PDA

View Full Version : Heard from a LEO in the store the other day....


FortCourageArmory
04-14-2008, 1:52 PM
Before I get into the meat oif this, this is not posted as a bash to any law enforcement officer out there. I wore the badge myself some time back. That being said, I was handling customers in the store on Friday and had a couple of local LEOs waiting their turn. They got to looking at the orange magnet that Michel & Trutranich put out about not consenting to search whatever the magnet was attached to. One of the customers got on to the subject of vehicle searches and not consenting to search came up. The lieutenant said, "that's nice you don't consent. Now get out, I'm going to search." I tried to clarify that I understood that a LEO was allowed to search just what he was able to see in an average traffic stop unless he had PC to go further. The lieutenant said something about "not as long as there's a vehicle exemption". It's been a while since I was a sworn officer, so I had nothing to come back with about that. The more we talked about it, the more I got the impression that these two were going to search whether I wanted them to or not and whether or not they had PC. The one even hinted that he would "find" PC if necessary. I thought that was pretty ballsy of these two to basically say my rights meant so little to them.

mymonkeyman
04-14-2008, 2:02 PM
They can search a car for weapons within access of the driver or any passenger (basically anything except a separate trunk) upon reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous or possesses a weapon (only after pulling them over for PC of course).

That said, lots of LEOs are so used to getting consent for a search, they have no idea what the law is when they don't have consent (except for a few departments which have gone away from consent searches due to court smackdowns).

packnrat
04-14-2008, 2:10 PM
i have been threatend with banishment from a couple sites for to not having a good report for ALL leos,
but there a lot of bad ones out there, not as in committing crime, but as in just walking all over normal people.

and yes there are a lot of good leos also,
just i tend to get the not so nice ones. like they are just a mad they have to deal with anybody other than another leo.:chris:

but some time back, one chp leo at a scale house, (when the chp got "new" guns some ten years back) i asked if that was one of the new guns if i could see it (expacting him to hold it just so i could get a better look) he handed it to me:eek::eek:
ALL loaded up mag and all (i do not know if chamberd or not), so strange things can happen.:cool2:

.

Dirtbiker
04-14-2008, 2:10 PM
A LEO can search anything he wants...

Now when you don't consent and he can't articulate good PC whatever he finds is going to get thrown out the door by your atty.

Then the dept gets sued for false arrest.

Honest people have nothing to fear from law enforcement. Know your rights!

Hopi
04-14-2008, 2:12 PM
The one even hinted that he would "find" PC if necessary.

I heard the exact same thing come from the mouth of a Sergeant of the CHP.


I thought that was pretty ballsy of these two to basically say my rights meant so little to them.
People that say those things don't understand your rights enough to act 'ballsy'. If they truly understood 'our rights', it is hard to imagine they would continue to perform the job under those pretenses.

eta34
04-14-2008, 2:13 PM
The vehicle exemption he is referring to involves search warrants. In your home, even if I have probable cause to believe there is something illegal inside (narcotics, illegal firearms, stolen property, jenkem), I need a search warrant or consent to enter. A vehicle is different. If I have probable cause to believe something illegal is inside, I do not need a warrant. This is the "vehcile exemption."

Now, regarding his statement...douchebags like that guy give LEO a bad name. Implying he will create probable cause is disgusting to me. The fact that he speaks about is so casually is even more sickening. Consent searches are excellent tools in our profession. My best arrests have arisen from consent searches. I don't know why, but many bad guys simply say, "Sure officer, search my car (even though there is an ounce of meth sitting in the passenger compartment)." It is amazing.

Those departments who have lost consent searches have lost them because of officers continuing to search vehicles absent PC or consent. I have had people tell me that I could not search their vehicles many times. Sometimes I had probable cause to search and search anyway, sometimes they were on probation/parole and couldn't refuse, and sometimes I had nothing and had to let them go. My stops are all audio/video recorded. It is not worth my career to make up consent or PC to search a car.

Please don't use this moron as the industry standard. Sure, like-minded idiots exist, but not all (or most) of us are like him.

AJAX22
04-14-2008, 2:13 PM
A LEO can search anything he wants...

Now when you don't consent and he can't articulate good PC whatever he finds is going to get thrown out the door by your atty.

Then the dept gets sued for false arrest.

Honest people have nothing to fear from HONEST law enforcement. Know your rights!

fixed it for you

eta34
04-14-2008, 2:15 PM
I heard the exact same thing come from the mouth of a Sergeant of the CHP.



People that say those things don't understand your rights enough to act 'ballsy'. If they truly understood 'our rights', it is hard to imagine they would continue to perform the job under those pretenses.


Sadly, I disagree. I think these officers know your rights just fine. However, they possess the arrogance to believe they are above the law and that somehow LEO are above "civilians." I have worked with these types. They know exactly what they are doing.

Hopi
04-14-2008, 2:16 PM
Honest people have nothing to fear from law enforcement. Know your rights!
I would argue that our knowledge of 'our rights', and LEO willful disregard to recognize them is what generates the environment of fear. Honesty, unfortunately, doesn't apply here.

Hopi
04-14-2008, 2:17 PM
Sadly, I disagree. I think these officers know your rights just fine. However, they possess the arrogance to believe they are above the law and that somehow LEO are above "civilians." I have worked with these types. They know exactly what they are doing.

Well, I think they know that they exist, I'm still skeptical that they understand them.

