|
|
|
|
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 7:49:08 AM | MilitaryMike,, I AM NOT JOKING.. This is life in Rabun County Georgia.!!!
Welcome to Rabun County. Your Under Arrest.! Come on Vacation and leave on Probation..
Come back on Revocation of probation...
This is the saying around here and some of my friends put these signs up at every county line..
Of course the signs was taken down by the authorities but the meaning and reality of it is very real and clear.
Other counties are like this too.
Peoples homes are being invaded by Pigs too.
The pigs have been to hundreds of homes without warrants and demanded to be able to search saying they had gotten a call about them.
This happened to me 4 times last year and many people I know.
They tear peoples homes apart and do not clean up the mess...
During this time they may have found a few people with a joint or two.
Is a joint or two worth violating everyone's civil rights ?
Most of the time they find nothing at all..
They also do this to peoples automobiles at roadblocks..
I WAS NOT JOKING !!!! GOT IT ?
If you are devoted to Protecting the Constitution of the USA and the Civil Rights in that Constitution,,, Then start by letting all of the Armed Forces know what's going on..
This includes the PIGS who are doing these things..
Let them know that this is not acceptable and that the drug laws are NOT more important than Americans freedoms..
    | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 7:57:32 AM | | Police do harrass people especially when they are training someone. The police are not going to protect they are going to harrass and alot without a cuase. there are very few decent police out there. The question I hate most is where you headed?? May I ask what business is it of theirs where im going. If i have done something wrongt ticket me and shut up. Where im going or coming from is not their business. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 9:12:49 AM |
Cops are allowed to stop someone and ask for ID inside their jurisdiction and in uniform/on duty. There is no law or Supreme Court precedent outlawing that.
Incorrect. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) | |
|
10of6
|
Joined: 8/27/2008
Msg: 79 | |
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 9:22:50 AM | No, they don't have a "right" to demand ID. He also has a right to tell them to he refuses because of something called The Fourth Amendment.
It's time to stop the Nazi wannabees from creating a new-'n-improved version of the piece of hatred that failed so miserably in the 30's and 40's (once the fuhrer exposed himself, of course, as an asexual psychotic). Informing cops that you know your Constitutional rights (for US citizens) is one way of preventing or slowing it.
I truly wish there were a way to screen people in or lusting for positions of power for psychological fitness, but alas, there would be too many psychoanalysts on the take. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 10:25:38 AM | | In that case the Supreme Court overruled the California v Soloman statue for a pedestrian to produce "credible and reliable" identification. The Supreme Court only attacked that part of the law and didn't call the whole law unconstitutional, only calling the type of identification vague and obscure. The law was not overturned, it was just rewritten. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 12:34:33 PM |
Ok, come on,,, enough is enough,,,, I would love to hear a point of view from a cop on here and what actually goes on within precinct walls.
Unfortunately it's not that dramatic in such a place. Maybe 30 years ago or in some places in your country. Most of us work as hard as we can and just want the usual things from our job, reasonably enjoy it, to finish on time and feel like you've achieved something worthwhile occasionally. Of course you get the bad apples in the cart, but infortunately that's what happens when you employ humans!
With regards to the stopping and searching etc, most of the knives and drugs seized from people on the street are done with random stops. You try to be as unobtrusive as you can, but even then, a little bit of politeness goes a long way, and most people accept it well enough if you are. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 12:36:06 PM | | As an aside, at least try to make a distinction some of the time! You wouldn't have a bad experience in a hospital and from then on, proclaim your hatred for all the medics in the world would you?! | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/26/2008 2:02:45 PM | . if you look like a dog, smell like a dog, walk like a dog, talk like a dog
many will think you are a dog.
thoughhhhhhh it is one person's right to dress how they feel.
looking a "dog" doesnt truely make you a dog | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/27/2008 12:42:59 AM | The thing I didn't see mentioned was did your boyfriend have prior record? Many cops patrol the same beat get to recognize alot of the people they see amd when they see something ou of the ordinary i.e. Grundge/ late 90's early 90's flashback they stop take a look and quetion it.
If there's a prior record then guess what boyfrind unfortunatly gets the bullseye planted on them. It's happend with my sis's fiance and the reason for it is that previous offenders have a bad habit of falling right back into the same routine since before there conviction to make money while looking for legitiamete work.
Innocent until proven guilty prior to first offense turns to suspicious and most likly guilty unil proven innocent. And the funny thing is that unfortunately a good percentage of the time the police's hunches are right. Driving with an nvalid liscense/ tags, no insurance, possession, and handgun charges are probably the most common reasons for stopping someone.
He dresses to protest maybe but that statement put him on the police officers radar. He's been stopped multiple times maybe by the same officer maybe not. If not then it may be the sign that multiple officers use the same standard for IDing what they see as potential trouble and after the third time maybe the boyfriend should get the hint.
