In a lot of places they can seize whatever they want. I think in Texas if you have more than like a hundred grand in cash, the police can just summarily take it and you have no recourse to get it back. Because apparently drug dealers are the only people who have a lot of cash on them, so if you have a lot of cash you're obviously a drug dealer.
It's never the case that you have no recourse when property is seized by the police.
Thanatos, pat downs and searches have different meanings.
A patdown is a type of search.
Terry v. Ohio is very clear about this:
There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. [n12] We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search."
...
In this case, there can be no question, then, that Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing.
The Supreme Court decision was that, yes a patdown is a search. However it is a reasonable search.
We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [p31] Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.
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.
If the dog can signal from public territory, I don't see the issue. Tight now in order to use thermal imaging, they require a warrant I think? Which didnt make sense if you are obtaining probable cause from what I would justify as plain sight if from the street. Now getting a warrant shouldnt be an issue for the evidence provided by thermal imaging, it sounded like they needed a warrant to image the property. Officers use flashlights at night to view in the windows of a car thats pulled over for the same use. I mean, I don't like it, but I would understand that.
But they just roamed up onto his land with a dog, got barking and then searched the house without a warrant, right? Considering citizens have no real recorse for stoping officers from trespassing without life altering results, its horrifying.
Someone will make that argument soon but i don't know how well it will do.
Dog searches aren't considered searches based on plain sight doctrine.
If an officer is a place he has a right to be and can observe criminal activity with his senses (usually eyes) it's not a search.
Since Dogs are considered officers and they are detecting contraband with their senses (noses) i doubt this jurisprudence is likely to be overturned.
Reliability is what allows dog sniffs to grant probable cause and that is a much better avenue for attack because probable cause is supposed to be based on objective facts.
If the dog's alerts are based on the subjective intentions of the officer handling it, then the objective facts that lead to probable cause are not present.
That's what I've always understood the argument to be as well. I actually agree with most of what you are saying.
BUT - My biggest problem with this is that the officer's testimony should be open to cross examination. You can't cross examine a dog, so you are relying on secondhand testimony and knowledge of what the dog is trained to signal for.
If you have a drug dog signal that a car contains drugs, but find no pot or cocaine or whatever else the dog is certified to smell, then that search should be considered invalid. Any evidence of other crimes should be inadmissible.
We don't allow a (human) cop to say they smell pot coming from your apartment, kick your door down, and then fish for any evidence of unrelated criminal activity.
That's not even getting into the issues of officer induced false positives. I think it's proven that dogs are much more likely to generate false positives if they are searching minorities, or if the officer believes there are drugs.
The first issue is whether the use of a drug dog constitutes an unreasonable search. I'm 99% sure that SCOTUS will maintain the rulings of all lower courts that the use of a drug dog is not an unreasonable search. Whether that means they rule that the use of a drug dog is not a search; or if they rule that it is a search but it is a reasonable one, I'm not totally certain. Probably the former, as that's the status quo.
The second issue is whether drug dogs are accurate enough to be considered probable cause for a more invasive search. I'm not sure where SCOTUS will go with this. I think the available evidence is very strong that drug dogs are not accurate enough to be probable cause. The question then is whether SCOTUS acknowledges that evidence or ignores it, and I have no idea where they will go with that.
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.
An officer doesn't need teach a k9 to respond to a verbal command and fake finding something. He can do that himself. Its just as easy to say, "I can smell the odor of marijuana" as it is to say, "My dog is signaling he detects the odor of narcotics" However, most cops aren't going to make up excuses to search a car when they dont have probable cause that there is something illegal in there.
The problem isn't verbal cues; the problem is non-verbal cues. This study is incredibly damning. And the problem with future studies is that we've likely poisoned the well.
Thanatos, pat downs and searches have different meanings. A cop can pretty much do a pat down whenever they feel like, though some courts are starting to say, "hey, you need something better than 'for my safety,' what was unsafe?"
In a legal search the cop can flat out search anything. Remove shoes, socks, look through cars/bags. In a pat down, its an exterior only thing, where someone could reasonably have immediate access to a weapon. This includes unlocked/unsecured containers such as back packs. A locked container such as a locked suitcase is different, and would requires a warrant unless there was an arrest made. If they can immediately identify something as illegal from a pat down, (ie a concealed weapon, or even drugs in a pocket) they can turn it into a search. Cops can manipulate the clothing (squeeze/twist) they are patting down, but not the items in the clothing.
Video taping is always a good idea. If it is a clearly illegal search, and you have video of the search, the situation before during and after, and you stating you do not consent, anything found as part of the illegal search should be inadmissible
As far as "Never talk to the cops," I have to disagree. If you're gonna hold fast on that position, prepare for cops to be suspicious of you, because thats what it is. Not because exercising your rights is wrong, but exercising them to that degree is uncommon. If a cop sees something that is uncommon for that area, hes going to investigate, to talk to a person. Even if there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, the cop is still going to do his job and probe for whats going on. A drivers license that the cop can run, and see that this guy is a law abiding citizen who isnt wanted for any crimes does a lot to ease the mind. A guy going, "I dont have to tell you what im doing here, I dont have to present ID" is suspicious as hell, though not inherently illegal, and its going to throw up every red flag the cop has. This leads to the bullshit stuff of, "you spit on the sidewalk, so im giving you a ticket, so now you HAVE to give me some id"
Obvious disclaimer: I am not a lawyer who has spent years going to school and arguing cases for the 4th amendment. Its also 5am.
I'll let Feral's responses suffice on the "patdown is not a search" stuff.
You can absolutely show a cop ID if he asks for it, and give him your name. Beyond that, fuck 'em. It's also much easier for you to say this as a white, middle class son of a cop who has most likely never actually experienced a Terry Stop, or been in a situation where the cop isn't on your side.
My point still stands for non-verbal clues. A properly trained dog can find amazing things the handler has no idea about. If its picking up on cues the handler is subconsciously giving out, thats bad. If the handler is intentionally giving non-verbal cues to the dog, that is stupid. He can still just as easy say, "Uhh, I smell weed" if he wanted to be a toolbag and do an illegal search. He doesn't need the dog for his toolbaggery.
