Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
Without probable cause you can't be searched, neither can your home or car.
The drug dog thing is troubling because if the dog is trained to signal on the officers command, they *always* have probably cause, even when they don't.
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
The rules for when a police officer can or cannot search a vehicle vary widely from state to state. In Washington, yeah, you basically need a warrant. In a lot of states, however, as my Constitutional Law professor put it: "it's best to assume that within the confines of your car, the Constitution is basically suspended."
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
needs probable cause; otherwise a warrant is needed. essentially a lower standard than residences, but there is still a nominal requirement for a warrant. drug dogs do provide probable cause under current US jurisprudence
Also, some of what Hedgie is talking about there is valid. Pretty much anytime a cop asks to search something, your answer should be "no." If you give a cop permission to search, he doesn't need a warrant.
It's worth noting that in the U.S., there is pretty much always a judge on-call, and they are allowed to issue warrants over the telephone.
But the problem with drug dogs alerting because they're reading their owners is a well-known and pervasive one to people here who bother to pay attention.
Right, to clarify the probable cause goes without saying. I don't think there's many developed western countries where you can just pick random people out off the street and go 'oi, you're detained for the purpose of a search and etc' (bar very select times).
Just seemed an odd way for him to word it, especially given that depending on the specific circumstances of the state they were in, and department, the police would have believed they had probable cause.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Right, to clarify the probable cause goes without saying. I don't think there's many developed western countries where you can just pick random people out off the street and go 'oi, you're detained for the purpose of a search and etc' (bar very select times).
Just seemed an odd way for him to word it, especially given that depending on the specific circumstances of the state they were in, and department, the police would have believed they had probable cause.
americans don't believe in institutional controls for the police because they have The Constitution
americans don't believe that amending jurisprudence on The Constitution would provide protection from institutionally abusive police
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
needs probable cause; otherwise a warrant is needed. essentially a lower standard than residences, but there is still a nominal requirement for a warrant. drug dogs do provide probable cause under current US jurisprudence
Barring exigent circumstances, you need probable cause to get a warrant in the U.S.
But a drug dog is essentially automatic probable cause.
And there are circumstances where the bar for "probable cause" is lowered considerably; like cars in many states.
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
needs probable cause; otherwise a warrant is needed. essentially a lower standard than residences, but there is still a nominal requirement for a warrant. drug dogs do provide probable cause under current US jurisprudence
Barring exigent circumstances, you need probable cause to get a warrant in the U.S.
But a drug dog is essentially automatic probable cause.
And there are circumstances where the bar for "probable cause" is lowered considerably; like cars in many states.
I'm sick of dogs being above the law.
Dogs can get away with anything they want in this society.
You don't see me shitting on people's carpets and getting away without any legal repercussions.
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
needs probable cause; otherwise a warrant is needed. essentially a lower standard than residences, but there is still a nominal requirement for a warrant. drug dogs do provide probable cause under current US jurisprudence
Barring exigent circumstances, you need probable cause to get a warrant in the U.S.
But a drug dog is essentially automatic probable cause.
And there are circumstances where the bar for "probable cause" is lowered considerably; like cars in many states.
true, the stretched legal analogy is that the dog substitutes for a judge due to the risk of destruction of evidence or flight. at least originally.
Man I feel bad that kids are coming to our house and they don't know we don't have candy!
why didn't you get candy you bastard
I'm not gonna run to and from the door every few minutes to give children candy!
And sometimes older kids come by and they look like thugs who should be getting high or drunk instead of getting free candy and I don't want to deal with those punks.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Tomorrow though I'm gonna buy lots of discount candy HAH HAH HAH
Man I feel bad that kids are coming to our house and they don't know we don't have candy!
why didn't you get candy you bastard
I'm not gonna run to and from the door every few minutes to give children candy!
And sometimes older kids come by and they look like thugs who should be getting high or drunk instead of getting free candy and I don't want to deal with those punks.
Noticed this in the clever hans thread but a bit off topic, so throwing this to our resident police expert @Than
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
needs probable cause; otherwise a warrant is needed. essentially a lower standard than residences, but there is still a nominal requirement for a warrant. drug dogs do provide probable cause under current US jurisprudence
Barring exigent circumstances, you need probable cause to get a warrant in the U.S.
But a drug dog is essentially automatic probable cause.
And there are circumstances where the bar for "probable cause" is lowered considerably; like cars in many states.
true, the stretched legal analogy is that the dog substitutes for a judge due to the risk of destruction of evidence or flight. at least originally.
Right, and in a lot of places, a smart cop will actually call a judge and inform him that a dog alerted and get a warrant, just to solidify the constitutional case that much better.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
than did i ever tell you that the dude who fucked with me- who was given a desk job- ended up resigning late last year?
i dunno if he was tired of the spotlight or if he was pressured into early retirement or whatever
but i guess i feel a little better knowing he does not have a badge
Did he resign, or did he take a "stress-related disability retirement?"
Almost certainly the latter. Douchebag is probably gettin' paid.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Back in my home town the nearby community of seaside has issued a warning discouraging trick or treating due to the danger of being caught in the crossfire of a retaliatory gang war being run right now. That is the blurst.
Right, to clarify the probable cause goes without saying. I don't think there's many developed western countries where you can just pick random people out off the street and go 'oi, you're detained for the purpose of a search and etc' (bar very select times).
In the US, at the federal level, the police have the right to briefly detain anybody they want at any time and perform a frisk, provided they have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is a party to a crime. This is known as a Terry stop (after the court case Terry v. Ohio) and the bar for "reasonable suspicion" is really quite low.
Routine traffic stops are effectively Terry stops.
