RateMyCop.com

[Lord Nelek]

Best website ever.

My horror story:
I was coming home from work one day, following a cop, when he pulled into the left turn lane. I went into the right turn lane, and then he all of a sudden changed lanes to be behind me. I turned the corner, continued on my way home and when I got to the next light, he pulled up beside me and scolded me for following too closely.

I had a passenger with me, and we were both like WTF. The cops eyes were bloodshot red, and he looked extremely pissed off. He was so unprofessional, I just wish I had his name.

So, here's my vote for the coolest new website.

[Daniel]

Lol. Cry me a river.

[Latrinsorm]

Your "horror" story is being SCOLDED?

[Lord Nelek]

Call it an annoyance then. Who cares?

[Lord Nelek]

I was more freaked out by the cops bloodshot eyes and the fact that he seemed pissed off beyond belief.

[TheEschaton]

My horror story involves me being pulled over for going exactly 7 miles over the speed limit (this is actually the mph the cop quoted to me, lol), asked if I could have my car searched, forced out of my car (not physically, but I was threatened with arrest) to search my car for drugs when I said no, a search I loudly proclaimed was A) unwarranted, B) unconsented to, and C) illegal. There were of course, no drugs in the car, so the cop asked why I would give him lip about him not searching my car, at which point I informed him it was my Constitutional right, as per the Fourth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable searches. That remark got me a pat down. When there were no weapons or drugs on me, he then proceeded to ask if I was drunk, even though it was the middle of the day on a Wednesday, and then made me perform a bunch of sobriety tests. After I passed all of those, he let me go with a "verbal warning" for speeding.

I wish I had taken down his badge number and name, but I was so incensed I didn't think to get it. I went to complain and the cops were like, "Do you have his name and badge number?" and I totally blanked.

The best part - this happened in the town I lived in, which the cop knew from looking at my license.

Fun times in Buffalo. :)

-TheE-

[Crazy Bard]

You should have told him to shut the hell up. Then, he probably would have done something stupid, and you could sue him.

[Daniel]

When I was sixteen years old I was helping my mother move some things from our apartment to her office for an office party. Namely, a card table and some other assorted things like cases of pop etc.

At the time my mom lived in Hyde Park (I didn't live with her), the area of the University of Chicago which is literally a bastion of whiteness in what is otherwise in all minority south side of Chicago.

On one trip, while I was bringing out the card table I was stopped by the police and questioned. At gun point I was told that I was walking with "goods" in the middle of the day on a crowded street. So, as I sat on the curb, handcuffed, trying to explain that I was OUTSIDE OF MY MOTHER'S HOUSE and helping her move her things the police ran my record through their system...to no avail. Instead, I was repeatedly threatened with arrest for not only theft, but disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and obstruction.

It wasn't until about 15 minutes later when my mother (a white woman) came out to find out where I was that I was actually allowed to tell my side of the story.

I.e. I was putting my own shit into my own car.

So yea. Cry me a river.

[TheEschaton]

BUT DANIEL, THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ISN'T RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[radamanthys]

If it weren't for the wacky amount of cops needed to combat drug (non)crime, the police wouldn't have to keep shitty cops in order to keep crime rates down... or have an excuse to fuck with people.

[Jorddyn]

BUT DANIEL, THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ISN'T RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Obviously, if you didn't insist on being brown, you wouldn't have these problems.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, well, that *is* my choice. ;)

[Gan]

My horror story involves me being pulled over for going exactly 7 miles over the speed limit (this is actually the mph the cop quoted to me, lol), asked if I could have my car searched, forced out of my car (not physically, but I was threatened with arrest) to search my car for drugs when I said no, a search I loudly proclaimed was A) unwarranted, B) unconsented to, and C) illegal. There were of course, no drugs in the car, so the cop asked why I would give him lip about him not searching my car, at which point I informed him it was my Constitutional right, as per the Fourth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable searches. That remark got me a pat down. When there were no weapons or drugs on me, he then proceeded to ask if I was drunk, even though it was the middle of the day on a Wednesday, and then made me perform a bunch of sobriety tests. After I passed all of those, he let me go with a "verbal warning" for speeding.

I wish I had taken down his badge number and name, but I was so incensed I didn't think to get it. I went to complain and the cops were like, "Do you have his name and badge number?" and I totally blanked.

The best part - this happened in the town I lived in, which the cop knew from looking at my license.

Fun times in Buffalo. :)

-TheE-

That cop was fucking weak. I would have given you a ticket for speeding then made you pick up all your shit that was thrown out of your car after searching it.

Next time, dont break the law... or quit bitching.

[Bobmuhthol]

?????

[Gan]

When I was sixteen years old I was helping my mother move some things from our apartment to her office for an office party. Namely, a card table and some other assorted things like cases of pop etc.

At the time my mom lived in Hyde Park (I didn't live with her), the area of the University of Chicago which is literally a bastion of whiteness in what is otherwise in all minority south side of Chicago.

On one trip, while I was bringing out the card table I was stopped by the police and questioned. At gun point I was told that I was walking with "goods" in the middle of the day on a crowded street. So, as I sat on the curb, handcuffed, trying to explain that I was OUTSIDE OF MY MOTHER'S HOUSE and helping her move her things the police ran my record through their system...to no avail. Instead, I was repeatedly threatened with arrest for not only theft, but disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and obstruction.

It wasn't until about 15 minutes later when my mother (a white woman) came out to find out where I was that I was actually allowed to tell my side of the story.

I.e. I was putting my own shit into my own car.

So yea. Cry me a river.

After hearing some of the stories about Chicago PD - that doesnt suprise me at all. You guys had some fucked up five-oh there. Gangland or not. And over a cheap ass card table. LOL - thats really fucked up.

[TheEschaton]

7 mph over the speed limit? As someone who's worked for prosecutors, I can tell you that anyone getting a speeding ticket for less than 10 mph over the limit is not only unheard of, but nonexistent. He was trying to nail me on something else. And if he did, he would have testified that I was going 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and, if I had a competent defense attorney, he would have pegged it as closer to 10. And everyone would believe the cop, because even if I was stupid enough to take the stand in my own defense (almost always a no-no), I'm being charged with some other shadiness like drugs or something, and no one's gonna believe I was going less than 10 mph over the limit.

Unless, of course, you want to regale us with all your stories of <10 mph over the limit speeding tickets you've gotten. :)

-TheE-

[Gan]

7 mph over the speed limit? As someone who's worked for prosecutors, I can tell you that anyone getting a speeding ticket for less than 10 mph over the limit is not only unheard of, but nonexistent. He was trying to nail me on something else. And if he did, he would have testified that I was going 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and, if I had a competent defense attorney, he would have pegged it as closer to 10. And everyone would believe the cop, because even if I was stupid enough to take the stand in my own defense (almost always a no-no), I'm being charged with some other shadiness like drugs or something, and no one's gonna believe I was going less than 10 mph over the limit.

Unless, of course, you want to regale us with all your stories of <10 mph over the limit speeding tickets you've gotten. :)

-TheE-

I've had 2 speeding tickets for <10.

One for 8 and one for 4.

Judge let me go for the 4, but tagged me for no plate in front. I took defensive driving for the 8.

Thanks for playing though.

Speeding is speeding. You speed, you open yourself up for all kinds of grief. Jawing at the officer when he pulls you over is just asking for more.

[Gan]

?????

]]]]]]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I would have given you a ticket for speeding then made you pick up all your shit that was thrown out of your car after searching it.>>

As was pointed out by TheE, searching the car was illegal.

[Hulkein]

Next time, dont break the law... or quit bitching.

Come on cuz. Anyone who gets pulled over for doing 7 mph over the speed limit can bitch.

[Gan]

<<I would have given you a ticket for speeding then made you pick up all your shit that was thrown out of your car after searching it.>>

As was pointed out by TheE, searching the car was illegal.

Probable cause.

TheE would have a leg to stand on if he had not been pulled over for speeding.

[Gan]

Come on cuz. Anyone who gets pulled over for doing 7 mph over the speed limit can bitch.

Everyone has the right to bitch, no matter how aggregious the charge/crime is. Doesnt make it right or justified. TheE will understand this more as he starts his career as a prosecutor.

[JohnDoe]

I've had 2 speeding tickets for <10.

One for 8 and one for 4.

Judge let me go for the 4, but tagged me for no plate in front. I took defensive driving for the 8.

Thanks for playing though.

Speeding is speeding. You speed, you open yourself up for all kinds of grief. Jawing at the officer when he pulls you over is just asking for more.

Your posts make me laugh. I've gotten tickets for speeding that was under 10mph over the speed limit too. That said, I assume you were also asked to exit your vehicle, had your vehicle searched, performed sobriety tests, and were patted down? Did any one of those things happen? Never happened to me when I got pulled over for any amount of speeding.

[The Ponzzz]

I got pulled over for doing 4 over. I was even cruise controlling 4 over. I didn't get a ticket, but the cop made several comments of things hanging off my rear view mirror and the type of music I had on (it was very low, stupid me didn't turn it off)...

But that's not my worst cop experience. I'd have to think of which one was worse...

[Gan]

Your posts make me laugh. I've gotten tickets for speeding that was under 10mph over the speed limit too. That said, I assume you were also asked to exit your vehicle, had your vehicle searched, performed sobriety tests, and were patted down? Did any one of those things happen? Never happened to me when I got pulled over for any amount of speeding.

Both times I was asked to exit the vehicle. But unlike TheE, I kept my mouth shut and avoided being pat searched.

Jawing at a police officer is usually the first indication that the person is under the influence of a substance that alters behavior. Which is enough to warrant a probable cause search and other fun things, much like TheE described.

And I'm glad I could help you find a little humor in your reading endeavors.

[JohnDoe]

While I generally don't agree with much of what ThE posts, I don't consider him refusing a search of his vehicle and stating his rights as "jawing at a police officer". In my experience, letting the police know that you know your rights is a good idea and IMO isn't rude. I've been pulled over quite a few times and had a few run ins with the police when I was younger and there are quite a few policemen out there that'll scare you into relinquishing your rights. Stating them upfront, before the BS starts, helps avoid that type of shit.

Edited to add, I laugh at your "thanks for playing" type comments and smilies you add to your posts when you condescend to people. So keep em coming, I do enjoy them.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Jawing at a police officer is usually the first indication that the person is under the influence of a substance that alters behavior. Which is enough to warrant a probable cause search and other fun things, much like TheE described.>>

Except, according to the story of the person who made the original post as opposed to your interpretation of it, any "jawing" that was made was after the cop asked to search the vehicle (fuck your probable cause, 99% of people who speed are not doing it because they're avoiding police or committing a separate crime) and TheE refused. Invoking your Fourth Amendment rights is as protected as the rights themselves; you can't use it against someone that they were defending their constitutional protection from search and seizure.

[Hulkein]

Probable cause.


PC of what? Going 7 mph over the limit isn't PC of anything other than speeding. Throw in some swerving or an odor of alcohol/weed and you might have the reasonable suspicion needed to look around the car, but it doesn't sound like it from what TheE said.

[Gan]

While I generally don't agree with much of what ThE posts, I don't consider him refusing a search of his vehicle and stating his rights as "jawing at a police officer". In my experience, letting the police know that you know your rights is a good idea and IMO isn't rude. I've been pulled over quite a few times and had a few run ins with the police when I was younger and there are quite a few policemen out there that'll scare you into relinquishing your rights. Stating them upfront, before the BS starts, helps avoid that type of shit.


I might could get away with 'jawing' at one now, being that I'm older. However, the one time I did attempt to inform the officer what his parameters were resulted in me being cuffed and stuffed in the back of the cruiser while my blazer was left for my friend to drive home. Being 17 and spending the evening down at the local pokey in a small town while your parents are called was NOT on my list of fun things to do as a teenager. Wearing a set of cuffs for about 3 hours is a very humbling experience for someone who later would apply them to others on a regular basis.

Bottom line, lesson learned. This peckerwood is gonna mind.

[Gan]

<<Jawing at a police officer is usually the first indication that the person is under the influence of a substance that alters behavior. Which is enough to warrant a probable cause search and other fun things, much like TheE described.>>

Except, according to the story of the person who made the original post as opposed to your interpretation of it, any "jawing" that was made was after the cop asked to search the vehicle (fuck your probable cause, 99% of people who speed are not doing it because they're avoiding police or committing a separate crime) and TheE refused. Invoking your Fourth Amendment rights is as protected as the rights themselves; you can't use it against someone that they were defending their constitutional protection from search and seizure.


Rant all you want. An officer citing probable cause will win over your invoking of 4th amendment rights 9 times out of 10 when the original stop was for breaking a law, even if it is a misdemeanor. This is where your limited experience isnt doing you any justice (ironic).

[Hulkein]

That being said, I do agree with you Gan. I personally wouldn't say shit to a cop because they can 1) make things up to justify however they want to fuck you over, and 2) you don't need to tell them your rights to get the evidence thrown out if you are eventually charged with anything.

[Gan]

PC of what? Going 7 mph over the limit isn't PC of anything other than speeding. Throw in some swerving or an odor of alcohol/weed and you might have the reasonable suspicion needed to look around the car, but it doesn't sound like it from what TheE said.

Speeding is the open door to the officer observing the surroundings and behavior of the driver. If you wont take my word for it, ask another peace officer.

Probable cause is whatever the officer can justifiably log on the report should it go that far.

Right or wrong, its a loophole that police officers do use.

[JohnDoe]

That being said, I do agree with you Gan. I personally wouldn't say shit to a cop because they can 1) make things up to justify however they want to fuck you over, and 2) you don't need to tell them your rights to get the evidence thrown out if you are eventually charged with anything.
I'll agree that less is more, but if a cop asks you why you won't let him search your car or why you won't give up any other of your rights, the type of answer TheE gave is right on.

IMO politeness is key (yes sir, no sir, thank you, etc.). But I also think you should say the bare minimum to these guys, refuse all searches, sobriety field exams (I'd have refused that TheE), etc. The more information you give, the more shit can be used against you.

