PDA

View Full Version : LEO's is this true?


cgseanp1
05-12-2009, 4:48 PM
I read this on another forum I sometimes go to. Is this guy totally full of it? I'm just curious. In the first sentence, he is talking about a cop pulling you over for no reason.



"Actually, yes they can... as I currently await my academy start date I've been going on ride alongs almost any free moment I get. There is nothing that says a cop can't stop you just b/c he feels like it. As a matter of fact on my ride along 3 weeks ago we stopped 13 different cars between 11pm and 4am for no real reason, just random stops. Each one had a quick license, reg., and insurance check against their plates and if anything seemed suspicious it went futher. Of that 13, two were driving on suspended licenses, 1 was DWI, and 4 more had no proof of insurance or other documentation problems. Thats more than half of the traffic stops resulting in some type of potential infraction... personally I'm perfectly happy to stop and allow an officer to check my vehicle if things seem suspicious b/c other than the knife I keep in my center console theres nothing there I have to worry about hiding, especially bags of weed or pipes, if it means they get drunk or uninsured motorists off the road.

On top of that we were running plates all night long... if we were at a light every single car we could get the tag from would have its plate run... cops are not around just sitting and waiting for **** to go down, they are actively searching for potential crimes and situations... its a proactive approach to enforcement which I am all for.

As for the "illegal search" that is a common misconception. An officer can search your car with or without your consent, all they need is reasonable suspicion. Whether or not anything they find during the search being admissible in court is a whole other matter. BUT, it also depends upon the laws of the individual state, not sure what it would be in NY. Its impossible to prove or disprove "reasonable suspicion" when a traffic stop occurs, therefore, the police can search a vehicle without permission or a real "reason" other than their gut feelings.

Obviously in this scenario the cops 'gut' was right, and I still don't believe the OP is providing ALL of the details of the situation"

Eroland7
05-12-2009, 4:53 PM
This guy has his head completely burried up his *****...

tyrist
05-12-2009, 4:55 PM
That is probably how he viewed it because the Officer did not explain things to him and his eyes are not trained to see violations.

He probably saw the Officer doing a bunch of traffic stops but his eyes were not trained to observed the broken windshield, broken lights, lane straddling, weaving etc the Officer observed and was able to form reasonable suspicion/probably cause. He made the statement out of ignorance.

You absolutely must have some reason to detain otherwise you yourself are committing the crime. The same goes for a vehicle search of any level.

cgseanp1
05-12-2009, 5:01 PM
That is probably how he viewed it because the Officer did not explain things to him and his eyes are not trained to see violations.

He probably saw the Officer doing a bunch of traffic stops but his eyes were not trained to observed the broken windshield, broken lights, lane straddling, weaving etc the Officer observed and was able to form reasonable suspicion/probably cause. He made the statement out of ignorance.

You absolutely must have some reason to detain otherwise you yourself are committing the crime. The same goes for a vehicle search of any level.

Thanks. Can LEO search you without your consent if they have "reasonable suspicion"?

tyrist
05-12-2009, 5:10 PM
Thanks. Can LEO search you without your consent if they have "reasonable suspicion"?

More than likely the searches this guy saw were of people with search conditions as a result of parole or probation.

Jonathan Doe
05-12-2009, 6:09 PM
1. As a matter of fact on my ride along 3 weeks ago we stopped 13 different cars between 11pm and 4am for no real reason,



2. On top of that we were running plates all night long... if we were at a light every single car we could get the tag from would have its plate run...



1. No. You should have a reason to stop the car, usually a vehicle code violation of some sort.

2. Yes, you can run plates of the cars on the roadway for validity of the registration.

Those are my answers as of mid 90's when I was working on the streets. It may have been changed now that you don't have to have a reason to stop a car.

Maybe somebody can educate me. I haven't been working on the streets since 1994.

Rogue187
05-12-2009, 8:32 PM
I guess you never heard of "probable cause"
You seem to have heard of "reasonable suspicion".

You must have probable cause in order to stop someone and once you stop them you MUST have reasonable suspicion in order to search.

I'm sure this is something you will learn once you get into the academy and begin..Right now your information is incorrect.