If you're concerned have your boyfriend make a call to local law enforcement aftr he's stoppd again. Once he's stopped by the cops while a Police Officer can ask you for your ID you as the person being asked can request an officer's badge number as well.
Upon getting the badge number (Or even Car number on the Squad Car) get ahold of the officer/ officer's supervisor and file a complant for harassment. Just remember to be polite to the officer in the wrong or not you push the officer's paitiance they CAN arrest you on grounds of disorderly conduct which is a misdemenor but will get you in jal until bailed out and then throw you fully into the bullseye of a police officer and just reinforce the officer's suspision that his judgement was right. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/27/2008 12:09:54 PM | @ Sanguis Dominus
The point is, they're putting all their resources into catching a stoner, who's not harming anyone, instead of being out there and not wasting their time.
If you're driving, and carrying a bit of 'green' on you, the police are *obligated* to determine whether or not you're driving while impaired. If you're driving while stoned, you represent as much of a danger to others as someone who drives while drunk. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/27/2008 12:55:47 PM | We have a rocket scientist here..
I suppose you think it's ok to eat pain killers and drive too.
The cops can find a bottle of pills on someone and if the pills were prescribed to that person then the cops will just let them go.. That's the LAW.!!!
Maybe the person is eating those pills while driving and maybe not.
There's no way to tell as it is legal for that person to have that substance in their system isn't it.. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/27/2008 3:27:17 PM | One would think that the police stopping this young man once or twice, would be enough..Once they know who he is..Some harass others genuinely care and they want to know how one is doing? That has been my experience.. It's been a few years since I was in trouble one cop wanted me to call the dept every night at nine P.M. To tell them I'm sober back then I was homeless and a very bad alcoholic..One time in court the District Attorney announced to the judge and other 2 or 3 people in the court room that I was a very high profile insane drunk,( they wanted me in drug court and I refused) after being in AA 17 years I would have rather went to prison..After the DA Said that about me in frount of everyone I felt like a celebrity, I was hot shit and I just about totally got out of the charges..I don't drink anymore nor have any problems with the police but I shop at a thrift store that sells socks from the nut ward of the county jail loud bright orange and I buy them with my shorts just about everytime a police car goes buy the police officer is looking at the socks just my way of saying "Hello." I haven't been stopped for a few years.. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/27/2008 4:24:24 PM | Energyzone , luckily in the US we have the right not to be just stopped and searched at random. There has to be at minimum reasonable doubt,wich cops realy push the BS limit on that sometimes to. People should realize that the government is not your daddy. At minimum everyone should have the HUMAN right to be free and not be harrased ecspecially by our own government.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/27/2008 4:57:04 PM | @ nebula22
If the painkillers you suggest are prescription types, then they're typically strong enough to have a warning label on them. You know the one - "No operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery for X hours after taking". The label is there *because* it's known to affect judgment, reaction time, etc., and it's better to not do things that require those faculties.
I sincerely doubt that the cops would 'just let them go' if someone had prescription painkillers in his passenger seat... unless he could *prove* that he was OK to drive.
Driving while impaired is ILLEGAL - regardless of whether or not the impairment is caused by prescription, over-the-counter, or illicit means. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/28/2008 5:40:03 PM |
In that case the Supreme Court overruled the California v Soloman statue for a pedestrian to produce "credible and reliable" identification. The Supreme Court only attacked that part of the law and didn't call the whole law unconstitutional, only calling the type of identification vague and obscure. The law was not overturned, it was just rewritten.
Rewritten to say what?
Footnote 9 of the opinion for KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) , states:
To the extent that 647(e) criminalizes a suspect's failure to answer such questions put to him by police officers, Fifth Amendment concerns are implicated. It is a "settled principle that while the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes they have no right to compel them to answer." Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 , n. 6 (1969).
Also see footnote 10, which is rather long, so I won't bother posting it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=461&invol=352 | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/29/2008 8:49:03 PM | Abelian,
The questions raised in n. 10 of Kolender were answered by the Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Stop and identify statutes do not violate any provision of the Constitution so long as they meet the vagueness standards required of post Kolender cases. So long as the LEO is requesting identification with no requirement on the part of the seized individual to produce the vague "reliable and credible" documentation invalidated in Kolender, there is no 4A or 5A violation.
