Should It Be Okay to Violate Criminal’s Rights?

[96coal449]

I guess my point is these laws are frustrating and some cases are one half dozen or the other.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I feel bad for the good cops trying to do their jobs without violating rights and maintaining peace respectively.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If the officer had probable cause to search the car for drugs , and found an illegal's gun or body parts , during the search , He is not violating anyones rights rights .

1. Why is a gun illegal? Are you saying that some infringements on the 2A are allowed?

2. What was the probable cause to search after a traffic stop for speeding for example? Sure. Some idiots do get pulled over with a bag of cocaine in plain view on the dashboard and some idiots do consent to a search knowing that the bag of cocaine would be found along with the gun. But that’s rare. What happens is that usually a BS probable cause is established nefariously to force the search.

 

[96coal449]

What was the probable cause to search after a traffic stop for speeding for example? Sure. Some idiots do get pulled over with a bag of cocaine in plain view on the dashboard and some idiots do consent to a search knowing that the bag of cocaine would be found along with the gun.

That hits the nail on the head for probable cause.

 

[Marine Cpl]

What? What?

What don’t you understand about the post? It was written to explain that gun laws do not stop someone from getting a gun that wants one. I gave 2 easy examples of getting one and an extreme example of getting one through force if those other avenues are closed for whatever reason.

I also threw the printing argument in there to illustrate another point. Most don’t have to go to the extreme example because option one of just buying it on the street is the easiest and the number one way guns without a BGC are obtained.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That hits the nail on the head for probable cause.

Not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that every search is conducted with consent or the illegal item is in plain view?

When you read blotter reports the report always says that the driver was acting suspicious, had a smell of marijuana in the vehicle, or had glassy eyes.

 

[96coal449]

Search may be conducted with consent, although I think that to be stupid to do so and don't know why someone would. Nothing to hide or not.

If something illegal is in plain view then definitely yes.

 

[holdover]

1. Why is a gun illegal? Are you saying that some infringements on the 2A are allowed?

2. What was the probable cause to search after a traffic stop for speeding for example? Sure. Some idiots do get pulled over with a bag of cocaine in plain view on the dashboard and some idiots do consent to a search knowing that the bag of cocaine would be found along with the gun. But that’s rare. What happens is that usually a BS probable cause is established nefariously to force the search.

1) In theory , Your correct, A gun shouldn't be illegal. I agree with that. The reality is the country no longer upholds the constitution, you can be arrested for an ""illegal"" weapon .

2) I don't know what the probable cause was. There may have been a domestic dispute reported with a weapon involved. I don't know. He may have saw drugs or roaches, or whatever, , There are a lot of things it could have been .""Nefariously"" is what a court would determine to be illegal.
Probable cause must articulated on the police report or in court. The officer has to establish this in writing .Its not as simple to make it up as you think .

 

[Marine Cpl]

1) In theory , Your correct, A gun shouldn't be illegal. I agree with that. The reality is the country no longer upholds the constitution, you can be arrested for an ""illegal"" weapon .

2) I don't know what the probable cause was. There may have been a domestic dispute reported with a weapon involved. I don't know. He may have saw drugs or roaches, or whatever, , There are a lot of things it could have been .""Nefariously"" is what a court would determine to be illegal.
Probable cause must articulated on the police report or in court. The officer has to establish this in writing .Its not as simple to make it up as you think .

It is articulated well in writing. Suspect had glassy eyes, was being nervous and evasive, ect.

What you are saying is supposed to work well in theory but we all know the reality.

 

[holdover]

You cant arrest someone for glassy eyes alone. No court in the world would except glassy eyes as probable cause a crime had been committed.
Glassy eyes are expectable as one of the facts as long as there are several other facts to go along with it . such as an ILOVE POT bumper sticker, leaving a well established drug area ,stumbling speech when asked if there is any drugs in the car, A report back indicates the man had been arrested several times for marijuana , The officer may conduct a safety search of the individual and find rolling papers . its the totality of the information that indicates whether the officer had enough articulable facts to establish probable cause. Not one thing alone.unless it was something incriminateing by itself. ,ie joint in ashtray.





Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed at the place to be searched, or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.
criminal.findlaw.com › criminal-rights › probable-cause
Probable Cause - FindLaw

Probable cause exists when a police officer has sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing or has committed a crime. In general, probable cause requires more than a mere suspicion that a suspect committed a crime, but not enough information to prove that the person is guilty of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.

It requires several articulable facts ,

• Observation: Any information obtained by an officer through observation may be used to establish probable cause. Common examples of probable cause based on observation includes anything in the “plain view” or “plain smell” of an officer, or anything else based on what an officer sees, hears, smells, or feels. Additionally, police dogs in some cases may also conduct searches wherein the evidence discovered is admissible;
• Circumstantial Evidence: An officer may also rely on indirect evidence that implies something has occurred, but does not directly prove it. For example, an officer responding to a robbery may have probable cause of arresting or searching a person found hiding in an alleyway or running away from the scene with bags in hand. Although that the evidence of the person fleeing might not directly prove they committed the robbery, the circumstantial evidence provides probable cause for an officer to conduct a search;
• Expertise: An officer may also use their expertise and training to identify certain movements, gestures, preparations, or tools as tending to indicate criminal activity. For instance, an officer may use their expertise on drug paraphernalia to establish probable cause that the items may have been used in relation to drug crimes; and
• Information: An officer may use information that they obtained from reliable sources to establish probable cause. Information may include: statements by witnesses or victims, receiving information from an informant, or responding to a call made on a police scanner/radio. Recently, information obtained from an informant has been scrutinized by the Courts, especially when the information was obtained through an anonymous tip.

Additionally, a person may consent to the search of their person or property, in which case probable cause is automatically created. However, the area of the search is limited based upon the consent given. Further, in cases where a roommate or resident gives consent to search a home, an officer may not search places that the person who gave consent would not have access to, or continue to search a premises upon the objection by the non-consenting party.


Evidence directly obtained as a result of a search, seizure, or arrest that occurred without probable cause cannot be used in court against a defendant charged with the commission of a crime. Thus, if a search or arrest was made with or without a warrant, and probable cause was not sufficiently established, the evidence obtained without probable cause may be suppressed in court.




As noted above, probable cause must exist before a search, seizure, or arrest by law enforcement. Further, search warrants and arrest warrants are only issued upon a finding of probable cause by a judge or magistrate. Warrantless searches or arrests must also meet the standard of probable cause to be admissible in court.


However, the motor vehicle is exempt from the search warrant requirement. This means that police may search a motor vehicle without a warrant, but probable cause is still needed. Therefore, the police can search any part of the vehicle as long as they have probable cause that they will find contraband or evidence of a crime. This includes any containers inside the motor vehicle, such as glove boxes or the trunk of the vehicle. Further, police may conduct what is referred to as a “terry stop,” search of the person stopped based only on a reasonable suspicion.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You cant arrest someone for glassy eyes alone. No court in the world would except glassy eyes as probable cause a crime had been committed.
Glassy eyes are expectable as one of the facts as long as there are several other facts to go along with it . such as an ILOVE POT bumper sticker, leaving a well established drug area ,stumbling speech when asked if there is any drugs in the car, A report back indicates the man had been arrested several times for marijuana , The officer may conduct a safety search of the individual and find rolling papers . its the totality of the information that indicates whether the officer had enough articulable facts to establish probable cause. Not one thing alone.unless it was something incriminateing by itself. ,ie joint in ashtray.





Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed at the place to be searched, or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.
criminal.findlaw.com › criminal-rights › probable-cause
Probable Cause - FindLaw

Probable cause exists when a police officer has sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing or has committed a crime. In general, probable cause requires more than a mere suspicion that a suspect committed a crime, but not enough information to prove that the person is guilty of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.

