Court: Cops have the right to frisk everyone

[Truebeliever]

Or I will go one better. The officer catches the small amount of weed in car with the smell. Arrests them for driving under the influence, no field test but can get enough for the warrant, get a blood test, do the forced blood test, which would be admissible in court, and weither or not the test showed THC in the system ( I do not know the legal amount for influence of that drug- oh wait-almost any voluntary amount in their system would be under the influence- high or not) and they still would be charged with the possession.

Which do you think is better?


Marijuana DUI: Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana | Criminal Law

 

[Airborneguy]

I hate talking about this, it's an unfortunate divide, to be in law enforcement and claim you respect the rights of others, well the two can not coexist. Cognitive dissidence.

Gotta say flat out, if you truly believe this nonsense, then you are the person I maintain situational awareness 100% of the time in anticipation of.

 

[spat]

Exactly, can't prove that but you can prove other violations of the law. You take them for what you can prove.

For example, The police suspect some one of a serious crime, but can't prove it yet.

If the person is arrested for the weed and can't drive, they can't kill anyone with their car. There are a number of cases where a cop gave a ticket to a driver who was under the influence of something, let them continue on their way, they got into an accident and the cop was sued.

For an example of a Terry stop is I see a teenager at two in the morning running down the street with a large screen TV in his hands? Is that reasonable suspicion that he stole the TV. Yes, suspicion. A cop can stop him and investigate. Can't prove the TV is stolen in a reasonable amount of time, the cop has to let him go. But imagine, while the cop has him stopped, a burglary call comes over the radio. The cop will continue to hold the person as other sector goes to the call and it finds that the TV is stolen from that house. I have caught people with similiar fact patterns

Something closer to this case is the Tim McVey case of OK bombing. How was he caught? FBI? No. It was a stop for not having a rear lic plate on his car. The cop saw the budge of the weapon, frisked him, found a concealed weapon, arrested him. The cop saw the stretch of the OK bombing and called the FBI on where to find him . In his department's jail cell already.


Catching people on the smaller stuff before they can do the bigger stuff or after they did the bigger stuff is why crime was reduced from the 90 until the Fugerson effect. Why do you think there is a big increase in crime? The small stuff is not being addressed as much.

I fully understand that is how thing work. I completely agree that it is very effective.

It is also very dangerous. Most of the "small stuff" shouldn't be illegal to begin with, but the more "small stuff" there is, the easier it is to control people. Using it in the way that we do now is a very tempting invitation for government to make more "small stuff".

Every time I engage in one of these discussions the people on your side drag out how effective these tactics are as if somehow the ends justify the means. Nobody disputes their effectivness, but this sort of "the ends justify the means" reasoning has no place in a free society.

 

[spat]

Unlike the crazy sensationalism commonly spouted, the above describes nearly 100% of the police encounters in this country.

I completely agree, it is the 0.01% that needs to be addressed.

You have to realize that it maybe .01% of encounters, they may mostly happen in 1% of departments, but that means that there are probably officers who engage in them 10% of the time.

The whole idea that you can disarm someone for "officer safety" without having cause to arrest them though flies in the face of what our are saying.

 

[Airborneguy]

If we're specifically talking about disarming people, there has to be more instances than simply arrests where an officer can legally do so. Take a domestic for example. Both people holding weapons, but not doing anything with them. Honestly, make that any dispute. At the moment, absent an investigation, no one is getting arrested and maybe no one will. But to control the situation and investigate, the officer must disarm both parties for EVERYONE'S safety.

 

[Truebeliever]

Unlike the crazy sensationalism commonly spouted, the above describes nearly 100% of the police encounters in this country.

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?

 

[GOPerfect]

As usual, many really stupid and ignorant statements made in this thread. Seriously, some of you should open your eyes and see the real world! Not just in your safe neighborhoods. For those local in Buffalo, go to the East side of the City on a Friday night middle of summer. Hang out on some of the "good" street corners on a nice day. Just watch your fellow innocent man in his enviroment.

I am not at all saying that all the things Coppers do is correct, I am not one to defend all actions all the time; seriously, go to some of these areas around the State. See the true nature of hate, crime and violence. Tell me that a little dope is not an issue. In the real world, people are getting shot and killed for a couple of grams of marijuana. People get killed for a couple of Loose cigarettes. People die each and every day because they are wearing the wrong colored shoes. This is what the police on the streets deal with. Certain ares of Cities, people are getting shot for attending a memorial service of another dead crim.