FortCourageArmory
04-14-2008, 2:21 PM
The vehicle exemption he is referring to involves search warrants. In your home, even if I have probable cause to believe there is something illegal inside (narcotics, illegal firearms, stolen property, jenkem), I need a search warrant or consent to enter. A vehicle is different. If I have probable cause to believe something illegal is inside, I do not need a warrant. This is the "vehcile exemption."

Now, regarding his statement...douchebags like that guy give LEO a bad name. Implying he will create probable cause is disgusting to me. The fact that he speaks about is so casually is even more sickening. Consent searches are excellent tools in our profession. My best arrests have arisen from consent searches. I don't know why, but many bad guys simply say, "Sure officer, search my car (even though there is an ounce of meth sitting in the passenger compartment)." It is amazing.

Those departments who have lost consent searches have lost them because of officers continuing to search vehicles absent PC or consent. I have had people tell me that I could not search their vehicles many times. Sometimes I had probable cause to search and search anyway, sometimes they were on probation/parole and couldn't refuse, and sometimes I had nothing and had to let them go. My stops are all audio/video recorded. It is not worth my career to make up consent or PC to search a car.

Please don't use this moron as the industry standard. Sure, like-minded idiots exist, but not all (or most) of us are like him.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it had something to do with PC. When I asked what if he didn't have probable cause to pursue a search, that's when the "exemption rule" and "finding" PC came up.

Rest assured, I'm not using these two as examples of all law enforcement. I did the job long enough to know that there are good and bad apples in every department. When they left the shop, the rest of the customers present all just shook their heads and said they couldn't believe what they had just heard.

Liberty1
04-14-2008, 2:22 PM
The one even hinted that he would "find" PC if necessary. I thought that was pretty ballsy of these two to basically say my rights meant so little to them.

If you were a 4th A activist...you could make a complaint against that officer for hinting he would "find" PC if needed. The complaint won't be sustained I'm sure (or if he cops to it I doubt it would result in any discipline) but defense attorneys are filling a lot of "Pitches Motions (sp?)" these days, which allow the judge to look into an officers package (employee file), and discover any "patterns" which might lend to the belief the officer occasionally doesn't go by the book. If there is enough of a "pattern" the defense attys can try to use that as evidence that the officers testimony is not automatically honest.

We need to back the 4th A like we do the 2nd and 1st. Heck I'd defend the 3rd if I had to!:D

CSACANNONEER
04-14-2008, 2:30 PM
Tim,
I hope you gave them their very own special "LEO discount" and a free flow chart, just in case they decide to "uphold the law" someday. Really, they sound like they would be more comfortable at the other place in town.

chris
04-14-2008, 3:22 PM
ahh the continued arrogance of LE community is sickening. as i read these more and more often i no longer consider them repsected members of the community anymore.

FortCourageArmory
04-14-2008, 3:57 PM
Tim,
I hope you gave them their very own special "LEO discount" and a free flow chart, just in case they decide to "uphold the law" someday. Really, they sound like they would be more comfortable at the other place in town

They did get the "special" LEO discount.....none. But I did give them a free flowchart. :)

CSACANNONEER
04-14-2008, 3:59 PM
They did get the "special" LEO discount.....none. But I did give them a free flowchart. :)

I was thinking more like a +20% (discount).:)

Rocko
04-14-2008, 4:48 PM
This is where the Right to Refuse Service comes into play...

Yankee Clipper
04-14-2008, 4:54 PM
ahh the continued arrogance of LE community is sickening. as i read these more and more often i no longer consider them repsected members of the community anymore.
My experience has just been the opposite of yours: my interaction with the law enforcement community has been positive. Luckily I've never had any dealing with an Iggy but that too may come to pass (and hopefully never).
I'm sure that when some LE's try to exude self confidence, itís perceived as arrogance in the community served. That's regrettable but if all other dealings with the public are professional and lawful I believe we'll be well served even if we donít like the presentation.

yellowfin
04-14-2008, 4:55 PM
Is the PRK one party consent?

tyrist
04-14-2008, 5:05 PM
Are you sure what they said was taken the correct way? Sometimes the same words mean different things to different people.

By finding PC to search he could just mean looking in the penal/vehicle/Business & Professions/Fish&Game/Health&Safety/Welfare&Instituations/etc code till he found a law you were violating. There are so many laws that pretty much anyone can be searched incident to arrest at anytime. I seriously doubt they would so obviously violate the 4th amendment since they can get into big trouble.

trigger_play
04-14-2008, 5:22 PM
ok what if one consent for a search, will LEO be looking in a trunk? if LEO sees your rifle case or gun case in trunk, cases are locked and asked to see contents how will one approach this?

Gryff
04-14-2008, 5:31 PM
ahh the continued arrogance of LE community is sickening. as i read these more and more often i no longer consider them repsected members of the community anymore.

I would encourage you to reconsider your opinion. I'm not law enforcement, and while the LEO tendency to dominate a situation can get on my nerves, I also recognize that they do a job that can get their ***** shot in the blink of an eye. I understand WHY the do what the do, and I think that most of them at Class A people.

Unfortunately, there are some of them that can't rein in the I'm-In-Charge-So-You-Aren't-Going-To-Argue-With-ME mentality, but the bulk of the ones I know are very professional. I also think that in the age of mini-camcorders and YouTube, they are starting to recognize that the casual violation of a citizen's rights isn't easy to get away with anymore (which is a great thing).

pnkssbtz
04-14-2008, 5:45 PM
Sadly, I disagree. I think these officers know your rights just fine. However, they possess the arrogance to believe they are above the law and that somehow LEO are above "civilians." I have worked with these types. They know exactly what they are doing.

eta34, Excellent posts.

