posted
I was watching courtv and they had a show called Hot Pursuit, it's more or less like World's Wildest Police Videos. A group of 3 men are pulled over (I believe for tailgating) and the officer asks the driver to step out of the vehicle and takes the driver aside. The cop asks the driver where he came from, where he was going, the whole routine. The driver answers, and then the officer walks back to the car asking the same questions of the passengers. Their answers differ enough to arouse suspicion and the officer requests backup.
The policeman comes back to the driver and asks him to confirm his version of the events and notifies him that his friends have not told the same story. The officer then asks the driver if he has any illegal items or weapons on his person and the driver says no. The officer then asks if he may search the vehicle for illegal contraband and the man says no. The officer says he will be back in a few moments and radios for a K-9 unit.
The unit arrives and the dog sweeps around the outside of the care for about 3 passes and finally stops at the trunk and barks. The policeman then has probably cause and has the driver unlock the trunk, they find marijuana (alot of it) and arrest all 3 men.
It is my understanding that if you refuse to let a policeman search your car, as long as there is no "plain view" evidence the policeman cannot search it.
I know state law can vary but if I refuse to allow the policeman to search my vehicle am I required to wait while he summons a K-9 unit to sniff my car up? If I ask "Am I under arrest?" is the policeman required to state whether I am or not and let me be on my way?
I guess I felt there was something amiss with the whole being required to wait while a K-9 unit is summoned when you are being pulled over for tail gating. Were there any rights the defendants waived inadvertently? Did the policeman overstep his bounds to any degree to make an arrest?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is my understanding that if you refuse to let a policeman search your car, as long as there is no "plain view" evidence the policeman cannot search it.
Plain scent is well-established though. You identify the key issue in your next sentence:
quote:I know state law can vary but if I refuse to allow the policeman to search my vehicle am I required to wait while he summons a K-9 unit to sniff my car up?
If there was no waiting - if the officer was interviewing the driver while another officer took the dog around the car, the search of the trunk would be legal (assuming the dog has a verifiable record of marijuana detection).
Under a federal constitutional analysis - and few states are stricter, at least as regards the admissibility of evidence - your being required to wait is either a seizure. A seizure must be "reasonable" under the fourth amendment.
There are two different standards for determining whether a seizure is reasonable. If the seizure qualifies as an investigatory stop, then the standard is "reasonable suspicion." The purpose of the stop is to investigate to either allay suspicion or determine if there is probable cause to search or arrest.
I'll analyze from the beginning of the incident as you described it:
"A group of 3 men are pulled over (I believe for tailgating)" The officer observing tailgating is probable cause to pull the car over.
"the officer asks the driver to step out of the vehicle and takes the driver aside" This is ok - an officer can require the driver to leave the vehicle during a traffic stop.
"The cop asks the driver where he came from, where he was going, the whole routine." This is ok - the officer does not have to warn the driver that he can remain silent. The driver must assert his right (in this situation) to preserve it.
Now we must speculate as to whether the driver's answers created reasonable suspicion that something illegal other than tailgating was going on. Nervousness (not in and of itself, but coupled with other things, evasiveness, inconsistency, and implausibility can all combine to form reasonable suspicion. I can't evaluate that here. If there is no reasonable suspicion, the officer needs to write the ticket without undue delay and send him on his way (assuming tailgating is not an arrestable offense).
Let's assume there is reasonable suspicion to continue investigating at this point.
"the officer walks back to the car asking the same questions of the passengers" This is acceptable. Again, they must assert their right to remain silent - no warning is required.
"Their answers differ enough to arouse suspicion and the officer requests backup." At this point, there is reasonable suspicion that the three are up to something they wish to hide from the officer, which justifies continuation of the investigatory stop.
"The policeman comes back to the driver and asks him to confirm his version of the events and notifies him that his friends have not told the same story." This is ok - further investigation directly into the cause of the suspicion (the inconsistency).
"The officer then asks the driver if he has any illegal items or weapons on his person and the driver says no." This is OK - the driver must assert his right to remain silent.
