Here is an example of why you never consent to a search

[john70t]

Not to defend the officer at all..but..
The I-75 and the I-10 corridor are both major routes for drug smuggling N-S and E-W.

Many thousands or millions of pounds of drugs flow through the highway system every year.
The officers are probably under great pressure from above to perform.
Or there is just pure laziness.
This guy might have been vying for Desk Sargent and a cushy retirement at a very young age.

If he was planting evidence on innocent people, then the facts should play out, and consequences should be dealt out.
(but it would also presume that hundreds of lawyers/prosecutors/judges/laws did not perform their duties to seek the truth.)


One thing I do not like about this type of story is that it becomes "all vs. nothing".
There might have been many criminals and disrupted crimes mixed into that history.

[mattdavis11]

This happened recently. Looks like the dogs are still being used here, and the article doesn't say anything about a warrant or PC. Obviously, we can rule out PC out because the dog was used. He's really screwed now, they hang'em in Williamson County. I don't watch the show Live PD, but the sheriffs are on it.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190723/affidavit-austin-lawyer-found-with-multiple-illegal-drugs-in-traffic-stop

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is entirely correct. AFAIK, Police can (and do) still deploy K9's for perimeter sniffs without any warrant required. The dog usually comes out after a suspect refuses consent for a vehicle search. I believe the only difference now (as of a couple years ago?) is that you can't be detained for any unreasonable amount of time to wait for a K9 to show up. If the K9 is already there, or arrives prior to a citation being written/given (or what would be considered a "reasonable" amount of time to issue a citation), then it's fair game. Of course, if/when a dog indicates during a perimeter sniff, that gives further PC for an interior search.

It's still a method with plenty of potential for abuse and rights violations, IMO. Not only can a dog's "indications" (hits) be up for interpretation (or completely made up), but another "trick" is to leave a suspect's car door wide open if/when pulling them out prior to a K9 walk-around. The dog then pokes it's nose in and "indicates", legally allowing it to go inside the vehicle (and then a subsequent full search by the officer).

Another trick is when someone refuses consent to search during a citation that has the potential for the vehicle to be towed/impounded.
If an officer makes the call to have a car towed, they are typically allowed to "inventory" the contents prior to the tow.

You are correct - thanks for the clarification. I looked into this and discovered that if a canine arrives on the scene of a "normal" traffic stop, they can go ahead and sniff around. The moment the cop hands you the ticket, and the "normal" traffic stop is concluded, you cannot be further detained to wait for the arrival of a dog. If the officer just stalls and delays, rather than completing the "normal" traffic stop in a timely manner, anything the dog subsequently finds is likely to be tossed.

Sorry, I did have the details wrong. In other words, law enforcement cannot just hold you indefinitely, waiting for someone with the dog to show up.

[rusnak]

In California, an officer must have your consent to search your car, your home, or place of business unless they witness a crime or statement of a crime being made and have reason to secure the scene or evidence. They won't just barge in a start searching because they are going to be responsible for that evidence being tossed out in court.

I would say that Florida cop being investigagted suggests that the system in Florida is working to catch and prosecute a dirty cop, if he turns out to be one. If not, then it's good to know either way.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Tobra

They have a gun and a badge, they can and will do WTF they want, count on it.

They invent probable cause.

__________________
.

[group911@aol.co]

Originally Posted by rcooled

Anyone have an answer for 'gambler's question? I'm curious too.

Money. If you look at the amounts these small municipalities collect from fines and processing fees, it would astound you.
No different than speed traps other than the possibility of it being on your record for life.
Small towns have lived off it for years.
Look at the video above. Collinsville Ohio doesn't even have enough residents to register on WIKI yet they have a cop. Who pays the cop?

[masraum]

Originally Posted by ramonesfreak

Back in college I had a New York State trouper follow me 20 miles after I crossed the Vermont border. Had a Grateful Dead sticker on my car which I’m sure is why he followed me and then pulled me over. First things he asks me is “got any nuclear weapons in the car?” I said no. He said “mind if i double check?” I said yes I mind and to get a warrant. No idea how I had the instincts at 18 to say that but, I was coming across the Vermont border and had something under my seat I knew he shouldn’t find. He mad a comment about me and my friends long hair “what are you a couple of girls?” Just like Easy Rider and left. 30 years later I’m a lawyer and see a lot of this crap....no more Grateful Dead stickers just 2 Grateful Dead license plate frames...these youngster cops today never heard of the Grateful Dead I suspect so no one bothers me. Anyway the lesson is always say NO-whether carrying or not

Originally Posted by RNajarian

Just an FYI, the police may not need a search warrant to search your car in the event they have probable cause.

From the Web (answers.com)

“Police may not need a warrant to search a vehicle according to the mobile conveyance doctrine. A vehicle must be in a public place, readily mobile, and the Officer must have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime is contained with in the vehicle. If all of the above is met, the Officer will not need a warrant to search the vehicle.”

Originally Posted by Tobra

They have a gun and a badge, they can and will do WTF they want, count on it.

They ostensibly are supposed to articulate the rationale for the PC. You can still contest it and request a supervisor.

My assumption ESPECIALLY with a dirtbag like the one in the article, if you refuse the search, then he's likely to make up probably cause and do it anyway. Most cops may not bother.

Interesting, I've been pulled over plenty of times (not as much now that I'm an old guy) when I was younger, and I don't think I ever had my car searched or was even asked.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Um... I'm no lawyer (and I can prove it), but it is my understanding that the extent of a roadside search is what they can see from the outside of the car "in plain sight". If it is under the seat, in the glovebox, even in a bag or container of some kind in plain sight, it's off limits without a warrant. We have what is known as a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that the courts have held very dear. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that even bringing out a police dog now requires a warrant. If it is not visible and perceptible to a human, they have to get a warrant to look for it. Even then, they can only detain you for a "reasonable amount of time", which the courts have ruled is about ten to fifteen minutes, before they have to arrest you or let you go.