It requires several articulable facts ,

• Observation: Any information obtained by an officer through observation may be used to establish probable cause. Common examples of probable cause based on observation includes anything in the “plain view” or “plain smell” of an officer, or anything else based on what an officer sees, hears, smells, or feels. Additionally, police dogs in some cases may also conduct searches wherein the evidence discovered is admissible;
• Circumstantial Evidence: An officer may also rely on indirect evidence that implies something has occurred, but does not directly prove it. For example, an officer responding to a robbery may have probable cause of arresting or searching a person found hiding in an alleyway or running away from the scene with bags in hand. Although that the evidence of the person fleeing might not directly prove they committed the robbery, the circumstantial evidence provides probable cause for an officer to conduct a search;
• Expertise: An officer may also use their expertise and training to identify certain movements, gestures, preparations, or tools as tending to indicate criminal activity. For instance, an officer may use their expertise on drug paraphernalia to establish probable cause that the items may have been used in relation to drug crimes; and
• Information: An officer may use information that they obtained from reliable sources to establish probable cause. Information may include: statements by witnesses or victims, receiving information from an informant, or responding to a call made on a police scanner/radio. Recently, information obtained from an informant has been scrutinized by the Courts, especially when the information was obtained through an anonymous tip.

Additionally, a person may consent to the search of their person or property, in which case probable cause is automatically created. However, the area of the search is limited based upon the consent given. Further, in cases where a roommate or resident gives consent to search a home, an officer may not search places that the person who gave consent would not have access to, or continue to search a premises upon the objection by the non-consenting party.


Evidence directly obtained as a result of a search, seizure, or arrest that occurred without probable cause cannot be used in court against a defendant charged with the commission of a crime. Thus, if a search or arrest was made with or without a warrant, and probable cause was not sufficiently established, the evidence obtained without probable cause may be suppressed in court.




As noted above, probable cause must exist before a search, seizure, or arrest by law enforcement. Further, search warrants and arrest warrants are only issued upon a finding of probable cause by a judge or magistrate. Warrantless searches or arrests must also meet the standard of probable cause to be admissible in court.


However, the motor vehicle is exempt from the search warrant requirement. This means that police may search a motor vehicle without a warrant, but probable cause is still needed. Therefore, the police can search any part of the vehicle as long as they have probable cause that they will find contraband or evidence of a crime. This includes any containers inside the motor vehicle, such as glove boxes or the trunk of the vehicle. Further, police may conduct what is referred to as a “terry stop,” search of the person stopped based only on a reasonable suspicion.

Are you telling me that non one ever uses the excuse of a smell or glassy eyes? Is that what you are telling me? We all know what is written in your post above. The question is “Is it being stretched or is a nonexistent smell being smelt to circumvent?

If you say no, then I do not know what else to say.

 

[96coal449]

Are you telling me that non one ever uses the excuse of a smell or glassy eyes? Is that what you are telling me? We all know what is written in your post above. The question is “Is it being stretched or is a nonexistent smell being smelt to circumvent?

If you say no, then I do not know what else to say.

You cant arrest someone for glassy eyes alone

 

[Mr. terzmo]

So, if they accuse you of being an illegal they can just ship you to El Salvador and drop you off on the street there ?

Hope you can bum some change for a call home.

If El Salvador is their original home...that works for Me. Rules were meant to be followed. Breaking the rules invites consequences. Being here illegally broke the immigration laws. I support sending them back.

 

[nortatoga]

Has this become the Liberal Gun Forum???????

 

[holdover]

Are you telling me that non one ever uses the excuse of a smell or glassy eyes? Is that what you are telling me? We all know what is written in your post above. The question is “Is it being stretched or is a nonexistent smell being smelt to circumvent?

If you say no, then I do not know what else to say.

Alone? No way.You need more than that or it will get thrown out of court . You need several articulable facts , one of which could be glassy eyes or smell .

 

[dsdmmat]

Has this become the Liberal Gun Forum???????

It is quite the libertarian view to restrict the powers of the government and not the rights of the people. To restrict the rights of free people is not conservative it is more fascist than anything. I do not agree with restricting the rights of anyone not incarcerated, don’t care what they did in the past, if they are free to move around the country they should be free to exercise all of their rights protected by the constitution.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Alone? No way.You need more than that or it will get thrown out of court . You need several articulable facts , one of which could be glassy eyes or smell .

And both of those can just be said right?

 

[holdover]

That's correct, unless you could prove the officer was lying , or had some kind of prejudice toward him. To say the cop was lying , You would have to establish some kind of realistic motive that the officer was prejudiced or would lie . Would you send an innocent person to jail for no reason?
There has to be a convincing motivation to do something like that and risk your job.

