Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Not sure the LEO's did right on this....


Recommended Posts

Why pick on anyone? - my thread was started about an incident that involved a certain police department and the way THEY handled it - than folks start piling on LEO's in general....oh well, nature of the internet I reckon.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

In that case, why even bring it up in the first place? You've been here long enough to know that it was going to turn into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In that case, why even bring it up in the first place? You've been here long enough to know that it was going to turn into this.

 

Because I always live with the hope that we can have a cordial discussion on these subjects - besides their reponses are their business whether I like them or not. Plus, there have been good responses with viable information. So...there is no problem posting as some good does come out of it. It's the Saloon and we can discuss....and I won't be deterred posting like subjects. I have posted great moments in LEO history in the past too. It allows both sides to hammer out thier opinions I guess - certainly confirms some things ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some folks have legitimate questions on LE procedure and tactics, but anymore it seems these threads just get started to stir things up. The process is the same every time, the trolls show up first, then the constitutional scholars, followed by the paranoid "big brother is watching" crowd, and finally the insults and Gestapo labels start flying. Free advice is fine, but understanding that procedure will vary by department, and that the laws are different in every state, so a national forum is probably not the best arena for advice. How about we quit stirring the hornets nest for a while, maybe start picking on Firefighters! :lol:

 

BSD

 

You have also failed to include the LEO blindly defending other LEOs to that labeled group of people.

 

No firefighter has the ability to endanger my rights. They do not have the "lawful order" bs.

 

As for stirring the hornets nest why can't people recognize that there is a real need to monitor police activities to prevent denial and erosion of rights. Do you believe that LEOs are actually protecting our rights all the time?

Do you not see some erosion historically due to LEOs claiming the need for lawful orders and other sweeping authority?

I see the reason to observe this trend and to be outraged when it happens.

Thankfully it doesn't happen all the time. And it yet doesn't appear to happen systemically.

From what I observe we are not yet a police state but we approach that border.

 

Are you not concerned about the USA becoming a police state?

Or is the picture about this issue different when you are the police?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had been one of those 40 motorists, I would have been more than a little P.O.ed..they got the perp, so that's good..But no, it don't sit too well with me either..

 

Does that mean if someone reports a suspected bank robber in a certain neighborhood they can go door to door and handcuff everyone in their houses until the perp is caught?

 

Being checked out is one thing, being handcuffed for two hours is another..Gestapo-esque tactics, IMHO..Maybe those 40 motorists should put their heads together and hire 40 lawyers.. :rolleyes:

 

Probably need a search warrant for a house (that constitution thing).......vehicle are mobile and therefore time does not allow such actions......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably need a search warrant for a house (that constitution thing).......vehicle are mobile and therefore time does not allow such actions......

 

You probably ought to read the 4th amendment and understand its point of origin.

The reason for it is to protect travelers from exactly this kind of horse manure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably ought to read the 4th amendment and understand its point of origin.

The reason for it is to protect travelers from exactly this kind of horse manure.

You should read the law, then you would have an idea what you were talking about.......the 4th doesn't protect criminals so they can commit crime and law enforcement can investigate with PC or a warrant.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some folks have legitimate questions on LE procedure and tactics, but anymore it seems these threads just get started to stir things up. The process is the same every time, the trolls show up first, then the constitutional scholars, followed by the paranoid "big brother is watching" crowd, and finally the insults and Gestapo labels start flying. Free advice is fine, but understanding that procedure will vary by department, and that the laws are different in every state, so a national forum is probably not the best arena for advice. How about we quit stirring the hornets nest for a while, maybe start picking on Firefighters! :lol:

 

BSD

 

 

BSD, whatsa matter, hitting to close to home or what? There will always be people that don't trust the cops and have not much good to say about their tactics.

 

Why pick on firefighters, they are there to help people, not harass then and find a way to make it legal. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably need a search warrant for a house (that constitution thing).......vehicle are mobile and therefore time does not allow such actions......

 

CB, you ain't serious are ya? No warrant for a vehicle? Ha Ha, tell us another big one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB, you ain't serious are ya? No warrant for a vehicle? Ha Ha, tell us another big one.

 

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB, you ain't serious are ya? No warrant for a vehicle? Ha Ha, tell us another big one.

