I will point to other people in this thread that have had run ins with police for doing nothing more than mentioning shooting that day.

tyrist
01-28-2009, 8:01 PM
IMNSHO, it's because:

a) Law enforcement has been pretty much the only community in our society attempting to restrict the application of the 4th Amendment, so those of us who don't want or rights whittled away end up in opposition to law enforcement.
and

b) The definition of "cop-bashing" seems to be "any statement that does not support allowing the cops to do whatever they want, whenever they want, or which does not support the idea that law enforcement officers are a special class of citizen, entitled by their jobs to rights and privileges not accorded to their neighbors who earn their livings in a different way."

I have seen nothing in this, or any other thread related to search and seizure that could be construed as "cop-bashing" unless your definition is as described in (b).

Nobody has bashed the cops here. It's not "cop-bashing" to assert that your status as a law enforcement officer entitles you a paycheck, health insurance, and a pension... and nothing else. Nor is it "cop-bashing" to state that the 4th Amendment must necessarily constrain how you do your jobs, and that that's exactly as it should be in a free society.

--Shannon

We are not trying to do anything with reguards to the fourth amendment we just follow whatever limits the lawyers and judges decide on.

GuyW
01-28-2009, 8:07 PM
We are not trying to do anything with reguards to the fourth amendment we just follow whatever limits the lawyers and judges decide on.

Is this your position only for the 14th Amendment, or does it cover other Constitutional issues?

Do you have an obligation to understand the Constitution, and not comply with unConstitutional orders?

What happened to officer "discretion"?

Are you ready to kick in doors and (attempt) to take guns from law-abiding citizens because the lawyers, judges, and command staff decided that such is within the "limits"?

.

EOD3
01-28-2009, 10:41 PM
Yes, SCOTUS does decide individual cases. They can only determine the legality of the specific acts involved in the case at hand. Their opinion is quite narrowly written, have you read it?

Why yes, I have read it, have you? I find it hard to believe that anyone with the slightest interest in honest discourse would attempt such misrepresentation.

The reasoning above is no different that the anti-gun people use to grab our RKBA. You cannot strip the officer's right to be secure in his or her person. A bad cop can just as easily lie about something else if they are crooked, just like a bad guy will carry a gun no matter how many laws you create against it. If that cop was my mother or sister do you think I'd want her pat down a gang banger recently released from prison in the same situation? You bet your life. Oh wait, you wouldn't bet your life but you'd bet a cops life.

I thought about editing some of the nonsense out of your babble but I chose posterity over brevity.

First, let me address your last little rant; I AM a former Police Officer. I am also a former Explosive Ordnance Disposal sergeant. I've also been a responding team member in a number of other "life threatening" adventures in various countries. Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, I will NOT tolerate insults from some squint, lace panties, REMF.

OK, as hard as it is to believe you don't understand already, I'll give it one more try. This decision is a green light for officers to perform a pat down search, WITHOUT probable cause, on not only the subject but all of his/her companions. No actual crime needs to be committed, as long as the officer SAYS he SUSPECTED someone might be armed and dangerous.

I am about as pro-cop as you can get. It's a crappy job with a never-ending supply of dirtbags, dopers, d***heads, and do-gooders doing their best to burn the officers for simply doing their jobs. Having said that, the events leading up to the arrest are only missing "The End" and "Once upon a time"

tube_ee
01-28-2009, 10:45 PM
We are not trying to do anything with reguards to the fourth amendment we just follow whatever limits the lawyers and judges decide on.

So none of your professional organizations, departments, or other associations have ever filed a brief in support of restricting the scope of the 4th Amendment?

You and your profession agree that it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for any officer to search any person for any reason, except in strict adherence to a court-issued search warrant, or with the consent of the citizen being searched?

Right?

I thought not.

--Shannon

tyrist
01-28-2009, 11:00 PM
So none of your professional organizations, departments, or other associations have ever filed a brief in support of restricting the scope of the 4th Amendment?

You and your profession agree that it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for any officer to search any person for any reason, except in strict adherence to a court-issued search warrant, or with the consent of the citizen being searched?
Right?

I thought not.

--Shannon

You forgot incident to arrest....parole conditions....probation condition...inventory of vehicle prior to impound.

Are you referring to a frisk for weapons?

tube_ee
01-28-2009, 11:41 PM
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.

Not much wiggle room in there.