You would need more than just two to establish probable cause. Those may be reasonable suspicion at this point. Reasonable suspicion, meaning grounds to investigate. but not arrest.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That's correct, unless you could prove the officer was lying , or had some kind of prejudice toward him. To say the cop was lying , You would have to establish some kind of realistic motive that the officer was prejudiced or would lie . Would you send an innocent person to jail for no reason?
There has to be a convincing motivation to do something like that and risk your job.

You would need more than just two to establish probable cause. Those may be reasonable suspicion at this point. Reasonable suspicion, meaning grounds to investigate. but not arrest.

You aren’t serious are you. On this forum alone, 2 people got searched due to a pot smell and a dog hit.

 

[Tisto]

That's correct, unless you could prove the officer was lying , or had some kind of prejudice toward him. To say the cop was lying , You would have to establish some kind of realistic motive that the officer was prejudiced or would lie . Would you send an innocent person to jail for no reason?
There has to be a convincing motivation to do something like that and risk your job.

You would need more than just two to establish probable cause. Those may be reasonable suspicion at this point. Reasonable suspicion, meaning grounds to investigate. but not arrest.

Not all that long ago, I recall reading about a cop that had the highest drug arrest record in whatever area he was in. One problem though : ALL OF HIS ARRESTS WERE BULLSHIT ! HE PLANTED THE EVIDENCE. He finally got caught, after destroying countless lives, careers, businesses, and reputations. The courts had to go back through all his convictions and throw them out or re-try them.

HE PLANTED EVIDENCE.

HE LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH, GIVING TESTIMONY IN COURT.

Don't even ATTEMPT to tell me that LEO's are all professionals. They're not. In my case posted on first page, the ONLY "evidence" that the cop pulling me over could articulate was a NON-EXISTANT SMELL. The second officer smelled nothing. The dog smelled nothing. He was just being a douchebag with a God complex.

I'm absolutely NOT saying that all LEO's are that way. But to pretend that there aren't LEO's out there stretching their authorities and bending rules is just plain naive. As stated, a HEALTHY amount of distrust is absolutely warranted when it comes to authority figures.

Hope that doesn't get your panties in a knot. Just speaking truth.

 

[Darth]

Not all that long ago, I recall reading about a cop that had the highest drug arrest record in whatever area he was in. One problem though : ALL OF HIS ARRESTS WERE BULLSHIT ! HE PLANTED THE EVIDENCE. He finally got caught, after destroying countless lives, careers, businesses, and reputations. The courts had to go back through all his convictions and throw them out or re-try them.

HE PLANTED EVIDENCE.

HE LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH, GIVING TESTIMONY IN COURT.

Don't even ATTEMPT to tell me that LEO's are all professionals. They're not. In my case posted on first page, the ONLY "evidence" that the cop pulling me over could articulate was a NON-EXISTANT SMELL. The second officer smelled nothing. The dog smelled nothing. He was just being a douchebag with a God complex.

I'm absolutely NOT saying that all LEO's are that way. But to pretend that there aren't LEO's out there stretching their authorities and bending rules is just plain naive. As stated, a HEALTHY amount of distrust is absolutely warranted when it comes to authority figures.

Hope that doesn't get your panties in a knot. Just speaking truth.

Yeah, but one of the guys he planted drugs on might have turned out to be an actual bad guy.

So it's all good.

 

[Tisto]

Every person that ever wore a badge.




Maybe not.

 

[Day444]

...
But, if you can strip all of someone's rights by merely accusing them of being an illegal, then *anyone* could be so accused and shipped off with no more evidence than "I can tell just by looking at him".
Also, I've always wondered, how do they prove someone is an illegal ?
Do they track down a Somali birth certificate as proof ?
What do they do if Juan insists he was born in east LA and his parents never filed any paperwork ?

There is a process used by the Dept. of Home Land Security. A rap sheet (file 15) is one of the first steps. A check of DHS records is made to see if citizenship was ever applied for. (Visa, Green Card...) Has the person been in contact or working with an immigration attorney? There is also a hearing held, to determine wither or not this person is to be a deportee.

This would be a rare case. Juan could be an "anchor baby" thus his family would benefit from documentation. If Juan was born in a US hospital there is a record of it.

