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

Officer in Jackson County FL has been planting drugs during traffic stops for years. Finally got caught last year and got fired, no charges yet. It will cost millions of dollars. I shudder to think how many lives he has destroyed. I hope he dies of old age in prison and is assaulted every day he is there.

Here is a link to an article about the POS LEO in Florida ruining lives for years

Just watched "Righteous Kill" last night with Dinero and Pachino. A little more extreme than planting meth, but in some cops' twisted minds this is how you get trash off the streets.

What a fargin dirtbag.

I'm all for cops, and get grumpy when I see some of the folks that just can't stop their cop bashing and assume that every cop is dirty. But this is horrible. This goes way, way past the line. This guy absolutely deserves to be in jail. Hell, I'm almost thinking, take the sentences that everyone that he arrested that were convicted, add them together, and that's his sentence.

There's absolutely no excuse for that sort of carp.

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

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.”

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.

If the cop wants in the car, 9/10 he will get in the car. Yes, he needs a reason, and has plenty of ways to get that reason.

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.

That's interesting; I didn't know the rules about calling out the dog. I thought they would let you sit there for as long as they please while they wait for the dog.

"Mind if I look in your car?"
"Mind if I see your warrant first?"
That is the only right answer.

He may insist and you my not have a choice because... guns, but it violates the 4th amendment unless he can prove probable cause. Judges can get pretty prickly about this. If he searches without your permission and plants evidence he is taking a big risk for a case he is unlikely to win and putting his badge on the line.

Yeah, that ruling on the dogs was long overdue. In the plethora of "bad cop" videos on the interwebs, there is no shortage of dog handlers using various tricks to get the dog to false indicate. When they do, boom - grounds for a warrant. One of the most abused techniques in law enforcement. Thank God the Court recognized that and shut them down. Now they need a warrant explicitly stating just what the dog is searching for before they can even bring him out.

It gets complicated for example cop sees Chong or Cheech driving down the road smoke billowing out and pulls him over, confirms smoke smells like grass, has PC to look inside...looks in trunk, pulls up carpet and finds a pound of coke in the spare tire.....there a lot of nuance to this stuff. Whether you go to jail depends on what the PC was, the extent of the search and what was ultimately found and what you were charged with. Fruit of the poisonous tree as they say.

But yea the bad cops will find a way to get in and find what they want. Never give them a reason to stop you even if your abiding by the law 100%

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

That is a mystery to me too

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.

True but it depends what the PC is for, and other factors. Here’s a typical law school exam type question:

What if someone mistakes your identity with someone they thought just committed a crime with a gun and your car matches the description. You get pulled over and they find an unregistered and stolen handgun in the smugglers box that your work buddy gave you in return for helping him install some brake pads. Meanwhile, the guy who committed the crime earlier in the day gets caught and confesses. Are you in trouble for the gun found in your frunk? What if they had found your stash of bald eagle feathers?

What if you actually are the guy who committed the crime and they find the gun on the passenger seat but Look in the frunk and see blood stains on the carpet which leads to you being connected to a body found in the woods a year earlier

This stuff is very fact specific and there are exceptions to the 4th amendment. The case law on this stuff is voluminous

Btw, I’m not looking for you to answer that. Just showing how this stuff gets complicated fast sometimes

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

The motivation of the cop in the news article? Probably to make himself look like a great cop for promotional reasons. Thats my guess.

Why do expert witness lie at trial? Same reason....fame and recognition

Anyone see The Staircase on Netflix?

Promotion?

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.

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

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.

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.

They invent probable cause.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rJqq6KCOkdM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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

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

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

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)

must be this one:

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

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:rolleyes:

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

If they want to search, they will invent a reason

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

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.