RE: Feral, I was referring to the fact that a pat down is more limited than a full search, and that their limitations, requirements, and purposes are different. You generally cant remove someones shoes in a pat down, or get digging through pockets, as you're only looking for potential weapons. An inventory of a vehicle that you're towing, while essentially a search, cannot be investigative in nature.
If you have a drug dog signal that a car contains drugs, but find no pot or cocaine or whatever else the dog is certified to smell, then that search should be considered invalid. Any evidence of other crimes should be inadmissible.
We don't allow a (human) cop to say they smell pot coming from your apartment, kick your door down, and then fish for any evidence of unrelated criminal activity.
That's not even getting into the issues of officer induced false positives. I think it's proven that dogs are much more likely to generate false positives if they are searching minorities, or if the officer believes there are drugs.
Ever walk in a room and smell popcorn? Ever went to get some of that popcorn but your jerk friend already ate it all or threw it away? Popcorns gone, but you can still smell it. Drugs are the same, for humans and dogs. When an officer smells something, the proper testimony isnt "I smelled marijuana" its "I smelled the odor of marijuana" because the marijuana could be long gone, even though it was once there.
As per your second point, we almost do. If a cop enters your home because he smells weed coming from it while on the street, gets inside, and sees a meth lab, he can go from there. If a cop searches a vehicle because he smells weed, finds an illegal gun, and illegal pills, but no weed, he can seize those as well.
That said, if a cop has a search warrant, or is otherwise legally searching for something, he can only search where it could be. If hes searching a house for a shotgun, he cant check a shoe box. If while checking a gun safe, he finds equipment and plans on how to make a bomb and use it on the IRS building, he can seize that. If he got nosey and opened the shoe box, and found a bloody knife, thats probably going to be inadmissable.
The system, as convulted as it is, works pretty good, not amazing. Drug/explosives/tracking dogs do amazing work, but any guy that is trying to buck the system by intentionally making stuff up or sending the dog cues is a toolbag, and should be fired/prosecuted.
You can absolutely show a cop ID if he asks for it, and give him your name.
There are a lot of guys who will flat out refuse to do that, and honestly, truly, without hyperbole, believe a cop trying to do so is a nazi. They will throw out half-sensical legal fiction, throw the video on youtube of them with there smug satisfaction that they "Showed the man," Even when these guys are doing crap like carrying an MP5 around downtown, they are appalled by the police who dare interview them. Ignoring the fact that the officer could've charged them with brandishing if he felt so inclined.
So theres a middle ground between "Never talk to the cops under any circumstance" and "Answer the cops every question every time 100%"
The first issue is whether the use of a drug dog constitutes an unreasonable search. I'm 99% sure that SCOTUS will maintain the rulings of all lower courts that the use of a drug dog is not an unreasonable search. Whether that means they rule that the use of a drug dog is not a search; or if they rule that it is a search but it is a reasonable one, I'm not totally certain. Probably the former, as that's the status quo.
The second issue is whether drug dogs are accurate enough to be considered probable cause for a more invasive search. I'm not sure where SCOTUS will go with this. I think the available evidence is very strong that drug dogs are not accurate enough to be probable cause. The question then is whether SCOTUS acknowledges that evidence or ignores it, and I have no idea where they will go with that.
The tough thing is that the dog is only detecting things that have been released into the public domain. It's very similar to scraping up your footprints and sending them through a spectrograph to find out where you've been or following you around with a spy satellite in that it's very irregular but not actually searching your person or residence.
There are a lot of guys who will flat out refuse to do that, and honestly, truly, without hyperbole, believe a cop trying to do so is a nazi. They will throw out half-sensical legal fiction, throw the video on youtube of them with there smug satisfaction that they "Showed the man," Even when these guys are doing crap like carrying an MP5 around downtown, they are appalled by the police who dare interview them. Ignoring the fact that the officer could've charged them with brandishing if he felt so inclined.
So theres a middle ground between "Never talk to the cops under any circumstance" and "Answer the cops every question every time 100%"
That's because Terry Stops are some Nazi fucking bullshit. "I'm stopping you, patting you down, and demanding to see some ID" is essentially walking up to someone and saying "papers, please." It's so Nazi it's a fucking cliche at this point, and almost always done to brown or black people, almost never white people.
There are a lot of guys who will flat out refuse to do that, and honestly, truly, without hyperbole, believe a cop trying to do so is a nazi. They will throw out half-sensical legal fiction, throw the video on youtube of them with there smug satisfaction that they "Showed the man," Even when these guys are doing crap like carrying an MP5 around downtown, they are appalled by the police who dare interview them. Ignoring the fact that the officer could've charged them with brandishing if he felt so inclined.
So theres a middle ground between "Never talk to the cops under any circumstance" and "Answer the cops every question every time 100%"
That's because Terry Stops are some Nazi fucking bullshit. "I'm stopping you, patting you down, and demanding to see some ID" is essentially walking up to someone and saying "papers, please." It's so Nazi it's a fucking cliche at this point, and almost always done to brown or black people, almost never white people.
I'm a white son of a cop and have been subjected to Terry Stops. (That rhymes!)
I've been approached and asked to produce ID after my friend that I was following in my car ran a red light. I was following him to a destination I wasn't famililar with, so I pulled over down the street to wait for the cop to ticket him. The cop came up to me after and asked for ID. I asked why and he said "Because I'm a cop and I'm asking you for ID."
My cousin had his dad's truck searched because he decided it would be better to back into a spot than stay in the one he pulled into. The cops asked why we pulled out when they entered the parking lot and when we told them the truth, they pulled the old "I smell weed." and searched the car and us. They found nothing and then forced us to leave the premises and we weren't able to play pool that night.
Hell, one time I got thrown into the back of a cruiser while hanging out at my friends driveway and accused of underage drinking. When I demanded to be breathalized (because I hadn't drank anything) they stalled for a half an hour and asked me all sorts of questions before letting me go "with a warning".
Terry Stops happen to everyone. All of the above scenarios happened before racial profiling became a big thing in the news.