During the course of a Terry stop, the officer typically has the right to order you out of the car, frisk you, and visually inspect the interior of the vehicle through the windows. He does not have the right to open the trunk or the glove compartment unless you have already opened one of these items (for instance, if you have retrieved your automobile registration from the glove compartment) or manipulate the vehicle in any way.
If, during the course of a Terry stop, the officer has seen or heard something that gives him probable cause to initiate a search, he may do so without a warrant. Usually this is something like signs of intoxication or aggressive behavior on the part of the driver. This used to include "smelling drugs" but with marijuana decriminalization becoming more popular, some of the more liberal states have ruled that to be insufficient justification under case law. Ideally, to turn a "reasonable suspicion" Terry stop into a "probable cause" warrantless search, you have to do something dumb... though not always, as a cop can always just make something up if he's enough of a dick.
This is on a federal level. As Thanatos points out, individual states may have case law or legislation that puts further restrictions on what police officers may or may not do.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the obvious case that the police make is that: well, a stricter interpretation of these rights would get in the way of such and such procedures, in such and such extreme-but-the-US-is-darned-big-so-it-really-does-happen situations, and we want these procedures to be doable. So judges say: okay, we'll lower the interpretation to permit it. And what is distinctively American about this dynamic is that the interpretation thus gets lowered for everything else the police might feel inclined to do, just to adhere to some increasingly fictitious adherence to a unified jurisprudential vision grounded in the Fourth.
In a more flexible legislative system, the state could compromise with oversight and specific authorities granted to the police, but no. And of course that would never happen, because US judiciary is specifically reluctant to legislate from the bench.
+1
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Posts
@Donkey Kong Heeeelllllppppp!
Please? You're my Mac bro.
first snow here was on a thursday
better believe there were drunken snowball fights
Do american police really need a warrant to search a vehicle? Or is this just Hedgie not knowing what he's talking about. Because it seems very surprising if that was the case.
Without probable cause you can't be searched, neither can your home or car.
The drug dog thing is troubling because if the dog is trained to signal on the officers command, they *always* have probably cause, even when they don't.
needs probable cause; otherwise a warrant is needed. essentially a lower standard than residences, but there is still a nominal requirement for a warrant. drug dogs do provide probable cause under current US jurisprudence
ah well
unrelated: diretide so broken
through the extensive use of yoga and careful stretching
excellent
It's worth noting that in the U.S., there is pretty much always a judge on-call, and they are allowed to issue warrants over the telephone.
But the problem with drug dogs alerting because they're reading their owners is a well-known and pervasive one to people here who bother to pay attention.
Just seemed an odd way for him to word it, especially given that depending on the specific circumstances of the state they were in, and department, the police would have believed they had probable cause.
americans don't believe in institutional controls for the police because they have The Constitution
americans don't believe that amending jurisprudence on The Constitution would provide protection from institutionally abusive police
whee round and round they go
But a drug dog is essentially automatic probable cause.
And there are circumstances where the bar for "probable cause" is lowered considerably; like cars in many states.
my first, instinctive response: is this some kinda elseworlds luke-cage-goes-to-k'un-l'un
While that would be cool, it's not.
why didn't you get candy you bastard
I'm sick of dogs being above the law.
Dogs can get away with anything they want in this society.
You don't see me shitting on people's carpets and getting away without any legal repercussions.
true, the stretched legal analogy is that the dog substitutes for a judge due to the risk of destruction of evidence or flight. at least originally.
i dunno if he was tired of the spotlight or if he was pressured into early retirement or whatever
but i guess i feel a little better knowing he does not have a badge
I'm not gonna run to and from the door every few minutes to give children candy!
And sometimes older kids come by and they look like thugs who should be getting high or drunk instead of getting free candy and I don't want to deal with those punks.
you
are
awful
LIVE IN IT
Almost certainly the latter. Douchebag is probably gettin' paid.
Thought it was a video of a very lucky man
Then I realized there was a passenger
there are no details. it could definitely be as you say. all the media said is he resigned in december 2011.
The drive apparently had some broken ribs but was released from the hospital. Which does make him a very fucking lucky man.
In the US, at the federal level, the police have the right to briefly detain anybody they want at any time and perform a frisk, provided they have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is a party to a crime. This is known as a Terry stop (after the court case Terry v. Ohio) and the bar for "reasonable suspicion" is really quite low.
Routine traffic stops are effectively Terry stops.
During the course of a Terry stop, the officer typically has the right to order you out of the car, frisk you, and visually inspect the interior of the vehicle through the windows. He does not have the right to open the trunk or the glove compartment unless you have already opened one of these items (for instance, if you have retrieved your automobile registration from the glove compartment) or manipulate the vehicle in any way.
If, during the course of a Terry stop, the officer has seen or heard something that gives him probable cause to initiate a search, he may do so without a warrant. Usually this is something like signs of intoxication or aggressive behavior on the part of the driver. This used to include "smelling drugs" but with marijuana decriminalization becoming more popular, some of the more liberal states have ruled that to be insufficient justification under case law. Ideally, to turn a "reasonable suspicion" Terry stop into a "probable cause" warrantless search, you have to do something dumb... though not always, as a cop can always just make something up if he's enough of a dick.
This is on a federal level. As Thanatos points out, individual states may have case law or legislation that puts further restrictions on what police officers may or may not do.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think you should change your avatar now.
Those children have betrayed Boggle.
You forgot how Boggle works.
In a more flexible legislative system, the state could compromise with oversight and specific authorities granted to the police, but no. And of course that would never happen, because US judiciary is specifically reluctant to legislate from the bench.
DO NOT CROSS BOGGLE