Those are of course, your rights, and while it pays to know them, it also pays to know when to stand up for them. Or not. "You have to know when to hold, know when to fold, know when to walk away, know when to run...". A dark lonely road is no place to assert those rights with a power tripping cop. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of videos out there on the web showing just what happens when folks do that.

I think that if they ask you if they can search your car, then they can do whatever. I think if they have "probable cause" then they can also do whatever. I think the situation that you describe is more about "I had pulled him over for speeding and could see a (gun, weed, syringe, etc...) laying in the (ashtray, floorboard, back seat, etc...) through the window, so I then had probably cause to go farther.

But I'm also not a lawyer and could be so far off base that I'm not even on the same ball field.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by asphaltgambler

Ok - maybe I'm the dumb one here but what is his motivation to do so?

Originally Posted by Tobra

That is a mystery to me too

In this particular case, I've got a couple of ideas that are completely out of thin air.

1 "These people are dirtbags. I know they are guilty of something, but I can't prove it legally, so I'll make this up so I can clean up the world."

2 "If I have XX number of good arrests and convictions, it looks great on my resume and I get raises, promotions, bonuses, whatever.

3 All of the above.

[LakeCleElum]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Promotion?

Negative - Doesn't work that way.....

[Bill Douglas]

Whatever. The cop has stopped you to try to get you for something. He hasn't stopped you to be your friend. He's the enemy. Why help him by consenting.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by LakeCleElum

Negative - Doesn't work that way.....

Yes and no.

Every major metro PD that I know of tracks officer stats. If you are a street monster with a ton of drug arrests, it can/will make a difference if/when your file makes it in front of a selection board.
You would have more opportunities within specialty details as well. Of course, it (your stats) will typically only get you a foot in the door...

[Jims5543]

The reason these scumbags do it is to look like heroes.

We had a similar situation here where I live. The Deputy was fired but not thrown in jail a very wealthy local business owner is seeing to it the Deputy is brought to justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/30/he-was-jailed-days-having-heroin-it-was-only-detergent-part-wider-scandal/

The wealthy business owner (I will call him Bill) was detained and hot boxed by a different deputy.

Bill saw a bad accident unfold in front of him on the local interstate. He stopped and started helping people who were injured until EMS showed up.

He was actually doing CPR on one victim. Once relieved by EMS he was overwhelmed with emotion. He decided to take out his phone and snap a couple pics of the accident scene to show his wife.

A deputy who had just arrived saw him with his phone out and yelled at him to stop. He tried to explain what he was doing. The deputy would not listen, things went downhill fast.

Bill ended up in handcuffs and tossed in the back seat of amthe deputy's cruiser. Then the deputy reached up front and shut the car off with the windows up, in July in Florida.

Bill was left to sweat his ass off for 30 minutes in the cruiser before he was released.

Bill is a millionaire, the deputy screwed with the wrong citizen. Bill filed a lawsuit and after 2 years of court battles won. Judgement against the sherriff's office was a couple million. Which he donated to a local citizens rights group. He just wanted to teach the local sherriff's department a lesson.

Now he is crusading to get the cop in that article thrown in jail. Where he belongs.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ramonesfreak]

“You poisoned the wells of criminal justice, and set about it deliberately”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Pilcher

[RWebb]

Jeff - is this the dog case?

https://verdict.justia.com/2013/04/17/the-u-s-supreme-court-declares-warrantless-dog-sniffs-of-private-front-porches-unconstitutional-or-does-it

house, not car - if you have a car case, I'd like to take a look at it

BTW, a motor home is mobile like a car but can be like a house - fun for the legal analysis by the courts

[RWebb]

one more tidbit: Oregon has a statute that specifically requires a cop to tell you why you were stopped and not delay you, etc. - they routinely ignore it (and a city cop here told me their "secret" police manual tells them what to do in a stop, and it violates the state law)

[RWebb]

must be this one:

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/supreme-court-police-drug-sniffing-dogs/

[onevoice]

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/05/man-seeks-millions-after-nm-police-force-colonoscopy-in-drug-search

Be glad you are not this guy. The probable cause was alleged clinched butt cheeks

POLICE FORCED NEW Mexico scrap metal tradesman David Eckert to undergo two digital anal probes, three enema insertions and ultimately a colonoscopy after officers incorrectly assumed he was concealing drugs, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on his behalf.

The apparent justification for the search, Kennedy said, was that police believed Eckert's buttocks were clenched during the traffic stop.

To top it off, the hospital sent him a $6000 bill for the colonoscopy

If they want to search, they will invent a reason

[scott540]

My dad is a retired police chief. He always told us if you
are stopped and they ask to search the car, ask the officer if they think they have a reason to and what it is. Friend and
I got stopped by one of his officers, under age with beer in
the trunk. I said no to the search. Officer said ok. Told my
Dad about , even the beer. He said I did the right thing. Of course
I still got in trouble for the beer

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by onevoice

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/05/man-seeks-millions-after-nm-police-force-colonoscopy-in-drug-search

Be glad you are not this guy. The probable cause was alleged clinched butt cheeks



To top it off, the hospital sent him a $6000 bill for the colonoscopy

If they want to search, they will invent a reason

Every medical procedure I have ever had done, required me to sign a consent form. I would be telling every nurse and doctor I do not consent to anything, and I refuse to cooperate. There had to be a court order to do a colonoscopy, let the judge that signed it, pay the bill, and sue him to boot.