Court: Cops have the right to frisk everyone

[Criticalt]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But let me ask you this, in this episode you talked about, did the copper do anything wrong or illegal? What Right of the Meth head did he violate?

And I will repeat, she was in a stolen car, that in itself is a possible crime.

If you stop a car and the driver admits to stealing it, do you arrest everyone in the car for car theft?

 

[GOPerfect]

If you stop a car and the driver admits to stealing it, do you arrest everyone in the car for car theft?

Possibly, yes.

 

[GOPerfect]

See, thats the trickery. The cop will keep her there until she gives in, flees, or fights. All of which he will search her. She wasnt driving the car, she wasnt being charged with a crime, the cop said, "youre not being charged with a crime."
Seriosly calling her confrontational for her saying she has rights, thats a bit far.

To an extent, I agree. There are many tools in the tool box.

 

[Criticalt]

As far as im concerned cops can shoot and kill crims on the streets. Im just playing devils advocate.
I know the chick had drugs in her purse. I wouldnt let her go either.
Im just in a mood because my cat pissed in my shoe!!

 

[GOPerfect]

Im just playing devils advocate

I as well.

 

[stuck in ny]

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different levels.

A cop can "know" someone committed a crime but it doesn't always rise to the level of probable cause.

And most Terry stops do not result in arrests.

If you fit the discription and are stopped. The police hold you for the victim to "show up" and tell them if you are the guy who did it or not.

No arrest if you aren't the guy.

You have a gun and some one calls 911 on you. The cop sees you and the butt of the weapon, he stops and disarmed you. He interviews the 911 caller and finds it was just a nervous nelly and no crime.
Guess what? The gun owner gets his gun back and goes on his way.

You are driving a car with a cracked steering column and the cop sees it. He pulls you over and you explain that your car had been stolen and recovered. And that you haven't fixed the column yet. Guess what? No arrest.

All reasonable suspicion but no crime committed. Probable cause would be if the car wasn't registered to you and you had know knowledge of who the owner was. Now it's more probable that the car is stolen. And often the police are the ones telling the owner that their car was stolen. Remember the computer doesn't state if the car is stolen or not until the owner reports it. What if they are still sleeping and don't know it yet?

What you just described with the 911 snowflake should not just mean the guy goes free; it should mean that the cops get sued to high heaven along with the snowflake.

 

[GOPerfect]

What you just described with the 911 snowflake should not just mean the guy goes free; it should mean that the cops get sued to high heaven along with the snowflake.

One more with no clue!

 

[stuck in ny]

To an extent, I agree. There are many tools in the tool box.

One more with no clue!

Oh boy. I should totally get into LE! I can't wait to harrass chicks until they "assault" me and make a joke about it! I've just got to finish repainting the side of my house in a Kim Jung-un mural first.

 

[GOPerfect]

Oh boy. I should totally get into LE! I can't wait to harrass chicks until they "assault" me and make a joke about it! I've just got to finish repainting the side of my house in a Kim Jung-un mural first.

You seem to have so serious issues. Are you that wanting?

Yep, it is what all coppers do; harass "Chicks".

What are you? Twelve? Grow up dude.

 

[stuck in ny]

But where are the limits? What gives them the justification to pull me out of my car and search me?

This is what some posters here appearently don't get or are LE and think that since they personally have a brain that someone else, quite possibly in a future political climate that no one can even predict now would also. I repeat- STRICT scutiny.

 

[GOPerfect]

This is what some posters here appearently don't get or are LE and think that since they personally have a brain that someone else, quite possibly in a future political climate that no one can even predict now would also. I repeat- STRICT scutiny.

What? What you say makes zero sense. What are you trying to say? Slow down, think first and then type. Slow down a bit.

 

[nortatoga]

This is what some posters here appearently don't get or are LE and think that since they personally have a brain that someone else, quite possibly in a future political climate that no one can even predict now would also. I repeat- STRICT scutiny.

 

[Truebeliever]

If you stop a car and the driver admits to stealing it, do you arrest everyone in the car for car theft?

It depends I what was said and done. Often the passengers helped him steal it or actually stole it and let him drive it.

Circumstances of each case dictate what happens. Often if the driver confesses he did it and did it alone. Often we know he is lying but we often go with it anyway. Easier to process. Sometimes all go depending on their history.

 

[Truebeliever]

This is what some posters here appearently don't get or are LE and think that since they personally have a brain that someone else, quite possibly in a future political climate that no one can even predict now would also. I repeat- STRICT scutiny.

In small words so I can understand, what are you exactly saying?

 

[stuck in ny]

What? What you say makes zero sense. What are you trying to say? Slow down, think first and then type. Slow down a bit.