There are a lot of guys who will flat out refuse to do that, and honestly, truly, without hyperbole, believe a cop trying to do so is a nazi. They will throw out half-sensical legal fiction, throw the video on youtube of them with there smug satisfaction that they "Showed the man," Even when these guys are doing crap like carrying an MP5 around downtown, they are appalled by the police who dare interview them. Ignoring the fact that the officer could've charged them with brandishing if he felt so inclined.
So theres a middle ground between "Never talk to the cops under any circumstance" and "Answer the cops every question every time 100%"
That's because Terry Stops are some Nazi fucking bullshit. "I'm stopping you, patting you down, and demanding to see some ID" is essentially walking up to someone and saying "papers, please." It's so Nazi it's a fucking cliche at this point, and almost always done to brown or black people, almost never white people.
I'm a white son of a cop and have been subjected to Terry Stops. (That rhymes!)
I've been approached and asked to produce ID after my friend that I was following in my car ran a red light. I was following him to a destination I wasn't famililar with, so I pulled over down the street to wait for the cop to ticket him. The cop came up to me after and asked for ID. I asked why and he said "Because I'm a cop and I'm asking you for ID."
My cousin had his dad's truck searched because he decided it would be better to back into a spot than stay in the one he pulled into. The cops asked why we pulled out when they entered the parking lot and when we told them the truth, they pulled the old "I smell weed." and searched the car and us. They found nothing and then forced us to leave the premises and we weren't able to play pool that night.
Hell, one time I got thrown into the back of a cruiser while hanging out at my friends driveway and accused of underage drinking. When I demanded to be breathalized (because I hadn't drank anything) they stalled for a half an hour and asked me all sorts of questions before letting me go "with a warning".
Terry Stops happen to everyone. All of the above scenarios happened before racial profiling became a big thing in the news.
The tough thing is that the dog is only detecting things that have been released into the public domain. It's very similar to scraping up your footprints and sending them through a spectrograph to find out where you've been or following you around with a spy satellite in that it's very irregular but not actually searching your person or residence.
I recognize that this is the current standard for privacy in the US.
I also think that it is a poor standard.
There's a difference between detecting something with your naked eye and detecting something with assistance. As technology progresses, it is safe to assume that police will be able to use technology to peer deeper and deeper into areas of daily life that were previously private. Consequently, a technical or causal explanation for how this technology is just detecting something like molecules on the outside of your clothes or heat patterns of air outside of your house or vibrations outside your window should not be sufficient for justifying the use of that technology.
It doesn't really matter if we're talking about future Star Trek tricorder that can see through walls, or if we're talking about an animal bred and trained to detect molecules with superhuman sensitivity. What matters is whether a citizen might have reasonable expectations regarding who is and who is not party to that information.
We need a new standard of privacy that is much more sophisticated to deal with current and future situations.
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.
There are a lot of guys who will flat out refuse to do that, and honestly, truly, without hyperbole, believe a cop trying to do so is a nazi. They will throw out half-sensical legal fiction, throw the video on youtube of them with there smug satisfaction that they "Showed the man," Even when these guys are doing crap like carrying an MP5 around downtown, they are appalled by the police who dare interview them. Ignoring the fact that the officer could've charged them with brandishing if he felt so inclined.
So theres a middle ground between "Never talk to the cops under any circumstance" and "Answer the cops every question every time 100%"
That's because Terry Stops are some Nazi fucking bullshit. "I'm stopping you, patting you down, and demanding to see some ID" is essentially walking up to someone and saying "papers, please." It's so Nazi it's a fucking cliche at this point, and almost always done to brown or black people, almost never white people.
I'm a white son of a cop and have been subjected to Terry Stops. (That rhymes!)
I've been approached and asked to produce ID after my friend that I was following in my car ran a red light. I was following him to a destination I wasn't famililar with, so I pulled over down the street to wait for the cop to ticket him. The cop came up to me after and asked for ID. I asked why and he said "Because I'm a cop and I'm asking you for ID."
My cousin had his dad's truck searched because he decided it would be better to back into a spot than stay in the one he pulled into. The cops asked why we pulled out when they entered the parking lot and when we told them the truth, they pulled the old "I smell weed." and searched the car and us. They found nothing and then forced us to leave the premises and we weren't able to play pool that night.
Hell, one time I got thrown into the back of a cruiser while hanging out at my friends driveway and accused of underage drinking. When I demanded to be breathalized (because I hadn't drank anything) they stalled for a half an hour and asked me all sorts of questions before letting me go "with a warning".
Terry Stops happen to everyone. All of the above scenarios happened before racial profiling became a big thing in the news.
And that makes them not gooseshit...how, exactly?
Oops! I amended that post halfway through and forgot to re-include that they are indeed bullshit.
I'm just stating my experiences with them. The majority of my friends are white (just because of where I grew up) and we used to get fucked with all the time.
The first issue is whether the use of a drug dog constitutes an unreasonable search. I'm 99% sure that SCOTUS will maintain the rulings of all lower courts that the use of a drug dog is not an unreasonable search. Whether that means they rule that the use of a drug dog is not a search; or if they rule that it is a search but it is a reasonable one, I'm not totally certain. Probably the former, as that's the status quo.
The second issue is whether drug dogs are accurate enough to be considered probable cause for a more invasive search. I'm not sure where SCOTUS will go with this. I think the available evidence is very strong that drug dogs are not accurate enough to be probable cause. The question then is whether SCOTUS acknowledges that evidence or ignores it, and I have no idea where they will go with that.
The tough thing is that the dog is only detecting things that have been released into the public domain. It's very similar to scraping up your footprints and sending them through a spectrograph to find out where you've been or following you around with a spy satellite in that it's very irregular but not actually searching your person or residence.
I'll have to double-check, but I'm nearly positive that the courts have held that a warrant is required to use IR to detect what's going on inside a home (in relation to marijuana growing). This, despite the fact that it's just detecting passive IR radiation that is leaving the house. IIRC, this was part of the questioning from the justices in this case...that the court has held that if technology is being used to make this detection, it changes the nature of the search. At which point the lawyer for the state was left arguing that a dog is to be considered as an officer, rather than analogous to a technological device.