I don't see why this line of cases is all that relevant to the OP anyhow. Hiibel and its circuit progeny still require reasonable suspicion for stop and identify to be valid. There seems no reasonable suspicion for a stop in the OP's story (if we are to take it at face value), and, as others have correctly pointed out already, reasonable suspicion is still required for any sort of Terry stop (whether it's for a patdown or a to ask for identification, or whatever other information the LEO is seeking) absent a special needs exception. (And the stop in the OP is certainly not special needs.) | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/29/2008 9:21:33 PM | R0cketman,
If I am understanding the hypo correctly, a cop Terry stops someone driving a car, and pursuant to a proper Terry search of the car or the individual's person, finds prescription pain killers that, if currently in the driver's system would be prima facie violative of a DUI law? The cop will have reasonable suspicion if he has conducted the stop and the search already, and so he's free to ask the driver if he is under the influence, but unless the driver refuses to answer, or admits to being under the influence, there's little more the LEO can do unless his reasonable suspicion materializes into probable cause for other reasons. This all assumes, however, that there are not other features of the stop that would give rise to the fair probability that the driver is under the influence, such as the driver having been pulled over for driving erratically, or once pulled over, exhibiting signs of an intoxicated state of any kind (all factors that can trigger probable cause, and therefore an arrest). If the LEO saw no symptoms of being under the influence, and had nothing but the drugs produced from the Terry search, then there is nothing he can do, and likely he would not want to do anything else.
The thing to remember about Terry stops, whether they're ones like the kind in the OP might've been, or in this hypo, is that Terry is designed to be a fleeting temporal exception to the Katz test of reasonable expectation of privacy. Once whatever circumstances that gave rise to the initial stop dissipate, and if probable cause that a crime has been, or was about to be, committed has not been triggered in the stop, its searches, or any questions that have been answered by the suspect, then the reasonable suspicion that gave rise to the stop and its incidental searches goes away. There's nothing more a LEO can do.
The federal and regional reporters are littered with case law of Terry stops going too far beyond the temporal limits of reasonable suspicion for this reason. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/30/2008 2:41:59 PM | The hypothetical had the bottle of painkillers in the passenger seat, in plain sight. It's not unreasonable to assume that the driver has been popping a few - any more than it's not unreasonable to assume that someone has been drinking beer from a can that's in the cup-holder beside the driver.
You're right - a search can't be conducted unless there are other circumstances that suggest it might be required. But if it's clearly visible, (in my non-lawyer mind, anyway...) then that's sufficient probable cause to inquire into the drivers' state.
(And just FYI - if you're on a PUBLIC road, the so-called 'expectation of privacy' evaporates. You're out in public, despite being in a privately-owned vehicle. Your responsibility towards those around you take precedence over your right to privacy.) | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/30/2008 4:34:17 PM | First of all, it very much is unreasonable to assume that just because a closed container of prescription drugs is sitting on a passenger seat of a car lawfully pulled over that that means the driver has been ingesting the contents. There is no reason to believe he has. What if he just purchased the bottle? What if he keeps it there because he has a condition where he might need to pull over and stop driving and consume them at any moment. What if they were left there accidentally by a previous passenger. There's plenty of other reasons and these are readily imaginable by any thinking LEO. What if it were a closed container of liquor? Would it be reasonable to assume that it has recently been consumed, rather than purchased to be brought home?
If something is in plain view, then it is not a search in the first place. That's the plain view doctrine. But that's neither here nor there, really, because we are talking about what can be done with information, however lawfully obtained (via search, or plain view) after the fact. Can he use the information to inquire things? Sure. Cops can ALWAYS ask questions. Whether they can compel answers is a separate question.
And finally, if you're on a public road, your expectation of privacy does NOT evaporate. We retain an expectation of privacy in our automobiles. It is, however, a reduced expectation compared to other areas we might be (such as our homes, where our expectations of privacy are at their most intense). Bear in mind that in Katz, the case that gave birth to the reasonable expectation of privacy test, the defendant was in a public phone booth when he was found to have a reasonable expectation there. A car is not so different. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 12/30/2008 6:35:35 PM | First of all did not read all the reply posts,too many.
Secondly since I am from canada my knowledge is primarily focused around the criminal code of canada, and canadian police powers.
Here in canada, as it is written in black letter law the police CAN stop you on mere suspicion and request that you to identify yourself with documented proof.
Now don't get me wrong, racial profilling and prejudice policing is a very rampid and serious problem yet, their could be SEMI valid reasons for a cop to take these actions.
The person fits a rough discription of a wanted person, recent higtened crime rate in the area, gang tension and/or violence between certain ethnic groups that the person fits into(even if the person is older).
But if the cop is straight, and your S/O was near his home and just walking to the store,
his drivers licence and police cpic/ompac would convey that plausibility to the cop.
But they do not have the right to search your person,cary bags,vehicle without your consent and /or probable cause to which they have to declare.Yet cops lie like a rug.
remember,canada versus america,so just go to any library and look up police powers of your state. | |
|
imp78
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 96 | |
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 1/2/2009 7:59:49 PM |
Search my car-Hell yes, I have nothing to hide ...."