And I concur with your opinion.


When there was a few news articles about the Orange County PD arresting individuals who had purchased Kershaw assisted opening knives from a knife boutique at "The Block at Orange", I called and spoke to a Lt. there.

He confirmed to me that he knew intimately the sections of PC 653(k).

I find it dubious that someone would both be able to recite from memory PC 653(k) yet arrest individuals for possession of a switchblade that just so happened to be a Kershaw assisted opener.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-14-2008, 6:11 PM
Funny this topic would come up. One of the resident LEOs on another forum posted this little gem.

Ask for my badge number and I will laugh in your face, you can read it....... then I will toss your car whether you like it or not........guess I am a dick!

Patriot
04-14-2008, 6:13 PM
When there was a few news articles about the Orange County PD arresting individuals who had purchased Kershaw assisted opening knives from a knife boutique at "The Block at Orange", I called and spoke to a Lt. there.

He confirmed to me that he knew intimately the sections of PC 653(k).

I find it dubious that someone would both be able to recite from memory PC 653(k) yet arrest individuals for possession of a switchblade that just so happened to be a Kershaw assisted opener.

A little OT, but IMO A/Os are the MMG/BB OLLs of the knife world. Enough acronyms in one sentence? :43:

buff_01
04-14-2008, 6:32 PM
If I were you I would have told them to get out of the store and never come back. Cops like that need to be shown that law abiding citizens do not welcome such behavior.

But that's just me.

hoffmang
04-14-2008, 6:42 PM
1. eta: please never leave.

2. Even if a cop manufactures consent and starts searching your car making it painfully clear that you don't consent can save your bacon if they do find something. If they search absent your consent and find nothing, file a complaint and copy the local Public Defender's office. A history of "no PC" searches that are documented can make life difficult for a LEO in court.

-Gene

sloguy
04-14-2008, 6:57 PM
cop bashing shouldnt be looked down on. cops need to be spoken ill of when they are wrong. when a cop is wrong he needs his nose rubbed in it until he gets the point. same as anyone else. cops deserve no special treatment. specially when they make a mistake that effects others lives.

pnkssbtz
04-14-2008, 7:07 PM
A little OT, but IMO A/Os are the MMG/BB OLLs of the knife world. Enough acronyms in one sentence? :43:

I understand what you are saying (I even understood all of the acronyms, lol...)


But the difference as I see it is that the officers were clearly (in my opinion) aware of what the law actually said yet omitted the paragraphs after the first (the exceptions), knowingly and intentionally, in what would otherwise be (absent the LEO's lie by omission) a non-issue.


There is quite a difference in knowing specifically, but omitting the parts you disagree with to falsify an arrest, and not knowing the technicalities but acting on your beliefs regardless.

SC_00_05
04-14-2008, 7:11 PM
A little OT, but IMO A/Os are the MMG/BB OLLs of the knife world. Enough acronyms in one sentence? :43:
Damn, more off topic stuff, but I don't know how they could possibly believe them to be switchblades. IIRC (I could be wrong), as long as downward pressure needs to applied to the blade for it to open, it's not a switchblade. And, of course, that's exactly what's needed to open an A/O knife.

The fact that switchblades are even illegal is a great testament to the idiocy of the government(or maybe us that elect them...)

M. Sage
04-14-2008, 7:19 PM
1. eta: please never leave.

+1!

cop bashing shouldnt be looked down on. cops need to be spoken ill of when they are wrong. when a cop is wrong he needs his nose rubbed in it until he gets the point. same as anyone else. cops deserve no special treatment. specially when they make a mistake that effects others lives.

... that wouldn't be cop-bashing. There is a difference.

pnkssbtz
04-14-2008, 7:19 PM
Damn, more off topic stuff, but I don't know how they could possibly believe them to be switchblades. IIRC (I could be wrong), as long as downward pressure needs to applied to the blade for it to open, it's not a switchblade. And, of course, that's exactly what's needed to open an A/O knife.

The fact that switchblades are even illegal is a great testament to the idiocy of the government(or maybe us that elect them...)

My point in mentioning that, was to lend support to what eta34 had said, and to underscore a widespread issue with LEO's.

Certainly my story was anecdotal, but I do not believe that these two incidents are isolated.


Not all LEO's believe as those described in the OP's post, or those I have described in my example however, they do exist and the mindset described by the OP is prevalent.

capo
04-14-2008, 7:24 PM
I went to lunch with a friend last week. She is taking her bar and wants to be a defense attorney. I asked her why she wanted to defend scum rather than throw them in jail, and she mentioned the abhorrent abuses of the 4A by law enforcement. It makes sense...

Bruce
04-14-2008, 7:28 PM
I heard one say that refusing to allow a search was sufficient PC to search!
If there were some penalty for violating the 4th, LEO's wouldn't be so ready to consider it to be trivial. As things are now, an "illegal" search only results in dismissal of the case at hand by either the DA or a judge and "Officer Friendly" just goes back out and does it all over again.:rolleyes: Put a few of them away for civil rights violations or fine them, they might not be so ready to violate the 4th!

hitman13
04-14-2008, 7:57 PM
Funny this topic would come up. One of the resident LEOs on another forum posted this little gem.



you are speaking out of context. what he was saying is that he is no punk ***** that is going to do his job any different because someone trys to threaten them with a report to their commander. He would do the search or what ever the same as he would if you never did ask for his badge number.

Nick is a great cop and one of the most honorable people that i know.