Yeah, SkyGheNe, that's a pretty good example. At a certain point, you're going to have to decide whether it's worth getting arrested or not...because you will never, ever win "at the scene." Doesn't matter how wrong they are.
And if you're willing to get arrested, odds are you'll receive no compensation for your trouble (even if you were clearly in the right) and the officer will receive little to no sanction. That, really, is where the problem is. Especially given that being arrested will carry with it both the risk of being assaulted while in custody (by police or other detainees) and that you could wind up in jail for an extended period while things get sorted out (if you don't have bail money, if the court is closed over the weekend, etc).
The hard part here is how to fix it. Because as obviously wrong as the officer here was, and as obvious of an abuse of power as it was, it's really hard to address on a general level. Because while my initial reaction is that there should be some kind of strict policy in situations where the officer is wrong, is informed he is wrong, and goes forward with the arrest anyway...well, at the same time we can't (realistically) expect every officer to have better knowledge of every law than every internet lawyer out there. You're introducing the risk of a very real paralysis that could keep officers from doing their job when it is necessary.
I'm not saying there isn't some fix, of course. It's just not easy, and it probably wouldn't completely satisfy me anyway. And I'm pretty damn forgiving of cops.
Even when they're gigantic dicks on a power trip, like Officer Fuckstick there.
if that dude had gotten arrested, chances are all of his video would have magically disappeared after he posted bail, i'm actually surprised he got away with not having to delete that
hahah wiretap law
dlinfiniti on
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Because as obviously wrong as the officer here was, and as obvious of an abuse of power as it was, it's really hard to address on a general level. Because while my initial reaction is that there should be some kind of strict policy in situations where the officer is wrong, is informed he is wrong, and goes forward with the arrest anyway...well, at the same time we can't (realistically) expect every officer to have better knowledge of every law than every internet lawyer out there. You're introducing the risk of a very real paralysis that could keep officers from doing their job when it is necessary.
This is what I'm talking about.
If, in the course of doing my job, a customer corrects me about procedure that I don't know or am misinformed about, and I refuse to accept their word, then it is revealed that I am wrong, I get fired, or written up, or otherwise disciplined because it is not unreasonable to expect someone to know the procedures and rules of their job.
Unless I get a gun and a badge, apparently. Then it's okay to expect me to not know what rules govern that gun and that badge.
Ugh. I hate these kinds of videos. Not because I think the guy was making an ass of himself (Officer #2 though...) but because they actually make my anxiety kick up.
Anyway... do LEO's go through some sort of "continuing ed"? Like, my mom, as a Realtor, has to go to X hours of classes per year or every couple years to stay up on real-estate law/code/whatever. Does that happen in the LEO world? 'Cause you'd think they'd want to do that; especially to address these kinds of things with officers. "Cameras are in every phone in just about every person's pocket now. If you're in a public area, you can be recorded. Being a gigantic cockwallet is going to be a very bad idea going forward. Does everyone understand? Dunk your donut twice, if you understand."
Because as obviously wrong as the officer here was, and as obvious of an abuse of power as it was, it's really hard to address on a general level. Because while my initial reaction is that there should be some kind of strict policy in situations where the officer is wrong, is informed he is wrong, and goes forward with the arrest anyway...well, at the same time we can't (realistically) expect every officer to have better knowledge of every law than every internet lawyer out there. You're introducing the risk of a very real paralysis that could keep officers from doing their job when it is necessary.
This is what I'm talking about.
If, in the course of doing my job, a customer corrects me about procedure that I don't know or am misinformed about, and I refuse to accept their word, then it is revealed that I am wrong, I get fired, or written up, or otherwise disciplined because it is not unreasonable to expect someone to know the procedures and rules of their job.
Unless I get a gun and a badge, apparently. Then it's okay to expect me to not know what rules govern that gun and that badge.
The law is, like, totes complex. So much so that lawyers and judges (who we'd hope are better educated it than even our most ideal cops) frequently get that shit wrong, and have to look to higher courts with more experienced judges to set that shit straight. Even the basic criminal statutes are quite a bit to remember off the top of your head...but those don't mean shit, because the real meat is in the case law. Quick, tell me what the affect of Hoover v. West Virginia is on the exchange in the video! What, you can't? Of course you can't, I made that shit up. Do we expect every police officer on every public easement talking to every dude every night to know that off the top of their heads?
No, no we don't. Not if we're at all reasonable.
The "procedures and rules" of their job that we're talking about are all the procedures and rules of our entire society. That's not reasonable.
And while it's tempting to isolate a few specifics that we arguably can expect them to have to remember (like that they can be recorded while performing their duties, and that in a given state citizens not under arrest don't have to show ID) that probably wouldn't help...we'd just find other videos of cops that don't know other laws being dicks about it.
I can agree that in this case, because it was both a simple law to remember and because he was a gigantic douchehammer about it, this cop should probably be disciplined in some way. And there are probably already policies in place to make that happen that simply aren't being used. But whatever disciplinary action would occur probably still wouldn't satisfy us, and would only ensure that that officer doesn't do it again...the next guy will still be a gigantic dipshit. At least once.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm not talking about the intricacies of case law. I don't know what policies affect the behavior of the executives of my company. I am expected to know the ones that affect me. A cop should know when he can and can not make an arrest, when he can and can not ask for ID (I'm actually pretty sure the cop was in the right on that one since it was reasonable that the guy was driving or would be).
I'm not talking about the intricacies of case law. I don't know what policies affect the behavior of the executives of my company. I am expected to know the ones that affect me. A cop should know when he can and can not make an arrest, when he can and can not ask for ID (I'm actually pretty sure the cop was in the right on that one since it was reasonable that the guy was driving or would be).
Actually since he was in Pennsylvania, no, the Officer cannot. You don't even have to show ID if you've been arrested (Good luck actually getting set free though). What that guy was doing was 100% legal, and the base things he was being basically harassed over are goddamned basic that every officer should know. This wasn't some strange rule about having too small a lobster, an Officer should damn well know when it's legal to ask for ID, and when it's legal to be refused.