"The officer then asks if he may search the vehicle for illegal contraband and the man says no." This is ok, too - if the seizure is constitutional, then an officer can generally request consent to search. There are some situations where consent will be deemed involuntary (cuffed, dog snarling, etc.) but those don't seem to be present here.
"The officer says he will be back in a few moments and radios for a K-9 unit. The unit arrives and the dog sweeps around the outside of the care for about 3 passes and finally stops at the trunk and barks." Here the issue is how long the wait was. Very short, likely no problem. The longer the wait, the more likely it is to be unreasonable.
If unreasonable, then everything that happens afterwards is excluded.
Assume it's reasonable for purposes of continuing analyzing. Also assume the dog is suitably trained to sniff and alert for drugs.
"The policeman then has probably cause and has the driver unlock the trunk, they find marijuana (alot of it) and arrest all 3 men." The officers had probable cause that there were drugs in the car. Probable cause is sufficient to search the car (no warrant is required to search a car if probable cause exists, due to the car's mobility and likelihood of destruction of evidence).
Once the marijuana is found, it may be seized and all passengers arrested.
posted
If you assert your rights and decline to respond to the officer's questions, can they legally try to bluff you into believing that you don't have that right?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you assert your rights and decline to respond to the officer's questions, can they legally try to bluff you into believing that you don't have that right?
That's very fact-specific, Noemon. There's no absolute bar on officer's lying, but if the bluffing amounts to a stronger seizure ("talk to us or you're going to be here a lot longer"), the seizure may become unreasonable.
So there's no rule against bluffing per se, but bluffing can lead to situations where the seizure becomes unreasonable.
One thing I forgot to mention: the refusal to allow the search cannot factor into determining whether there was reasonable suspicion. Most officers will consider it, but they have to be able to make the case without it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: If you assert your rights and decline to respond to the officer's questions, can they legally try to bluff you into believing that you don't have that right?
Wouldn't that be like the undercover cops posing as prostitute's being asked if they are cops by the Johns? If they deny being a cop and arrest him anyways, how does the John prove it? If the cop in this case does bluff, how would the driver prove it?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The cop asks the driver where he came from, where he was going, the whole routine." This is ok - the officer does not have to warn the driver that he can remain silent. The driver must assert his right (in this situation) to preserve it.
This sparks some questions in my mind. What if the driver had said "I am exercising my right to remain silent." at the first question? I'd imagine he would still need to give proof of insurance, registration, license, etc, but he could do that without saying anything. If the driver and passengers had not told the officer anything at all, I'd imagine it would have been harder to achieve probable cause.
Unless refusing to answer itself becomes probable cause, in which case the right to remain silent doesn't mean very much in this situation.
I'd love to hear more about what the officer and driver can, and cannot do, in these sorts of situations.
(Not that I'd ever use them. I haven't willfully broken the law in pretty much any way since I turned 21, and could legally drink. I don't even speed anymore.)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't that be like the undercover cops posing as prostitute's being asked if they are cops by the Johns? If they deny being a cop and arrest him anyways, how does the John prove it?
That whole "Are you a cop?" thing is a myth. They can say no all they want to.
quote:One thing I forgot to mention: the refusal to allow the search cannot factor into determining whether there was reasonable suspicion. Most officers will consider it, but they have to be able to make the case without it.
to the end with an edit? Cause it partially answers my question .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't that be like the undercover cops posing as prostitute's being asked if they are cops by the Johns? If they deny being a cop and arrest him anyways, how does the John prove it?
That whole "Are you a cop?" thing is a myth. They can say no all they want to.
quote:One thing I forgot to mention: the refusal to allow the search cannot factor into determining whether there was reasonable suspicion. Most officers will consider it, but they have to be able to make the case without it.
to the end with an edit? Cause it partially answers my question .
That is actually good to know, I am glad to be proven wrong here. It never made much sense in the movies.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This sparks some questions in my mind. What if the driver had said "I am exercising my right to remain silent." at the first question? I'd imagine he would still need to give proof of insurance, registration, license, etc, but he could do that without saying anything. If the driver and passengers had not told the officer anything at all, I'd imagine it would have been harder to achieve probable cause.