LECTRIKHED
04-14-2008, 8:04 PM
I think that when they work with criminals all day arresting them, they begin to view everyone as a possible criminal. I've heard about some jurisdictions getting a drug dog to search the outside of the vehicle if the driver does not consent to a search. Interestingly the drug dog seems to signal that it detects drugs every time. This then gives police probable cause to search a car.

Moral of the story is don't do illegal stuff. If pulled over be very respectful to an officer. If you are in some type of trouble, shut up. Don't consent to anything, and demand an attorney before you will speak with them.

tyrist
04-14-2008, 8:10 PM
I heard one say that refusing to allow a search was sufficient PC to search!
If there were some penalty for violating the 4th, LEO's wouldn't be so ready to consider it to be trivial. As things are now, an "illegal" search only results in dismissal of the case at hand by either the DA or a judge and "Officer Friendly" just goes back out and does it all over again.:rolleyes: Put a few of them away for civil rights violations or fine them, they might not be so ready to violate the 4th!

Do this and Officers do nothing. End of Law enforcement.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-14-2008, 8:24 PM
you are speaking out of context. what he was saying is that he is no punk ***** that is going to do his job any different because someone trys to threaten them with a report to their commander. He would do the search or what ever the same as he would if you never did ask for his badge number.

Nick is a great cop and one of the most honorable people that i know.

What's out of context? Anyone with the slightest reading comprehension skills can deduct that it was response to someone saying they ask for a badge number in an attempt to scare an officer into doing their job how they see fit.

He can try and retract and explain away all he wants, he still posted what he posted, and he still insinuated that I was somehow a bad person for advocating the invocation of the 4th even after he explained his statement.

Although I am done with that site I would like to point out that I in no way implicated the poster or even the site.

Do this and Officers do nothing. End of Law enforcement.

Don't do it and we have the problems that we currently have.

Pointcrossed
04-14-2008, 8:27 PM
(when the chp got "new" guns some ten years back) i asked if that was one of the new guns if i could see it (expacting him to hold it just so i could get a better look) he handed it to me:eek::eek:
ALL loaded up mag and all (i do not know if chamberd or not), so strange things can happen.:cool2:

.

That happened to me too. There are many polite LEO's out there. An LEO stopped in my neighborhood after a noise disturbance down the street, so I was curious why he was there on the sidewalk. I just walked up to him said hi and made smalltalk. I said that his gun looked new, and what model it was and he said it was a XD just got it today and he just took it out of his holster and handed it to me and said check it out. :cool: Guess he was just excited about it, or maybe it was the sensitivity training. :rolleyes:

Pvt. Cowboy
04-14-2008, 8:33 PM
The one even hinted that he would "find" PC if necessary.

I know an ex-cop that used to talk like this all the time.

Bruce
04-14-2008, 9:02 PM
Do this and Officers do nothing. End of Law enforcement.


Funny, that was what was supposed to happen when Miranda was handed down. "It's the end of law enforcement! Run for the hills!":eek:

yellowfin
04-14-2008, 9:09 PM
Again I ask: is it one party consent for recording here? (Or does anyone other than me know what that is?)

11Z50
04-14-2008, 9:13 PM
Again I ask: is it one party consent for recording here? (Or does anyone other than me know what that is?)

The PRK is a two-party state. There are a few exceptions.....

mymonkeyman
04-14-2008, 9:13 PM
Again I ask: is it one party consent for recording here? (Or does anyone other than me know what that is?)

No (for audio recording, as well as possibly other forms of recording), as long as there is a reasonable expectation that they are not being recorded or overheard, all recorded parties must consent (with limited exceptions). Most people do not realize that California's law is that way, mainly because many of the legal decisions are relatively recent (in the last 5 years).

yellowfin
04-14-2008, 9:16 PM
Elaborate on those exceptions please if you could.

11Z50
04-14-2008, 9:22 PM
PM me or send me a retainer!:)

BLACKWATER
04-14-2008, 9:29 PM
Most cops will use "officer safety" as an excuse to search your vehicle. They do need consent first if they dont have proper Probable Cause to search your vehicle. Of course there are A hole cops that would say..."oh whats that smell" smells like marijuana....therefore they have PC. Now if you have a criminal record that would be very hard to fight off, but if you are a law abiding citizen then they are in hot water.

If stopped by police and they are searching vehicle WITHOUT your consent...I would dial 911 on the cell phone and have it documented by CHP dispatchers since 911 cell phone calls go to CHP. Then head to the nearest CHP office and get transcripts of the call or the actual recording. File complaint with Internal Affairs with that officers dept and handle it from there. Seek attorney too since you can sue the officer for personally violating your civil rights.

Cops may think they are the law and feel they are the law but one thing is for sure, they are not above the law.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-14-2008, 9:39 PM
I don't think reaching into your pocket while dealing with a dick cop is the best idea, the thought of repercussions have to somewhere in the back of their head.


If stopped by police and they are searching vehicle WITHOUT your consent...I would dial 911 on the cell phone and have it documented by CHP dispatchers since 911 cell phone calls go to CHP. Then head to the nearest CHP office and get transcripts of the call or the actual recording. File complaint with Internal Affairs with that officers dept and handle it from there. Seek attorney too since you can sue the officer for personally violating your civil rights.

spgk380
04-14-2008, 10:01 PM
Basically, Officer Bonehead is going to search whatever he wants whether you like it or not, and there is not much you can do about it. The purpose of your 4th amendment rights is not necessarily to prevent the government from searching, but to prevent the evidence from being admitted in a trial, preventing them from convicting you, but still costing you your life savings. But lawyers are OK with that, so nothing gets changed.