I am referring to any search of any person. The 4th Amendment is a restriction on the power of the State. Ultimately, it is a boundary of our consent to be governed. "This far, and no farther." If you have not sworn or affirmed specific probable cause before a judge, and obtained a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", then you don't get to search anybody, or seize anything.

Court decisions, supported by law enforcement and its lobbying organizations, have degraded this standard to the point where it is almost non-existent. To say that that is not OK is not anti-cop, it's pro-Constitution.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment is not enough.

--Shannon

tyrist
01-28-2009, 11:46 PM
Not much wiggle room in there.

I am referring to any search of any person. The 4th Amendment is a restriction on the power of the State. Ultimately, it is a boundary of our consent to be governed. "This far, and no farther." If you have not sworn or affirmed specific probable cause before a judge, and obtained a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", then you don't get to search anybody, or seize anything.

Court decisions, supported by law enforcement and its lobbying organizations, have degraded this standard to the point where it is almost non-existent. To say that that is not OK is not anti-cop, it's pro-Constitution.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment is not enough.

--Shannon


So we cannot search people we have arrested? People who are already convicted and are serving a sentence out of custody are off limits as well? We will just leave peoples vehicles we have arrested out on the street as well...and all those unlicensed drivers can just continue to drive there vehicles.

E Pluribus Unum
01-29-2009, 12:35 AM
So we cannot search people we have arrested? People who are already convicted and are serving a sentence out of custody are off limits as well? We will just leave peoples vehicles we have arrested out on the street as well...and all those unlicensed drivers can just continue to drive there vehicles.

I feel that all citizens have a constitutional right to use the roadway. As long as they establish competence, the state should be powerless to take a driver's right to use the roadway simply because he could not pay a fine, or did not pay his child support.

That's just me though. I agree with the rest of what you said.

tyrist
01-29-2009, 1:05 AM
I feel that all citizens have a constitutional right to use the roadway. As long as they establish competence, the state should be powerless to take a driver's right to use the roadway simply because he could not pay a fine, or did not pay his child support.

That's just me though. I agree with the rest of what you said.

Most of the cars I take are driven by people who have no license...because they have no social security number.

E Pluribus Unum
01-29-2009, 2:04 AM
Most of the cars I take are driven by people who have no license...because they have no social security number.

I once beat a speeding ticket out of town. I got mixed up on the arraignment date and failed to appear. I later was able to make it to trial and I proved the officer's RADAR was not calibrated as required. The judge had to dismiss my speeding ticket but he fined me $1000-$2000 on the failure to appear (its been a long time, I forget how much). I was jobless so I could not pay in time and the fine went to failure to pay. Once that happened, they would not release my license until the fine was paid in full. I made payments for a full year and went back to court and asked to get my license back and they again said no. I had a clean driving record but drove on a suspended license for nearly three years while I paid off the fine. I understand for people that are unsafe, or otherwise a risk. My crime was I went 30 days late on a court ordered fine.

This should not happen. For three years I was relegated to menial employment because the good IT jobs required a driver's license.

aileron
01-29-2009, 7:02 AM
Not much wiggle room in there.

I

Court decisions, supported by law enforcement and its lobbying organizations, have degraded this standard to the point where it is almost non-existent. To say that that is not OK is not anti-cop, it's pro-Constitution.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment is not enough.

--Shannon

Drug war... and prohibition have done oodles of damage. Also getting upset at police on this board is counter productive. How about asking for their opinions on what they think is wrong instead of pointing fingers at them asking or accusing them of crossing the line.

In fact, for those of you that are putting up with this thread that are law enforcement, and don't mind commenting. What do you think needs to happen? And what is wrong?

Of course someone is going to take a pot shot at your response so I can understand if you dont say anything. :(

eta34
01-29-2009, 7:20 AM
Drug war... and prohibition have done oodles of damage. Also getting upset at police on this board is counter productive. How about asking for their opinions on what they think is wrong instead of pointing fingers at them asking or accusing them of crossing the line.

In fact, for those of you that are putting up with this thread that are law enforcement, and don't mind commenting. What do you think needs to happen? And what is wrong?

Of course someone is going to take a pot shot at your response so I can understand if you dont say anything. :(

I have learned to generally avoid these threads, as they seem to commonly deteriorate into name calling and sweeping generalizations by both camps. It is not worth my time or effort to contribute to these discussions.

Stormfeather
01-29-2009, 7:23 AM
GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO IRRITATE ME!!!!