Edited to ask, Gan are you a police officer?

[Hulkein]

Speeding is the open door to the officer observing the surroundings and behavior of the driver. If you wont take my word for it, ask another peace officer.

Yeah, that's true, but according to E his car was searched before any sobriety tests. You could make an argument to get a search of the car if it went:

Speeding --> Smell of marijuna which creates PC to --> Search the car

No cop should search a car because the driver was going 7 mph over the limit but displayed zero signs of any other criminal behavior.

[Gan]

Edited to ask, Gan are you a police officer?

Ex officer.

Full time for the state prison system and a reserve sherrif's deputy (part time).

Thought about going full time for HPD but decided I wanted a college degree and a job outside of law enforcement instead. Too many family members who are cops and that shit can take over your (their) life.

[Gan]

Yeah, that's true, but according to E his car was searched before any sobriety tests. You could make an argument to get a search of the car if it went:

Speeding --> Smell of marijuna which creates PC to --> Search the car

No cop should search a car because the driver was going 7 mph over the limit but displayed zero signs of any other criminal behavior.


The order in which things transpired is only relevant if this was ever taken to trial.

I can only think of a handful of people who would go through the expense and risk just to prove a point to a single traffic officer or a department.

[Hulkein]

I'm not debating that it's only relevant at trial, I'm debating whether or not the cop was being an asshole or a racist and doing stuff he shouldn't legally have done.

[Gan]

Keep in mind my experience is predicated in Texas law enforcement. Not New York law enforcement where TheE's example is concerned. In case we start resorting to nit picking the specifics for the lack of arguing the principals.

[Gan]

I'm not debating that it's only relevant at trial, I'm debating whether or not the cop was being an asshole or a racist and doing stuff he shouldn't legally have done.

And I'm arguing what really can happen, and usually does.

[Skeeter]

I had a military cop pull a gun on me because I ran through a stop bar. (not a stop sign mind you, a stop bar. White fucking line painted on the ground)

that wasn't even my worst cop experience.

[Back]

LA cops are the worst. My friends and I were routinely harassed and we were white middle class teenage kids. I can only imagine what was happening Downtown or in East LA.

[Latrinsorm]

And I'm arguing what really can happen, and usually does.So police shouldn't be limited by the law they claim to enforce? They should, and I quote, "have given [Eschaton] a ticket for speeding then made [him] pick up all [his] shit that was thrown out of [his] car after [illegally] searching it."?

[Gan]

So police shouldn't be limited by the law they claim to enforce? They should, and I quote, "have given [Eschaton] a ticket for speeding then made [him] pick up all [his] shit that was thrown out of [his] car after [illegally] searching it."?

Again. Probable cause overruling the [illegal] search.

The burden of proof is on the victim to demonstrate the officer did not have probable cause to perform the search. Right or wrong, most complaints of illegal searches are swatted down by judges who side with the officer who demonstrates he had probable cause to search the vehicle. Providing it even goes that far. And in cases where the complaint makes it to trial, its usually accompanied by other charges such as posession. Which is hard to refute probable cause when illegal substances or items were actually found. Every now and then you'll see a complaint actually upheld because the cop was either a totall ass or a complete idiot, or both. But for the most part, most cases where the defense lawyer is attempting to get evidence obtained in an [illegal] search thrown out by questioning the probable cause reason to search is usualy overruled.

Right or wrong, thats how it usually goes down.

You never know, maybe this experience for TheE will be a great reminder for him to make sure that all evidence seized in a search involving probable cause can stand up to questioning as he begins work for the DA's office.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If some kid started spouting off about rights after being pulled over for breaking the law, I'd probably do the same thing the officer did. Definitely seems like PC to me.

[DeV]

Cop catches attitude because you actually know your rights as a motorist. Classic. Illegal search cancels out speeding ticket.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Cop catches attitude because you actually know your rights as a motorist. Classic. Illegal search cancels out speeding ticket.

Wannabe lawyer threatens to sue. Classic.

[DeV]

The word sue was mentioned twice in this thread and it didn't originate from TheE either time, so I'm unsure of exactly what point or comparison you're trying to make.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The word sue was mentioned twice in this thread and it didn't originate from TheE either time, so I'm unsure of exactly what point or comparison you're trying to make.

What recourse would a wannabe lawyer take to get out of the speeding ticket? Gee, that shit doesn't just happen you know.

[Daniel]

You do realize that there are proceedings in a court of law that don't involve suing? You also realize that there are measures that can be taken outside of resorting to a court of law?

I mean..what do I know. I'm an angry black man.
Amiright?

[Skeeter]

You just need a hug.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<If some kid started spouting off about rights after being pulled over for breaking the law, I'd probably do the same thing the officer did.>>

Are you going to say that when you get pulled over for speeding and the cop arrests you, takes your license, drives you to your house, and proceeds to search your home while you're still under arrest? You wouldn't say something like, "Woah, what you're doing is super mega illegal," but instead you'd think, "Cop just doing his job!!"

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm an angry black man.
Amiright?

Yep.

[Keller]

You do realize that there are proceedings in a court of law that don't involve suing? You also realize that there are measures that can be taken outside of resorting to a court of law?

I mean..what do I know. I'm an angry black man.
Amiright?


Remember his bitch-fest about those uppity New York lawyers and how they were "suing" their neighbor because her smoke was entering their property?

Remember how when I asked, repeatedly, what remedy the uppity NY lawyers would receive he had no clue?

That shit cracked me up. There is nothing better than laughing at ignorant ravenous idiots.

[Clove]

When I was sixteen years old...


BUT DANIEL, THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ISN'T RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Okay Daniel I'm gonna give you a personal story with details so break out the astroglide.

My worst police experience (don't worry Daniel, it's not as bad as yours):

When I was 18 I was a bit of headbanger and had long hair (about halfway to my waist). I also used to work in the food court of our local mall week days until close which meant I got out between 10-11pm. Since I didn't have a car I usually walked, or took the bus to work, and then walked home after work.

The mall was about 3 miles from my house on a state highway, so for the first mile or so I had to walk along it until I hit the town roads. Nothing illegal about it, but not common pedestrian activity either EXCEPT that I was always walking from the mall on the same nights at about the same hour and (given the uniform I still had on) it didn't take a genius in law enforcement to figure out what I was up to (i.e. walking home from my mall job).

That didn't stop the local town police from cruising up to me once or twice a month and demanding my ID while they shined a flashlight in my face and interviewed me and even handcuffed me the first time while they called my information in. I had that job for six months and the cops messed with me regularly. After the first few times, I got mouthy (although I always cooperated) and complained that they knew who I was and what I was doing because they stopped me every month. I generally got some lame excuse like "we had a report of an assault in the area", yeah, I'll bet. A lot of muggings happen on the state highway nowhere near open businesses or residences. Prime area.

Cops are cops, I'm sure there's racism amongst them- but they also just like fucking with people.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Remember his bitch-fest about those uppity New York lawyers and how they were "suing" their neighbor because her smoke was entering their property?

Remember how when I asked, repeatedly, what remedy the uppity NY lawyers would receive he had no clue?

That shit cracked me up. There is nothing better than laughing at ignorant ravenous idiots.

Remember when I answered you and it was exactly what I was talking about?

That shit cracked me up too.

[DeV]

What recourse would a wannabe lawyer take to get out of the speeding ticket? Gee, that shit doesn't just happen you know.Receive a court date and pray the cop doesn't show is way more the norm than what you're suggesting. In any case, his qualm wasn't regarding the speeding ticket, it was the illegal search. He also didn't mention suing anyone, but he did mention going to the station to field a complaint against the officer. Again, no mention of suing.

[Stanley Burrell]

I rate the cops here as being awesome as I just did 70-75 back and forth on Whitney and no one pulled me over.

Although, I learned how to drive in The City, so I know how to not drive like I'm in Connecticut and how to not get tickets, subsequently. Which is an added bonus for driving comprehension but a negative bonus of not wanting to plow into that chick, not signaling, coming out of a stop-signed driveway, peeling 43, making a left.

South Floridians drive better than native Connecticut suburbanites. I think I might petition Town Hall to enforce maximum incarceration for failure to use turn signals.

My younger sibling failed the NYC road test three times, but was given a license after the three-point-turn, hand-over-hand technique and parallel parking on the left got replaced with backing up into an empty spot, for fuck's sake.

Connecticut sucks ANUS. It's part of The South.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<My younger sibling failed the NYC road test three times, but was given a license after the three-point-turn, hand-over-hand technique and parallel parking on the left got replaced with backing up into an empty spot, for fuck's sake.>>

Yeah, license tests in cities are fucking ridiculous compared to suburbs. Same thing, I had to do a bunch of crazy shit on city streets, drive on the most dangerous road in the state, parallel park, etc., the people who go to the other RMV have to do a three point turn and back up in a straight line. 45 minutes vs. 5 minutes.

[Daniel]

Yep.

Well, at least I'm not a raging vagina ;)

[Daniel]

Cops are cops, I'm sure there's racism amongst them- but they also just like fucking with people.

I never claimed otherwise. Did I?

The problem is that police like to fuck with people who A) look like they might be up to something and B) may not have the recourse to do anything about it.

I'll let you figure out who that ends up affecting the most.

[Daniel]

You just need a hug.

Awww thx man.

<huggies>

[Stanley Burrell]

<<My younger sibling failed the NYC road test three times, but was given a license after the three-point-turn, hand-over-hand technique and parallel parking on the left got replaced with backing up into an empty spot, for fuck's sake.>>

Yeah, license tests in cities are fucking ridiculous compared to suburbs. Same thing, I had to do a bunch of crazy shit on city streets, drive on the most dangerous road in the state, parallel park, etc., the people who go to the other RMV have to do a three point turn and back up in a straight line. 45 minutes vs. 5 minutes.

What is even worse is that people actually do DUI in the 'burbs. It's loco, esse.

Holy fuck-me-in-the-gonads; when I'm an officer of the LAW AND YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORAHTEHH, I will be pulling over soccer moms left and right for crossing over non-dotted white lane dividers. Goddamn feminist "we can do anything men can and cannot" mentality being applied to driving (besides trucker lesbians, obviously.)

PISS. PISS OUT MY ASS.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Well, at least I'm not a raging vagina ;)

No, I'd say that applies to you also.

[Clove]

I never claimed otherwise. Did I?

I never claimed you claimed otherwise either. Glad we cleared that up.



The problem is that police like to fuck with people who A) look like they might be up to something and B) may not have the recourse to do anything about it.

I'll let you figure out who that ends up affecting the most.

Thanks! I'll take young adults, women and minorities that don't appear to have means Alex.


James Edwards: Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some shit, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.

"Men in Black"

[Gan]

All cops are bad until you need one around. ;)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yeah, heaven forbid you break the law and one comes and enforces it.

[BigWorm]

With behavior by cops like the type described here, is it any wonder why many people don't trust the police? I think it takes a certain type of person to become a police officer and a lot of those types of people are in it for the sense of power. Definitely not all cops, but many more than should really be. It's kind of like politicians; most people who WANT to be one, probably don't deserve to be one.

[Daniel]

No, I'd say that applies to you also.


Burn.

I hope you can handle the emotional trauma of having your next dog die.

I seriously do.

[Daniel]

Yeah, heaven forbid you break the law and one comes and enforces it.


On top of needing massive amounts of vagasil, your inability to read is frightening.

[Stanley Burrell]

Where can I buy those "Friends of Police" stickers again? Like, the real kind? I haven't been able to find anything except for miniature unofficial-looking shit.

[Nilandia]

With behavior by cops like the type described here, is it any wonder why many people don't trust the police? I think it takes a certain type of person to become a police officer and a lot of those types of people are in it for the sense of power. Definitely not all cops, but many more than should really be. It's kind of like politicians; most people who WANT to be one, probably don't deserve to be one.
Won't deny that there are some bad cops out there, but the ones I've studied from have been nothing short of fantastic. I've taken classes from a local chief of police and two who specialize more in forensic investigation, since that's what I'm looking to go into for my career. All three were simply people who did their job well by keeping other people safe. Wish more cops could be like them.

Gretchen

[Stanley Burrell]

Won't deny that there are some bad cops out there, but the ones I've studied from have been nothing short of fantastic. I've taken classes from a local chief of police and two who specialize more in forensic investigation, since that's what I'm looking to go into for my career. All three were simply people who did their job well by keeping other people safe. Wish more cops could be like them.

Gretchen

Yeah, my driver's ed instructor was a cop from Yonkers. Learning how and when to drive at patrol speed... And how and when not to = win.

[Gan]

With behavior by cops like the type described here, is it any wonder why many people don't trust the police? I think it takes a certain type of person to become a police officer and a lot of those types of people are in it for the sense of power. Definitely not all cops, but many more than should really be. It's kind of like politicians; most people who WANT to be one, probably don't deserve to be one.

I couldnt agree more.

I hate cops who have 'little man' syndrome. Its like all their life they had lunch money taken from them, AND NOW ITS THEIR CHANCE FOR PAYBACK!!! Those are the types who let being a cop take over their life - they live it 24/7. Ugh. I have a step-brother like that. No thanks.

Helping people as a cop was great and rewarding. The adrenaline fix of chasing/catching a bad guy was fun. And teaching a punk kid who thinks they're omniscient a lesson was fun too ;). But to be effective, you gotta take that badge/gun off sometime and be a normal guy. One must understand and realize that they're not superman and they cant save the world every waking moment.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Burn.

I hope you can handle the emotional trauma of having your next dog die.

I seriously do.

I don't think you get it. Your attempts to insult me based on my love for my dogs means absolutely nothing to me. I'm very open about how much I love them and what they mean to me.

I pity you.

[DeV]

All cops are bad until you need one around. ;)It definitely mirrors the mentality of the idiots who feel that all lawyers are bad until you need one around. Couldn't agree with you more in that respect.