Josh3239
05-12-2009, 8:55 PM
Thanks. Can LEO search you without your consent if they have "reasonable suspicion"?

Yes. Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause. An example of this would be if a person has a bag weed lying in the passenger seat (plain sight) of a car or simply abandoning the car.

sgtbuck
05-12-2009, 9:10 PM
1. No. You should have a reason to stop the car, usually a vehicle code violation of some sort.

2. Yes, you can run plates of the cars on the roadway for validity of the registration.

Those are my answers as of mid 90's when I was working on the streets. It may have been changed now that you don't have to have a reason to stop a car.

Maybe somebody can educate me. I haven't been working on the streets since 1994.

I retired in 2005 and never pulled over or saw an Officer pull a car over without PC for stop. Then again Jr. always gave us good PC to pull him over anyway. :D
So as of 2005 you still needed PC for stop....

Solidmch
05-12-2009, 9:42 PM
That is probably how he viewed it because the Officer did not explain things to him and his eyes are not trained to see violations.

He probably saw the Officer doing a bunch of traffic stops but his eyes were not trained to observed the broken windshield, broken lights, lane straddling, weaving etc the Officer observed and was able to form reasonable suspicion/probably cause. He made the statement out of ignorance.

You absolutely must have some reason to detain otherwise you yourself are committing the crime. The same goes for a vehicle search of any level.

A new rook is lucky if he can see over the hood of the patrol car.

bluestaterebel
05-12-2009, 10:17 PM
That is probably how he viewed it because the Officer did not explain things to him and his eyes are not trained to see violations.

He probably saw the Officer doing a bunch of traffic stops but his eyes were not trained to observed the broken windshield, broken lights, lane straddling, weaving etc the Officer observed and was able to form reasonable suspicion/probably cause. He made the statement out of ignorance.

You absolutely must have some reason to detain otherwise you yourself are committing the crime. The same goes for a vehicle search of any level.

what he said

Triad
05-13-2009, 9:23 AM
tyrist really hit the nail on the head.

More than likely the searches this guy saw were of people with search conditions as a result of parole or probation.

Or if the car was towed, a vehicle inventory

Jwood562
05-18-2009, 11:00 PM
there is an old rumor where you cant drive 1 mile without commiting some infraction.

you saw the officer pulling cars over for various reasons (but it seemed no reason to you).

searches can be on consent, resonable suspicion, or conditional (parole or probation).

trust me it is all about about seeing a car you want to stop and just finding the right reason to stop it and finding the right reason to get inside it...all in a days work. bestthing you can do you is know all of the laws for reason to stop people/cars and the opportunities flow from there...

"so there is nothing illegal in the car right.... so you dont mind if i search???"

Rifle Fetish
05-18-2009, 11:32 PM
trust me it is all about about seeing a car you want to stop and just finding the right reason to stop it and finding the right reason to get inside it...all in a days work.

"so there is nothing illegal in the car right.... so you dont mind if i search???"

DING! We have a winner!!!

Also the inventory thing means that if they have to impound your car for any reason (registration, etc) they must do a complete inventory (trunk, glove box, etc)

trendar5
05-19-2009, 2:05 AM
Did anybody else take note of the recent idiotic U.S. Supreme Court decision barring car interior searches incident to arrest, absent reasonable and articulatable suspicion that there is contraband in the car? This is a profound change from our previous practice of "anything within reach, before or after the arrest." I see the main effects as 1.) more guns and dope stay on the streets with the crooks, and 2.) police reports have to be a bit longer to do the search incident to arrest. This decision, coupled with the 9th Circuit decision arising from an Oregon State Police tow of an arrestee vehicle that towing an arrestee's car is supposed to be a service, not punitive (such a dumb decision), does not serve public safety in any way.

ilbob
05-19-2009, 6:25 AM
if you speeding, even 1 MPH over the limit thats good enough. if you are driving a few mph under the limit, they call that suspicious.

some kind of mechincal issue with your vehicle. thats enough reason.

swerve to avoid a pothole? thats good cause.

once they stop you there are all kinds of paperwork issues they can go for. insurance, licenses, etc.