Just look at life as a whole. Sure, most of us want to protect and uphold all of the Rights of citizens, sometimes that is not always possible.

 

[kgun12]

This is Oblamer's fault, police are being killed at an alarming rate and Oblamer did nothing to stop or detour any of this. I don't like the ruling but I get it, if it is for the safety of the officer and it proves out to help prevent violence against them. HOWEVER, like the safe act it's a bad thing.

 

[spat]

As usual, many really stupid and ignorant statements made in this thread. Seriously, some of you should open your eyes and see the real world! Not just in your safe neighborhoods. For those local in Buffalo, go to the East side of the City on a Friday night middle of summer. Hang out on some of the "good" street corners on a nice day. Just watch your fellow innocent man in his enviroment.

I am not at all saying that all the things Coppers do is correct, I am not one to defend all actions all the time; seriously, go to some of these areas around the State. See the true nature of hate, crime and violence. Tell me that a little dope is not an issue. In the real world, people are getting shot and killed for a couple of grams of marijuana. People get killed for a couple of Loose cigarettes. People die each and every day because they are wearing the wrong colored shoes. This is what the police on the streets deal with. Certain ares of Cities, people are getting shot for attending a memorial service of another dead crim.

Just look at life as a whole. Sure, most of us want to protect and uphold all of the Rights of citizens, sometimes that is not always possible.

The problem is the revolving door, and trying to solve that problem by curtailing civil rights is both dangerous and useless.

Keep the real criminals locked up once they are convicted and the problem goes away. If you keep letting them back out in a few weeks or months, you could let cops ignore any civil rights they want and the problem will remain.

 

[GOPerfect]

The problem is the revolving door, and trying to solve that problem by curtailing civil rights is both dangerous and useless.

Keep the real criminals locked up once they are convicted and the problem goes away. If you keep letting them back out in a few weeks or months, you could let cops ignore any civil rights they want and the problem will remain.

This sir, is something that I will ALWAYS agree with you on!

 

[nortatoga]

 

[GOPerfect]

View attachment 7949

Awesome!

 

[Acer-m14]

@GOPerfect from your post about the arrests in buffalo .. i agree , we never hear about it ..

Spat beat me saying it ..
↑
The problem is the revolving door, and trying to solve that problem by curtailing civil rights is both dangerous and useless.

Keep the real criminals locked up once they are convicted and the problem goes away. If you keep letting them back out in a few weeks or months, you could let cops ignore any civil rights they want and the problem will remain.

This sir, is something that I will ALWAYS agree with you on!

 

[Robin]

Tweek it anyway you want, run any scenario you wish, The Bill of Rights is abundantly clear.
Robin

 

[Criticalt]

Become the new "I smell pot"?

This is not new case law.

It is not as easy to articulate as you might think.

A judge will ask why didn't you suspect that budge was a cell phone rather than gun etc etc. It has to be reasonable that the cop suspected it to be a weapon. It could have the nature of the crime they were originally stopped for, how their hand dropped to that position to "check it" etc. But the cop has to explain why this person as opposed to anyone else.

Even if the cop was right, if he can't explain it it will get tossed out

Quote from the article
"It’s important to note that Robinson was a passenger in the vehicle pulled over for the seatbelt violation and was only searched after giving n officer an “oh, crap” look, according to court documents."
In this case a look on a guys face got him searched, and upheld by 2 judges.
So why cant a cop say everyone they pulled over had an "oh crap" look on their face?
"I see a bulge"
"I smell pot"
"They had a look"
If the cop wants to search, hes gonna search.

 

[spat]

View attachment 7949

Kinda ironic, since we don't really care how you do your job, as long as you don't break the rules that have been layer out in the constitution, and most of your job is making sure that other people don't break rules while they do theirs.

 

[GOPerfect]

Kinda ironic, since we don't really care how you do your job, as long as you don't break the rules that have been layer out in the constitution, and most of your job is making sure that other people don't break rules while they do theirs.

While I can agree to this to a point....

First, many have no idea what their rights are. What I mean by that is simple, to many people make things up in their own mind what is a right and what is not.