If you get pulled over in PA, you don't have to show your driver's license?
By law, only if the Officer tells you you committed a specific driving infraction. They aren't allowed to "check your papers" as it is. He can't just walk up to you and go "License and Registration" without explaining first what you did. PA law also prevents casual search and seizure of vehicles if nothing is visible. What they can do however, is impound your damn car until they get a warrant (which is fairly bullshit). So it generally behooves you not to be a dick to the cops if you get pulled over. But as for what that guy was doing? Support him 100% in practice. I will say, he started off super antagonistic (When a cop asks why you're doing what your'e doing, saying "Because I can" is probably a bad idea), but reading the youtube page, it looks like he's had a ton of issues with these officers before, so I can understand that.
The other thing to note is in a lot of portions of PA, most of the police outfits pull a decent size of their revenue from writing tickets, unlike say Palm Beach County in Florida where the Sheriff's Office runs most of the county and they are primarily funded through property taxes. So quotas and such are a very real thing. From the 24-29th of a month was open season for the local borough cops to nab you for anything and everything, so it wouldn't surprise me if the original officer probably stopped to try to get him for something.
Cops do go through regular training and assessments.this includes physical as well as written. Departments vary of course, but I have seen some local tests on basic report filing for traffic incidents and they are no joke.
Edit: If you know/are friends with a police officer, I highly recomend talking to him about doing a civilian ride along. Most departments do this, and if he says they arent going to give you shit for doing it, he will make sure you get set up with a good officer to ride with (he probably will not be able to do the ride along with you). This can give you alot of insight into how police operate and their side of situations.Usually the only requirement is you sign a waver, be 18(lower under -circumstances-) and have a drivers liscence (you are to drive off if something happens to the officer)
Cops do go through regular training and assessments.this includes physical as well as written. Departments vary of course, but I have seen some local tests on basic report filing for traffic incidents and they are no joke.
Edit: If you know/are friends with a police officer, I highly recomend talking to him about doing a civilian ride along. Most departments do this, and if he says they arent going to give you shit for doing it, he will make sure you get set up with a good officer to ride with (he probably will not be able to do the ride along with you). This can give you alot of insight into how police operate and their side of situations.Usually the only requirement is you sign a waver, be 18(lower under -circumstances-) and have a drivers liscence (you are to drive off if something happens to the officer)
There are absolutely not regular physical assessments in all departments; hell, I would be surprised if there are in most departments. I'm in better shape than a lot of cops out there.
Because as obviously wrong as the officer here was, and as obvious of an abuse of power as it was, it's really hard to address on a general level. Because while my initial reaction is that there should be some kind of strict policy in situations where the officer is wrong, is informed he is wrong, and goes forward with the arrest anyway...well, at the same time we can't (realistically) expect every officer to have better knowledge of every law than every internet lawyer out there. You're introducing the risk of a very real paralysis that could keep officers from doing their job when it is necessary.
This is what I'm talking about.
If, in the course of doing my job, a customer corrects me about procedure that I don't know or am misinformed about, and I refuse to accept their word, then it is revealed that I am wrong, I get fired, or written up, or otherwise disciplined because it is not unreasonable to expect someone to know the procedures and rules of their job.
Unless I get a gun and a badge, apparently. Then it's okay to expect me to not know what rules govern that gun and that badge.
The law is, like, totes complex. So much so that lawyers and judges (who we'd hope are better educated it than even our most ideal cops) frequently get that shit wrong, and have to look to higher courts with more experienced judges to set that shit straight. Even the basic criminal statutes are quite a bit to remember off the top of your head...but those don't mean shit, because the real meat is in the case law. Quick, tell me what the affect of Hoover v. West Virginia is on the exchange in the video! What, you can't? Of course you can't, I made that shit up. Do we expect every police officer on every public easement talking to every dude every night to know that off the top of their heads?
No, no we don't. Not if we're at all reasonable.
The "procedures and rules" of their job that we're talking about are all the procedures and rules of our entire society. That's not reasonable.
And while it's tempting to isolate a few specifics that we arguably can expect them to have to remember (like that they can be recorded while performing their duties, and that in a given state citizens not under arrest don't have to show ID) that probably wouldn't help...we'd just find other videos of cops that don't know other laws being dicks about it.
I can agree that in this case, because it was both a simple law to remember and because he was a gigantic douchehammer about it, this cop should probably be disciplined in some way. And there are probably already policies in place to make that happen that simply aren't being used. But whatever disciplinary action would occur probably still wouldn't satisfy us, and would only ensure that that officer doesn't do it again...the next guy will still be a gigantic dipshit. At least once.
The thing is, the cops don't need to know "the law." The cops need to know a small subset of the law that deals with the stuff they would regularly expect to encounter. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to know that. Especially when it comes to things like when they're allowed to search people, when they can demand ID, etc.
Because as obviously wrong as the officer here was, and as obvious of an abuse of power as it was, it's really hard to address on a general level. Because while my initial reaction is that there should be some kind of strict policy in situations where the officer is wrong, is informed he is wrong, and goes forward with the arrest anyway...well, at the same time we can't (realistically) expect every officer to have better knowledge of every law than every internet lawyer out there. You're introducing the risk of a very real paralysis that could keep officers from doing their job when it is necessary.
This is what I'm talking about.
If, in the course of doing my job, a customer corrects me about procedure that I don't know or am misinformed about, and I refuse to accept their word, then it is revealed that I am wrong, I get fired, or written up, or otherwise disciplined because it is not unreasonable to expect someone to know the procedures and rules of their job.
Unless I get a gun and a badge, apparently. Then it's okay to expect me to not know what rules govern that gun and that badge.
The law is, like, totes complex. So much so that lawyers and judges (who we'd hope are better educated it than even our most ideal cops) frequently get that shit wrong, and have to look to higher courts with more experienced judges to set that shit straight. Even the basic criminal statutes are quite a bit to remember off the top of your head...but those don't mean shit, because the real meat is in the case law. Quick, tell me what the affect of Hoover v. West Virginia is on the exchange in the video! What, you can't? Of course you can't, I made that shit up. Do we expect every police officer on every public easement talking to every dude every night to know that off the top of their heads?