Look...i don't post here much but i am starting to get sick of the "woe is me" attitude that i'm seeing. Time and again someone will post that "cop pulled me over for no reason i told the cop that i had a gun and that it was in the trunk and then he cuffed me and my friend and I didn't record the conversation and it was cold out and they were mean and WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"

then there are all of you complaining about "reasonableness" and what it means.

some of you guys are either plain ignorant or just love getting knocked around by the cops.

So here's primer on the police. I'm only gonna do this once, so PAY ATTENTION.

1. Don't be rude. Keep smiling.
2. Don't be a *****. Get in your head that in this country YOU are the sovereign, the top dog, the rulemaker, and government only exists because of YOUR consent to be governed.
3. Take the initiative. When a cop pulls you over, the first words spoken should be BY YOU in the form of a question. Here's the scenario. You have a dozen scary-looking guns in your trunk covered by 100 lbs of cocaine and marijuana. There is a loaded pistol in the glove box. you have a folding knife in your pocket. Oh, you also have a dead body in the back seat covered by a tarp. You're doing 110 MPH and weaving through traffic. You see the cop and hit the brakes, he radars you somewhere in the 90s and pulls you over. Now cop approaches, all pissed off. Keep your hands on the wheel and you get to choose to say ONE of the following:

a. What seems to be the trouble, officer?
b. Why did you pull me over, officer?

THAT'S IT! NO APOLOGIZING, NO WHINING, NO CRYING. ASSUME THAT THE COP HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO HAVE PULLED YOU OVER.

cop: do you know the speed limit here?
you: yes it's 70.
cop: do you know how fast you were going?
you: yes sir.
cop: How fast?
you: Officer, how can I help you?
cop: I got you on radar at 94 mph. what's the emergency?
you: SILENCE! or again: how can I help you, officer?
cop: do you have any guns in the car?
you: officer, am I free to go?
cop: where are you coming from?
you: officer, am i free to go?
cop: where are you heading?
you: that's irrelevant to this contact and I don't have to answer that question.
cop: have you had anything to drink today?
you: (and this actually happened to me 2 weeks ago) Am I required to answer that question? i don't believe I am required to answer that. I'm invoking my 5th amendment protection against testifying against myself.
cop: (trying to administer a field sobriety test) I want you to follow my finger.
you: (looking down, NOT looking at finger- and mind you, I hadn't had a drink in at least two weeks.) Officer, I understand that according to california's "implied consent" law, any time I am pulled over for suspicion of a moving violation, that by the very act of driving a car I have implied that I will consent to a sobriety test. Now, I don't happen to agree with the constitutionality of that law, but at this point I'm willing to submit. However, I know that field-administered sobriety tests are notoriously inaccurate and are subject to officer interpretation, so I will not submit to that. But in compliance with the implied consent law, let's go down to the station and do a blood test.

cop: step out of the car.

you comply, rolling up the windows and locking the doors.

now this part just happened to me two weeks ago with a CHP officer.
cop: I'm going to contact you to search you to make sure you're not carrying any weapons.
me: hold on one second. I don't consent to any search.
cop: Well, I'm going to search you for my own safety.
me: what is your probable cause for a search?
cop: well, california case law grants me the right to search you if you are outside the vehicle.
me: Officer, I understand what you are saying but you ordered me out of the vehicle. I'm perfectly happy to return to the vehicle so that your safety is assured and my 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is not violated.

This latest supreme court ruling is horrible for the idiots who give up their rights, and it's golden for those of us who invoke our rights.

If this same situation happened today, I'd tell the officer:
Maybe you are not aware of the latest supreme court ruling. It just came down last week, and though ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens like me, I am not an unreasonable person and I wouldn' t expect you, an officer of the law to actually know the law forwards and backwards. So I don't mind taking the time to educate you. According to the Supreme Court, you may search occupants of a vehicle during a routine traffic stop only if you have reasonable suspicion that the occupants are armed AND that you reasonably assume that they are dangerous. Now, if you want to proceed with your search I would first like to know on what your suspicion that I may be armed is based on, and second, I would like to know on what your belief that I am dangerous is based. Clearly, I am the calmest, most reasonable person here and I have presented no threat to you or anyone else. The video camera in your cruiser will show that. Now, I am willing to wait quietly here or in my vehicle while you contact your police chief regarding this latest supreme court ruling to ascertain the limits of your powers. It is my belief that you have no right to search me at this time and if you force me to submit i will not resist but you should be advised that you will then be facing a section 1983 lawsuit against you personally, in federal court.