Pretty much.
quote:Unless refusing to answer itself becomes probable cause, in which case the right to remain silent doesn't mean very much in this situation.
Mere refusal to answer is not itself probable cause and can usually not be factored in the probable cause evaluation. If the situation is inherently suspicious, it can be considered. For example, a person climbing out of a window with a bunch of jewelry at midnight refusing to answer. In this case, the refusal is less a factor in deciding there isn't probable cause and more a factor in not alleviating the reasonable suspicion that exists.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me clarify one other thing - whenever I said "refusal to allow the search," read that as "refusal to consent to the search."
Even if you think a search is illegal, do NOT try to prevent the officer from conducting it. You can waive all sorts of rights that way, plus it's dangerous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks a bunch Dag! You answered all my questions and some I didn't think to ask.
Its not that I want to flout the law or anything, but I think its empowering to be aware of your rights in every situation. I was a criminal justice major for about a year of college, and there is just so much fine detail I am still not aware of but remains pertinent to what could happen to the average person.
If pulled over by the police officer can you then simply state, "I have nothing to say to you," and then comply with his requests for your license and registration? I mean typically with me it never gets further then just the ticket being written out, but I know that with minority groups they often have to deal with more assertive cops who racially profile.
Again thanks for your well thought out responses.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I would phrase it that way.
I might say, "I'm asserting my constitutional right to remain silent" and then hand over my license and registration when asked.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If pulled over by the police officer can you then simply state, "I have nothing to say to you," and then comply with his requests for your license and registration? I mean typically with me it never gets further then just the ticket being written out, but I know that with minority groups they often have to deal with more assertive cops who racially profile.
From a legal perspective, pretty much. There might be some ID/registration related questions you should answer ("Is this your car?").
The legal perspective is not the only necessary perspective, though. Prior to the time when you know you're getting a ticket, you might be trashing your chance to get off with a warning. And there's always the chance of pissing off an officer, who might then start pushing at the boundaries of his constraints. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the officer to do, but it does happen and you need to be aware of the possibility.
Officers are pretty smart. If they come up to the car and ask if you know why they pulled you over, they're trying to obtain usable evidence against you. And they know that if you don't know if you're getting a ticket yet, you're likely to answer them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is one aspect of this event that I am uncertain about. To what extent are the individuals involved compelled to tell the truth?
Certainly the Driver has some obligation to tell something resembling the truth, but are the passengers under the same obligation?
It seems the police and the District attorney can engage in coercion, extortion, blackmail, lying, distortion of the law, willful misrepresentation of an individual's rights, and a long list of unsavory things.
In a traffic stop like this, to what extent are the individuals, Driver and Passengers, under separate legal obligation to tell the absolute truth?
Further, how does the officer determine that the various stories are 'suspicious'? Personally, I wouldn't expect the various stories to match completely. I actually know people, friends from my youth, who will ALWAYS lie to the cops even when it is not necessary.
This seems to be at the heart of all the officer's action, he 'thought' the stories were suspicious, and used that as justification to escalate the encounter.
Next we have the issue of an unwarranted search. Isn't the unwarranted use of a Search Dog, an unwarranted olfactory invasion of my privacy? Couldn't they just has easily have slipped a fiber-optic camera in the gab between the trunk and the car body and viewed the interior? Couldn't they just as easily seek up to houses at random and peek in the windows? How are either of these any different than allowing a dogs heightened sense of smell to invade 'private space'? Is there really a difference between a dog's nose and a policeman's eyes?
quote: How are either of these any different than allowing a dogs heightened sense of smell to invade 'private space'?
The dog isn't smelling "inside" the car. He is smelling odors on the outside of the car that came from the inside.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If pulled over by the police officer can you then simply state, "I have nothing to say to you," and then comply with his requests for your license and registration? I mean typically with me it never gets further then just the ticket being written out, but I know that with minority groups they often have to deal with more assertive cops who racially profile.