No, no we don't. Not if we're at all reasonable.
The "procedures and rules" of their job that we're talking about are all the procedures and rules of our entire society. That's not reasonable.
And while it's tempting to isolate a few specifics that we arguably can expect them to have to remember (like that they can be recorded while performing their duties, and that in a given state citizens not under arrest don't have to show ID) that probably wouldn't help...we'd just find other videos of cops that don't know other laws being dicks about it.
I can agree that in this case, because it was both a simple law to remember and because he was a gigantic douchehammer about it, this cop should probably be disciplined in some way. And there are probably already policies in place to make that happen that simply aren't being used. But whatever disciplinary action would occur probably still wouldn't satisfy us, and would only ensure that that officer doesn't do it again...the next guy will still be a gigantic dipshit. At least once.
The thing is, the cops don't need to know "the law." The cops need to know a small subset of the law that deals with the stuff they would regularly expect to encounter. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to know that. Especially when it comes to things like when they're allowed to search people, when they can demand ID, etc.
I agree, asking for ID is something every patrol man will do every day, probably multiple times a day. Saying he should be expected to know in what circumstances he is allowed to ask for ID and in what circumstances people are allowed to refuse is not unreasonable. It should be a basic requirement for a police officer. If you aren't capable of remembering the most basic circumstances under which you are going to be making arrests you aren't capable of being a police officer.
True, I guess I'm just concerned about where that line should be drawn. I can agree that simple shit like when citizens must show ID and what they can film would be pretty easy to call out as required knowledge.
But then we still always wind up with people who get falsely arrested for some other random thing, saying the cops should have known. It would still be an improvement though so consider my position changed.
I can get behind a limited subset of the laws regarding police/citizen interactions being required knowledge, with regular training, and with severe penalties (including criminal penalties) for failure to adhere to them, or for even attempting to violate them.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Construction workers totally shouldn't be expected to know the rules for building skyscrapers.
Drivers shouldn't be expected to know the rules of the road.
Soldiers shouldn't be expected to know the rules of engagement.
Autoworkers shouldn't be expected to know the rules for making vehicles.
It's not mouthing off to say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?"
If they've already called a K9 it doesn't matter. They are allowed to detain you until the dog sniffs your car. Sure you can say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle" but at that point it's largely irrelevant because of the presence of the Dog. Plus if they've called three cars worth of backup and a K9 odds are the cop is just itching for a reason to book you. So saying that not only won't stop them from conducting some form of search it'll likely give them that much more of a reason to try and book you on bullshit charges like disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or interfering with police business.
When someone says they wouldn't "be that accommodating" it normally translates into "I'm just going to start cussing like a sailor at how you have no right to do the things you are going to do anyway regardless of my protest!" Because in all honesty unless you have a lawyer in person with you then you have about zero authority in the situation. It is now your word against two (or more) cops' word if it even manages to get before a court and that ends up meaning that regardless of what actually happens they can, if they chose, fabricate almost anything necessary to throw you away for 24-48 hours just to "teach you a lesson." The smart thing to do in those situations is just do whatever it takes to get out of that situation nicely, and more often than not that means just complying with stupid, unreasonable demands and choosing words very very carefully.
All that keeps you out of jail is them deciding that they aren't pissed off enough at you to make shit up, that's really it.
This is why it is a good idea to keep a recording device of some sort on you at all times.
It seems pretty clear to me, cops should be expected to know when they can and can't search someone's property, whether someone has to show them ID and under what general circumstances, etc
I mean there are exceptions, but there should be a good list of things like "you can be photographed and recorded by civilians" or "you cant demand id" or "you cant search cars without probable cause"
Posts
It's never the case that you have no recourse when property is seized by the police.
Your first URL is a bad link.
A patdown is a type of search.
Terry v. Ohio is very clear about this:
The Supreme Court decision was that, yes a patdown is a search. However it is a reasonable search.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's not very long, and Justice Warren's writing is very clear and easy to read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
For extra credit, also read Arizona v. Johnson, in which Justice Ginsburg applied Terry v. Ohio to automobiles: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=crime&url=/supct/html/07-1122.ZS.html
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Pandagon moved their website under Raw Story a few months back. The link is fixed.
And can we get back to the topic at hand, namely, the SCOTUS hearing a case on the use of drug dogs to alert on homes?
If the dog can signal from public territory, I don't see the issue. Tight now in order to use thermal imaging, they require a warrant I think? Which didnt make sense if you are obtaining probable cause from what I would justify as plain sight if from the street. Now getting a warrant shouldnt be an issue for the evidence provided by thermal imaging, it sounded like they needed a warrant to image the property. Officers use flashlights at night to view in the windows of a car thats pulled over for the same use. I mean, I don't like it, but I would understand that.
But they just roamed up onto his land with a dog, got barking and then searched the house without a warrant, right? Considering citizens have no real recorse for stoping officers from trespassing without life altering results, its horrifying.
That's what I've always understood the argument to be as well. I actually agree with most of what you are saying.
BUT - My biggest problem with this is that the officer's testimony should be open to cross examination. You can't cross examine a dog, so you are relying on secondhand testimony and knowledge of what the dog is trained to signal for.
If you have a drug dog signal that a car contains drugs, but find no pot or cocaine or whatever else the dog is certified to smell, then that search should be considered invalid. Any evidence of other crimes should be inadmissible.
We don't allow a (human) cop to say they smell pot coming from your apartment, kick your door down, and then fish for any evidence of unrelated criminal activity.
That's not even getting into the issues of officer induced false positives. I think it's proven that dogs are much more likely to generate false positives if they are searching minorities, or if the officer believes there are drugs.
The first issue is whether the use of a drug dog constitutes an unreasonable search. I'm 99% sure that SCOTUS will maintain the rulings of all lower courts that the use of a drug dog is not an unreasonable search. Whether that means they rule that the use of a drug dog is not a search; or if they rule that it is a search but it is a reasonable one, I'm not totally certain. Probably the former, as that's the status quo.