and on, and on, and on. KEEP INVOKING YOUR RIGHTS. If you don't use your rights, you don't have them!

cop: you don't mind if I search the vehicle, do you? You've got nothing to hide, have you?
THIS IS A HUGELY IMPORTANT POINT!!!!!!! NO COP WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER whew i'm getting tired EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER ASK TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE UNLESS HE DOESN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. IF HE HAS PROBABLE CAUSE, HE WILL JUST PROCEED WITH THE SEARCH. PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDES BLOOD DRIPPING FROM THE BODY YOU HAVE IN THE BACK SEAT, IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT IS VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE CAR, OR AUTOMATIC AK-47 FIRE COMING FROM THE TRUNK FROM ROUNDS COOKING OFF FROM THE HEAT OF THE CATALYTIC CONVERTOR UNDERNEATH THE ASSAULT RIFLE YOU WERE TOO DUMB TO UNLOAD, OR THE WHIFF OF COCAINE MELTING OR MARIJUANA BURNING FROM THE SAME CATALYTIC CONVERTOR.

In a nutshell, if the cop asks for your consent, it's because he doesn't have probable cause and is bound by the 4th amendment and is trying to see if you are dumb enough to give up your rights so he can screw you over. Just imagine him asking this: Will you let me search your car so that i might find your 100 lbs of drugs, your 12 assault rifles and the dead body in the back seat, then handcuff you, box your ears, beat you with my nighstick, put you in a cage with 10 other miscreants and let you emerge months later as something less than an anal virgin, at which point the state will use all it's power and money to condemn you FOR LIFE to another, somewhat more private but smaller cage, OR should I just go piss into the wind?
you: That anal rape thing sounds pretty good, and in prison I'd get 3 square meals a day. It seems a fair deal, I'll be honest with you. But....no, I think I'm just gonna tell you to piss into the wind. Am I free to go now?

back to our story-
you: Officer, I don't consent to any search.
cop: well, you refusing a search gives me probable cause through reasonable suspicion.
you: No, it doesn't. Invoking a right does not carry any penalty with it.
cop: are you trying to tell me the law?
you: I'm trying to tell you that conducting a search with no probable cause and against my consent is a mistake and will be fruitless and potentially damaging once I file a section 1983 lawsuit against you personally in federal court for willfully violating my Constitutional rights, the Constitution being the highest law of the land, having been written for my benefit as the sole and exclusively named beneficiary and to which you have been sworn to uphold. Now, am I free to go?


Freaking know the law. If you're not willing to do a little research to cover your own ***, then you have no right to complain when a cop mistreats you after you TOLD HIM all the bad things you're doing.

And don't dream of goin' along with the cop in the hopes you'll get off with a warning. Unless you've got double-D breasts in a B-size halter top, no panties and long, luscious blonde locks, plus no wedding ring and come-hither eyes, you're getting that ticket. It's better to take the ticket and you, your dead body, your assault weapons and 100 lbs of illegal drugs just roll on down the highway.

grr.

I, for one, enjoyed reading your informative post! Great job articulating it for those who dont know how to put it into context!

DDT
01-29-2009, 8:45 AM
You are right, it shouldnt automatically result in search. However, my question from before still stands: How hard is it for a (bad) cop to make the jump from legally armed to armed and dangerous. See, that is the problem, it is subjective, and as long as it is, there is never a clear answer. There are alot of police that believe that citizens dont need guns, and this is one more way to harrass those that carry legally.

Tell me I am wrong, and I will point to other people in this thread that have had run ins with police for doing nothing more than mentioning shooting that day.

The only area in which I see fault in your statement is the assumption that cops are bad. Yes, a bad cop can easily make the jump from legally armed to armed and dangerous. It is subjective. The problem with your argument is that it assumes the cop is bad. If I accept this assumption then there is no need for this latest "weapons pat" decision. If the cop is bad and wants you arrested they will find some way to do it. In fact, if you are not illegally carrying the weapons pat will not put you in jail. So even a bad cop can't use the weapons pat alone to put an innocent person in jail. They must still lie about some other fact of the stop. If the cop is a bad cop and willing to subvert the law then they will find a way. As we all know from the gun grabbers you can't legislate against lawlessness, those who are lawless will not follow new legislation (or case law) that limits their action.

badtrout
01-29-2009, 8:56 AM
like eod3, i am also former leo and yeah, i'm going to pat someone down if i have the slightest thought something might be hinky. why? because i have a dog at home that needs to be fed every night. oh yeah, i kind of like making love to my wife. and breathing. breathing is so underrated.