From a legal perspective, pretty much. There might be some ID/registration related questions you should answer ("Is this your car?").
The legal perspective is not the only necessary perspective, though. Prior to the time when you know you're getting a ticket, you might be trashing your chance to get off with a warning. And there's always the chance of pissing off an officer, who might then start pushing at the boundaries of his constraints. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the officer to do, but it does happen and you need to be aware of the possibility.
Officers are pretty smart. If they come up to the car and ask if you know why they pulled you over, they're trying to obtain usable evidence against you. And they know that if you don't know if you're getting a ticket yet, you're likely to answer them.
Duly noted!
I once saw a clip of an officer who as a test would first ask, "Do you have any dangerous items such as tanks, airplanes, carriers, or rockets?" If the person nervously just said, "no no no" rather then picking up on the joke and laughing or looking at the cop curiously the cop took that as grounds to delve deeper into his inquiry.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a traffic stop like this, to what extent are the individuals, Driver and Passengers, under separate legal obligation to tell the absolute truth?
Always risky to lie to the police. It's not always illegal, but you can't always tell whether it would be or not based on the situation. Better to say nothing than lie.
quote:Further, how does the officer determine that the various stories are 'suspicious'? Personally, I would expect the various stories to match completely. I actually know people, friends from my youth, who will ALWAYS lie to the cops even when it is not necessary.
He has to be able to articulate his reasoning, and he can cite his experience as an officer to do so.
quote:Isn't the unwarranted use of a Search Dog, an unwarranted olfactory invasion of my privacy?
No. Basically for the reason zgator gave - the marijuana was in "plain smell" (analogous to plain site).
quote:Couldn't they just has easily have slipped a fiber-optic camera in the gab between the trunk and the car body and viewed the interior?
No - they would be entering the trunk to do that. The operative phrase is "reasonable expectation of privacy." People reasonable expect that the contents of their trunk will not be viewed via fiber optic camera inserted into the trunk. (The same goes for infrared monitoring of people in their homes - they reasonably expect that this will not be done.)
The expectation that the smells which leave the car will not be intercepted has been deemed to be unreasonable.
quote:Couldn't they just as easily seek up to houses at random and peek in the windows?
Not if doing so requires entering the "curtilage" (the area of land around the house so attached to it as to be part of the living area). The exception is windows that can be seen through by someone going up the walk to knock on the door - absent a sign (and in some cases a gate), it is not trespassing to go knock on a door, and an officer can do it just as legally as you or I.
The operative phrase here is "plain sight." If something can be viewed from where an officer is legally present, then it is not considered a search to see it for purposes of the 4th amendment.
The sidewalk, the front porch, and the living room if you invite the officer in are all places an officer can be legally present.
quote:How are either of these any different than allowing a dogs heightened sense of smell to invade 'private space'? Is there really a difference between a dog's nose and a policeman's eyes?
No, there's not. It's a question of whether the nose or the eyes are legally allowed to be where they are at the time of detection.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(The same goes for infrared monitoring of people in their homes - they reasonably expect that this will not be done.)
This seems analogous to a drug-sniffing dog, in that it's using non-human means to detect something outside the range of human senses, in an effort to sidestep the 4th amendment.
Yet one is legal and one is not? What am I missing?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same goes for infrared monitoring of people in their homes - they reasonably expect that this will not be done
I thought they were able to use this to determine if a house is being used as a greenhouse to grow pot. Can they only do this if they already have probable cause?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlueWizard How are either of these any different than allowing a dogs heightened sense of smell to invade 'private space'?
Zgator responded The dog isn't smelling "inside" the car. He is smelling odors on the outside of the car that came from the inside.
And in the optical examples I gave, the officer's head is not inside the car, he is viewing light that is coming out of the 'thing' he is viewing.
I specifically chose examples where information was coming out of a (somewhat) sealed environment.
I do understand your point, but my point is that under those circumstances bringing in a dog does constitute of search of private space.