But, in all seriousness, my flag football team is mostly comprised of cops so when I hear stories like these it's easy for me to not lump the good with the bad. You'll find that every profession is comprised of it's good and bad apples and most of the cops I've come across are all around good people who just want to help the community they serve.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

all lawyers are bad

Just the wannabe's that post here, and the bulk of the profession. I don't think they are ALL bad :)

[BigWorm]

I couldnt agree more.

I hate cops who have 'little man' syndrome. Its like all their life they had lunch money taken from them, AND NOW ITS THEIR CHANCE FOR PAYBACK!!! Those are the types who let being a cop take over their life - they live it 24/7. Ugh. I have a step-brother like that. No thanks.

Helping people as a cop was great and rewarding. The adrenaline fix of chasing/catching a bad guy was fun. And teaching a punk kid who thinks they're omniscient a lesson was fun too ;). But to be effective, you gotta take that badge/gun off sometime and be a normal guy. One must understand and realize that they're not superman and they cant save the world every waking moment.

I think the desire for payback is a big motivation for a lot of people to become cops. The ones that really want to help people become firemen or EMTs. That said, I'm not complaining about ALL cops, because there are most definitely good ones. For example, my first college roommate had a father who was a robbery and homicide detective for the Houston PD and I would totally count him as one of the "good guys".

On the other hand, we recently had an incident (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759&)* here in St. Louis where a cop was caught on tape threatening to make up charges against someone. Now, the civilian in this instance had a reputation for instigating cops in the area (hence why he has the camera installed) and asserted his rights in a very impolite manner, but under no circumstance should an officer of the law threaten to trump up charges. Also, the tape from the police cruiser conveniently went missing. And this was an interaction with an middle-class white kid (albeit a mouthy one). I can only imagine what the blacks and brown have to deal with sometimes.

* Warning: The kid's radar detector is going off for most of the 13 mins of the video which is extremely annoying.

[AnticorRifling]

I've been fucked with by the police but I will say I deserved it. Given my smart ass mouth mixed with my semi-invincible attitude sometimes I come on a bit strong when confronted by authority I'm not familiar with. That being said for the most part I'm quite happy with the police representation here in Indy. My biggest pet peeve is seeing an officer that is out of shape or disrespectful in uniform because I feel they are a representation of me the citizen and I don't carry myself or act like that.

I've been pulled over for speeding on the way back from a shooting trip and if you ever want to see someone call for backup real fast let them know you've got half a dozen assault rifles and 1500 rounds of .308 in the vehicle. They did their job, I did mine (IE knowing they control the situation and acted accordingly) they checked my weapons and let me on my way.

I will say that should I ever become a police officer there might be times when I'll fuck with people ala Super Troopers but it would be in jest and not some of the power trip things mentioned in this thread.

[BigWorm]

I will say that should I ever become a police officer there might be times when I'll fuck with people ala Super Troopers but it would be in jest and not some of the power trip things mentioned in this thread.

Spray it on!

[Skeeter]

Right meow?

[Clove]

It definitely mirrors the mentality of the idiots who feel that all lawyers are bad until you need one around. Couldn't agree with you more in that respect...

The police in my city have ALWAYS been there when I needed them. But they've also been there when I didn't need them... to fuck with me... when they thought they could get away with it.

[Hulkein]

Definitely seems like PC to me.

It's not.

If the cop found drugs in E's glove compartment or anywhere that wasn't in plain view, there is no doubt that the cop would have to lie and say there were other factors involved that gave him PC to search the car if he would want any charge for drugs to stick.

The cop searched his car because he was either an asshole, a racist, or an asshole racist.

[BigWorm]

But if you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide. Duh!

[Gan]

It's not.

If the cop found drugs in E's glove compartment or anywhere that wasn't in plain view, there is no doubt that the cop would have to lie and say there were other factors involved that gave him PC to search the car if he would want any charge for drugs to stick.

The cop searched his car because he was either an asshole, a racist, or an asshole racist.

A cop who's knowlegable of the law usually never has to resort to 'lying' in order to make a conviction/charge stick. On the flip side, a good attorney can spot the 'grey' area surrounding the PC justification and exploit it. Fruit of the poisonous tree and all.

[Hulkein]

A good cop wouldn't have done what this guy did, Gan. I hope you agree with that.

[Gan]

A good cop wouldn't have done what this guy did, Gan. I hope you agree with that.

Which guy?

The OP?

or TheE's cop?

[Hulkein]

TheE's cop. Pulling someone for going 7 mph over the speed limit then searching the car when there are no other signs of intoxication or criminal activity.

[Daniel]

I don't think you get it. Your attempts to insult me based on my love for my dogs means absolutely nothing to me. I'm very open about how much I love them and what they mean to me.

I pity you.


I don't think you get it. I don't care how much you love dogs. You are still a raging vagina for various reasons. Such as the way you decide to jump in and troll my posts and then act like a vagina when I respond to you.

[Gan]

TheE's cop. Pulling someone for going 7 mph over the speed limit then searching the car when there are no other signs of intoxication or criminal activity.

I dont call that bad cop practice in any sense. I call that routine traffic procedure.

Person breaks law. Person gets pulled over. Person exhibits known and documented behavior usually indicitave of someone either under the influence of illicit substances or in posession of illicit substances. Cop follows departmental procedures and initiates a vehicle search based on probable cause. Cop fails to find any contraband. Cop exercises discretionary authority and gives person warning instead of the citation. Cop continues his traffic patrol. Person continues his transit.

Again, he was speeding. Again, the cop was going on probable cause.
First and foremost, you dont have a written report from the cop detailing his reasoning and methodology for the search. Second, you only have TheE's accounting of the event, from his perspective. In other words, half the story - and even that's questionable since there's nothing to back it up.

Quit being fucking stupid.

[Gan]

I don't think you get it. I don't care how much you love dogs. You are still a raging vagina for various reasons. Such as the way you decide to jump in and troll my posts and then act like a vagina when I respond to you.

LOL. Like you never troll posts.

Quit being a raging vagina.

[Daniel]

I at least stick around ;)

[Hulkein]

Person exhibits known and documented behavior usually indicitave of someone either under the influence of illicit substances or in posession of illicit substances.

Which is what? Refusing to allow a cop go through your car for no reason? Or going 7 mph over the speed limit? Refusing to waive your rights for a search certainly isn't, and going 7 mph over the speed limit with no other suspicious activity isn't either.


Cop follows departmental procedures and initiates a vehicle search based on probable cause.

There is no probable cause.


Quit being fucking stupid.

...Right.

[Gan]

I at least stick around ;)

touche

[Gan]

Which is what? Refusing to allow a cop go through your car for no reason?



There is no probable cause, unless of course exercising your constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search is PC in Texas. (And it isn't, thanks to incorporation).



This coming from a cop who doesn't know what PC is.

Ex-cop.

LOL at you're interpretation of PC.

Is that the comic book version you're going by?

[Hulkein]

It's not my interpretation.

And I edited that post to actually get some answers out of you because I'm curious how you'd respond. Mind re-reading it?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't think you get it. I don't care how much you love dogs. You are still a raging vagina for various reasons. Such as the way you decide to jump in and troll my posts and then act like a vagina when I respond to you.

Sorry what? Where'd I troll you? In fact, you trolled me, in this very thread.

Don't get all butthurt because I don't believe in reparations or put up with reverse discrimination. Maybe you can tell us all how you had a rough childhood again. Let's hear about your african culture and how whitey is keeping you down. Get the fuck over yourself. You've done nothing more than what anyone here is capable of.

Sorry I'm not hard enough for you. I have no tatts, no tales from the street, and I love my family, including my dogs. You on the otherhand, pretty much seem to hate everything.

[Gan]

Which is what? Refusing to allow a cop go through your car for no reason? Or going 7 mph over the speed limit? Refusing to waive your rights for a search certainly isn't, and going 7 mph over the speed limit with no other suspicious activity isn't either.
Again, you're basing your information off of one side of the story.

How do you know what signs TheE exhibited when the cop approached? How do you know what the cop saw, thought, smelled, heard, etc. that aroused his suspicion? You dont! You're just assuming that its an automatic violation of search and siezure. Furthermore, based on TheE's reaction, how did the cop interpret that? How was TheE's tone, clarity, and emotion when he objected? Again, you're evaluating a 2 dimensional story by 3 dimensional parameters.

Trust me when I tell you there are many many visual, audible, and kinetic clues that the driver exhibited, that the state of his vehicle exhibited, that the circumstances surrounding his speeding exhibited (never bothered to ask if this was in a school zone btw) that the officer uses to make a jugement call on what to do in a traffic stop. Also consider that all law enforcement individuals are empowered with a certain degree of discretionary authority in which to perform their function/duties. Probable cause is a tool within that kit of discretionary authority.

Its not that I find your ignorance of what a traffic officer thinks/acts/responds to when pulling over a vehicle funny, its just that I find your refusal to even think beyond what capacity of knowlege you have of the actual situation... FUCKING STUPID.



There is no probable cause.
LOL
See above.
I'm willing to bet money there was in the officer's opinion.




...Right.
Exactly.

Thanks for playing.

[diethx]

I've only taken one criminal justice course in college and even I know that Hulkein is right. Going 7 mph over the speed limit is not probable cause for a search, it's cause to get a fucking ticket for speeding.

I've been pulled over 4 times in the past 9 years, and I got a ticket 3 of those times (for speeding). The first was for 86 in a 55 (in NY), second was for 78 in a 55 (NY) and the third was a few months ago here in GA for going 81 in a 65. Not once did I ever have a cop try to search my car, or do anything more than write me a ticket. And I even tried to convince that second cop to not give me one (nicely, of course, and when it didn't work I stfu'd).

[diethx]

Again, you're basing your information off of one side of the story.

Aren't you doing the same exact thing, only in favor of the cop?

[BigWorm]

Ex-cop.

LOL at you're interpretation of PC.

Is that the comic book version you're going by?

So make an argument that is it probable cause and we'll see how it stands up.

Right now, it seems like you're saying the cop thought there was a possibility that he might find contraband -> he can search the car, which is not the legal standard. None of what TheE described could serve as evidence for PC.

[Gan]

Aren't you doing the same exact thing, only in favor of the cop?

Combined with previous personal experience of working traffic patrol as a law enforcement officer. Big difference.

[Hulkein]

Again, you're basing your information off of one side of the story.
How do you know what signs TheE exhibited when the cop approached?

Yes, I am. It's the hypothetical we have been discussing. You didn't say earlier that there might be PC in things that the cop saw that E didn't say. You defended the cop immediately. I figured you were defending the hypothetical as-is. That pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

[Gan]

I've only taken one criminal justice course in college ...

Sorry, I couldnt stop laughing after reading this far. What else did you say?


LOL

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I bet TheE smells like patchouli. That's PC right there.

[Gan]

Yes, I am. It's the hypothetical we have been discussing. You didn't say earlier that there might be PC in things that the cop saw that E didn't say. You defended the cop immediately. I figured you were defending the hypothetical as-is. That pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant.


Hot damn. We're arguing hypotheticals.

Just consider every hypothetical you can think of supporting TheE's position with a rebuttal from a hypothetical from my perspective supporting the cop, based on actual experience as a cop.

**
Gotta bolt for a bit. Softball tonight.

[BigWorm]

I bet TheE smells like patchouli. That's PC right there.

I know you're joking, but its really not. At least not anymore than TheE being brown.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I know you're joking, but its really not. At least not anymore than TheE being brown.

He also has long hair.

[diethx]

Yes, I am. It's the hypothetical we have been discussing. You didn't say earlier that there might be PC in things that the cop saw that E didn't say. You defended the cop immediately. I figured you were defending the hypothetical as-is. That pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Exactly. As much as I think TheEschaton is a dumbass, he didn't deserve what that cop did ASSUMING the situation went as he described. You've been defending that cop since the story was posted and until now you've made no mention of any other factors. You've even posted that simply going 7 mph over the speed limit was PC enough to search.


Sorry, I couldnt stop laughing after reading this far. What else did you say?

I know you read the rest of what I said, you just don't have an answer for it. Way to skirt the question, hurrah.

[Skeeter]

Everyone knows theE is a terrorist. It's too bad they didn't send him to Gitmo

[Stanley Burrell]

Everyone knows theE is a terrorist. It's too bad they didn't send him to Gitmo

That might be true, but don't come bitching and whining to me when Dell runs out of tech support representatives. We must all sacrifice our freedoms.

[Gan]

I know you read the rest of what I said, you just don't have an answer for it. Way to skirt the question, hurrah.
No seriously, I was laughing too hard to finish reading your post. Going back now to read it simply demonstrates you really have nothing else to contribute.


Everyone knows theE is a terrorist. It's too bad they didn't send him to Gitmo
LOL

I completely forgot about that thread. :lolwave:
-winner.

[diethx]

No seriously, I was laughing too hard to finish reading your post.

Yes, because an information systems (and now nursing) major only taking one criminal justice class as an elective is so hilarious, it will inevitably keep a person laughing so hard that they are unable to finish reading a paragraph. Don't be a dumbass.

And if you're trying to make the statement that I couldn't possibly know anything about the justice system because I only took one class on it, again, don't be a dumbass. As if the only way for someone to learn something is to take multiple college classes on the topic. If that were the case, i'm sure that having more than a GED would be a requirement for all police officers.

[Daniel]

Sorry what? Where'd I troll you? In fact, you trolled me, in this very thread.

Don't get all butthurt because I don't believe in reparations or put up with reverse discrimination. Maybe you can tell us all how you had a rough childhood again. Let's hear about your african culture and how whitey is keeping you down. Get the fuck over yourself. You've done nothing more than what anyone here is capable of.

Sorry I'm not hard enough for you. I have no tatts, no tales from the street, and I love my family, including my dogs. You on the otherhand, pretty much seem to hate everything.

ROFL.

You've had a hard on for me ever since I called you out on being blindly obedient to Tsin.