 

[Day444]

A broken or malfunctioning tail is probable cause for a V+T stop. It does not require a search of any physical nature. Now if the driver is belligerent or threatens the Cop, the situation changes. The driver may be restrained for the Cops safety. Normally pat searched and asked if they have anything weapons on them (Or things that may injure the cop, needles, etc.) Is there further escalation? Depends on what could have been found. Anything in plain sight? No, searching ends. DWI/ DUI changes the situation again. If there is no evidence of either, wants/warrants, insurance in effect and valid, all clear? Bye, here's your fix ticket.

 

[holdover]

Not all that long ago, I recall reading about a cop that had the highest drug arrest record in whatever area he was in. One problem though : ALL OF HIS ARRESTS WERE BULLSHIT ! HE PLANTED THE EVIDENCE. He finally got caught, after destroying countless lives, careers, businesses, and reputations. The courts had to go back through all his convictions and throw them out or re-try them.

HE PLANTED EVIDENCE.

HE LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH, GIVING TESTIMONY IN COURT.

Don't even ATTEMPT to tell me that LEO's are all professionals. They're not. In my case posted on first page, the ONLY "evidence" that the cop pulling me over could articulate was a NON-EXISTANT SMELL. The second officer smelled nothing. The dog smelled nothing. He was just being a douchebag with a God complex.

I'm absolutely NOT saying that all LEO's are that way. But to pretend that there aren't LEO's out there stretching their authorities and bending rules is just plain naive. As stated, a HEALTHY amount of distrust is absolutely warranted when it comes to authority figures.

Hope that doesn't get your panties in a knot. Just speaking truth.

Whoa, back up a minute, At no point did I say or infer that ALL cops are angelic beings from heaven . I never said that theres no bad apples or that the system cant be abused or that cops never lie . Not by a long shot .Consider the number of traffic stops alone in the state of NY on a daily basis vs the number of people they falsely arrest and you will find that it is a tiny amount in comparsion. Im not trying to justify criminal actions by the police , they do happen , and even if its only one person, thats still a problem ., But once you blanket everyone , it becomes much like the democrats on gun control. they punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty .

To clarify , no, Not all cops are innocent .

 

[holdover]

Yeah, but one of the guys he planted drugs on might have turned out to be an actual bad guy.

So it's all good.

Exactly! Police are trained to arrest anyone they want anytime they want for any reason they want and the courts will uphold it .that's how it works in sillyland.

 

[holdover]

You aren’t serious are you. On this forum alone, 2 people got searched due to a pot smell and a dog hit.

Ive had the experience to work with dogs several times, and I can tell you I wasn't impressed at all. Maybe it was the handlers? I dont know. Nonetheless , If the dogs hit on the car it does give them reason to search . I didnt make the laws so dont bitch at me .

How do you know they didnt smoke pot?

If your saying that police were useing it as an excuse to search, its always possible , Like I said , This shit isnt 100% failproof .
Trying to stop cops from breaking laws is like trying to stop gun owners from commiting crimes with guns . As long as there are guns and police there are going to be crimes with guns and crimes by police. You cant control every aspect of human nature with laws, ask Cuomo .

 

[holdover]

I would love to hear how you would propose a system so that was not possible for police to abuse their authority in any event at any time.
Tell me how that would be done .

 

[96coal449]

I would love to hear how you would propose a system so that was not possible for police to abuse their authority in any event at any time.
Tell me how that would done .

Anyone can abuse any system they want.

One example is goverment"s abuse of power. Most here should be able to identify with this.
No system is an exception.

 

[holdover]

So, if they accuse you of being an illegal they can just ship you to El Salvador and drop you off on the street there ?

Hope you can bum some change for a call home.

In some cases that's exactly what they do .

 

[holdover]

I do believe probable cause needs to be defined. A non functioning tail light and a "suspicious" looking character by dress code should not institute probable cause. Now blood trickling from a trunk that the driver refuses to open is. In this instance said vehicle should be towed to impound until warranted search is provided, and driver can be retained without arrest. If a conviction can be made then an arrest can be preformed, with or without presence of a lawyer at his point.

If I am off my rocker I will welcome a correction.

Edit: Maybe the trunk should be opened on spot? You never know if someone may still be alive inside.

PC has been defined .

A broken taillight and shady appearance is not PC to search.