He brought the dog in because their stories in his mind didn't add up, but how does that lead to a reasonable suspicion of drugs or bombs. If he specifically brought in a drug sniffing dog, then what was his reasonabl suspicion of drugs? Maybe they weren't druggies, maybe they were just idiots. To bring in a drug search dog, it seems their must be reasonable suspicion of drugs, not just a general overal suspicion of idiots.
Under general circumstances like airports and other secure areas, using a dog is not an invation of private space. It is private space invading a secure area.
Still curious about my two original points. And again, I do understand Zgator's point, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
quote:The same goes for infrared monitoring of people in their homes - they reasonably expect that this will not be done
I thought they were able to use this to determine if a house is being used as a greenhouse to grow pot. Can they only do this if they already have probable cause?
It's considered a search, so they need probable cause. Here's the case:
quote:in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home’s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.
The bold portion is the distinguishing characteristic between thermal imaging and binoculars. (The case is interesting in that Scalia drafted the opinion ruling it a search, and Stevens drafted the dissent arguing that it should always be allowed.)
quote:This seems analogous to a drug-sniffing dog, in that it's using non-human means to detect something outside the range of human senses, in an effort to sidestep the 4th amendment.
Yet one is legal and one is not? What am I missing?
quote:A "canine sniff" by a well-trained narcotics detection dog, however, does not require opening the luggage. It does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, as does, for example, an officer's rummaging through the contents of the luggage. Thus, the manner in which information is obtained through this investigative technique is much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item. Thus, despite the fact that the sniff tells the authorities something about the contents of the luggage, the information obtained is limited. This limited disclosure also ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods.
In these respects, the canine sniff is sui generis. We are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure. Therefore, we conclude that the particular course of investigation that the agents intended to pursue here - exposure of respondent's luggage, which was located in a public place, to a trained canine - did not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
This decision was unanimous, although not all joined this paragraph.
quote: Accordingly, the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog–one that "does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view," Place, 462 U.S., at 707–during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. In this case, the dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent’s car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent’s privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement.
This conclusion is entirely consistent with our recent decision that the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect the growth of marijuana in a home constituted an unlawful search. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Critical to that decision was the fact that the device was capable of detecting lawful activity–in that case, intimate details in a home, such as “at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath.” Id., at 38. The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is categorically distinguishable from respondent’s hopes or expectations concerning the nondetection of contraband in the trunk of his car. A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
quote:And in the optical examples I gave, the officer's head is not inside the car, he is viewing light that is coming out of the 'thing' he is viewing.
But the device entered the car.
Kyllo explains this in further detail, as well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somewhat related hypothetical question that I thought up while reading this thread - If have I have off-duty cop friend at my home, and he happens to see a stash of drugs in, say, a cabinet in my bathroom, what can he (legally) do about it?
posted
Constitutionally, I don't think it's a problem for him to arrest you if he's there by invitation and his invitation to the house includes an implicit invitation to open that cabinet (for example, if that's where the TP is kept). If you invite him to your home for dinner and he rips up the floorboards without permission, then the evidence will likely be excluded. But if his actions are those of a normal houseguest, you're probably out of luck.
It would depend on state law as to whether he has authority (or an obligation) to do anything.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you assert your rights and decline to respond to the officer's questions, can they legally try to bluff you into believing that you don't have that right?
That's very fact-specific, Noemon. There's no absolute bar on officer's lying, but if the bluffing amounts to a stronger seizure ("talk to us or you're going to be here a lot longer"), the seizure may become unreasonable.
So there's no rule against bluffing per se, but bluffing can lead to situations where the seizure becomes unreasonable.
One thing I forgot to mention: the refusal to allow the search cannot factor into determining whether there was reasonable suspicion. Most officers will consider it, but they have to be able to make the case without it.
I have personally been in a couple of situations where the police have threatened to arrest me if I did not cooperate with them. While I have never been arrested, a couple of my friends have been arrested and jailed for up to a 3 days for similar circumstances. In the end, the judges dismissed all charges against them and ruled the police behavior unreasonable, but that didn't change the fact that the spent hours to days in jail solely for not cooperating with the police.