For the record:

I don't believe in reparations and there are dozen page long threads here where I've argued against them

There are several things I love, including this country which is something I have fought for with distinction and continue to work for.

My middle name is Gerhardt and I'm immensely proud of the legacy that entails.

And of course, I've done alot more with my life then work for AOL.

You wouldn't know any of these things because you're vagina is so hurt you can't even think straight anymore. Seriously dude. I know it's been a long time since Beth lived in your house but maybe you should consider getting laid.

[Gan]

Yes, because an information systems (and now nursing) major only taking one criminal justice class as an elective is so hilarious, it will inevitably keep a person laughing so hard that they are unable to finish reading a paragraph. Don't be a dumbass.

And if you're trying to make the statement that I couldn't possibly know anything about the justice system because I only took one class on it, again, don't be a dumbass. As if the only way for someone to learn something is to take multiple college classes on the topic. If that were the case, i'm sure that having more than a GED would be a requirement for all police officers.

Quit being retarded.

For most large police departments there is a minimum of 60 college hours and in some cases a degree (college) required to join the force.

And 1 criminal justice class does not an expert on the law make...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

ROFL.

You've had a hard on for me ever since I called you out on being blindly obedient to Tsin.

For the record:

I don't believe in reparations and there are dozen page long threads here where I've argued against them

There are several things I love, including this country which is something I have fought for with distinction and continue to work for.

My middle name is Gerhardt and I'm immensely proud of the legacy that entails.

And of course, I've done alot more with my life then work for AOL.

You wouldn't know any of these things because you're vagina is so hurt you can't even think straight anymore. Seriously dude. I know it's been a long time since Beth lived in your house but maybe you should consider getting laid.

Maybe you can get a tattoo of Gerhardt on the flower on your tit, along with GI Bill and my momma was a whitey, please don't hate me on your back. If it wasn't for being black, you'd just be another emo white kid with an axe to grind. And we could NEVER forget you are black, could we? What with you trolling every fucking thread telling us how black you are and how hard it is to be a young black underpriveledged man growing up in a racist society, right?

Like I said before, get the fuck over yourself.

Oh btw, you think joining the Army is a distinction? Dave did it FFS.

[Daniel]

No, but I think Joining the State Department is. ;)

*I do so love it when you people (The R Team) make ridiculous attacks on my character that are so easily refuted with fact. Newsflash: I joined the Army over 8 years ago, and when I talk about things I'm talking about things that have happened since then.

[Hulkein]

Oh btw, you think joining the Army is a distinction? Dave did it FFS.

I think he said he served with distinction. Difference? I dunno.

[Daniel]

I did, but SHM has his head so far up his vagina that he doesn't understand what that means.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

And of course, I've done alot more with my life then work for AOL.


...and you'd think someone as badass as Daniel would be above this type of grammatical blunder. FOR SHAME AOL BADASS MILITARY GUY WHO LIKELY DID JACK SHIT OUTSIDE OF DOING HIS TIME IN BASIC TRAINING LIKE EVERY OTHER DOUCHE WHO WANTS TO THROW THE UNIFORM ON AND PRETEND LIKE HE'S ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING.

Go put your scrubby little suit back on and tell everyone how black you are, despite every other action you take proving otherwise. At this point, you're as black as my penis, and god damnit, Casper doesn't have shit on that. (come now, it doesn't see much light... and I'm in Minnesota to begin with...)




PS: In all reality, I don't know who the fuck you are, nor do I really care... I simply find it ironic that someone so badass gets all worked up over a forum dedicated to a game that has been dying for the last half-decade, yet still insists on bragging about every minor achievement in his otherwise unfulfilling life. Kudos on giving up on your dreams, buddy.

[Daniel]

You're from Minnesota?

Question: Is the plural of "Moose", Meese or Mooses?

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

I usually go with Meese, but thank you for sidestepping every other portion of my comment to further detail what a pussy you are. Kudos again, Mr. Douchebagwannabearmyblackguy. Kudos.

[Daniel]

What portion of your comment would you actually like me to address?

You stated as such that you don't know shit about me. So, what more is there to say?

The R-team routinely likes to flout their experiences and success in life to prove their point and have often tried to degenerate my POV by mischaracterizing the things I've said or done.

So, I simply take the easy route and use objective fact to make them look silly.

It's as simple as that. I could care less if you, or anyone else on these boards, gives a fuck about me.

Troll again this time next week?

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

but I wanna troll nowwwwwww.... :(


NOM NOM NOM

[Daniel]

thank you for sidestepping every other portion of my comment to further detail what a pussy you are. Kudos again, Mr. Douchebagmeeseguy. Kudos.

^^

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Why mention any other part of your response, when as you said, and I before you,... I don't give a fuck.

LOLZ

[Daniel]

To have the last word?

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Oh, ok. LAST WORD! wewt.








+1

[DeV]

The police in my city have ALWAYS been there when I needed them. But they've also been there when I didn't need them... to fuck with me... when they thought they could get away with it.I honestly can't say the same for my city. In some parts of the city, they're ALWAYS there. Take Hyde Park for instance; they make their presence known and it helps keeps crime way down. Other parts of the city are a different story altogether and I'll just leave it at that.

[Stanley Burrell]

Oh btw, you think joining the Army is a distinction? Dave did it FFS.

Daniel isn't flaunting some distinction card because of The Army. And picking person X in the armed forces as a way of belittling person Y, Z and Ümlaut is fucking retarded. I don't even want to bother having to explain that logic beyond these fifty-four words, or lack of logic thereof for selective readers.

[DeV]

You've even posted that simply going 7 mph over the speed limit was PC enough to search.
It's not, unless the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion or a specific reason that makes him suspect illegal activity on your person or inside your vehicle. I believe the Carroll Doctrine goes into greater detail concerning that.

The grey area with regard to TheE's incident seems to be centered around whether or not the officer had reasonable suspicion and that's something only the officer can offer.

In any case, many of us commit a vehicle code violation every day, often unknowingly and once we've been stopped our 4th Amendment protections are sharply diminished as has been demonstrated in this thread alone.

[Gan]

It's not, unless the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion or a specific reason that makes him suspect illegal activity on your person or inside your vehicle. I believe the Carroll Doctrine goes into greater detail concerning that.

The grey area with regard to TheE's incident seems to be centered around whether or not the officer had reasonable suspicion and that's something only the officer can offer.

In any case, many of us commit a vehicle code violation every day, often unknowingly and once we've been stopped our 4th Amendment protections are sharply diminished as has been demonstrated in this thread alone.

Someone gets it. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

I see now I should have included the 'resonable suspicion' language in my earlier posts; however, I have always lumped that under my understanding and training in probable cause searches.

[Hulkein]

I mentioned reasonable suspicion in the 28th post of this thread.

[DeV]

Someone gets it. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

I see now I should have included the 'resonable suspicion' language in my earlier posts; however, I have always lumped that under my understanding and training in probable cause searches.
I was just providing her the benefit of a reasonable explanation. :)

[Daniel]

I honestly can't say the same for my city. In some parts of the city, they're ALWAYS there. Take Hyde Park for instance; they make their presence known and it helps keeps crime way down. Other parts of the city are a different story altogether and I'll just leave it at that.

Hyde Park is such a microcosm that it's not even funny. For instance, my story happened in Hyde Park. (I went to Kenwood High School).

There's some pretty ridiculous stories about Hyde Park, especially involving the U of C when it wants to expand.

[Gan]

I was just providing her the benefit of a reasonable explanation. :)

Thanks. She was failing to comprehend my efforts to explain - I guess they were not as reasonable.

[Gan]

I mentioned reasonable suspicion in the 28th post of this thread.

I dont know if thats good or bad considering how little consideration you gave it regarding TheE's recount of the traffic stop (from his perspective, with very little detail as to what a cop considers when pondering/evaluating reasonable suspicion and a probable cause search). When you get right down to it. Very little detail of the context surrounding the events and environment were included that it leaves much room for supposition as well as humor when one attempts to argue to detail that which is not detailed in the original account.

Then you fall into the hypothetical vs. hypothetical argument trap.

As noted below:

My horror story involves me being pulled over for going exactly 7 miles over the speed limit (this is actually the mph the cop quoted to me, lol), asked if I could have my car searched, forced out of my car (not physically, but I was threatened with arrest) to search my car for drugs when I said no, a search I loudly proclaimed was A) unwarranted, B) unconsented to, and C) illegal. There were of course, no drugs in the car, so the cop asked why I would give him lip about him not searching my car, at which point I informed him it was my Constitutional right, as per the Fourth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable searches. That remark got me a pat down. When there were no weapons or drugs on me, he then proceeded to ask if I was drunk, even though it was the middle of the day on a Wednesday, and then made me perform a bunch of sobriety tests. After I passed all of those, he let me go with a "verbal warning" for speeding.

I wish I had taken down his badge number and name, but I was so incensed I didn't think to get it. I went to complain and the cops were like, "Do you have his name and badge number?" and I totally blanked.

The best part - this happened in the town I lived in, which the cop knew from looking at my license.

Fun times in Buffalo. :)

-TheE-

Now, if an interview log was made available noting the officer's reasoning/justification for the search. Pictures of the area where TheE was speeding in, road/environment conditions, photos of the condition of the exterior and interior of the vehicle that was speeding - specifically noting the contents therein that were in plain sight, and photos/video-audio of TheE noting his physical condition not limited to condition of dress, physical appearance not limited to runny/watery eyes, dialated pupils, unusual body movements including excessive, lethargic, or uncoordinated/uncontrollable exhibitions, speech patterns including tone, volume, coherency as well as demeanor towards a government official. All of these, and some I've not included, are things that a cop evaluates when he stops someone for a traffic violation. Things that he's trained to evaluate in order to determine if the speeding violation is just an indicator of a further threat to those around him.

THEN we could argue if the search was ILLEGAL or not.

[Stanley Burrell]

I also <3 the West Haven, New Haven and Hamden PD because they only get rid of decaling on their Fords for undercover constables on patrol, which you can spot, like ... Behind you. When you're not even looking. Asleep.

I seriously wonder how people get tickets here. They don't know how to slow down in the cop pits, or they're oblivious, or like to give money to the city. It's weird, mang.

[DeV]

Now, if an interview log was made available noting the officer's reasoning/justification for the search. Pictures of the area where TheE was speeding in, road/environment conditions, photos of the condition of the exterior and interior of the vehicle that was speeding - specifically noting the contents therein that were in plain sight, and photos/video-audio of TheE noting his physical condition not limited to condition of dress, physical appearance not limited to runny/watery eyes, dialated pupils, unusual body movements including excessive, lethargic, or uncoordinated/uncontrollable exhibitions, speech patterns including tone, volume, coherency as well as demeanor towards a government official. All of these, and some I've not included, are things that a cop evaluates when he stops someone for a traffic violation. Things that he's trained to evaluate in order to determine if the speeding violation is just an indicator of a further threat to those around him.

THEN we could argue if the search was ILLEGAL or not.It could also be exactly as Hulkein stated in that the cop was either racist, an asshole, or a racist asshole and searched his car "just because" he could. Then again, he could come up with any number of the scenarios you listed above to justify his actions that day if that was the case.


Then you fall into the hypothetical vs. hypothetical argument trap.Yep, it definitely goes full circle as we've all illustrated in this discussion. None of us were in that cops head. What we do know is that TheE was not arrested, no illegal substances were found in his car or on his person, and he wasn't issued a speeding ticket in conclusion.

[Gan]

It could also be exactly as Hulkein stated in that the cop was either racist, an asshole, or a racist asshole and searched his car "just because" he could. Then again, he could come up with any number of the scenarios you listed above to justify his actions that day if that was the case.
Agreed. All that is left to argue is which is/was more likely.


Yep, it definitely goes full circle as we've all illustrated in this discussion. None of us were in that cops head. What we do know is that TheE was not arrested, no illegal substances were found in his car or on his person, and he wasn't issued a speeding ticket in conclusion.
Indeed his lucky day eh?

[DeV]

Agreed. All that is left to argue is which is/was more likely.

Agreed, as long as everyone involved in the discussion understands that we're all basing our information off of one side of the story.

[TheEschaton]

evaluating a 2 dimensional story by 3 dimensional parameters.

Trust me when I tell you there are many many visual, audible, and kinetic clues that the driver exhibited, that the state of his vehicle exhibited, that the circumstances surrounding his speeding exhibited (never bothered to ask if this was in a school zone btw) that the officer uses to make a jugement call on what to do in a traffic stop. Also consider that all law enforcement individuals are empowered with a certain degree of discretionary authority in which to perform their function/duties. Probable cause is a tool within that kit of discretionary authority.

I'm pretty sure the only visual clue was that I was brown driving around in a white suburb which I happened to live in.

I do not smell of patchouli, and never have. My hair was a little long, but come on.

The traffic stop, as far as any others I've had (and I've been pulled over legitimately before) proceeded normally. I gave the cop my license and registration (both of them reflecting that I LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD), and asked him why I was being pulled over. He quoted the 7 mph over the limit, then asked me to step otu of the car to search it. When I asked why, he said he had reason to believe that there were drugs in the car. When I asked him what his probable cause was, he got angry and threatened to arrest me if I didn't get out of the car.

And Gan - you, like most cops I know, don't seem to have the faintest inkling of what reasonable suspicion is.

Reasonable suspicion is an OBJECTIVE standard - your reasonable suspicion can be deemed wholly unreasonable, and thus illegal. It's not "reasonable suspicion as you see it", but "reasonable suspicion" that the general populace would come up with.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said that asserting 4th Amendment rights is NOT grounds for probable cause, and many Circuit courts (including the 2nd, I believe, where this happened) have stated that speeding is not a basis for reasonable suspicion either - a result so obvious that SCOTUS hasn't even bothered to ever grant cert to one of those cases when the gov't appeals.