What I'm saying is that without limitations on this, it could be abused.I didn't say would; I said it could, in the future. If the US accepts body searches without any proof or scutiny, then what's to stop a slippery slope to destroy castle doctrine, phone tapping restrictions, etc?
Fast forward to 20 years from now, you say something not PC, so leftists agencies search your house with no warrant to find something to attack you with, find that your own ammo and have indoor plumbing, so they charge you with a constructive pipe bomb. Searches withut evidence is a feature of banana republics, not the United States constitution.

 

[Criticalt]

It depends I what was said and done. Often the passengers helped him steal it or actually stole it and let him drive it.

Circumstances of each case dictate what happens. Often if the driver confesses he did it and did it alone. Often we know he is lying but we often go with it anyway. Easier to process. Sometimes all go depending on their history.

Thats exactly what happened in this story. The passenger said he, and he alone stole the car. He and the girl said she was just getting a ride, she didnt even know his name.
Still the cop insisted repeatedly to search her purse. Even though he said she was not suspected of a crime.
Like I said, I really dont care if the cop shuts off the camera and executes her on the spot. Im just saying that ive seen, on tv, alot of times where the cop pushes until a crime is commited, then he searches.
Why not just say, "get out of here" and hope to see her again in a circumstance where he can search her.

In his defense, he seemed more like he cared for her safety than he wanted an arrest.

 

[GOPerfect]

Thats exactly what happened in this story. The passenger said he, and he alone stole the car. He and the girl said she was just getting a ride, she didnt even know his name.
Still the cop insisted repeatedly to search her purse. Even though he said she was not suspected of a crime.
Like I said, I really dont care if the cop shuts off the camera and executes her on the spot. Im just saying that ive seen, on tv, alot of times where the cop pushes until a crime is commited, then he searches.
Why not just say, "get out of here" and hope to see her again in a circumstance where he can search her.

In his defense, he seemed more like he cared for her safety than he wanted an arrest.

I think you may be correct in much of what you said. He knew she was holding. From her looks and her actions. Maybe he was just looking to take it from her person? Possibly, I don't know. Maybe he really cared and was trying to help her/

 

[Criticalt]

I think you may be correct in much of what you said. He knew she was holding. From her looks and her actions. Maybe he was just looking to take it from her person? Possibly, I don't know. Maybe he really cared and was trying to help her/

What is your take on the cop telling her that he can charge her for up to 5 years and that he will keep an eye on her record so if she gets in trouble, he will charge her with this crime?
Obviously its a scare tactic, hes not going to take a personal intrest in some junkie, but isnt that a little silly to say?

 

[GOPerfect]

What is your take on the cop telling her that he can charge her for up to 5 years and that he will keep an eye on her record so if she gets in trouble, he will charge her with this crime?

Pushing it. Shit or get off the pot. Do not keep the scare going.

Obviously its a scare tactic, hes not going to take a personal intrest in some junkie, but isnt that a little silly to say?

You may be surprised how many in LE take an interest in some of these Junkies and small time crims. (Not me)

 

[Airborneguy]

Where I work I can't help but get to know the junkies, they're my biggest customers. Knowing who they associate with is a big part of my job.

 

[Truebeliever]

Thats my point, he wasnt letting her go anywhere. When I said ive seen it 100 times, I mean on Cops and other type shows.
Ive seen cops stop dozens of guys literally just walking down the street. Keeping them there asking if they can search them. The guy says no, the cop keeps pushing until the guy says "I havent done anything, im leaving." The cop will step in his way, or reach his hand out, or anothet tactic, then when the guy touches the cop, its on, wrestled to the ground and arrested.
I watched a guy being stopped by the police for crossing the street. The cop said he wasnt alowed to walk in the street. This was a small side street with parked cars at nightime. The guy got scared and ran. The cop chased him, caught him and arrested him for running. I kept that episode on my DVR for months, then I erased it.
Another episode. Two cops stopped a lady on the Las Vegas strip because they saw her talking to to different guys at two different times. After a long conversation she tried walking away. The cop grabbed her, she tried to get away, she was arrested for assault and trying to flee.
Did either of these arrests stick? It doesnt matter.
For instance, you must report ALL arrests on a PP appplication, whether you were convicted or not. That alone could get you denied.......
For crossing a street, or talking to guys.
And before you say something about known prostitutes on the strip in LV, this lady was from out of town and been in town for 2 days.

I did not see the episode but how do you know she was only in town for a few days? Her word? Does she have a prostitution history? You don't know. And most prostitutes in Vegas are from out of town. I have locked up hookers too.

I did not see the episode but women who engages in conversation in a prostitution prone area and comes up to different guys in an attempt to engage in conversation is reasonable suspicion for the stop in that jurisdiction. She was not free to leave at that point. He can go further in his investigation like run her name and history. Ask questions or have another unit approach the guys she talked to.
When you do the hooker detail you learn what to spot etc, etc.