Piper
04-14-2008, 10:04 PM
Sadly, I disagree. I think these officers know your rights just fine. However, they possess the arrogance to believe they are above the law and that somehow LEO are above "civilians." I have worked with these types. They know exactly what they are doing.

Who are you, and what have you done with eta34 ?

eaglemike
04-14-2008, 10:23 PM
No (for audio recording, as well as possibly other forms of recording), as long as there is a reasonable expectation that they are not being recorded or overheard, all recorded parties must consent (with limited exceptions). Most people do not realize that California's law is that way, mainly because many of the legal decisions are relatively recent (in the last 5 years).
I would also be interested in the practical implications of this. I know many LE agencies have dash cam's - but I don't know how many in California. Since the work is being done as a "public servant" I don't see how a recording can't be used. If in a public place, like a traffic stop, how could a LEO have an expectation of privacy?

all the best,

Mike

jamesob
04-14-2008, 10:38 PM
i myself just quit l.e last year. they cannot tell you to "get out" just so they can search. if you are stopped on a v.c stop and not a misdemeanor or felony stop they cannot tell you to get out. now if you are stopped on a misdemeanor ( arrestable offense ) they can detain you or arrest you if, they want inside the car bad enough. of course felonys ( arrest offense ) they will arrest you anyway and search your car without consent ( search incident to arrest or inventory search if the car is being stored or towed. a simple v.c violation they have to get consent to search unless they can see in plain sight that there is contraband or other illegal stuff. if they tell you to search and you say "no" get ready to have a little extra cash from the lawsuit you are about to win.

WokMaster1
04-14-2008, 10:40 PM
Cops can search anytime they want. As long as you do not consent, they have nothing in a court of law.

You should politely asked him to repeat what he said on camera. If he is so sure, he should be on the 6 o'clock news.;)

mymonkeyman
04-14-2008, 10:41 PM
Elaborate on those exceptions please if you could.


(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon
or recording a confidential communication in violation of this
section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative,
legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility[B/] engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and
facilities of the public utility, or (2) [B]to the use of any
instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used
pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic
communication system used for communication exclusively within a
state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and
similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the
purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds
ordinarily audible to the human ear.



633. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits
the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant,
deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district
attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of
police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or
city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff
regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police
officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant
to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting
within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or
recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or
record prior to the effective date of this chapter.


633.5. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording
the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably
believed to relate to the commission by another party to the
communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any
felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of
Section 653m [this is for harassing telephone calls]. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
renders any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for
extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against
the person, a violation of Section 653m, or any crime in connection
therewith.


633.6. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, and in
accordance with federal law, upon the request of a victim of domestic
violence who is seeking a domestic violence restraining order, a
judge issuing the order may include a provision in the order that
permits the victim to record any prohibited communication made to him
or her by the perpetrator.

To sum up: activities where one does not have a reasonable expectation that they are not being overheard or recorded (including explicitly a "public gathering"), use of an illegal recording to prove the recording was illegal, public utilities employees for legitimate purposes, devices or services provided by public utilities "pursuant to [a] tariff[]" of the public utility (i.e. 3-way calling), correctional facilities (other than communications between lawyer, religious adviser, or physician and detainee), legitimate police / prosecuting attorney recordings, recording evidence of the crimes of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of the statute prohibiting harassment "with intent to annoy" using telephone or other electronic communication devices via obscenity, threats, or repeated calls, or pursuant to a domestic violence restraining order specifically allowing the recording of illegal communications by the restrained spouse.

mymonkeyman
04-14-2008, 10:45 PM
I would also be interested in the practical implications of this. I know many LE agencies have dash cam's - but I don't know how many in California. Since the work is being done as a "public servant" I don't see how a recording can't be used. If in a public place, like a traffic stop, how could a LEO have an expectation of privacy?

all the best,

Mike

The thing to recognize is that many California courts are ridiculous and ignore things like the "rule of lenity" and frequently just ignore the statutory language and just decide if people are guilty based on policy. This is horrible and unconstitutional, but they don't' care. So you sometimes get a reasonable court which says that any recording outside in a publicly accessible place is allowed, then you get others that make things up and pretend that the statute against eavesdropping also covers purely video recordings. LEO dash cams are pretty clearly okay because LEOs are largely exempted from the statute.

eta34
04-14-2008, 10:48 PM
Who are you, and what have you done with eta34 ?

I hope this was some sort of joke. I hate the generalized LEO bashing, but I have always recognized (even on this forum) that there are bad cops out there. I hope you are not implying that I am a hitnrun type who defends LEO's blindly.

eta34
04-14-2008, 10:50 PM
i myself just quit l.e last year. they cannot tell you to "get out" just so they can search. if you are stopped on a v.c stop and not a misdemeanor or felony stop they cannot tell you to get out. now if you are stopped on a misdemeanor ( arrestable offense ) they can detain you or arrest you if, they want inside the car bad enough. of course felonys ( arrest offense ) they will arrest you anyway and search your car without consent ( search incident to arrest or inventory search if the car is being stored or towed. a simple v.c violation they have to get consent to search unless they can see in plain sight that there is contraband or other illegal stuff. if they tell you to search and you say "no" get ready to have a little extra cash from the lawsuit you are about to win.

Sorry, but some of your information is incorrect. Case law has stated that a LEO can order a driver or passenger out of the vehicle on a simple traffic stop for any reason. I will find the case law cite. This has nothing to do with searching your vehicle.