Edit: and it wasn't in a school zone. I was going 37 in a 30 mph suburb.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Oh, and BTW, LOL AT YOUR PROBABLE CAUSE AS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY PIECE. That's fucking ridiculous.

[Gan]

I'm pretty sure the only visual clue was that I was brown driving around in a white suburb which I happened to live in.

I was going 37 in a 30 mph suburb.

-TheE-

ZOMG THATS IT!!! You were guilty of driving while brown in the suburbs!!!111.

ALL COPS R RACISTS!!!

Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to you actually working with cops as a prosecuting attorney and seeing exactly what passes for reasonable suspicion and probable cause in traffic stop cases.

PS. In the 3 years that I was a cop working traffic patrol I never had a complaint or case bounce back because the probable cause search was deemed illegal. ;)

Thanks for playing.

[TheEschaton]

Maybe cause people don't trust cops to police their own? If you can please point out the reasonable suspicion to search my car, keeping the following information in mind:

1) I was not driving erratically.
2) I was not in a known drug neighborhood.
3) There was no odor of anything drug related emanating from the car, since there were no drugs in the car, nor had there ever been.
4) There was nothing in visible sight which would suggest there was drugs in the car, because THERE WERE NO DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHENALIA.
5) The car itself was completely legal, and not a car one normally associates with drug dealing (it was a 99 Saturn SL).

Also, keep in mind what I just said, that SCOTUS has said people have a reasonable expectation to ask POs the reason for their search and the authority on which they base it, and that asserting their 4th Amendment rights against an unreasonable search is their right, and not a basis for probable cause.

I don't care if you say, "LOL, COPS DO IT ALL THE TIME," because that doesn't mean it's the law. It's just another indication that our criminal justice system is fucked up beyond all belief.

(Oh, and I did work with cops this past summer, and they were shocked when I told them this story. Apparently it would never pass in NYC, but in the suburbs, no problem.)

-TheE-

[Gan]

Maybe cause people don't trust cops to police their own? If you can please point out the reasonable suspicion to search my car, keeping the following information in mind:

1) I was not driving erratically.
2) I was not in a known drug neighborhood.
3) There was no odor of anything drug related emanating from the car, since there were no drugs in the car, nor had there ever been.
4) There was nothing in visible sight which would suggest there was drugs in the car, because THERE WERE NO DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHENALIA.
5) The car itself was completely legal, and not a car one normally associates with drug dealing (it was a 99 Saturn SL).

Also, keep in mind what I just said, that SCOTUS has said people have a reasonable expectation to ask POs the reason for their search and the authority on which they base it, and that asserting their 4th Amendment rights against an unreasonable search is their right, and not a basis for probable cause.

I don't care if you say, "LOL, COPS DO IT ALL THE TIME," because that doesn't mean it's the law. It's just another indication that our criminal justice system is fucked up beyond all belief.

(Oh, and I did work with cops this past summer, and they were shocked when I told them this story. Apparently it would never pass in NYC, but in the suburbs, no problem.)

-TheE-

Can you specifically cite what the officer perceived when he did what he did?

[BigWorm]

Can you specifically cite what the officer perceived when he did what he did?

No he can't, and neither can you. We can only evaluate the situation with the facts as presented. Based on the what TheE has described, what evidence do you see for PC?

[TheEschaton]

Also consider the fact that after he violated all my rights blatantly, he let me go with a "verbal warning" (IE, something that isn't recorded) EVEN THOUGH I WAS BREAKING THE LAW, OMFG!!!!111 by "speeding".

He knew it wouldn't even hold up as a traffic stop, especially if I mentioned all this bullshit. He was on a fishing expedition, face it.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Based on the 1 dimensional story, I dont see any reason. However we all know there other factors involved that cant be related by the 'victim' simply based on his bias of the events being recounted.

Because you know, all criminals are innocent if you ask them. ;)

[Gan]

Also consider the fact that after he violated all my rights blatantly, he let me go with a "verbal warning" (IE, something that isn't recorded) EVEN THOUGH I WAS BREAKING THE LAW, OMFG!!!!111 by "speeding".

He knew it wouldn't even hold up as a traffic stop, especially if I mentioned all this bullshit. He was on a fishing expedition, face it.

-TheE-

Discretionary authority. We already discussed that.

Are you saying that the reason why you got off the hook was because of some latent guilt for being a racist? Fear of retribution? Did you SKEEER him? LOL

Give me a break.

[TheEschaton]

Please, as a former corrections officer, explain what possible factors there are that can warrant reasonable suspicion from a POs POV. My assertion is there was NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE supporting reasonable suspicion, and that, as explained by all law books that I've read, reasonable suspicion is NOT discretionary, it is an objective standard.

And if you say "Racial profiling", I'll come to houston personally to bitch slap you.

[Khariz]

Please, as a former corrections officer, explain what possible factors there are that can warrant reasonable suspicion from a POs POV. My assertion is there was NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE supporting reasonable suspicion, and that, as explained by all law books that I've read, reasonable suspicion is NOT discretionary, it is an objective standard.

And if you say "Racial profiling", I'll come to houston personally to bitch slap you.

TheE is correct. Reasonable Suspicion is not a police-based subjective standard. The cop's "discretion" doesn't mean JACK SHIT in court. It's an Objective standard, which TheE has already explained above.

Gan, no matter how many times you scream and cry about what the cop saw or was thinking in this situation, it doesn't change the fact that using an *objective* standard, and assuming the facts substantially true, as we have no reason not to, the police officer did not have probably cause for the search.

Edit: The reason cops win in situations like this is NOT because of their Discrection. It's because there is a dispute in Fact, for which Juries or Judges tend to side with the Cop. If there was no dispute in fact, no amount of discretion on the cop's part would save his action from the chopping block.

You yourself (Gan) brought up State Law nitpicking. Perhaps in your state, the objective bar is much much lower, but I'd be very shocked if it was. Police can't do whatever they want to do. Well, correction, they CAN, but it doesn't mean what they did will hold up in court.

[Gan]

Please, as a former corrections officer, [and reserve sheriff's deputy] explain what possible factors there are that can warrant reasonable suspicion from a POs POV.
See post 136. Asked and answered.


My assertion is there was NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE supporting reasonable suspicion, and that, as explained by all law books that I've read, reasonable suspicion is NOT discretionary, it is an objective standard.
No factual evidence from your PERSPECTIVE. You have no idea what evidence the officer interpreted that warranted his initiation of a probable cause or reasonable suspicion search. Ergo - you're representing only one side of the story - and with bias I might add.



And if you say "Racial profiling", I'll come to houston personally to bitch slap you.
Racial profiling does exist and has been deemed illegal.

And you talk so tough, I bet it turns all your boyfriends on. You're such a bitch slapping E-Thug.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/gangsta.jpg

[Keller]

reasonable suspicion . . . is an objective standard.


An objective standard judged . . . by subjective people.

I'm with Gan here, right or wrong, officers will always be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when the illegal search produces evidence of illegal activity.

[Khariz]

An objective standard judged . . . by subjective people.

I'm with Gan here, right or wrong, officers will always be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when the illegal search produces evidence of illegal activity.

Except for that's not the situation we are discussing.

[Gan]

TheE is correct. Reasonable Suspicion is not a police-based subjective standard. The cop's "discretion" doesn't mean JACK SHIT in court. It's an Objective standard, which TheE has already explained above.

Gan, no matter how many times you scream and cry about what the cop saw or was thinking in this situation, it doesn't change the fact that using an *objective* standard, and assuming the facts substantially true, as we have no reason not to, the police officer did not have probably cause for the search.

Edit: The reason cops win in situations like this is NOT because of their Discrection. It's because there is a dispute in Fact, for which Juries or Judges tend to side with the Cop. If there was no dispute in fact, no amount of discretion on the cop's part would save his action from the chopping block.

You yourself (Gan) brought up State Law nitpicking. Perhaps in your state, the objective bar is much much lower, but I'd be very shocked if it was. Police can't do whatever they want to do. Well, correction, they CAN, but it doesn't mean what they did will hold up in court.

Well HELL, I guess we just do shit wrong here in Texas. /sarcasm.

Sorry if I dont buy into TheE's QQ story of being mistreated by the POPO. And based on my actual experience I have seen it contrary to how you and TheE are describing the scenario as it reads from a classroom perspective. Take that as you will.

If you really want to put your money where you mouth is, go out and perform a test case. Film it, and post it on YouTube. Lets see how it rides out in court. Think of it as a great experiment that could make you famous!

:lol:

[Gan]

Except for that's not the situation we are discussing.

Methinks you might go back and re-read the thread. :yes:

[TheEschaton]

Please, then, tell us what the cops could have interpreted as warranting searching a car for drugs?

I'm talking generally, not specifically in my case.

My assertion is that anything you come up with, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION of the facts at hand. And thus is illegal.

And I agree with what Keller said, but that doesn't make it less fucked up. Juries tend to believe cops when they say things - and cops use that all the time to get away with all sorts of things which are actually illegal.

-TheE-

[Keller]

Except for that's not the situation we are discussing.

Let's be reasonable. We're discussing the "objective" test used to ascertain reasonable suspicion. How many illegal searches are litigated, using that "objective" test, that don't involve some sort of criminal prosecution for the fruit of the illegal search?

[Keller]

And I agree with what Keller said, but that doesn't make it less fucked up. Juries tend to believe cops when they say things - and cops use that all the time to get away with all sorts of things which are actually illegal.

-TheE-

That's what Gan has been saying, too. He just doesn't have the legal jargon down yet.

How's that law school app going, Gan?

[TheEschaton]

How many people are unduly harassed by unreasonable searches and then not arrested because the cops realize that their search was unreasonable, and provided no illegal fruits?

[Keller]

How many people are unduly harassed by unreasonable searches and then not arrested because the cops realize that their search was unreasonable, and provided no illegal fruits?

I don't know.

Are you insinuating that those people bring civil suits?

[DeV]

Are you insinuating that those people bring civil suits? I'd guage those kinds of instances would warrant a complaint against the officer more so than bringing about a civil suit.

It would be interesting to know those figures.

[Gan]

That's what Gan has been saying, too. He just doesn't have the legal jargon down yet.

How's that law school app going, Gan?

heh.

Its in process now. Have to wait until the wife gets out of her NP program.

During that time I'll prepare for the LSAT. And argue the crazy points of law as brought up in TheE's fantasy scenarios.

[Daniel]

Oh god.

Does this mean SHM will call you a wanna-be lawyer too?

[Gan]

Please, then, tell us what the cops could have interpreted as warranting searching a car for drugs?
Again, see post 136. You have NO IDEA what the cop perceived. Furthermore you're still looking at this from a single perspective - YOURS. And now you're asking others to make a judgement on that perspective without any additional evidence to either validate your claims.



I'm talking generally, not specifically in my case.
We have already discussed the general in which you attempted to refute specifically by your case. You're circular argument is getting amusing and tiresome.


My assertion is that anything you come up with, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION of the facts at hand. And thus is illegal.
And based on my experience as a police officer, I am asserting that you'd be dead wrong in Texas.



And I agree with what Keller said, but that doesn't make it less fucked up. Juries tend to believe cops when they say things - and cops use that all the time to get away with all sorts of things which are actually illegal.

-TheE-

Yes, we all know that cops are people too. There are bad cops just as there are good cops. Thats why abuse with a badge is called official oppression and why its against the law.

As long as the cop didnt ask you for a blowjob in lieu of a ticket, ask for money in lieu of a ticket, or give an indication of treating you racially disparately while performing his duties during the traffice stop - you dont have a leg to stand on - and your complaint would not make it out of traffic court - providing it went that far.

Bottom line, you got your young punk ass nose bent out of shape when you were pulled over for breaking the law. Bottom line you spouted off to the cop (probaly more heatedly than you're innocence you're portraying now) which aroused the cop's suspicion enough to warrant a search of your vehicle. Bottom line you got off without even a slap on the wrist for, again, breaking the law.

Cry me a fucking river.

QQQQQQQQQQ

Be a fucking man and get over it. Next time a police officer pulls you over, be smart and keep your fucking trap shut. If he treats you illegally, let him go through with it then sue their ass off. Otherwise you might not come out of the situation so fortunate - especially if its a dirty cop.

Use your fucking head for once other than a place to hold your hair on.

And remember, we live in the real world. Not some fantasy you've made up.

[DeV]

What's up with the wall of text double posts today, Gan?

[Gan]

I keep losing packets or the connection with the PC. So when I get the "page could not be found error message" I try to go back and recycle the 'post reply' function.

I swear the host service for the PC is out to make my day difficult.

[DeV]

Copy/paste, man. :)

[Latrinsorm]

If he treats you illegally, let him go through with it then sue their ass off.Worked pretty well for Amadou Diallo, huh?

[Clove]

Worked pretty well for Amadou Diallo, huh?

It works better than resiting arrest in most cases.

[Keller]

It works better than resiting arrest in most cases.

See: Rodney King.

[Latrinsorm]

Because if the cops say he resisted arrest, he obviously did, rite?

[Clove]

Hey, argue all you like.

Resisting arrest=Guaranteed Pain
Rodney King/=Most Cases

And anyone can lie about anything, Latrinsorm, what's your point?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And anyone can lie about anything, Latrinsorm, what's your point?

Tin foil hat time.

[Gan]

Latrin's just feeling lonely. So he wants in on some of the attention.

[Clove]

Latrin's just feeling lonely. So he wants in on some of the attention.

Hey if he thinks not cooperating with an officer is the way to go- I'm behind him 100%.

Darwin FTW!

[BigWorm]

Well, considering TheE did NOT have any drugs in the car, that would minimized the chance of actual evidence being present.

The fact of the matter is that the cop having a "gut feeling" or "sixth sense" that someone has contraband does not count as PC.

The problem is that if the cop illegally searched the car and DID find something, he can pretty much make up PC for the search. If he finds pot in the car, what judge/jury isn't going the believe the cop when he says he smelt marijuana.

[Gan]

Its called using your head other than something to beat up on nightsticks with.