Take the 4A, it does not say that you are free NOT to be searched. It says basically, reasonable searches are allowed. What is reasonable? If I am on the road and for some reason I find the need to search you, I find it to be reasonable. You may not agree because of what you have convinced yourself to be reasonable.


Does that make sense?

 

[spat]

While I can agree to this to a point....

First, many have no idea what their rights are. What I mean by that is simple, to many people make things up in their own mind what is a right and what is not.

Take the 4A, it does not say that you are free NOT to be searched. It says basically, reasonable searches are allowed. What is reasonable? If I am on the road and for some reason I find the need to search you, I find it to be reasonable. You may not agree because of what you have convinced yourself to be reasonable.


Does that make sense?

So the root cause of all of our problems is that most people are morons, and the biggest failing in the constitution is a failure to set specific objective standards.

I think we can all agree on that one.

 

[GOPerfect]

So the root cause of all of our problems is that most people are morons

YES!

 

[Criticalt]

Just watching an episode of cops, which is real,, s28 e22.
Cops pull up behind a parked car with a guy in the passenger seat and a girl in the back seat. The cops stop because, "it just looks a little off".
The guy in the passenger seat says he has a warrent so they take him out.
The other cop asks the girl if he can look in he purse, she says, "is there a reason why you are searching me?", cop says, "Im asking you your permission".
She says, "theres no reason for you to search it right?"
Cop says, "I dont know, you tell me"
She says, "I didnt do anything wrong"
Cop, "I dont know if you did or you didnt"
She, "I do have rights dont I?"
Cop, "you do have rights"
Cop, "something here is undeniably fishy"
Cop, "I dont know what youre doing here"
Cop, "you have something you think you need to hide from me"
Cop, "why are you getting confrontational?"

Yes folks, "getting confrontational" for asking if she has rights!! She never yells, never screams, just asks about her rights.

Then the girl starts crying and says, "go ahead, youre gonna search it anyways right?"
The cop says "well", then searches the purse because she told him to!!
Are you freaking kidding me??
He forced her to let him search with his authority. Just watch it. He would have kept her there until she agreed to a search, or became combative, then he could search anyways. Ive seen it 100 times, force people to resist or become irrate, then wrestle them to the ground and arrest them for resisting. Thats where this girl was headed.

 

[Criticalt]

Then, the cop finds some meth in her purse.
Does he arrest her? Nope
He says, " I can arrest you for this for up to 5 years, im going to keep checking your record, if I find you doing anything, ill arrest you for this."

Yes really

 

[GOPerfect]

Just watching an episode of cops, which is real,, s28 e22.
Cops pull up behind a parked car with a guy in the passenger seat and a girl in the back seat. The cops stop because, "it just looks a little off".
The guy in the passenger seat says he has a warrent so they take him out.
The other cop asks the girl if he can look in he purse, she says, "is there a reason why you are searching me?", cop says, "Im asking you your permission".
She says, "theres no reason for you to search it right?"
Cop says, "I dont know, you tell me"
She says, "I didnt do anything wrong"
Cop, "I dont know if you did or you didnt"
She, "I do have rights dont I?"
Cop, "you do have rights"
Cop, "something here is undeniably fishy"
Cop, "I dont know what youre doing here"
Cop, "you have something you think you need to hide from me"
Cop, "why are you getting confrontational?"

Yes folks, "getting confrontational" for asking if she has rights!! She never yells, never screams, just asks about her rights.

Then the girl starts crying and says, "go ahead, youre gonna search it anyways right?"
The cop says "well", then searches the purse because she told him to!!
Are you freaking kidding me??
He forced her to let him search with his authority. Just watch it. He would have kept her there until she agreed to a search, or became combative, then he could search anyways. Ive seen it 100 times, force people to resist or become irrate, then wrestle them to the ground and arrest them for resisting. Thats where this girl was headed.

I did not watch the entire episode. I watched a preview and I will tell you what I saw. I saw a girl in the backseat of a car driven by a known criminal. A car that was stolen. I saw the pock marks on the girls face and the nasty looking teeth of someone who is a regular user of Heroin, Meth and/or Crack.

Everything I saw the Police do was beyond perfect. Not one Right was violated. Not one!

