Reason # 568 not that trust the government

[Drew]

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/07/fabricated-probable-cause-just-fine-for.html


Speaking of informants, on the Texas prosecutors' user forum a self-identified DEA agent named Bill sought to justify a traffic stop where drugs were found using probable cause agents had overtly fabricated. They didn't want to admit in court they were acting an a possibly unreliable informant, so took the liberty of manufacturing probable cause for a traffic stop by stealing the front license plate from the car the suspect was driving. Here's his story:

[Drew]

Yeah it's way tooo late/early but the title should read "not TO trust"

[TheEschaton]

Nonono, this is a reason not to trust TEXANS.

[Clove]

Especially if you're transporting illegal drugs.

[Gan]

Bite me...


Sincerely,

A Texan.

[TheEschaton]

Only if we establish a safe word first.

How about Dittany?

[Latrinsorm]

I've never really gotten this sort of conservative reaction. If the guy (or gal, as the case may be) was being charged with driving without a license plate, that I would agree is probably inappropriate. The guy was driving around with illegal drugs in plain view on his own free will. How is this any worse than an undercover cop saying "arrest the guy with the black beret" after said guy with atrocious headwear engages in some sort of illegal activity?

[Artha]

The government already gets to set the rules, it should at least have to play by them.

[Latrinsorm]

Which rule(s) does this break that an undercover cop selling coke doesn't?

[Gelston]

As far as I'm concerned they got drugs off the street. If the cops want to stop me for no reason but to look for drugs and stuff, go ahead. I have nothing to hide.

[TheEschaton]

UCs get a special dispensation (to use language you would understand) to do what they do.

Namely, it's not murder if it's justified. Like all illegal acts, sometimes there is a justification for it.

However, I'm pretty sure there's quite a few 4th Amendment issues with creating PC. But for the action of the cops, there'd be no PC to pull the guy over.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

As far as I'm concerned they got drugs off the street. If the cops want to stop me for no reason but to look for drugs and stuff, go ahead. I have nothing to hide.

I'm glad to see the Army brainwashing program is still in full effect.

I have nothing illegal in my car. However, I'd be right pissed if a cop broke one of my headlights, so he could pull me over for only having one headlight working, so he could search my car for drugs.

the best part of this article is how the law enforcement agent is questioning the AUSA's knowledge of the law. You cannot manufacture PC any more than you can plant evidence. Like someone said in the comments, I believe, the seized dope is "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which is basically a legal analogy which says if the first act which directly leads to all the outcomes, is wrong/illegal/violative of rights, then those outcomes are also illegal, and not to be held against a defendant in a court of law. Even the most conservative of Supreme Courts (IE, this one) has upheld that.


-TheE-

[Gelston]

Marine Corps brainwashing program.

[Gelston]

And perhaps it does go from my military background, where our stuff is subject to search with very little reason at just about anytime. I guess I'm just used to it.

[Latrinsorm]

I have nothing illegal in my car. However, I'd be right pissed if a cop broke one of my headlights, so he could pull me over for only having one headlight working, so he could search my car for drugs.

the best part of this article is how the law enforcement agent is questioning the AUSA's knowledge of the law. You cannot manufacture PC any more than you can plant evidence. Like someone said in the comments, I believe, the seized dope is "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which is basically a legal analogy which says if the first act which directly leads to all the outcomes, is wrong/illegal/violative of rights, then those outcomes are also illegal, and not to be held against a defendant in a court of law. Even the most conservative of Supreme Courts (IE, this one) has upheld that.Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

[Sean]

While I'll admit to not knowing the fine points of how UC work or the legal technicalities I'd assume that you have to choose to engage in an activity with a UC they don't force you into being in violation of the law whereas a police officer removing your plates to puts you in direct violation of the law. Granted in former the individual would still end up violating the law if they engaged someone thats not a cop and got their drugs, or assassin, or whatever. I'd still argue it isn't the same thing.

[Warriorbird]

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

Or farming out torture or secret prisons or revealing the names of undercover agents whose husbands say things the administration disagrees with?

One likes to think the government plays by the rules. It isn't really true. Some instances just offend some people more than others.

[Trinitis]

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

I'd say its very different. A sting operation has rules and guidelines they must follow. This story is a law enforcement official(s) who is breaking all views of personal boundaries by not only messing with your personal belongings, but STEALING them off your car.

Now, I guess one could argue that the plates are state property, and I'm not fully sure if that is true or not, but any person caught removing the plates off someone car without permission would be arrested.

[Skirmisher]

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

It would be like removing the inspection sticker on my fire extinguishers and then citing me for not having had them inspected.

As irksome as it may be, those empowered to enforce the law also do have to follow it.

Or the whole system breaks down and its the wild west with whomever has the most guns is "right".

[Latrinsorm]

As far as I could tell, he's not being charged with not having plates; that would obviously be inappropriate. The discussion is over whether this is an acceptable means of producing probable cause.

The reason I don't follow Sean's argument is that from what I could tell of the scenario, the driver is provided with the car (which also refutes Trinitis' points). The car already has illegal drugs of some kind in it in plain view, so he must know he's getting involved in illegal activities. That the license plate was removed is no different than there being drugs in the car; they were both engineered by police or those under influence of the police.

[TheEschaton]

Except he made a choice to drive the car knowing it had drugs in it, he didn't make a choice to drive an illegal car. It's the classic definition of police coercion.

-TheE-

[Trinitis]

Hrm. That changes the idea for me. I had thought they removed the plates from said person car so they COULD pull him over, not knowing they provided said person the car. In that case, dude is a moron and got nailed.

If you're gonna be transporting something via car that you know could get you in deep shit, the first thing you should do is make sure *everything* on the car is cool. Plates, lights, tires, tabs, etc.