"at officer's discretion" is very subjective, i agree but, it keeps them alive. there have been plenty of times where an officer is killed or injured because they did not search. WE HAVE NO RADAR THAT TELLS US WHO THE CRIMINALS ARE.
do some cops push the line? absolutely.

i don't have a problem with ccw in CA, and i sure have no problem with oc. in fact i think most of the gun restrictions we have here are insane. look at the UK: with few exceptions, firearms are illegal, yet and 11 year old was shot and killed. criminals will get any weapon of choice without regard to the law.

yes, questions are asked "where are you headed?", "where are you coming from?" (incorrect grammar, but that's how we do it), "have you had anything to drink tonight?"
what are we looking for? evasive answers, sure. but, it's not always looking for something to "get you" on for the sake of getting an arrest or just being an a****le, it's to protect ourselves and others.

regarding "where are you headed?"
mostly, and READ CAREFULLY:
it's to get a person to relax a little because everyone gets nervous when they see the christmas lights behind them

is it really hard to just say, "i'm headed home" ? or "no, i have not had anything to drink tonight" ?

yeah, getting jacked up for being honest about going to the range with guns locked in the trunk is wrong, but don't think that every cop is that way.

I have learned to generally avoid these threads, as they seem to commonly deteriorate into name calling and sweeping generalizations by both camps. It is not worth my time or effort to contribute to these discussions.

i was going to stay out of this too, but....

DDT
01-29-2009, 9:21 AM
Yes, SCOTUS does decide individual cases. They can only determine the legality of the specific acts involved in the case at hand. Their opinion is quite narrowly written

I find it hard to believe that anyone with the slightest interest in honest discourse would attempt such misrepresentation.


I am not at all sure what you mean here. Can you please state what you think is disingenuous misrepresentation?

If it is the suggestion that the Supreme Court rules on individual cases I will point you to the words of the decision itself: "Trevizo’s patdown of Johnson did not violate the FourthAmendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures." This is clearly a statement that their decision is strictly based upon the facts at hand. If you feel this is not the case then please cite something other than your own opinion "that SCOTUS does NOT decide individual cases."

Please don't try to simply argue that because lower courts use SCOTUS as precedence it means they aren't deciding individual cases. Courts use cases at all levels as precedence and arguing that SCOTUS decisions are not about individual cases implies that no court case is about the facts of a single case.

A good many of the posts here correctly point out that "in this case" the officer had reason to be concerned that little Cletus or his bro might be armed and therefore pose a greater threat to her life.

So, if you feel that (I will leave out the semi-racist reference to the defendant) "in this case" the officer reacted reasonably then how can you disagree with the decision? If "in this case" the officer reacted reasonably how would you want the decision written to both protect the case at hand and not be "all bad."


First, let me address your last little rant; I AM a former Police Officer. I am also a former Explosive Ordnance Disposal sergeant. I've also been a responding team member in a number of other "life threatening" adventures in various countries. Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding,

Is this where you expect someone to salute?

If we can dispense with the "I wish he'd of tried that with me, I'd of kicked his ***" and the "any controls are better than none" diatribe...

do you think I'd want her pat down a gang banger recently released from prison in the same situation? You bet your life. Oh wait, you wouldn't bet your life but you'd bet a cops life.

I will NOT tolerate insults from some squint, lace panties, REMF.


Apparently you do not have the ability to dispense with the same things you admonished others to in previous posts.


OK, as hard as it is to believe you don't understand already, I'll give it one more try. This decision is a green light for officers to perform a pat down search, WITHOUT probable cause, on not only the subject but all of his/her companions. No actual crime needs to be committed, as long as the officer SAYS he SUSPECTED someone might be armed and dangerous.




You would feel more comfortable were police officers not permitted to pat down subjects who they had "reasonable cause to suspect that the persons temporarily detained are armed and dangerous?" The bit in quotes is directly from the decision so please don't respond trying to assert that I am making the decision more narrow than it actually is.