There's a reason why they send the stupid people out first in battle.

As I have found with the R party - its more fun instigating change from within and through the system than beating my head against the wall from the outside hoping for change.

Work the system baby! Thats what its there for.

[Gan]

Well, considering TheE did NOT have any drugs in the car, that would minimized the chance of actual evidence being present.
Are you sure there were no drugs? Are you sure the cop didnt smell something that might have been perceived as an illicit substance? Are you sure that the cop didnt see something in plain sight in the interior of the car that could have resembled drug paraphenalia? Been perceived by the officer as drug paraphenalia? Can you speak for the officer? Let me help you. No you cant speak for the officer and you cant determine what might or might not have been perceived without either hearing from the officer, being there, or seeing physical evidence that would indicate otherwise. Its funny that you're still attempting to assess legality without both sides of the story.


The fact of the matter is that the cop having a "gut feeling" or "sixth sense" that someone has contraband does not count as PC.
Right. A visual que, audible que, an olfactory que, a kinetic que, or any other physical que that the cop uses to evaluate a situation, as he has been trained to do, would be called reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The fact of the matter is, you're still assessing legality off of one side of the story. Hypothetical aside.


The problem is that if the cop illegally searched the car and DID find something, he can pretty much make up PC for the search. If he finds pot in the car, what judge/jury isn't going the believe the cop when he says he smelt marijuana.
Or drugs, or a gun, or any other contraband found. ZOMG life sucks.

Think of a better system and recommend it. ;)

I know, we can just make all drugs, guns, and other contraband legal and just not worry about pulling anyone over at all. Lets get rid of all laws while we're at it.

[TheEschaton]

Unless my ice scraper can be seen as drug paraphenalia, there is nothing else in the interior of my car which isn't part of my car itself. I don't put anything that smells in my car, in fact, I rarely have anything in my car at all besides me. Making jokes about me smelling are precluded here.

You keep on harping on what the officer might have seen or smelt "that might have been perceived as an illicit substance"...however, you keep on forgetting or ignoring the fact that it is NOT a subjective inquiry of what the officer FELT HE PERCEIVED - it's an objective query of not only what he thinks he perceived, but also if what he thinks he perceived is reasonable by the objective person standard.

What if a cop genuinely perceived my ice scraper was somehow a bong, despite it not having a chamber, a bowl, or the indication of marijuana either on it or in the car itself? Would that be allowed in court? Hell no - he may genuinely have thought it was a bong. But any judge would throw it out saying his "perception of the ice scraper as a bong" is an unreasonable one. And then the whole search would be out, whether he found actual drugs or not.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

As for keeping silent when an injustice is being performed against me, and then "suing his ass off later" is a rather unjust way of doing things. Maybe Nelson Mandela should have just sat in Robben Island until his prison sentence was up, and then sued the Afrikaaners. Your method of "pursuing justice" is fucked up in the head.

[Clove]

If he ever read any of your posts here I'd bet he'd have probable cause.

[Clove]

As for keeping silent when an injustice is being performed against me, and then "suing his ass off later" is a rather unjust way of doing things. Maybe Nelson Mandela should have just sat in Robben Island until his prison sentence was up, and then sued the Afrikaaners. Your method of "pursuing justice" is fucked up in the head.

Right, because that's what was suggested.

[Gan]

Unless my ice scraper can be seen as drug paraphenalia, there is nothing else in the interior of my car which isn't part of my car itself. I don't put anything that smells in my car, in fact, I rarely have anything in my car at all besides me. Making jokes about me smelling are precluded here.

You keep on harping on what the officer might have seen or smelt "that might have been perceived as an illicit substance"...however, you keep on forgetting or ignoring the fact that it is NOT a subjective inquiry of what the officer FELT HE PERCEIVED - it's an objective query of not only what he thinks he perceived, but also if what he thinks he perceived is reasonable by the objective person standard.

What if a cop genuinely perceived my ice scraper was somehow a bong, despite it not having a chamber, a bowl, or the indication of marijuana either on it or in the car itself? Would that be allowed in court? Hell no - he may genuinely have thought it was a bong. But any judge would throw it out saying his "perception of the ice scraper as a bong" is an unreasonable one. And then the whole search would be out, whether he found actual drugs or not.

-TheE-

And now we start with the hypotheticals again.

GG Hypothetical!

What happens in court will in no way deter what happens to you out in the field. Furthermore, a cop isnt going to be stupid enough (well in most cases) to base reasonable suspicion on an example as ludicris as you gave.

Lets be satisfied with your opinion that it was an illegal search and leave it at that. Because from a layman's perspective as an ex police officer, there was not near enough detail or information in your original post, or your clarification post to indicate its illegality. Furthermore, there's really nothing you can do about it after the fact, except for QQing.

And just for you, the next time you get pulled over, I strongly suggest, just for your entertainment, that you question the officer on every aspect and charge that he's detained you with. Let us know how that goes. ;)

If you're smart you'll just keep your trap shut and be compliant until you can either obtain representation or until you are released.

Its really OK that you like pissing into a fan. Just dont bitch when you get all wet.

[TheEschaton]

It was suggested.

And if he HAD read my posts here, then sure, PC for anti-establishment activities, not for drugs. ;)

-TheE-

[Gan]

Your method of "pursuing justice" is fucked up in the head.

From someone who lives in their own fantasy world, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Clove]

Maybe Nelson Mandela should have just sat in Robben Island until his prison sentence was up...

Nelson Mandela was a Commie Guerilla.

[diethx]

Quit being retarded.

For most large police departments there is a minimum of 60 college hours and in some cases a degree (college) required to join the force.

And 1 criminal justice class does not an expert on the law make...

Wow, you're calling me retarded? Maybe you should learn to read before you throw stones. I never claimed to be an expert on the law. In fact, I said exactly the opposite by prefacing my comments in stating that i've only taken one criminal justice course. Try removing head from ass, then try again.

I do know however that driving 7mph over the speed limit is not probable cause alone for a search of someone's vehicle. Or did you forget that you said that it was? Oops.

In Atlanta, you need only a GED to be accepted as a cop.
http://www.atlantapd.org/index.asp?nav=Career

In Manhattan, you can spend 2 years in the military instead of going to college.
http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/requirements.html

In Chicago, you can spend 4 years in the military instead of going to college.
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@192654 7604.1206575165@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadedjihfhmlcefecelldffhdfgn.0&contentOID=536884045&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Police%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Police&deptMainCategoryOID=

In Los Angeles, you only need a GED or HS diploma, or a California High School Proficiency Exam certificate.
http://www.joinlapd.com/qualifications.html

In Houston, you can spend (2 years I think) in the military instead of going to college.
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/careers.htm

So what big city requires officers to have 60 hours of college classes?

[diethx]

Thanks. She was failing to comprehend my efforts to explain - I guess they were not as reasonable.

I was easily able to understand that a cop would have probable cause to search if he found something suspicious. However, you didn't mention that at all earlier when you were stating how his speeding and only his speeding was enough reason for the search. THAT'S what i'm calling BS on. Never once did I say that a cop couldn't be alarmed by something like a smell or a mannerism and then choose to search.

[Gan]

I was easily able to understand that a cop would have probable cause to search if he found something suspicious. However, you didn't mention that at all earlier when you were stating how his speeding and only his speeding was enough reason for the search. THAT'S what i'm calling BS on. Never once did I say that a cop couldn't be alarmed by something like a smell or a mannerism and then choose to search.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Please point out to me specifically the example in the bolded part.


As I stated earlier, I said that I was combining the probable cause and resonable suspicion as the same - that was clarified right after Dev made her post. And all of my previous posts demonstrated why I said the cop was justified based on probable cause. It was there, you just chose to ignore it. Or you simply didnt understand it.

[Gan]

Wow, you're calling me retarded? Maybe you should learn to read before you throw stones. I never claimed to be an expert on the law. In fact, I said exactly the opposite by prefacing my comments in stating that i've only taken one criminal justice course. Try removing head from ass, then try again.

I do know however that driving 7mph over the speed limit is not probable cause alone for a search of someone's vehicle. Or did you forget that you said that it was? Oops.

In Atlanta, you need only a GED to be accepted as a cop.
http://www.atlantapd.org/index.asp?nav=Career

In Manhattan, you can spend 2 years in the military instead of going to college.
http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/requirements.html

In Chicago, you can spend 4 years in the military instead of going to college.
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@192654 7604.1206575165@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadedjihfhmlcefecelldffhdfgn.0&contentOID=536884045&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Police%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Police&deptMainCategoryOID=

In Los Angeles, you only need a GED or HS diploma, or a California High School Proficiency Exam certificate.
http://www.joinlapd.com/qualifications.html

In Houston, you can spend (2 years I think) in the military instead of going to college.
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/careers.htm

So what big city requires officers to have 60 hours of college classes?

Dallas PD requires 60 college hours or military service.

Houston PD requires 60 college hours or military service.

So you got me on a technicality - I forgot to include previous military service.

IT STILL TAKES COLLEGE HOURS YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

[diethx]

Reading comprehension FTL.

I told you that I was combining the probable cause and resonable suspicion as the same. And all of my previous posts demonstrated why I said the cop was justified based on probable cause. It was there, you just chose to ignore it. Or you simply didnt understand it.

Yeah, you very conveniently did like 100 posts INTO THE DISCUSSION, after myself and other people were already disagreeing with you left and right for comments like these:


Speeding is speeding. You speed, you open yourself up for all kinds of grief.


Probable cause.

TheE would have a leg to stand on if he had not been pulled over for speeding.

Oh and...


Dallas PD requires 60 college hours or military service.

Houston PD requires 60 college hours or military service.

So you got me on a technicality - I forgot to include previous military service.

IT STILL TAKES COLLEGE HOURS YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Uh, no it doesn't. On all of those websites I linked that have some requirement other than GED or HS Diploma, it says you can do EITHER 60 or so hours of college OR serve in the military for a couple years. Unless i'm fucking mistaken, which i'm not, YOU CAN BE A COP BY GOING INTO THE MILITARY AND WITHOUT GOING TO COLLEGE IN THESE INSTANCES. Which only supports my point that you don't need college classes to know shit about the law. Yay for fucking reading, dipshit.

[Gan]

Yeah, you very conveniently did like 100 posts INTO THE DISCUSSION, after myself and other people were already disagreeing with you left and right for comments like these:


It still meant the same thing dipshit. Maybe you should have taken more CJ classes.



Uh, no it doesn't. On all of those websites I linked that have some requirement other than GED or HS Diploma, it says you can do EITHER 60 or so hours of college OR serve in the military for a couple years. Unless i'm fucking mistaken, which i'm not, YOU CAN BE A COP BY GOING INTO THE MILITARY AND WITHOUT GOING TO COLLEGE IN THESE INSTANCES. Which only supports my point that you don't need college classes to know shit about the law. Yay for fucking reading, dipshit.

Obviously that crack about only taking 1 CJ course stung. Maybe if you keep holding onto the fact that I forgot to mention the military service requirement (funny, this thread was more about discussing the details and hypotheticals of search and seizure involving probable cause and as later was clarified reasonable suspicion).

HANG ONTO IT ROVER! DONT LET GO AND MAYBE YOU'LL BE REDEEMED!

:lol:

You're pretty funny. And easily worked up. ;)

[diethx]

It still meant the same thing dipshit. Maybe you should have taken more CJ classes.

Damn, I knew I should've taken that MIND READING class instead, because it sure would've come in handy here. I guess everyone else should've known what you meant too rather than jumping on your ass about being ridiculous :(


Obviously that crack about only taking 1 CJ course stung. Maybe if you keep holding onto the fact that I forgot to mention the military service requirement (funny, this thread was more about discussing the details and hypotheticals of search and seizure involving probable cause and as later was clarified reasonable suspicion).

HANG ONTO IT ROVER! DONT LET GO AND MAYBE YOU'LL BE REDEEMED!

:lol:

You're pretty funny. And easily worked up. ;)

Oh gimme a break, you couldn't get me upset if you tried. If you recall, you're the one who started typing in caps and calling names. So wouldn't that mean that you're the one getting upset?

I love how when someone realizes they've been proven wrong, rather than admitting it and bowing out, they're all, "OMG UR SO EASILY UPSET?!?!??! EMO MUCH!?!?!?" lol, as if that would distract anyone from the facts.

I'm well aware what this whole conversation was about. I'm well aware that most everyone posting in it disagreed with you, until you whipped out the, "OMG I was including other suspicious activity why couldn't you read my mind for my first 20 posts?!?!?!"

When I made the point that you don't need a college education to be a cop (since you decided that my one elective made me completely oblivious to the law to begin with), you decided to make an incorrect statement that made your whole OMG ONE CLASS!! thing seem ridiculous. It's not my fault if you can't handle me correcting you, and solidifying my point. I have more college-level education on criminal justice with my one little class than a large amount of cops out there, i'd gather. Sry if you don't like that :/

[Gan]

Damn, I knew I should've taken that MIND READING class instead, because it sure would've come in handy here. I guess everyone else should've known what you meant too rather than jumping on your ass about being ridiculous :(



Oh gimme a break, you couldn't get me upset if you tried. If you recall, you're the one who started typing in caps and calling names. So wouldn't that mean that you're the one getting upset?

I love how when someone realizes they've been proven wrong, rather than admitting it and bowing out, they're all, "OMG UR SO EASILY UPSET?!?!??! EMO MUCH!?!?!?" lol, as if that would distract anyone from the facts.

So you got me on a techincality about the recruiting parameters. lolz you winz the internetz.

You're still wrong on the concept that in either case, hypothetical or specific, the search was not illegal. Period. The end. You cant argue around it. There simply is not enough information specifically to determine what the cop was thinking, presuming, or suspected during the traffic stop. And hypothetically you cant create a scenario around the one variable that negates every angle you can come up with. The variable of what the officer perceives. And furthermore, if you even hypothesize that a complaint such as this would ever make it to trial you'll have to deal with the fact that the officer's word will be taken in most times over the word of the complainant.