Next time I'll read the story, insted of parts of it from peoples responces.

[TheEschaton]

It doesn't matter. It's based on his reasonable belief. His reasonable belief was that the UC was a drug dealer, and would have no reason to take the license plate off the car.

If a cop provided him with a car, and he didn't bother checking it, well, then, yeah, it's unreasonable for him not to expect it to be tampered with.

Edited to add:
An informant gets called to run a load of dope. Fine. He provides the load vehicle, which is driven away to the stash house by a criminal load driver. Prior to the load driver picking up the car, law enforcement removes the front plate, on purpose, so that marked patrol units, working with narcotics task force, will have PC to stop the car.

It was the informant's car, and was driven by the criminal driver. The informant, being an ACTUAL drug dealer (not a UC, the UC comes in later), reinforces the driver's reasonable belief the car was fine.

-TheE-

[Clove]

...Like someone said in the comments, I believe, the seized dope is "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which is basically a legal analogy which says if the first act which directly leads to all the outcomes, is wrong/illegal/violative of rights, then those outcomes are also illegal, and not to be held against a defendant in a court of law. Even the most conservative of Supreme Courts (IE, this one) has upheld that.


-TheE-

Yeah, you shouldn't bother framing a guilty man. If arresting agents were willing to steal a license plate to create probable cause to pull a vehicle over, who is to say they wouldn't also plant drugs etc. etc. etc.? Not that I think this is the case here but that is one of the problems that arise if law enforcement doesn't operate legitimately.

[Sean of the Thread]

Police make up probable cause in traffic stops allll the time.

[Clove]

Police make up probable cause in traffic stops allll the time.

Sure and if your lawyer can prove they did, you win :D.

[Sean of the Thread]

Good luck proving it. Thus why they do it alll the time.

[Latrinsorm]

His reasonable belief was that the UC was a drug dealer, and would have no reason to take the license plate off the car.
Because if you can't trust drug dealers, who can you trust?

Since when is it reasonable to believe that someone else's car has nothing wrong with it? How would Carfax exist if that was the case?

[Clove]

Because if you can't trust drug dealers, who can you trust?

Since when is it reasonable to believe that someone else's car has nothing wrong with it? How would Carfax exist if that was the case?

I believe that's called splitting hairs.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, it's almost like we're having a discussion about fine-print legal issues.

[Celephais]

Yeah, it's almost like we're having a discussion about fine-print legal issues.

Hehehehe... pwnt.

[Artha]

Because if you can't trust drug dealers, who can you trust?
Think what you will, there's a ton of trust involved in the black market. Especially for the hard drugs, where you can't easily tell what exactly they're made of. And as always, there's always a great deal of trust between both parties that neither is involved with the police.

[Latrinsorm]

The question isn't what they do believe, the question is whether it's reasonable. Can anyone here seriously say that they would trust drug dealers or (unreformed) criminals in general with his or her personal future as relates to criminal liability?

[TheEschaton]

It is wholly unreasonable that a drug dealer, who is much more invested in the product you're carrying than you are, is sure the car he's providing you is street legal.

Think about it. I'm a dealer asking you to courier a kilo of coke. Who's more invested in making sure the coke gets there? The driver, who'll be paid a flat fee of a coupla hundred bucks, or the dealer who's making tens of thousands of dollars?

Therefore, it was completely reasonable for the courier to expect the drug dealer give him a car that was street legal.

The standard is "reasonable for a person in a same or similar circumstance", not "reasonable for a person in society in general". So, you have to think to yourself: what would a reasonable drug courier in the same circumstance of being provided a car by a drug dealer to ferry around his drugs think?

and you obviously know nothing about crime. It's called "Honor amongst thieves". It may not seem reasonable to you as a law-abiding citizen, but for criminal enterprises to work, like all enterprises, there has to be trust.

-theE-

[Latrinsorm]

Therefore, it was completely reasonable for the courier to expect the drug dealer give him a car that was street legal.This is false, as will be demonstrated soon:
and you obviously know nothing about crime. It's called "Honor amongst thieves".For a guy who works in the office where law guys make deals with crime guys every dang day, you seem to be the one who is misinformed. Crime guys turn all the time. To not be suspicious of this when I'm a hypothetical drug courier isn't just unreasonable, it's grossly ignorant. Even drug couriers watch Law and Order, come on man.

[TheEschaton]

I think you will find out that drug couriers are the dumbest people alive. They have to be, for not becoming drug dealers themselves when people GIVE them kilos to transport around.

As for guys flipping, it happens a lot less than you would think. There's only one unit (the homicide investigations unit) which regularly uses cooperating witnesses, and that's when they have guys killing guys on tape as hitmen for a druglord, and they wanna take the druglord down.

Hell, in the office, we apparently have trouble all the time prosecuting assaults, when the victim is in the drug game. IE, one drug dealer shoots the second, the second doesn't want to testify against the first guy, even if we've found an 8 ball and a glock strapped to his back.

This isn't Nam, man, there are rules.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

+50 dkp for Lebowski reference.

[Clove]

This is false, as will be demonstrated soon:For a guy who works in the office where law guys make deals with crime guys every dang day, you seem to be the one who is misinformed. Crime guys turn all the time. To not be suspicious of this when I'm a hypothetical drug courier isn't just unreasonable, it's grossly ignorant. Even drug couriers watch Law and Order, come on man.

Law and fucking Order?!

[Latrinsorm]

As for guys flipping, it happens a lot less than you would think.It must happen at least sometimes; otherwise this thread would have required a different genesis.
Law and fucking Order?!dun DUN (dun dun dun dunnn dunnnnnnnnnnn) dun DUN &c.