The bottom line is that if you don't have anything to hide, police make it in your best interest to surrender your rights and cooperate with them. Even if your refusable to cooperate is 100% legal and your detention would be ruled illegal by every court, the police can still make your life extremely miserable if you don't do what they want you to.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a case here in Wisconsin in which the police bullied a blind woman who was raped by a home intruder. When they doubted her story, they repeatedly told her that they knew she was lying, that they had forensic evidence that proved she wasn't telling the truth. After a few hours of that, she broke down and "confessed" to having made up the claim.
Without going into the details, they eventually caught her attacker and exonerated her. This actually led to a huge flap, but the Madison police still oppose any attempt to mandate recorded sessions of any interrogation in which a cop lies to a suspect. IMO, the latter is a no-brainer, but clearly the police disagree.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Police TV shows lead me to believe that the police can and will lie, coerce, threaten, and rough you up to make their case. I believe it.
The police only protect you if they feel you're innocent of any wrong doing. The second you're suspected of anything illegal, they're your enemy. It becomes their job to make every effort to find evidence of anything and everything they can pin on you.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Police TV shows lead me to believe that the police can and will lie, coerce, threaten, and rough you up to make their case. I believe it.
The police only protect you if they feel you're innocent of any wrong doing. The second you're suspected of anything illegal, they're your enemy. It becomes their job to make every effort to find evidence of anything and everything they can pin on you.
And in many circumstances, only by following that strong conviction and reopening cases that have been thrown out, looking at the evidence again, checking testimonies, confronting exonerated suspects again has a rightful conviction been obtained.
Go watch Forensic Files, its incredible how the truth often takes a second look.
Most policeman will still stay within their rights as they know if they overstep their bounds a defense attorney will pounce on it and the case gets thrown out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I know with the Patrol newsletter I received monthly, they feature, each issue, some search and seizure case somewhere, to go over and over and over with the officers what is and what isn't allowed. What is permissible in court, and what isn't. They highlight a new example each month.
Understand that much of what police officers do is somewhat "acting from their gut" - intuition - training based on prior experiences, more so with more years of service they have. That usually has to do more with the INITIAL stop, though. Like in the instance in the first post, he may have observed some behavior that led him to initially suspicion the car, and then waited for a stoppable offense (tailgaiting) to actually pull it over.
posted
Here's a sort-of related incident that I'd like your take on, Dag. My dad is remodeling his house. Currently, he and his wife are living in the garage, as the rest of the place is getting torn up. The front door is still up, but it's difficult/semi-impossible to get to.
A police officer wanted to talk to my dad about a neighborhood parking issue (my dad's been parking his boat on the street, which the city frowns upon), so he came over during the day. We don't know if he knocked on the front door, but we do know that he entered the side gate - which had a large, "Beware of Dog" sign on it - and went around to the back of the house, where one of the contractors was working. As he got to the backyard our huge golden lab, Bear, woke up, came out of the garage (into the backyard), and started growling & barking at the intruder. The police officer almost shot our dog before the contractor was able to convince him that Bear is normally very friendly, once he's "introduced" to you by someone he already knows.
Was what the police officer did legal in any way? Would he have gotten in trouble if he actually did shoot the dog?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak to the legality of the entry into the back yard. It depends on state law - and about a lot of different parts of state law.
If the officer reasonably felt threatened by the dog, then it's likely shooting would be permissible. State law varies on whether the perspective judged is that of an average person, an average person with the officer's experiences (so that if he had been mauled by a dog as a kid, he could show reasonable fear more easily), or whether it is strictly subjective from the officer's point of view.
Whether the officer was there illegally or not might be relevant civilly, but probably not criminally. Department regulations will matter, too.
Huge dog, growling and advancing on the officer, might very well be deemed a threat.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would the "Beware of Dog" sign have counted for anything? For the issue at hand (possible parking violation), it doesn't seem like such a smart idea on the officer's part to enter a fenced area knowing there might be a vicious dog inside.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I got one for you Dag, since you seem to be in full form today
I could probably find an answer by talking to some of my trooper friends, but I never think to ask them when I see them.