I'm well aware what this whole conversation was about. I'm well aware that most everyone posting in it disagreed with you, until you whipped out the, "OMG I was including other suspicious activity why couldn't you read my mind for my first 20 posts?!?!?!"
If most you mean 3 or 4 people. Yea, did you take any acconting classes while you were taking that 1 CJ course? LOL


When I made the point that you don't need a college education to be a cop (since you decided that my one elective made me completely oblivious to the law to begin with), you decided to make an incorrect statement that made your whole OMG ONE CLASS!! thing seem ridiculous. It's not my fault if you can't handle me correcting you, and solidifying my point. I have more college-level education on criminal justice with my one little class than a large amount of cops out there, i'd gather. Sry if you don't like that :/
All you have to say is that one stung. Thanks, we get it, I hit a nerve with you. LOL I'll have to remember where that one is for the future when you're acting like an idiot with blinders on in a thread.

[Gan]

PS.

Your turn.

[TheEschaton]

By the by, you've stated that any cop's individual reasonable suspicion is enough for probable cause, which is wrong.

Please answer why this cop would let me go without even the speeding ticket if he didn't realize he had performed an illegal search?

-TheE-

[diethx]

So you got me on a techincality about the recruiting parameters. lolz you winz the internetz.

No, all that shows is that I actually do some research on a topic before I take a stance and argue it, rather than making stupid, incorrect statements.


You're still wrong on the concept that in either case, hypothetical or specific, the search was not illegal. Period. The end. You cant argue around it. There simply is not enough information specifically to determine what the cop was thinking, presuming, or suspected during the traffic stop. And hypothetically you cant create a scenario around the one variable that negates every angle you can come up with. The variable of what the officer perceives. And furthermore, if you even hypothesize that a complaint such as this would ever make it to trial you'll have to deal with the fact that the officer's word will be taken in most times over the word of the complainant.

Since you obviously never read any of my posts, let me clarify that I never even fucking said that the search was illegal. I said speeding 7 mph over the speed limit was not probable cause for a search alone. Let me quote a couple of my first few posts, bolding the areas of interest which obviously escaped you in your blind zeal to defend this cop.


I've only taken one criminal justice course in college and even I know that Hulkein is right. Going 7 mph over the speed limit is not probable cause for a search, it's cause to get a fucking ticket for speeding.


Exactly. As much as I think TheEschaton is a dumbass, he didn't deserve what that cop did ASSUMING the situation went as he described. You've been defending that cop since the story was posted and until now you've made no mention of any other factors. You've even posted that simply going 7 mph over the speed limit was PC enough to search.

Would you like to change your story, and claim I said something else that I didn't say now?


If most you mean 3 or 4 people. Yea, did you take any acconting classes while you were taking that 1 CJ course? LOL

LOL @ 3 or 4 cops out of the thousands upon thousands out there. C'mon man, be realistic. Or you could keep digging... whatever. And yes, I took two accounting classes for my old major. Got A's in both of them (like the CJ course ;)).


All you have to say is that one stung. Thanks, we get it, I hit a nerve with you. LOL I'll have to remember where that one is for the future when you're acting like an idiot with blinders on in a thread.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to get you through the day and put you to sleep. If you thinking you hurt my feelings makes you feel better about your foot in mouth issue along with the sparkling dumbass comments of the day, more power to you, no matter how deluded it makes you.

[Stanley Burrell]

This place sucks ass.

[diethx]

This place sucks ass.

So does your mom. And your moustache.

[Stanley Burrell]

So does your mom. And your moustache.

Let's see my mother and my moustache try and suck some anus innards after I get the 200th response in this thread, bee-atch.

YEAH BABY, YEAH.

Edit: Ah, you had #200.

Still. Fuck.

Shit man, I'm jealous. Do you still have a boyfriend?

[diethx]

Let's see my mother and my moustache try and suck some anus innards after I get the 200th response in this thread, bee-atch.

YEAH BABY, YEAH.

Edit: Ah, you had #200.

Still. Fuck.

Shit man, I'm jealous. Do you still have a boyfriend?

You know he's my fiance, dillhole. ;)

[Stanley Burrell]

Hold up, hold up. Wait:

Does it go by replies or actual number of posts starting with the OP's?

For e-wang supremacy, rather. I always get that one confused.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<LOL @ 3 or 4 cops out of the thousands upon thousands out there.>>

Reading comprehension ftl.

[Gan]

No, all that shows is that I actually do some research on a topic before I take a stance and argue it, rather than making stupid, incorrect statements.
I wouldnt be too hasty about that snap judgement.




Since you obviously never read any of my posts, let me clarify that I never even fucking said that the search was illegal. I said speeding 7 mph over the speed limit was not probable cause for a search alone. Let me quote a couple of my first few posts, bolding the areas of interest which obviously escaped you in your blind zeal to defend this cop.
Thank you capt. obvious. I think you'll find no one disagreed with the premise that speeding alone is sufficient cause for a search - BUT IT OPENS THE FUCKING DOOR TO BE DETAINED - which can then lead to more investigation, possible search, etc. Again. Reading comprehension - ITS YOUR FRIEND.



Would you like to change your story, and claim I said something else that I didn't say now?
I have never needed to change my story. Even if it would vindicate you in your windmill tilting, Don Quixote.



LOL @ 3 or 4 cops out of the thousands upon thousands out there. C'mon man, be realistic. Or you could keep digging... whatever. And yes, I took two accounting classes for my old major. Got A's in both of them (like the CJ course ;)).
Reading comprehension FTL. the 3 or 4 was meant as a response to your quip of NUMEROUS POSTERS in the thread disagreeing with me. Seems you need to take English along with Accounting and more CJ. Check.



Whatever you need to tell yourself to get you through the day and put you to sleep. If you thinking you hurt my feelings makes you feel better about your foot in mouth issue along with the sparkling dumbass comments of the day, more power to you, no matter how deluded it makes you.

Keep responding, and I'll keep pushing that button. ;)

Your turn.

[Stanley Burrell]

You know he's my fiance, dillhole. ;)

I know, can you be open to a menage, but then he accidentally goes to pick up groceries and then somehow.

We do the guy hiding in the closet with the video camera while I molest you consensually? Because... I have no friends, except the Internet.

[diethx]

<<LOL @ 3 or 4 cops out of the thousands upon thousands out there.>>

Reading comprehension ftl.

Shit yeah, i'll suck that one up. I quote and then read and reply, and I didn't see his quote. That's what I get for assuming :(

[Bobmuhthol]

Reading comprehension FTL.

I fucking called it so hard.

[diethx]

I know, can you be open to a menage, but then he accidentally goes to pick up groceries and then somehow.

We do the guy hiding in the closet with the video camera while I molest you consensually? Because... I have no friends, except the Internet.

I can't say in your dreams emphatically enough. I really can't.

[Stanley Burrell]

I can't say in your dreams emphatically enough. I really can't.

I don't even fucking remember my dreams. I take melatonin some nights. Cunt.

:heart:

[diethx]

I wouldnt be too hasty about that snap judgement.

I guess that's why I was right, and you were wrong.


Thank you capt. obvious. I think you'll find no one disagreed with the premise that speeding alone is sufficient cause for a search - BUT IT OPENS THE FUCKING DOOR TO BE DETAINED - which can then lead to more investigation, possible search, etc. Again. Reading comprehension - ITS YOUR FRIEND.

Except you made it pretty clear from your posts early on that he broke the law and should suck it up. They've already be quoted, no use in trying to deny what you've already said ;)


Reading comprehension FTL. the 3 or 4 was meant as a response to your quip of NUMEROUS POSTERS in the thread disagreeing with me. Seems you need to take English along with Accounting and more CJ. Check.

Yes, like I already said, this one i'll totally accept. That will teach me to quote first and then read in the message field. At least I can admit when I fucked up and not try to change the fucking topic and play skirt around the issue, yay. I guess that's what happens when you don't have an e-peen to constantly puff up.


Keep responding, and I'll keep pushing that button. ;)

Your turn.

:rofl: Yes, like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself to make it through the day. Make up as many buttons as you want. ;)

[diethx]

I don't even fucking remember my dreams. I take melatonin some nights. Cunt.

:heart:

I'd rather be a cunt than be your girlfriend. :x

[Stanley Burrell]

I'd rather be a cunt than be your girlfriend. :x

I'd rather be a cunt than your girlfriend as well. Because I could masturbate and I think it would somehow = scoring poonani. I think that's how that pregnant guy reproduced. I'll have to give it a try.

Sporing gets me off.

[Gan]

I fucking called it so hard.

hahaha

Point: Bobmuhthol

[Gan]

I guess that's why I was right, and you were wrong.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Not really. But if that makes you feel better, keep telling yourself.



Except you made it pretty clear from your posts early on that he broke the law and should suck it up. They've already be quoted, no use in trying to deny what you've already said ;)
He did break the law. He was speeding. Keep trying, someday you'll understand. Maybe ask your fiancee to explain it to you.



Yes, like I already said, this one i'll totally accept. That will teach me to quote first and then read in the message field. At least I can admit when I fucked up and not try to change the fucking topic and play skirt around the issue, yay. I guess that's what happens when you don't have an e-peen to constantly puff up.
Oh yes, thats it - cover up your mistake with the e-peen blanket. Pulling a Hillary here wont hide your assnine position or your stupid circular arguments.



:rofl: Yes, like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself to make it through the day. Make up as many buttons as you want. ;)
And yet you keep responding.

[diethx]

He did break the law. He was speeding. Keep trying, someday you'll understand. Maybe ask your fiancee to explain it to you.

No, really? Was he really!??! Don't pull a Latrinsorm and nitpick half a comment that alone has no context. But I guess when you have nothing else to say.... :shrug:


Oh yes, thats it - cover up your mistake with the e-peen blanket. Pulling a Hillary here wont hide your assnine position or your stupid circular arguments.

Uh, how am I covering up a mistake? I clearly admitted I fucked up because I didn't read the quote. Unlike you, I own up to my fuckups when I make them. Is english your fucking second language or something? Goddamn.


And yet you keep responding.

Hmmm, so do you, what does that mean? :)

[Gan]

No, really? Was he really!??! Don't pull a Latrinsorm and nitpick half a comment that alone has no context. But I guess when you have nothing else to say.... :shrug:
LOL at you thinking I'M Nitpicking.

This is getting boring and tiresome.

Since you cant refute that speeding is breaking the law, and that being pulled over for speeding (lawful detainer) can lead to the searching of a vehicle involved in said speeding if said officer reasonably suspects illicit activity by the driver, through whatever means he's been trained to suspect or recognize illicit activity, that he can search the vehicle legally under probable cause... what are you arguing? Do you even know?




Uh, how am I covering up a mistake? I clearly admitted I fucked up because I didn't read the quote. Unlike you, I own up to my fuckups when I make them. Is english your fucking second language or something? Goddamn.
The mistake that you really dont know what in the fuck you're arguing about.




Hmmm, so do you, what does that mean? :)
+1

[TheEschaton]

Ah, and now Gan has taken it to such pointless bickering that the real topic at hand gets ignored. Classic R-Team move, I give it a 7 out of 10, 3 points off for it taking this many posts to do.

[diethx]

Ah, and now Gan has taken it to such pointless bickering that the real topic at hand gets ignored. Classic R-Team move, I give it a 7 out of 10, 3 points off for it taking this many posts to do.

srsly. :banghead: I can only repeat myself so many times, but I don't think it'll ever sink in.

[Gan]

Ah, and now Gan has taken it to such pointless bickering that the real topic at hand gets ignored. Classic R-Team move, I give it a 7 out of 10, 3 points off for it taking this many posts to do.

ZOMG ITS ALL MY FAULT!

OHEZ NOEZ!

I give you -150 points for presenting a stupid story and a biased argument to support it.

You're welcome.

[Gan]

srsly. :banghead: I can only repeat myself so many times, but I don't think it'll ever sink in.

LOL

Pot meet kettle.

[TheEschaton]

Dude, the arguments you made are ridiculous. Absolutely out of this world ridiculous. They're simply not accurate. You keep on insisting that cops can (and that it is somehow condoned) make up RS and PC to perform otherwise illegal searches.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Dude, the arguments you made are ridiculous. Absolutely out of this world ridiculous. They're simply not accurate. You keep on insisting that cops can (and that it is somehow condoned) make up RS and PC to perform otherwise illegal searches.

-TheE-

Coming from fantasy land #5 I'll take that as validation.

Thanks!

PS. We've hashed it out. Argued it through hypothetical then specific, then back to hypothetical, then specific through hypothetical and vice versa. Its not only plausable, its a reality. It happens every day, and its legal.

PSS. Even if I had not performed these types of searches, and had evidence seized not only stand up in court but get a conviction off of them, I might have been swayed providing you would have had some support, but when even Dev and Keller dont agree with you. I dont know what else to tell you. Those two like nothing better than to bust my chops when I stray too far afield.

[Gan]

And on that note. I'm off to bed. I have a 9:40 tee time at Tour 18 tomorrow morning. :)

[Hulkein]

Coming from fantasy land #5 I'll take that as validation.

Thanks!

PS. We've hashed it out. Argued it through hypothetical then specific, then back to hypothetical, then specific through hypothetical and vice versa. Its not only plausable, its a reality. It happens every day, and its legal.

PSS. Even if I had not performed these types of searches, and had evidence seized not only stand up in court but get a conviction off of them, I might have been swayed providing you would have had some support, but when even Dev and Keller dont agree with you. I dont know what else to tell you. Those two like nothing better than to bust my chops when I stray too far afield.

I'm pretty sure Keller was agreeing with you in the sense that jurors will believe a cop over someone on trial. He didn't say your legal analysis was correct, because it isn't. You're only 'right' in that a cop can make things up and say that's where he got the RS and a juror will likely believe him.

[Back]

Where is gslawyer when you need him?