I am about as pro-cop as you can get. It's a crappy job with a never-ending supply of dirtbags, dopers, d***heads, and do-gooders doing their best to burn the officers for simply doing their jobs. Having said that, the events leading up to the arrest are only missing "The End" and "Once upon a time"

If you are simply questioning the veracity of the officers statement then I surely can't argue with you. I will say that had you claimed magical green fairies placed the words in the defendants mouth stating that he was recently released and then poofed the scanner into his pocket I could also not argue with that statement. The court decided the case based upon the facts of the case as outlined in Section I of the decision. If you do not accept those facts then rejecting the decision is easy and reasonable. Whether the facts were skewed by magical green fairies or an officer perjuring herself is irrelevant.

I will add that if this is the level or restraint and respectful discourse you show after a single anonymous internet post disagreeing with your stance on a particular subject I am truly grateful that you are no longer an officer. I hope that no officer working with you in the past ever lost their life or were injured based on your propensity, as evidenced here, to escalate any confrontational incident.

If you would like to stop the name calling and chest pounding I will be happy to continue the discussion as it seems there is a pretty good chance to get you to "see the light" since you've already admitted that you believe the officer was "in this case" right in patting down Johnson. If you continue to try and escalate the name calling I can assure you that you will lose and lots of otherwise interesting posts will end up deleted.

javalos
01-29-2009, 9:36 AM
I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

Sorry to hear about your negative encounter with the rogue cops. I've been pulled into DUI checkpoints and asked where I was coming from, I tell them anything but going shooting, look at my watch, and ask how long I'm going to be detained and am I free to go because my time is valuable. I usually make it very clear that I take note of the cops name and badge number. In your case make sure you take note of the time, take all the info possible, all police involved, clearly tell them you will pursue this to the hilt, above all file a complaint and ask to speak to a supervisor. Send a letter to the editor and complain about your treatment by the department. Hopefully the cops involved will be talked to about their conduct and whether it was justified. Police departments don't like negative publicity and police officers hate having complaints put in their employment file. My son went though an experience and did that, kept going back and asked what was the update on his complaint and finally the department apologized and he was assured that the officers involved were "re-trained".

badtrout
01-29-2009, 9:47 AM
ANDREWMENDEZ I was coming home from shooting a few weeks back, and was going through one of those DUI check points, the officer asked me where I was coming from, and i kindly told him, I was at the shooting range with a friend, he then asked where my gun was, and I replied, "LOCKED, In my Trunk" He then called another officer near him, stopped the 2 lanes of traffic, and I, as well as my Girlfriend, where pulled out of the car at gunpoint, dragged to the floor then frisked, handuffed, they opened my trunk as i sat on the side of the curb, and ran my info (including gun).
of course everything was fine.....and they released me about 45 minutes later with a "Have a nice day"

Makes me not want to be honest with people!

this is what i mean by some leos going over the line. for the record, not all are this way. if there was nothing "in plain view", then it would be very difficult to justify the officer's actions. however, as many have posted (including me), "discretion is subjective" that said, it was way overboard.

DDT
01-29-2009, 11:43 AM
this is what i mean by some leos going over the line. for the record, not all are this way. if there was nothing "in plain view", then it would be very difficult to justify the officer's actions. however, as many have posted (including me), "discretion is subjective" that said, it was way overboard.

I think everyone here who has posted a response to Andrew's experience has said that he should pursue it with the agency and the courts. These are the kinds of cases that we DO need to defend our second amendment rights. As Gene has said before cases like Johnson demonstrate exactly the kinds of cases we DON'T want to use in defining our rights.

However; most of the cases of 2A abuses like Andrew's (assuming all facts are as he described) are exactly the CASES we DO want. The problem is that his detention was brief and didn't create a police record and he isn't in a position to have to defend himself in court. This means that he has to proactively pursue it. Most of us, and I presume Andrew, do not have the time, the inclination nor the money to pursue a case and will only do so when forced by a prosecutor.

If this had been an activist like Theseus I suspect that there would be a lawsuit and I really think that this is right up CGF's alley. The differences between Andrew's case and the Johnson case are obvious and I really hope that we sometime get a case that shows armed is not sufficient to claim someone is dangerous.

Soundman
01-29-2009, 5:23 PM
As a police officer I can honestly say that if I pull someone over and they tell me that they have a CCW I simply ask them for their permit and where the firearm is, and unless they are acting hinky no problem. Now I will certainly be much more cautious around them, but I have no problem with it.