 

[Criticalt]

I did not watch the entire episode. I watched a preview and I will tell you what I saw. I saw a girl in the backseat of a car driven by a known criminal. A car that was stolen. I saw the pock marks on the girls face and the nasty looking teeth of someone who is a regular user of Heroin, Meth and/or Crack.

Everything I saw the Police do was beyond perfect. Not one Right was violated. Not one!

There was no driver and her looks shouldn't mean anything. Pock marks can be caused by acne and bad teeth, hell I know cops with bad teeth. That means nothing. She wasnt doing the usual head and jaw movements. She wasnt talking fast.
I just watched it again and her teeth look identical to the cops, yellow.
Even the cop said he couldnt just search her, he needed her permission.

To make things clear, everyone that has read any of my posts know that Im all for stop and frisk. It probably saved NYC from complete destruction when implemented by Rudy. Im just playing devils advocate here.
Also, I have seen SOME cops push the rules. Ive had jobs where if I pushed the rules id be fired immediately, and those werent life and death jobs.
I also believe if cops are allowed use reasons such as "oh crap looks", that is pushing the rules of the constitution. Most people have that look when pulled over.

 

[Criticalt]

Also, I have a couple friends that are local cops. They tell me that 99% of the time, they can "just tell" who is holding drugs or doing wrong, so I understand when a cop tries very hard to find a reason to search.
I can attest to that from questioning locals in Afghanistan, where we also had rules

 

[GOPerfect]

There was no driver and her looks shouldn't mean anything. Pock marks can be caused by acne and bad teeth, hell I know cops with bad teeth. That means nothing. She wasnt doing the usual head and jaw movements. She wasnt talking fast.
I just watched it again and her teeth look identical to the cops, yellow.
Even the cop said he couldnt just search her, he needed her permission.

To make things clear, everyone that has read any of my posts know that Im all for stop and frisk. It probably saved NYC from complete destruction when implemented by Rudy. Im just playing devils advocate here.
Also, I have seen SOME cops push the rules. Ive had jobs where if I pushed the rules id be fired immediately, and those werent life and death jobs.
I also believe if cops are allowed use reasons such as "oh crap looks", that is pushing the rules of the constitution. Most people have that look when pulled over.

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.

 

[Truebeliever]

First of all, why did he let her go?

Kindness of his heart?

Or he knew the case would get tossed out? Yes, it would.

You said you have seen it a thousand times. Really. You see police confrontations that often. Okay. And if she said no. He can legally hold the purse until the end of the encounter. All she has to do is keep her mouth shut and he hands it back to her. That's it.

When the encounter ends, he would have left her and the purse behind.


And frankly , cops have more powers in other states than NYS when it comes to Terry stops.

And if you want to complain about some of the rules look at The Lopez case.

The court of appeals would rather have us have all the passengers get out of the car( raining outside or not), look them over for any signs of weapons, and put them back into the car, rather than ask. Are there any weapons on you? And if the passenger resists, they can be locked up. That's what the courts want.

Don't blame us for the lack of common sense on the bench

 

[GOPerfect]

Also, I have a couple friends that are local cops. They tell me that 99% of the time, they can "just tell" who is holding drugs or doing wrong, so I understand when a cop tries very hard to find a reason to search.
I can attest to that from questioning locals in Afghanistan, where we also had rules

And, I promise you, you or the guys you were with, broke the rules the Military put out.

 

[Truebeliever]

And, I promise you, you or the guys you were with, broke the rules the Military put out.

Yep, and like the military cops are also punished and put out for not following the rules, the punishment ususally is conditional on the rule violated, just like the military

 

[Criticalt]

First of all, why did he let her go?

Kindness of his heart?

Or he knew the case would get tossed out? Yes, it would.

You said you have seen it a thousand times. Really. You see police confrontations that often. Okay. And if she said no. He can legally hold the purse until the end of the encounter. All she has to do is keep her mouth shut and he hands it back to her. That's it.

When the encounter ends, he would have left her and the purse behind.


And frankly , cops have more powers in other states than NYS when it comes to Terry stops.

And if you want to complain about some of the rules look at The Lopez case.

The court of appeals would rather have us have all the passengers get out of the car( raining outside or not), look them over for any signs of weapons, and put them back into the car, rather than ask. Are there any weapons on you? And if the passenger resists, they can be locked up. That's what the courts want.

Don't blame us for the lack of common sense on the bench

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.

 

[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.

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.