Five star thread. Really.

[sst]

Dude, the arguments you made are ridiculous. Absolutely out of this world ridiculous. They're simply not accurate. You keep on insisting that cops can (and that it is somehow condoned) make up RS and PC to perform otherwise illegal searches.

-TheE-

I'm curious TheE what in your mind is RS and/or PC for a Legal Search?

[Gan]

I'm pretty sure Keller was agreeing with you in the sense that jurors will believe a cop over someone on trial. He didn't say your legal analysis was correct, because it isn't. You're only 'right' in that a cop can make things up and say that's where he got the RS and a juror will likely believe him.

Thanks for your opinion.

Really.

[Daniel]

You coulda saved a whole lot of bandwidth if you just said cops do what the fuck they want and people can't do anything about it.

[TheEschaton]

It happens every day, and its legal.

It happens every day, and its illegal, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of power.

Dave, the standard is that any reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would be suspicious of criminal activity. For example, if there were drug paraphenalia or empty beer cans, or the odor of pot/alcohol, or even if they had had a report of a "dark green Saturn driven by long haired, 6' South Asian male leaving known drug establishment," those would all be reasons for probable cause. Weaving and erratic driving is probable cause to check for DUI. There has to be some actual evidence of criminal malfeasance that is sworn to in an affadavit.

Things that are not a legal basis for RS: speeding (unless its away from the scene of a recent crime, or otherwise "getaway driving"), other movign violations (failure to stop fully, etc), or violations of vehicle safety standards (like a blown headlight). These are all reasons to STOP a car and issue a citation for those things, it is not enough to warrant RS and the ability to search the car by themselves.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Thanks for your opinion.

Really.

You can read the Supreme Court opinions for yourself.

[Gan]

:deadhorse:


It happens every day, and its illegal, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of power.

Dave, the standard is that any reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would be suspicious of criminal activity. For example, if there were drug paraphenalia or empty beer cans, or the odor of pot/alcohol, or even if they had had a report of a "dark green Saturn driven by long haired, 6' South Asian male leaving known drug establishment," those would all be reasons for probable cause. Weaving and erratic driving is probable cause to check for DUI. There has to be some actual evidence of criminal malfeasance that is sworn to in an affadavit.

Things that are not a legal basis for RS: speeding (unless its away from the scene of a recent crime, or otherwise "getaway driving"), other movign violations (failure to stop fully, etc), or violations of vehicle safety standards (like a blown headlight). These are all reasons to STOP a car and issue a citation for those things, it is not enough to warrant RS and the ability to search the car by themselves.

-TheE-

Then we should see thousands of people locked up for contraband found through illegal searches set free! We should see thousands of law enforcement officers face disciplinary action and even terminated for conducting illegal searches! They broke the law, lets arrest the cops!

Let me know when this happens according to your world of PC.

Meanwhile I'll watch on the news tonight and possibly see a story where a guy was pulled over for speeding and subsequently arrested for having drugs in his vehicle, and hear how he's going to jail. ;)

[JohnDoe]

It happens every day, and its illegal, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of power.
-TheE-


:deadhorse:
Then we should see thousands of people locked up for contraband found through illegal searches set free! We should see thousands of law enforcement officers face disciplinary action and even terminated for conducting illegal searches! They broke the law, lets arrest the cops!

Let me know when this happens according to your world of PC.

Meanwhile I'll watch on the news tonight and possibly see a story where a guy was pulled over for speeding and subsequently arrested for having drugs in his vehicle, and hear how he's going to jail. ;)
I guess you guys just disagree on what's legal. I don't think TheE or anyone else in this thread is saying it doesn't happen. I think everyone agrees that legal and illegal searches happen every day and there's little anyone (other than the person that's performing the illegal search) can do about it. Unless I completely missed the point of all of these posts (could be since I couldn't stand to read every single one), the legality of the search is what's in question. Not that it happens, that people go to jail for contraband found, not that officers get away with it, and all that crap you posted about the "world of PC".

Are you saying that an unjustified search is legal?

Or are you questioning whether they understand what a legal search is?

Or are you saying that there was probable cause and the OP deserved to be searched?

Or are you saying that there is no such thing as an illegal search because if the officer thinks it's warranted, that's all the PC that's needed?

Has anyone pulled a direct quote from official legal text that defines probable cause and justification for search?

[Hulkein]

If someone is going 7 mph over the speed limit and not showing any other signs of suspicious activity, it's not PC to search a car.

Some cops may still search a car and then say the guy was sweating, fidgeting, etc, etc, if they do find drugs. It doesn't mean that they did the legal thing, it just means that they have a lot of leeway in justifying what they did when it comes to car searches. It's not legal without the exaggeration or flat out lying.

[TheEschaton]

Then we should see thousands of people locked up for contraband found through illegal searches set free!

Our entire Constitution, and most of the Bill of Rights, is dedicated to limiting the power of the government so its not tyrannical. It is predicated on the idea that it is better to let 10 guilty people go than put one innocent man in jail.

That's a bit of a stretch to justify the full extent of that statement, but I'm sorry, if I heard a story like mine except they find drugs, I'd find it hugely unjust. The Fourth Amendment plainly states that all citizens are free from all unwarranted and unjust searches.

-TheE-

[Gan]

If someone is going 7 mph over the speed limit and not showing any other signs of suspicious activity, it's not PC to search a car.
You're correct. I never said that speeding alone was justification for a PC. Speeding is justification for lawful detainer - because its breaking the law. While the motorist is stopped, and the cop observes something that is enough to warrant reasonable suspicion - then the car is searched PC.

We've been through 200 posts. I have never waivered from that. And you seem to still argue the point. I cant help you beyond this.



Some cops may still search a car and then say the guy was sweating, fidgeting, etc, etc, if they do find drugs. It doesn't mean that they did the legal thing, it just means that they have a lot of leeway in justifying what they did when it comes to car searches. It's not legal without the exaggeration or flat out lying.
You're right. All cops are liars and all searches are illegal. Lets fire the cops and set all the criminals free! /sarcasm.

There is no help for you.

[Gan]

Our entire Constitution, and most of the Bill of Rights, is dedicated to limiting the power of the government so its not tyrannical. It is predicated on the idea that it is better to let 10 guilty people go than put one innocent man in jail.

That's a bit of a stretch to justify the full extent of that statement, but I'm sorry, if I heard a story like mine except they find drugs, I'd find it hugely unjust. The Fourth Amendment plainly states that all citizens are free from all unwarranted and unjust searches.

-TheE-

Blah, blah blah. /deadhorse /deadhorse /deadhorse.

Lacking any evidence indicating that criminals are being set free that have been charged with posession as a result of illegal vehicle searches. Lacking any news stories of cops being fired or charged with official oppression because of illegal searches....

well, you get the picture.

[Hulkein]

You're correct. I never said that speeding alone was justification for a PC. Speeding is justification for lawful detainer - because its breaking the law. While the motorist is stopped, and the cop observes something that is enough to warrant reasonable suspicion - then the car is searched PC.

We've been through 200 posts. I have never waivered from that. And you seem to still argue the point. I cant help you beyond this.

You argued against E for a long time before saying that the reason you were arguing was because you didn't believe his hypothetical.

I actually specifically asked you if you believed any cop who would search a car for going 7 mph over the speed limit was an asshole and you went on to defend the cop. The entire time you have based your arguments on the assumption that E is lying.

Re-read the thread to understand why so many people argued with you.



You're right. All cops are liars and all searches are illegal. Lets fire the cops and set all the criminals free! /sarcasm.

There is no help for you.

Seeing as I have three cousins who are Philadelphia cops, a cousin who is a Pa. state trooper, and an uncle who is a cop outside of Philadelphia.... you're way off.

[Gan]

You argued against E for a long time before saying that the reason you were arguing was because you didn't believe his hypothetical.
You're right, I didnt believe his specific story ( not hypothetical). Firstly, based on TheE's fantastical rhetoric here that he's well known for, and based on the story with very little information, AND based on the fact that it was given with an obvious first person bias - I DID NOT BELIVE HIS STORY AS IT WAS GIVEN. ;) Its suprising that you can't comprehend why I wouldnt.


I actually specifically asked you if you believed any cop who would search a car for going 7 mph over the speed limit was an asshole and you went on to defend the cop. The entire time you have based your arguments on the assumption that E is lying.
Here's where you mixing up the hypothetical with the specific.

Hypothetically (meaning in general - not specifically related to TheE's story) A cop would not, should not search a vehicle solely for going 7 mph over the speed limit. I'm going to bold that - because you cant get that through your thick skull. I said, and continue to say, that the cop, after pulling said speeder over, would and could legally search the vehicle if, IF, he observed something that aroused his suspicion - and that the subsequent search - should it take place - would be based on probably cause of his reasonable suspicion of illicit activity.

Specifically (meaning TheE's story) I argued that TheE could not attest to the mindset of the cop who pulled him over, nor could he attest to the reason why the cop searched his car. TheE could only ASSUME it was searched because he mouthed off at the cop. Specifically speaking, there is NOT enough evidence, as again I echoed in several threads, to substantiate the claim that the search was unequivocally ILLEGAL. Thus lacking a police report from the officer, photographs indicating the weather conditions, where the speeding took place, the condition of the vehicle (inside and out), what smells eminated from the interior of the vehicle when the officer approached, TheE's demanor, physical condition, and any other factor that the traffic officer has been trained to recognize as an indicator (red flag) for someone possibly participating in illicit activities, the legality of the search can not be concluded - PERIOD, THE END, GOOD DAY SIR.



Re-read the thread to understand why so many people argued with you.
As evident in your repeated posts - I would recommend that you reread the thread. And while you're there you can re-evaluate why you call between 3 and 4 posters as SO MANY. :lol:





Seeing as I have three cousins who are Philadelphia cops, a cousin who is a Pa. state trooper, and an uncle who is a cop outside of Philadelphia.... you're way off.
I'm spot on in Texas. ;) Because I was a cop. Relying on cousins and family members (as my own family members can attest) aside.

Again, thanks for playing.

[BigWorm]

Probable cause.

TheE would have a leg to stand on if he had not been pulled over for speeding.

That's what you said. This sounds like you're saying that TheE would be right (that the search was illegal) if he had not been pulled over. Meaning that the reason that the search was legal was because the cop had witnessed him speeding.

To reiterate, you said that because TheE had been pulled over for speeding, the cop could legally search his car. You were the first one to bring up PC and the traffic stop is the only reason that you cited for PC. This is incorrect by any reading of the law.

[Gan]

That's what you said. This sounds like you're saying that TheE would be right (that the search was illegal) if he had not been pulled over. Meaning that the reason that the search was legal was because the cop had witnessed him speeding.

To reiterate, you said that because TheE had been pulled over for speeding, the cop could legally search his car. You were the first one to bring up PC and the traffic stop is the only reason that you cited for PC. This is incorrect by any reading of the law.

You're interpretation of what I said is incorrect.

Reading comprehension FTL.

[Daniel]

For Gan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

[Gan]

For Dan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

PS.


If you want to have a discussion then please try and be the least bit objective and not dismiss other people's accounts of how things are because you don't believe in them.


The Irony.

[Daniel]

I didn't realize you had an account in this story. In fact, I'm pretty sure you just made up whatever would prove your point.

..The irony.

[Gan]

I didn't realize you had an account in this story. In fact, I'm pretty sure you just made up whatever would prove your point.

..The irony.

Reading comprehension FTL

[Daniel]

Okay

[Gan]

Art. 2.133. REPORTS REQUIRED FOR TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN
STOPS. (a) In this article:
(1) "Race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article
2.132(a).
(2) "Pedestrian stop" means an interaction between a peace
officer and an individual who is being detained for the purpose of a
criminal investigation in which the individual is not under arrest.
(b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged
violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or who stops a
pedestrian for any suspected offense shall report to the law
enforcement agency that employs the officer information relating to
the stop, including:
(1) a physical description of each person detained as a
result of the stop, including:
(A) the person's gender; and
(B) the person's race or ethnicity, as stated by the person
or, if the person does not state the person's race or ethnicity, as
determined by the officer to the best of the officer's ability;
(2) the traffic law or ordinance alleged to have been
violated or the suspected offense;
(3) whether the officer conducted a search as a result of the
stop and, if so, whether the person detained consented to the
search;
(4) whether any contraband was discovered in the course of
the search and the type of contraband discovered;
(5) whether probable cause to search existed and the facts
supporting the existence of that probable cause;
(6) whether the officer made an arrest as a result of the stop
or the search, including a statement of the offense charged;
(7) the street address or approximate location of the stop;
and
(8) whether the officer issued a warning or a citation as a
result of the stop, including a description of the warning or a
statement of the violation charged.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/cr.toc.htm



Art. 1.06. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
Same source as above.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't realize you had an account in this story. In fact, I'm pretty sure you just made up whatever would prove your point.

..The irony.


HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAhA


I can't breath.....


AHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHH


It's pretty early in the morning.. but damn, I think we have today's winner.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/hypocrite1.jpg

[Hulkein]

You're right, I didnt believe his specific story ( not hypothetical). Firstly, based on TheE's fantastical rhetoric here that he's well known for, and based on the story with very little information, AND based on the fact that it was given with an obvious first person bias - I DID NOT BELIVE HIS STORY AS IT WAS GIVEN. ;) Its suprising that you can't comprehend why I wouldnt.

I can comprehend that, you just didn't say that until long into the thread. Some people really think going 7 mph over the speed limit is enough to search a car, you seemed to be that type of person seeing as you didn't explain yourself originally.


A cop would not, should not search a vehicle solely for going 7 mph over the speed limit.

Would not is incorrect. Should not is correct.


Again, thanks for playing.

Are you a 14 year old girl?

[Hulkein]

You're interpretation of what I said is incorrect.

Reading comprehension FTL.

It's becoming pretty clear that you weren't able to convey your point well in this thread, it wasn't due to a collective reading comprehension problem of everyone arguing with you.