Plenty of videos showing hookers on the street attempting to get business. Watch a few and you will see what is done to advertise their trade. Often subtle, but there.

 

[Truebeliever]

What I'm saying is that without limitations on this, it could be abused.I didn't say would; I said it could, in the future. If the US accepts body searches without any proof or scutiny, then what's to stop a slippery slope to destroy castle doctrine, phone tapping restrictions, etc?
Fast forward to 20 years from now, you say something not PC, so leftists agencies search your house with no warrant to find something to attack you with, find that your own ammo and have indoor plumbing, so they charge you with a constructive pipe bomb. Searches withut evidence is a feature of banana republics, not the United States constitution.

I understand what you mean by a "slippery slope" but I don't think you understand that the slope has been the other way. Before 1960, the bill of rights applied to the federal LE and not the local police. Terry case was to limit police search powers as opposed to what it was before Terry. Read the case and the companion cases.

 

[spat]

I understand what you mean by a "slippery slope" but I don't think you understand that the slope has been the other way. Before 1960, the bill of rights applied to the federal LE and not the local police. Terry case was to limit police search powers as opposed to what it was before Terry. Read the case and the companion cases.

At the same time, technology has allowed police unprecedented ability to search in ways that were inconceivable in 1960.

I'll admit that legally we are headed in the right direction, I'm just not sure if it's fast enough to counter the technological race.

 

[Truebeliever]

At the same time, technology has allowed police unprecedented ability to search in ways that were inconceivable in 1960.

I'll admit that legally we are headed in the right direction, I'm just not sure if it's fast enough to counter the technological race.

I can't speak for the FBI, or certain units that a department might have but for the most part departments are way behind the tech curve. Skimmer machines that the criminals are using and cybercrimes , we are way behind. Surveillance technology, again, you could buy almost anything a police department has and buy better stuff. Someone will mention stringray or something like that, those devices are rare as in I have yet to see one other than on TV and devices like that have extreme limitations.
An example of Law enforcement limitations was the San Bernard o shooting where the FBI had to outsource the suspects IPhone because they couldn't allegedly couldn't crack it.

The private sector actually has more surveillance on everyone than Law enforcement. Go read " Future Crimes" by Mark Goodman.
Google and Apple know more about you then Law enforcement ever will.

 

[spat]

I can't speak for the FBI, or certain units that a department might have but for the most part departments are way behind the tech curve. Skimmer machines that the criminals are using and cybercrimes , we are way behind. Surveillance technology, again, you could buy almost anything a police department has and buy better stuff. Someone will mention stringray or something like that, those devices are rare as in I have yet to see one other than on TV and devices like that have extreme limitations.
An example of Law enforcement limitations was the San Bernard o shooting where the FBI had to outsource the suspects IPhone because they couldn't allegedly couldn't crack it.

The private sector actually has more surveillance on everyone than Law enforcement. Go read " Future Crimes" by Mark Goodman.
Google and Apple know more about you then Law enforcement ever will.

I completely agree with that, but LE today knows more than 1960s LE could have dreamed of.

A lot of it comes down to the fact that even if we can trust 99% of LE with these powers, most of us aren't comfortable with that, we want guarantees, and penalties for non compliance, not "trust us" and "oops sorry".

 

[GOPerfect]

I completely agree with that, but LE today knows more than 1960s LE could have dreamed of.

A lot of it comes down to the fact that even if we can trust 99% of LE with these powers, most of us aren't comfortable with that, we want guarantees, and penalties for non compliance, not "trust us" and "oops sorry".

I agree. I know that many do not believe this; there is some serious oversight and scrutiny in ALL departments. Cops get fired and charged ALL the time.

IAB/PSD officers are on us like white on rice. Sure, there are stories we see and hear on the news of cops getting off for what ever reason, but I can promise you, cops get fired and criminally charged on a very regular basis.

 

[Airborneguy]

I have to go interview with one of our oversight units on thursday due to an incident where the perp admitted he deserved it when asked by the civilian complaint review board which, interestingly, self-initiated the case against me without receiving a complaint because now the department turns over records to them without ever being asked to.

Ain't that grand? I now have a permanent complaint on my record that wasn't even filed by the "victim". What a fair system WE cowboy, unregulated, uncontrolled, rights-demolishing cops deal with.

 

[Robin]

Well, that is flat out wrong! Entirely different issue with no nexus, but wrong all the same.
Robin

 

[Airborneguy]

Just giving an example of the "oversight" cops deal with.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Just giving an example of the "oversight" cops deal with.

That may be the case in your department but you cannot say it's the case in all departments.