Here is an excerpt directly from the California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook:

During a routine traffic stop, you have the right to order the driver to get out of the vehicle. You do not need any particular reason, such as danger or suspicion of a crime. If the stop is lawfully underway, ordering the driver out during the detention is legal. This is because the courts believe that all traffic stops involve enough inherent risk to justify the minimal additional intrusion of ordering a validly detained driver to get out of the vehicle. (Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106; Maxwell (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1004; Valencia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 906, 918; Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 927.)

Note: You may order the driver to step out of his vehicle even though you have already (previously) decided to release him with just a warning but no citation. This is so because your subjective thinking plays no role in what you are objectively authorized to do. (Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38.)


The same rule applies to passengers: an officer may order passengers out of the car pending completion of a traffic stop. "[T]he same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger." "[D]anger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal." (Wilson (1997) 519 U.S. 408, 414-415; Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129, 1134-1135; Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 892; see also Ruvalcaba (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1323, 1327.) Therefore, it is always reasonable to order passengers out for the sake of your safety in every traffic stop.

Liberty1
04-14-2008, 10:54 PM
or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

I think an exposed recorder or visable mic would qualify for this.

rorschach
04-14-2008, 10:58 PM
If stopped by police and they are searching vehicle WITHOUT your consent...I would dial 911 on the cell phone and have it documented by CHP dispatchers since 911 cell phone calls go to CHP. Then head to the nearest CHP office and get transcripts of the call or the actual recording.

You would have to go to the CHP division office, they can get the tape from the Comm Center. The local area office wont give you anything but a puzzled look.

mymonkeyman
04-14-2008, 11:08 PM
I think an exposed recorder or visable mic would qualify for this.

Maybe. Certainly there are stores that post signs that you are being recorded for audio and video and that's probably for their protection against these statutes.

However, the person recorded could always claim they did not see it or it really was hidden and you would have an annoying factual dispute.

If you want to be real safe, maybe you should have a license plate frame that says "Any cop who pulls over this car will be recorded for audio and video." I'm sure there would be no negative consequences for that. :rolleyes:

jamesob
04-14-2008, 11:22 PM
Sorry, but some of your information is incorrect. Case law has stated that a LEO can order a driver or passenger out of the vehicle on a simple traffic stop for any reason. I will find the case law cite. This has nothing to do with searching your vehicle.

Here is an excerpt directly from the California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook:

During a routine traffic stop, you have the right to order the driver to get out of the vehicle. You do not need any particular reason, such as danger or suspicion of a crime. If the stop is lawfully underway, ordering the driver out during the detention is legal. This is because the courts believe that all traffic stops involve enough inherent risk to justify the minimal additional intrusion of ordering a validly detained driver to get out of the vehicle. (Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106; Maxwell (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1004; Valencia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 906, 918; Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 927.)

Note: You may order the driver to step out of his vehicle even though you have already (previously) decided to release him with just a warning but no citation. This is so because your subjective thinking plays no role in what you are objectively authorized to do. (Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38.)


The same rule applies to passengers: an officer may order passengers out of the car pending completion of a traffic stop. "[T]he same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger." "[D]anger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal." (Wilson (1997) 519 U.S. 408, 414-415; Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129, 1134-1135; Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 892; see also Ruvalcaba (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1323, 1327.) Therefore, it is always reasonable to order passengers out for the sake of your safety in every traffic stop.
i should have clarified better. what i said was, they cannot tell you to get out of your car so they can "search" after being told "no" to a consent. they can tell you for any reason but they cannot tell you so they can search after being told "no". any traffic stop is a lawful detention and therefore you will do what they say but again they cannot search after being told "no" unless you are being arrested or the other stuff i mentioned. so the info i said about the search is not wrong, it had nothing to do with having you step out just because. but you are right they can have you get out of the car at anytime .

hoffmang
04-14-2008, 11:47 PM
A Police Officer doing his official duties in pulling you over certainly isn't in a private place. If he was, then he couldn't use the vehicle exception to the fourth amendment which is specifically predicated on the vehicle being in a public place.

-Gene

Piper
04-15-2008, 9:22 AM
I hope this was some sort of joke. I hate the generalized LEO bashing, but I have always recognized (even on this forum) that there are bad cops out there. I hope you are not implying that I am a hitnrun type who defends LEO's blindly.

Actually, yeah that had crossed my mind, just as most LEO's hear think all I do is bash LEOs. I may have to re-evaluate where you are coming from. :D

pnkssbtz
04-15-2008, 1:56 PM
A Police Officer doing his official duties in pulling you over certainly isn't in a private place. If he was, then he couldn't use the vehicle exception to the fourth amendment which is specifically predicated on the vehicle being in a public place.

-Gene

A catch 22...

I love it!

Jicko
04-15-2008, 2:11 PM
I have had people tell me that I could not search their vehicles many times. Sometimes I had probable cause to search and search anyway, sometimes they were on probation/parole and couldn't refuse, and sometimes I had nothing and had to let them go. My stops are all audio/video recorded. It is not worth my career to make up consent or PC to search a car.

As we have known for quite sometime now that you are one of the good guys.... the ones who truely believe in "To Protect and To Serve"....

Now, how I can ensure that my traffic encounter is "audio/video" recorded? I believe that will definitely protect my rights....