The second issue is whether drug dogs are accurate enough to be considered probable cause for a more invasive search. I'm not sure where SCOTUS will go with this. I think the available evidence is very strong that drug dogs are not accurate enough to be probable cause. The question then is whether SCOTUS acknowledges that evidence or ignores it, and I have no idea where they will go with that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
For instance, I'm wondering if "curtilage" can apply even to property you don't own...such as in an apartment complex.
I definitely found the questions being asked in the case, at least from the reporting, to be pretty compelling.
I'll let Feral's responses suffice on the "patdown is not a search" stuff.
You can absolutely show a cop ID if he asks for it, and give him your name. Beyond that, fuck 'em. It's also much easier for you to say this as a white, middle class son of a cop who has most likely never actually experienced a Terry Stop, or been in a situation where the cop isn't on your side.
RE: Feral, I was referring to the fact that a pat down is more limited than a full search, and that their limitations, requirements, and purposes are different. You generally cant remove someones shoes in a pat down, or get digging through pockets, as you're only looking for potential weapons. An inventory of a vehicle that you're towing, while essentially a search, cannot be investigative in nature.
Ever walk in a room and smell popcorn? Ever went to get some of that popcorn but your jerk friend already ate it all or threw it away? Popcorns gone, but you can still smell it. Drugs are the same, for humans and dogs. When an officer smells something, the proper testimony isnt "I smelled marijuana" its "I smelled the odor of marijuana" because the marijuana could be long gone, even though it was once there.
As per your second point, we almost do. If a cop enters your home because he smells weed coming from it while on the street, gets inside, and sees a meth lab, he can go from there. If a cop searches a vehicle because he smells weed, finds an illegal gun, and illegal pills, but no weed, he can seize those as well.
That said, if a cop has a search warrant, or is otherwise legally searching for something, he can only search where it could be. If hes searching a house for a shotgun, he cant check a shoe box. If while checking a gun safe, he finds equipment and plans on how to make a bomb and use it on the IRS building, he can seize that. If he got nosey and opened the shoe box, and found a bloody knife, thats probably going to be inadmissable.
The system, as convulted as it is, works pretty good, not amazing. Drug/explosives/tracking dogs do amazing work, but any guy that is trying to buck the system by intentionally making stuff up or sending the dog cues is a toolbag, and should be fired/prosecuted.
There are a lot of guys who will flat out refuse to do that, and honestly, truly, without hyperbole, believe a cop trying to do so is a nazi. They will throw out half-sensical legal fiction, throw the video on youtube of them with there smug satisfaction that they "Showed the man," Even when these guys are doing crap like carrying an MP5 around downtown, they are appalled by the police who dare interview them. Ignoring the fact that the officer could've charged them with brandishing if he felt so inclined.
So theres a middle ground between "Never talk to the cops under any circumstance" and "Answer the cops every question every time 100%"
The tough thing is that the dog is only detecting things that have been released into the public domain. It's very similar to scraping up your footprints and sending them through a spectrograph to find out where you've been or following you around with a spy satellite in that it's very irregular but not actually searching your person or residence.
I'm a white son of a cop and have been subjected to Terry Stops. (That rhymes!)
I've been approached and asked to produce ID after my friend that I was following in my car ran a red light. I was following him to a destination I wasn't famililar with, so I pulled over down the street to wait for the cop to ticket him. The cop came up to me after and asked for ID. I asked why and he said "Because I'm a cop and I'm asking you for ID."
My cousin had his dad's truck searched because he decided it would be better to back into a spot than stay in the one he pulled into. The cops asked why we pulled out when they entered the parking lot and when we told them the truth, they pulled the old "I smell weed." and searched the car and us. They found nothing and then forced us to leave the premises and we weren't able to play pool that night.
Hell, one time I got thrown into the back of a cruiser while hanging out at my friends driveway and accused of underage drinking. When I demanded to be breathalized (because I hadn't drank anything) they stalled for a half an hour and asked me all sorts of questions before letting me go "with a warning".
Terry Stops happen to everyone. All of the above scenarios happened before racial profiling became a big thing in the news.
And that makes them not gooseshit...how, exactly?
I recognize that this is the current standard for privacy in the US.
I also think that it is a poor standard.
There's a difference between detecting something with your naked eye and detecting something with assistance. As technology progresses, it is safe to assume that police will be able to use technology to peer deeper and deeper into areas of daily life that were previously private. Consequently, a technical or causal explanation for how this technology is just detecting something like molecules on the outside of your clothes or heat patterns of air outside of your house or vibrations outside your window should not be sufficient for justifying the use of that technology.
It doesn't really matter if we're talking about future Star Trek tricorder that can see through walls, or if we're talking about an animal bred and trained to detect molecules with superhuman sensitivity. What matters is whether a citizen might have reasonable expectations regarding who is and who is not party to that information.
We need a new standard of privacy that is much more sophisticated to deal with current and future situations.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oops! I amended that post halfway through and forgot to re-include that they are indeed bullshit.
I'm just stating my experiences with them. The majority of my friends are white (just because of where I grew up) and we used to get fucked with all the time.
I'll have to double-check, but I'm nearly positive that the courts have held that a warrant is required to use IR to detect what's going on inside a home (in relation to marijuana growing). This, despite the fact that it's just detecting passive IR radiation that is leaving the house. IIRC, this was part of the questioning from the justices in this case...that the court has held that if technology is being used to make this detection, it changes the nature of the search. At which point the lawyer for the state was left arguing that a dog is to be considered as an officer, rather than analogous to a technological device.
And if you're willing to get arrested, odds are you'll receive no compensation for your trouble (even if you were clearly in the right) and the officer will receive little to no sanction. That, really, is where the problem is. Especially given that being arrested will carry with it both the risk of being assaulted while in custody (by police or other detainees) and that you could wind up in jail for an extended period while things get sorted out (if you don't have bail money, if the court is closed over the weekend, etc).