In the aforementioned newsletter, often there are incidents like this one: (I deleted the actual trooper names, for their privacy)
quote: 10/01/03, 2255 hours: MSTRP 'D' stopped a westbound 1997 Nissan Altima for speeding on I-70. The stories of the driver and passenger apparently conflicted, so consent to search was obtained, and 'D' found a bundle of currency among the belongings in the trunk. While 'D' searched the car, MSTRP 'G' patted down the occupants and found another bundle of currency on the driver. At Troop C MSTRP P and TRP 'G' assisted with a more thorough search. "G" observed what appeared to be more currency in the natural voids in the car’s front end. In total, they seized $173,500.
So my question is -- it isn't illegal to carry cash. So how in these situations (which most obviously are probably drug money) is law enforcmeent able to seize large quantities of cash if there aren't also drugs found? (Drug busts on the highway weren't nearly as common back 25 years ago when my dad was on, so this never came up in conversation)
quote:So my question is -- it isn't illegal to carry cash. So how in these situations (which most obviously are probably drug money) is law enforcmeent able to seize large quantities of cash if there aren't also drugs found?
Asset forfeiture of money linked to drug smuggling is a complex topic. There is a federal law that allows law enforcement agencies to keep drug-related money they seize. Here's where it gets tricky: the money can be seized on probable cause - a very low standard - and the person it is seized on has to sue to get it back. They must post 10% of the total as a bond, and they have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money is not connected to drug trafficking. This is because forfeiture in these matters is not considered a criminal sanction but a civil remedy based on the legal fiction that the property has violated the law.
Thus, no jury trial required, no presumption of innocence, etc.
I suspect that this happened under the forfeiture rules.
posted
I was thinking about this on the way to work...
I think one thing most of the general public doesn't realize when they read of a police stop, or see one on a TV police video, is how much MORE information a policeman has, thanks to technology, than what you are able to see/determine by what you have read about the incident.
When an officer makes a stop, the tag number of the car is immediately sent through the computer, and before he even approaches the vehicle, he knows who it is supposed to be registered to, what history it has (if any) regarding illegal activity. If the driver's license doesn't match or resemble the registration of the auto, that will bring up questions.
As soon as he has the drivers license number from the driver, again he is given a wealth of information from the computer immediately, including all prior problems with this person. So if the guys has several prior arrests for DUI or drugs, etc. he is probably going to treat that driver with much more suspicion than normal.
For instance, if I were to get stopped today (which theoretically COULD happen, as I just had a headlight burn out). They would run the registration of my tag and find nothing, and that it is current and valid. Then he would see my license, that it matches the name/address, etc. of my vehicle registration. My license run would then show that I have had NO reported accidents, haven't had a ticket in over 15 years, and have no criminal record whatsoever. He will probably be much nicer to me than someone who has a history of like 50 speeding tickets in 10 years, or wreckless driving offenses, etc. And a lot depends on "attitude." You give a police officer "attitude" and you're hanging yourself.
---
The one thing that saddens me about law enforcement is the toll that career takes on the men who choose it. This wasn't as bad for my dad, since he was highway patrol, which works with a different element of society that most city police, and because it was 25 years ago (even patrol has changed quite a bit, and are MUCH more involved in busting drug dealers than dad ever was).
But for city police that I have as friends, I have seen many idealistic, energetic, bright young men become cynical and bitter over years of police work. Working with the lowest element of society day in and day out takes its toll on them. It can make them mistrustful of almost everyone.
They deal with basically the same lowest 5% of the population all the time. They see the worst of human nature, and it leads to some of the highest divorce rates, alcoholism, drug addiction, and turnover of any career in the nation. City police work is a very negative environment, day in and day out.
I know that last part of the post probably belongs in the Hate Police thread, but I'm purposefully staying out of that thread for my own sanity.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