Now if I ask someone during the course of an investigation if they have any weapons on them and they tell me no, and then I choose to pat them down (which is different than searching) for weapons and I find one, they will be put to the ground and cuffed. I have a simple rule...don't lie to me and there will be no problem.

Anyone that has a problem with cops patting down suspects they feel may be a threat to them has obviously never had a large portion of the people they encounter at work want to kill them. Now with that said, at a DUI checkpoint (or any other stop for that matter) if someone told me that they had guns locked in the trunk there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to do anything other than say "thank you for letting me know"

kermit315
01-29-2009, 5:44 PM
and if all cops were as easy to deal with as you, we wouldnt have the problems that we have.


btw, thanks for the honesty, and letting us know how you feel on the subject.

kermit315
01-29-2009, 5:49 PM
The only area in which I see fault in your statement is the assumption that cops are bad. Yes, a bad cop can easily make the jump from legally armed to armed and dangerous. It is subjective. The problem with your argument is that it assumes the cop is bad. If I accept this assumption then there is no need for this latest "weapons pat" decision. If the cop is bad and wants you arrested they will find some way to do it. In fact, if you are not illegally carrying the weapons pat will not put you in jail. So even a bad cop can't use the weapons pat alone to put an innocent person in jail. They must still lie about some other fact of the stop. If the cop is a bad cop and willing to subvert the law then they will find a way. As we all know from the gun grabbers you can't legislate against lawlessness, those who are lawless will not follow new legislation (or case law) that limits their action.

my bottom line is: I believe this gives bad cops legal standing to harass people that dont need harassed. I dont agree with admitting anything into evidence that was found during an illegal search. In my opinion, it is unreasonable to pull out and pat down somebody that is legally carrying, or mentions guns when asked in the context provided in previous posts.

It is my opinion, if you dont agree, fine, that is your choice.

DDT
01-29-2009, 10:23 PM
my bottom line is: I believe this gives bad cops legal standing to harass people that dont need harassed.

I don't know what you mean here. Are you referring to Johnson? The courts can only make their decisions based on the facts presented. do you feel that the cop in this case should not have patted down Johnson for a weapon? Or are you saying that as a general principle police officers who have reasonable cause to believe that a suspect is armed and dangerous should not have a right to do a weapons search of that suspect?

I dont agree with admitting anything into evidence that was found during an illegal search.

While the fruits of an illegal search are usually excluded, and should be, Herring states that if the officers act in good faith that there is not automatic exclusion. I can understand the reasoning, particularly in the Herring case. He was a known felon and apparently had frequent warrants the officers contacted a nearby agency and was told there was a warrant before the search. The other agency later determined that the warrant had been cleared but was still in their computer system. The evidence found in the search was not excluded because the officer executing the search and the police department for which he were did no wrong and took every reasonable step to ensure a legal search. The reason for the exclusion of evidence is to discourage illegal searches. i.e. "I won't search this guy illegally because even if I find something it can't be used and I'm giving him a get out of jail free card." The court decided that in this case excluding evidence would not have any effect on police behavior because all parties acted in good faith. Now, there is an interesting case for trying to hold the other police department civilly liable for giving out bad information that caused harm to Herring but that isn't what the court heard. I can certainly understand those who disagree with the decision of the court.

In my opinion, it is unreasonable to pull out and pat down somebody that is legally carrying, or mentions guns when asked in the context provided in previous posts.

I completely agree. If an officer encounters a person legally exercising their 2A rights there is no reasonable cause to believe they are in danger. I wish we had case law to support this. Neither Herring or Johnson address this issue. Andrew's incident appears to be specifically this and I really wish he'd pursue it to make the case law but I understand why he has no interest.

It is my opinion, if you dont agree, fine, that is your choice.

tyrist
01-29-2009, 10:42 PM
What I find funny about this whole search thing...is I would say atleast 90% of the people I come into contact with I have every ability to legally search. They pretty much always have some type of warrant and don't follow simple laws. The only issue is once I search them (legally of course ie..incident to arrest/vehicle impound) I am required to book them. So if the search comes up with nothing I am booking somebody for some pretty petty misdemeanors. They are all career crimminals for the most part so it's not like I am throwing grandma kettle into the tank...which it seems is the opinion of some of the members here.