Do I actually have to tint my rear window pitch dark to ensure this? :D

GuyW
04-15-2008, 2:50 PM
..I've heard about some jurisdictions getting a drug dog to search the outside of the vehicle if the driver does not consent to a search. Interestingly the drug dog seems to signal that it detects drugs every time. This then gives police probable cause to search a car....


Gee, I wonder how hard it is to train a dog to give a drug recognition signal "on command"??

.

GuyW
04-15-2008, 2:51 PM
Do this and Officers do nothing. End of Law enforcement.

Then fire and hire until some will do the job...

GuyW
04-15-2008, 2:53 PM
That happened to me too. There are many polite LEO's out there. An LEO stopped in my neighborhood after a noise disturbance down the street, so I was curious why he was there on the sidewalk. I just walked up to him said hi and made smalltalk. I said that his gun looked new, and what model it was and he said it was a XD just got it today and he just took it out of his holster and handed it to me and said check it out. :cool: Guess he was just excited about it, or maybe it was the sensitivity training. :rolleyes:

I'm all for friendly public relations - but that's just nuts. Something tells me it prolly violates agency policies, too...

tyrist
04-15-2008, 3:39 PM
Funny, that was what was supposed to happen when Miranda was handed down. "It's the end of law enforcement! Run for the hills!":eek:

Throwing evidence out is different than throwing somebody in Jail. Who would risk going to jail for a suspect that will be out of probation in two weeks.

Fjold
04-15-2008, 5:29 PM
I hope this was some sort of joke. I hate the generalized LEO bashing, but I have always recognized (even on this forum) that there are bad cops out there. I hope you are not implying that I am a hitnrun type who defends LEO's blindly.


I don't know if the poster meant it as a joke but I took it that way as you have been the voice of reason on these boards for as long as I have seen you posting.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-15-2008, 5:30 PM
Throwing evidence out is different than throwing somebody in Jail. Who would risk going to jail for a suspect that will be out of probation in two weeks.

I don;t think anyone said anything about jail, as I understand it finding qualified LEOs is hard enough as it is, and they do serve a purpose, but their needs to be some accountability on the individual officer. How is it fair that citizens have to pay the settlements (through taxes) when an officer has been found to have violated the rights granted to all citizens? Jail is extreme, but financial liability is just right.

Bruce
04-15-2008, 7:21 PM
Throwing evidence out is different than throwing somebody in Jail.


As it now stands, LEO's are allowed to act with impunity when violating the rights of individuals. I gather you think that is acceptable.

Who would risk going to jail for a suspect that will be out of probation in two weeks.

Somebody who believes in the United States Constitution and not " 3% at Fifty".

Bucc
04-15-2008, 7:43 PM
I hope you are not implying that I am a hitnrun type who defends LEO's blindly.


And poorly.
If I were an LEO he'd be the last person I'd want speaking for me.
You and I may not agree on certain aspects of law enforcement but at least you are reasonable about it.

mymonkeyman
04-15-2008, 10:45 PM
Do this and Officers do nothing. End of Law enforcement.

The thing is, it is already a federal crime. 18 USC 242 (violation of a person's rights under color of law). However it is essentially never enforced (something like 99% of complaints are rejected).

Somehow I think there should be a happy medium between not enforcing federal criminal civil rights law at all and enforcing it so much that all cops quit. At this point, the near complete lack of enforcement is ridiculous and underdeters even the most extreme unconstitutional behavior.

eta34
04-16-2008, 7:36 AM
The thing is, it is already a federal crime. 18 USC 242 (violation of a person's rights under color of law). However it is essentially never enforced (something like 99% of complaints are rejected).

Somehow I think there should be a happy medium between not enforcing federal criminal civil rights law at all and enforcing it so much that all cops quit. At this point, the near complete lack of enforcement is ridiculous and underdeters even the most extreme unconstitutional behavior.

I don't think it is a matter of not enforcing it. DA's look at these cases much like any "normal" case. They are extremely overworked and tend to go for the "slam dunk" cases. They want plea bargains, not lengthy trials. Many of the abuse cases by LEOs are difficult to prove.

haodoken
04-27-2008, 4:02 PM
What would happen hypothetically if we got rid of Law Enforcement and have militia groups take care of us? Would it be better or worse. Members of the militia would rotate in and out much like a reserve LEO.

Richie Rich
04-27-2008, 9:05 PM
Most LEOs that have an axe to grind, the "all non cops are turds" mindset ones, will search your car if they want to.

The old "odor of narcotics" or "reaching under the seat" excuses. I have had the first one used on me. After having my truck tossed, I was sent on my way, no ticket was issued but it did take me a while to put the contents of my truck back where they belonged.

Now I am not saying that all LEOs think and act this way, there are some left who actually respect the rights of honest folks. Seems like most of the older ones are more easygoing, honest and have a pretty good sense of who is a real BG and who is just some regular guy who happened to have a taillight out or rolled a stop sign.

Many of the young guys are "hard chargers", lots of them have just come back from a year or so of kicking doors in some god forsaken hellhole where it seemed like everyone wanted to kill them.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this problem. I want badguys in jail where they belong, not preying on the rest of us, therefor I want LEOs to be tough on crime. However, I think the idea of officer discretion needs to be emphasized a little bit more, it seems to be sorely lacking these days. Cut the good people a break once and a while and make sure the turds are rounded up. I think that fewer laws may be the answer.

socalgunrunner
04-27-2008, 9:21 PM
What would happen hypothetically if we got rid of Law Enforcement and have militia groups take care of us? Would it be better or worse. Members of the militia would rotate in and out much like a reserve LEO.