The hard part here is how to fix it. Because as obviously wrong as the officer here was, and as obvious of an abuse of power as it was, it's really hard to address on a general level. Because while my initial reaction is that there should be some kind of strict policy in situations where the officer is wrong, is informed he is wrong, and goes forward with the arrest anyway...well, at the same time we can't (realistically) expect every officer to have better knowledge of every law than every internet lawyer out there. You're introducing the risk of a very real paralysis that could keep officers from doing their job when it is necessary.
I'm not saying there isn't some fix, of course. It's just not easy, and it probably wouldn't completely satisfy me anyway. And I'm pretty damn forgiving of cops.
Even when they're gigantic dicks on a power trip, like Officer Fuckstick there.
hahah wiretap law
wiretap law bro
It's chuckleheads like these why so many people hate cops....and a million other reasons.
This is what I'm talking about.
If, in the course of doing my job, a customer corrects me about procedure that I don't know or am misinformed about, and I refuse to accept their word, then it is revealed that I am wrong, I get fired, or written up, or otherwise disciplined because it is not unreasonable to expect someone to know the procedures and rules of their job.
Unless I get a gun and a badge, apparently. Then it's okay to expect me to not know what rules govern that gun and that badge.
Ugh. I hate these kinds of videos. Not because I think the guy was making an ass of himself (Officer #2 though...) but because they actually make my anxiety kick up.
Anyway... do LEO's go through some sort of "continuing ed"? Like, my mom, as a Realtor, has to go to X hours of classes per year or every couple years to stay up on real-estate law/code/whatever. Does that happen in the LEO world? 'Cause you'd think they'd want to do that; especially to address these kinds of things with officers. "Cameras are in every phone in just about every person's pocket now. If you're in a public area, you can be recorded. Being a gigantic cockwallet is going to be a very bad idea going forward. Does everyone understand? Dunk your donut twice, if you understand."
The law is, like, totes complex. So much so that lawyers and judges (who we'd hope are better educated it than even our most ideal cops) frequently get that shit wrong, and have to look to higher courts with more experienced judges to set that shit straight. Even the basic criminal statutes are quite a bit to remember off the top of your head...but those don't mean shit, because the real meat is in the case law. Quick, tell me what the affect of Hoover v. West Virginia is on the exchange in the video! What, you can't? Of course you can't, I made that shit up. Do we expect every police officer on every public easement talking to every dude every night to know that off the top of their heads?
No, no we don't. Not if we're at all reasonable.
The "procedures and rules" of their job that we're talking about are all the procedures and rules of our entire society. That's not reasonable.
And while it's tempting to isolate a few specifics that we arguably can expect them to have to remember (like that they can be recorded while performing their duties, and that in a given state citizens not under arrest don't have to show ID) that probably wouldn't help...we'd just find other videos of cops that don't know other laws being dicks about it.
I can agree that in this case, because it was both a simple law to remember and because he was a gigantic douchehammer about it, this cop should probably be disciplined in some way. And there are probably already policies in place to make that happen that simply aren't being used. But whatever disciplinary action would occur probably still wouldn't satisfy us, and would only ensure that that officer doesn't do it again...the next guy will still be a gigantic dipshit. At least once.
Actually since he was in Pennsylvania, no, the Officer cannot. You don't even have to show ID if you've been arrested (Good luck actually getting set free though). What that guy was doing was 100% legal, and the base things he was being basically harassed over are goddamned basic that every officer should know. This wasn't some strange rule about having too small a lobster, an Officer should damn well know when it's legal to ask for ID, and when it's legal to be refused.
By law, only if the Officer tells you you committed a specific driving infraction. They aren't allowed to "check your papers" as it is. He can't just walk up to you and go "License and Registration" without explaining first what you did. PA law also prevents casual search and seizure of vehicles if nothing is visible. What they can do however, is impound your damn car until they get a warrant (which is fairly bullshit). So it generally behooves you not to be a dick to the cops if you get pulled over. But as for what that guy was doing? Support him 100% in practice. I will say, he started off super antagonistic (When a cop asks why you're doing what your'e doing, saying "Because I can" is probably a bad idea), but reading the youtube page, it looks like he's had a ton of issues with these officers before, so I can understand that.
The other thing to note is in a lot of portions of PA, most of the police outfits pull a decent size of their revenue from writing tickets, unlike say Palm Beach County in Florida where the Sheriff's Office runs most of the county and they are primarily funded through property taxes. So quotas and such are a very real thing. From the 24-29th of a month was open season for the local borough cops to nab you for anything and everything, so it wouldn't surprise me if the original officer probably stopped to try to get him for something.
Edit: If you know/are friends with a police officer, I highly recomend talking to him about doing a civilian ride along. Most departments do this, and if he says they arent going to give you shit for doing it, he will make sure you get set up with a good officer to ride with (he probably will not be able to do the ride along with you). This can give you alot of insight into how police operate and their side of situations.Usually the only requirement is you sign a waver, be 18(lower under -circumstances-) and have a drivers liscence (you are to drive off if something happens to the officer)
I agree, asking for ID is something every patrol man will do every day, probably multiple times a day. Saying he should be expected to know in what circumstances he is allowed to ask for ID and in what circumstances people are allowed to refuse is not unreasonable. It should be a basic requirement for a police officer. If you aren't capable of remembering the most basic circumstances under which you are going to be making arrests you aren't capable of being a police officer.
But then we still always wind up with people who get falsely arrested for some other random thing, saying the cops should have known. It would still be an improvement though so consider my position changed.
I can get behind a limited subset of the laws regarding police/citizen interactions being required knowledge, with regular training, and with severe penalties (including criminal penalties) for failure to adhere to them, or for even attempting to violate them.
Drivers shouldn't be expected to know the rules of the road.
Soldiers shouldn't be expected to know the rules of engagement.
Autoworkers shouldn't be expected to know the rules for making vehicles.
This is why it is a good idea to keep a recording device of some sort on you at all times.
I mean there are exceptions, but there should be a good list of things like "you can be photographed and recorded by civilians" or "you cant demand id" or "you cant search cars without probable cause"