the cops did not create this situation. the greed of various levels of government for traffic infraction revenue did.

solanoshooter
05-20-2009, 4:43 PM
Did anybody else take note of the recent idiotic U.S. Supreme Court decision barring car interior searches incident to arrest, absent reasonable and articulatable suspicion that there is contraband in the car? This is a profound change from our previous practice of "anything within reach, before or after the arrest." I see the main effects as 1.) more guns and dope stay on the streets with the crooks, and 2.) police reports have to be a bit longer to do the search incident to arrest. This decision, coupled with the 9th Circuit decision arising from an Oregon State Police tow of an arrestee vehicle that towing an arrestee's car is supposed to be a service, not punitive (such a dumb decision), does not serve public safety in any way.

Idiotic about sums it up.

J-cat
05-26-2009, 9:20 AM
Link please.

CSDGuy
05-26-2009, 10:28 AM
Did anybody else take note of the recent idiotic U.S. Supreme Court decision barring car interior searches incident to arrest, absent reasonable and articulatable suspicion that there is contraband in the car? This is a profound change from our previous practice of "anything within reach, before or after the arrest." I see the main effects as 1.) more guns and dope stay on the streets with the crooks, and 2.) police reports have to be a bit longer to do the search incident to arrest. This decision, coupled with the 9th Circuit decision arising from an Oregon State Police tow of an arrestee vehicle that towing an arrestee's car is supposed to be a service, not punitive (such a dumb decision), does not serve public safety in any way.
The way I understand the recent SCOTUS decision is that a car interior search incidental to an arrest can only be done if there's RS to believe that evidence related to the crime that the arrestee is being arrested for is in the car. Or get a warrant for the search. If the car is going to be impounded anyway, let the inventory of said vehicle find the stuff...

I'd think of it like this: "Make darned sure that you've got your I's dotted and the T's crossed when you're doing your search because you don't want your collected evidence to be tossed out by the court later...

eltee
05-26-2009, 3:56 PM
There is the phenomenon known as the "dirty search." It is a search that both the suspect and the cop knows will be invalidated, but since the dope cannot be returned, it is off the street. If it is a sizeable amount, the suspect may have some "'splainin'" to do to the ones who fronted him the dope. That may result in a dope dealer off the street. I neither condone or recommend this practice, and there is some legal slight of hand that must be used to implement it without risking disciplinary and/or criminal charges but any cop on the job more than two weeks in any metropolitan area with a drug problem will tell you it happens.

Bear in mind, a search that will inevitably be invalidated is not the same as a totally illegal search under color of authority. You have to exercise some gamesmanship, like getting a prostitute to say the magic words, but you avoid criminal misconduct and entrapment, etc. Either way, most drug and prostitute pinches get tossed or diverted anyway.

DNA
05-28-2009, 3:43 AM
Actually, to the below referenced ruling, it only applies to a very few instances. The case that got the ball rolling was essentially, guy has warrant (or something to that effect), LEOs go to guy's home to try to pick up guy. As LEOs are at the door, guy rolls up, parked said vehicle, walks to LEO and says "hi". LEO takes guy into custody, plops him in back seat of cruiser (cuffed) and proceeds to toss the vehicle for goodies. LEO find's goodies, trial goes to court and the rest is history.

This decision applies really, only to search of the vehicle after susp has left said vehicle. Now if suspect is removed from vehicle, it's still game on :thumbsup:.

As far as punitive impound of a vehicle, go see 14602.6 cvc :43: If you're unlicensed or suspended, your car is now mine. For 30 days too.

Dan

Did anybody else take note of the recent idiotic U.S. Supreme Court decision barring car interior searches incident to arrest, absent reasonable and articulatable suspicion that there is contraband in the car? This is a profound change from our previous practice of "anything within reach, before or after the arrest." I see the main effects as 1.) more guns and dope stay on the streets with the crooks, and 2.) police reports have to be a bit longer to do the search incident to arrest. This decision, coupled with the 9th Circuit decision arising from an Oregon State Police tow of an arrestee vehicle that towing an arrestee's car is supposed to be a service, not punitive (such a dumb decision), does not serve public safety in any way.