I edited the above quote for the relevant bit for my reply.
I was listening to a phone-in radio show one morning, one where a lawyer was giving general advice (advising to seek legal counsel or answering general questions). One of the callers asked if it was better to just let an office search a car to avoid looking guilty or refuse until a warrant was produced. The lawyer said that you should wait for a warrant. Besides the fact that refusing a search does not mean a person is guilty, you cannot guarantee that the officer won't find anything illegal in their search. He said you may be able to guarantee your own actions, but if you've had other people in your call at any time before the search - they could have dropped things (maybe their own weed?), stashed things, etc in your car without your knowledge. You can't guarantee their actions so you should not put yourself at risk if you don't have to. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 1/2/2009 8:31:39 PM | He should ask why he's being stopped. Then ask the cop if he is being detained or arrested. If the cop says no, then he is free to leave. If he IS being detained, don't answer any questions. He is under NO obligation to answer any questions. Remember that "right to remain silent"? Exercise it. Then file a complaint and DEMAND to know why he was stopped!
Cops do this all the time. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 1/2/2009 8:48:20 PM | I edited the above quote for the relevant bit for my reply.
I was listening to a phone-in radio show one morning, one where a lawyer was giving general advice (advising to seek legal counsel or answering general questions). One of the callers asked if it was better to just let an office search a car to avoid looking guilty or refuse until a warrant was produced. The lawyer said that you should wait for a warrant. Besides the fact that refusing a search does not mean a person is guilty, you cannot guarantee that the officer won't find anything illegal in their search. He said you may be able to guarantee your own actions, but if you've had other people in your call at any time before the search - they could have dropped things (maybe their own weed?), stashed things, etc in your car without your knowledge. You can't guarantee their actions so you should not put yourself at risk if you don't have to.
Cars are quite different.
If the cops have probable cause to search your car, they won't need a warrant anyway if they stopped you in traffic. And if they don't have PC, and you're merely refusing to consent to a requested search, they won't have PC to get one issued. It's a state-specific situation where they have PC for a warrant to search your car pursuant to a valid Terry stop, but still need need the warrant (the federal Constitution wouldn't require it). So in most instances, you won't have to wait for a warrant, because they can't get one. Unless you're going to be arrested.
If they lack PC for a search, but have it for your arrest, then they're going to get a search completed anyway when they impound the car and do an inventory search. And that's even assuming they need to wait until then. If they have PC to arrest you out of your car, they can search the passenger compartment incident to arrest without a warrant. If they find contraband there, they then have PC for the trunk (or anywhere else in the car that might have contraband). No warrant needed there, either.
To boot, all of this assumes they don't suspect drugs. If they do, they could just call a K-9 unit and have the dog sniff the outside of the car. This isn't a search and so does not require a warrant.
At the end of the day, the only way you're going to stop them from searching your car is if they have no PC to arrest you, and they don't call a K-9 that alerts them and gives them PC.
Though, the 4A is a floor not a ceiling. So this all assumes your state does not have its own constitutional search and seizure doctrines that go above beyond the federal Constitution's.
And again, for the other guy, it is not necessarily true that you are not required to answer any questions if you've been Terry stopped. The states can require via statute suspects detained under Terry to identify themselves on request by the LEO. (See the discussion and case law above.) | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 1/3/2009 9:29:48 PM | Yes, the cops can and will lie all the time in order to get a warrant. And of course the SC will continue to give the police more and more power to violate our rights as human beings.
As far as the dogs, although this is not technically a search, they will bring in the dogs, then claim the dog got a "hit" on the car as their "probably cause".
As far as answering questions, Identifying yourself is quite a bit different than answering questions. If you are stopped in a car or the street and are not "free to leave", you are also not obligated to speak (other than identifying yourself) or answer any questions. Until of course our "free" country passes more draconian laws. | |
|
| stopped by the cops
Posted: 1/3/2009 10:08:43 PM | "Do the police have the right to demand ID from someone who is merely walking down the street?"
The issue is better framed: Has a 4th Amendment "Search and Seizure" occured when a cop asks a pedestrian for his identification?
The courts are applying a ridiculous standard, and it goes something like this -- if the pedestrian could have had a reasonable belief that he could simply refuse to answer the question and walk away without consequence, no "seizure" occured.
So, if the cop is pointing a gun at your head as he asks for your i.d., its a seizure and the 4th Amendment requires that he have an independent reasonable belief that you've done wrong. (The old "probable cause" theory, but loosened up a good deal.)
But if he walks up to you and says "Hey, how about that Bears game! BTW, can I see your drivers' license?", and you comply because you like talking about the Bears, then no seizure has occured, no independent reasonable belief of wrong doing was required, and anything discovered is admissable at trial.
Sucks. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