DParker
01-29-2009, 11:34 PM
yes, questions are asked "where are you headed?", "where are you coming from?" (incorrect grammar, but that's how we do it), "have you had anything to drink tonight?"
what are we looking for? evasive answers, sure. but, it's not always looking for something to "get you" on for the sake of getting an arrest or just being an a****le, it's to protect ourselves and others.

regarding "where are you headed?"
mostly, and READ CAREFULLY:
it's to get a person to relax a little because everyone gets nervous when they see the christmas lights behind them

is it really hard to just say, "i'm headed home" ? or "no, i have not had anything to drink tonight" ?


I have no problem with being asked if I have been drinking as that is material to my operation of a motor vehicle. I do object to being asked questions about my comings and goings.

It just feels rather 'Soviet'.

1911su16b870
01-30-2009, 9:47 AM
+1 soundman and m_freemann for your posts.

tyrist
01-30-2009, 8:11 PM
I have no problem with being asked if I have been drinking as that is material to my operation of a motor vehicle. I do object to being asked questions about my comings and goings.
It just feels rather 'Soviet'.

Sometimes small talk is used to put the person at ease...it's also used to keep suspects off balance because most people instinctively feel they must answer a question whether truthfully or not. Most of the time when I have asked somebody where they are going it's because I have seen them circling the block in a high narcotics/prostitution area. It seems the answer I always get is they are "looking" for their friend/relative. Once you get that answer you pretty much know what you are dealing with.

TheDM
01-31-2009, 7:09 PM
So we cannot search people we have arrested? People who are already convicted and are serving a sentence out of custody are off limits as well? We will just leave peoples vehicles we have arrested out on the street as well...and all those unlicensed drivers can just continue to drive there vehicles.

Everything below, is only my personal opinion, nothing more.

As far as I'm concerned, you can't search anyone you haven't arrested.

Personally, I think DUI check points are an unconstitutional search, when I'm driving home from the store, I should not be bothered, period.

If someone drew on me because I had a weapon in the trunk, I can't even tell you how mad I would be, but my lawyer would sure let them know.

Before everyone who serves as a police officer get's all huffy, I have two statements. One, I was a military police officer, and two, it's a job you choose to do. When I got out of the service, I choose not to do it, I did think about it. I prefer the rules of engagement as a Military Police officer because it's safer for me and the benefits are better. I'm not going to accept 25-40 grand a year for a crappy set of rules of engagement. Which incidentally are there to protect the citizens, but they don't, and the protect the officers, which they don't. Like all rules made by people who don't do the job, they look good on paper but they don't work.

Bottom line, you can't tell bad guys from good guys well enough to keep from humiliating and endangering law abiding citizens and protecting yourself at the same time. So as an LEO, your screwed, but as a law abiding citizen so am I. So it's really up to the officer and the citizen to acknowledge that they are on the same team, but they can't because bad citizens lie, and bad cops lie.

So we're all screwed anyways.

Generally the saving grace is that most criminals are pretty stupid and most LEO's can use these "tools", you know, lies, to get them to reveal themselves, the bad thing is, it really pisses us normal citizens off when you try it to us, and we learn you had no right to do it, but you're just trying to get your job done.

Don't expect us to like it when it happens to us. But at least some people like me "understand" it, but I still don't like it.

Probably the real reason I haven't had a personal run in is because I try to put them at ease too. For instance, I was stopped once for speeding at night recently. I thought, crap, I wasn't paying attention, it's dark, we are on a road with no one, he's (the leo) is in a bad situation, he's going to be nervous or concerned.

So I turn on the 4-ways, and the dome light, shut the car off, put my keys on the dash and put my hands on the wheel.

He was totally relieved, and I only got a warning, what did I say to him? I told him the truth, I had my head up my arse and wasn't paying attention to my speed. I'm sure the fact that I'm an older looking gentleman in a suit didn't hurt either.

EOD3
02-07-2009, 11:21 PM
Babble babble babble (pathetic attempt at misdirection)

OK, I give up. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Just because you insist that the sun revolves around the earth... Carry on Emperor Norton.

As for your concern about my "semi-racist" reference, it looks to me like YOU are the one that thinks Cletus has some racial connotation. I'm surprised you didn't squeal bloody murder over the obvious racial content of the "crips" description.

Is this where you expect someone to salute?

You insulted me by claiming I would send someone else where I wouldn't go. I was merely pointing out that some of us are more than keyboard kiddies so you might want to choose your words with a bit more care.

I simply deleted the rest of your verbiage because I don't have the time nor the inclination to waste any more time...

Welcome to the ignore club...