Militia? Didn't they try that it in Somalia a few years ago? Last I heard, that didn't quite work out so well.

DesertGunner
04-27-2008, 10:35 PM
What would happen hypothetically if we got rid of Law Enforcement and have militia groups take care of us? Would it be better or worse. Members of the militia would rotate in and out much like a reserve LEO.

That's not the stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it's close...

Poorly-trained wannabe Rambos with no mechanism for background checks to weed out thugs, criminals and nutjobs? I'm sure that would go well....

Draven
04-27-2008, 10:51 PM
That's not the stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it's close...

Poorly-trained wannabe Rambos with no mechanism for background checks to weed out thugs, criminals and nutjobs? I'm sure that would go well....

It worked for how many hundred years?

Oh, I forget, All the old sheriffs and deputies went to the Academy and had four-year criminal justice degrees, right?

DesertGunner
04-27-2008, 11:09 PM
It worked for how many hundred years?

Oh, I forget, All the old sheriffs and deputies went to the Academy and had four-year criminal justice degrees, right?

Who says it worked well, aside from people who watch too many westerns?

How many old-time sheriffs and deputies were notoriously corrupt?

Draven
04-27-2008, 11:12 PM
Who says it worked well, aside from people who watch too many westerns?

How many old-time sheriffs and deputies were notoriously corrupt?

How many of those were in westerns too?

leelaw
04-27-2008, 11:20 PM
It worked for how many hundred years?

Oh, I forget, All the old sheriffs and deputies went to the Academy and had four-year criminal justice degrees, right?

Just because "it worked" does not mean it worked well.

It also does not mean that the current system is somehow inferior, which is certainly is not.

The old style system was not set for working with larger populations, or the dynamic society like we have today. In a static old-town or small village setting, it might work.

The appeal to tradition is often fallacious, and I bet it is in this case, too.

GuyW
04-28-2008, 1:27 PM
It worked for how many hundred years?

Oh, I forget, All the old sheriffs and deputies went to the Academy and had four-year criminal justice degrees, right?

It worked in England for almost a thousand years. It worked in the US for a 100 years.

"Modern" police forces were a dream of the government-controls-all nuts. I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers would have viewed "modern" police forces as a variation on a standing army...

chris
04-28-2008, 2:07 PM
It worked in England for almost a thousand years. It worked in the US for a 100 years.

"Modern" police forces were a dream of the government-controls-all nuts. I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers would have viewed "modern" police forces as a variation on a standing army...

i agree our founding fathers are spinning their graves as to what the police force has turned out to be today. they are not the once respected members of the community anymore. i have a lower opinion of them today than i did in the past. mostly because the CLEO in the depts. support so much gun control and the rank and file are too affraid to speak up for the lawfull citizen. they are affraid of losing their job. instead of sayin this crap is BS!!!!!

for the record i speak up for what is wrong regardless whether i win or lose it's about standing for what is right!

PatriotnMore
04-28-2008, 2:12 PM
Blame the training, not the trainees. This is what is encouraged and supported. It is unfortunate that LEO's (for the most part, NOT all) are ambivalent to our rights under the Constitution.
For what we lose, they lose also.

haodoken
04-28-2008, 3:47 PM
That's not the stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it's close...

Poorly-trained wannabe Rambos with no mechanism for background checks to weed out thugs, criminals and nutjobs? I'm sure that would go well....

So serious... it was meant to be a joke the "militia" thing, that would be total anarchy or close to it. My point was you want people who WANT, can, and have the right background do the job. Not some thug/criminal/nutjob. Hate 'em or love 'em (Esp. here in CA) LEOs stand between us and those who would harm us. But most people can't or won't deal with the worst society had to offer. We're not perfect but, unless you want the job, you'll just have to do the juggling act and balance law and order / security / personal freedom.

If people dislike the system, change it. That's what America is all about. Become a LEO and fight the stereotypes and the institutional problems. It's all about the educating those around us. I'm still proud to wear the badge and be disliked by a lot of people for doing my job. At the end of the day, when I remove by vest and badge, I'm just like everyone else. Just some average joe who tries to make a difference. I just blend in with the crowd when I step out of the locker room.

Not a rant just an explanation. Sorry, off the soap box! Can't we all just get along? :D

Yankee Clipper
04-28-2008, 4:22 PM
Originally Posted by packnrat
(when the chp got "new" guns some ten years back) i asked if that was one of the new guns if i could see it (expacting him to hold it just so i could get a better look) he handed it to me
ALL loaded up mag and all (i do not know if chamberd or not), so strange things can happen.
That happened to me too. There are many polite LEO's out there. An LEO stopped in my neighborhood after a noise disturbance down the street, so I was curious why he was there on the sidewalk. I just walked up to him said hi and made smalltalk. I said that his gun looked new, and what model it was and he said it was a XD just got it today and he just took it out of his holster and handed it to me and said check it out. :cool: Guess he was just excited about it, or maybe it was the sensitivity training. :rolleyes:
I don't believe either of these two incidents happened. I can't believe any LE, with an IQ larger than his shoe size, would let a stranger fondle their sidearm. And if these are jokes, they went way over my head.

Decoligny
04-28-2008, 6:10 PM
I don't believe either of these two incidents happened. I can't believe any LE, with an IQ larger than his shoe size, would let a stranger fondle their sidearm. And if these are jokes, they went way over my head.

I actually have had an LEO hand me his firearm, my brother-in-law, after clearing it, in his own home. Anyone saying they have had an LEO (stranger to them) on the street, hand them his loaded weapon has to be lying.