 

 

 

Ok, I'm wrong and you are a legal expert.......you guys that quote the constitution without consideration for any other facts or legal decisions of the last 200 years or so, should maybe look at a few high court decisions......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks, for posting the factual laws and exceptions to a search warrant......probably some here that still will not believe the facts......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....probably some here that still will not believe the facts......

 

And,the facts are???????????

 

That cops can stop ya and search your vehicle for no reason,------- without your permission? Attaboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And,the facts are???????????

 

That cops can stop ya and search your vehicle for no reason,------- without your permission? Attaboy.

 

 

Did you read his link? My conversation is over with you, you aren't playing in the real world and you are apparently responding against a group of people you simply do not like.......the police had probable cause because of the nearness to the crime location/vehicles are mobile and tend to leave the scene in a short period of time. This one will probably be tested in court to see if they were correct........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB, yes I read the link. Also in the original post it states that "they all granted permission", the key element------"GRANTED PERMISSION". Doncha think?

 

How were they gonna leave the scene in a short time when they were handcuffed. Bet that would be a trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I always live with the hope that we can have a cordial discussion on these subjects Cordial discussions, REALLY?- Since when has this type of post produced cordial discussion?besides their reponses are their business whether I like them or not. Plus, there have been good responses with viable information. So...there is no problem posting as some good does come out of it. Please tell me what good comes out of this post It's the Saloon and we can discuss....and I won't be deterred posting like subjects.Just becasue you CAN does not always mean you SHOULD I have posted great moments in LEO history in the past too. So are you searching the nations news outlets today to find reports showing arrests resulting from good police work?It allows both sides to hammer out thier opinions I guess - certainly confirms some things Like most of us are like sleeping dogs? We hear something and start barking before we know what's going on? None of us were involved, were we? We are going on news reports, which I can assure you can be very inaccurate,

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Oh yes, I see all the cordial discussion and good things that have come out of this. I feel much better now. "I'll like to buy the world a Coke........"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB, yes I read the link. Also in the original post it states that "they all granted permission", the key element------"GRANTED PERMISSION". Doncha think?

 

How were they gonna leave the scene in a short time when they were handcuffed. Bet that would be a trick.

The minute they were stopped, they were detained.......the handcuffs are for protection, and for controlling large number of folks while police investigate.....was it necessary, I don't know, wasn't there.....I would not place a lot of faith in news articles being accurate......my point is that there are exceptions to a search warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should read the law, then you would have an idea what you were talking about.......the 4th doesn't protect criminals so they can commit crime and law enforcement can investigate with PC or a warrant.........

 

And in this case done by the OP of this thread, the criminals are whom?

All the people at the intersection are criminals.

Not a chance.

 

Now lets look at the post the GG posted. I have a quote about consent.

 

Consent:

Voluntarily acquiescing or complying with a request, by someone of sufficient mental capacity; a decision made in the absence of coercion or duress. Whether or not a party has given voluntary consent is determined by the totality of the circumstances.

 

I personally consider being handcuffed, forced to sit on the curb, with cops with loaded guns some being pointed at me while being cuffed etc to be under coercion or duress. So I don't see that those searches again of the OP were in fact based on legal consent.

The courts probably disagree. But they have been in bed sniffing the same glue that LEO appear to sniff when it comes to our rights.

 

As for the automobile exception, why did LEOs on scene ask for consent to search if they could have used this sneaky exception.

Time was NOT important here as they blocked off the intersection for multiple HOURS. And the example and description on the .edu page doesn't ring true for this case anyway. And they really didn't have real good PC anyway.

 

Finally, not that I doubt GG for finding the page but it is a edu page and not a legal page.

The best authority on this would be the case writeup from some court case. This is not.

Also please remember that this situation was not a single vehicle but between 15 and 25 of them.

This looks like a dragnet type approach.....

Could this be LEOs claiming to use exceptions to search warrants to make up for lack of information?

Then again why did LEOs ask for consent to search in the first place?

In the last link that posted about this situation there were some good quotes from LEO spokesman.

They (LEOs) didn't know who they were looking for. Didn't have a description. Didn't know the race. Didn't know what type of vehicle.

Sounds like they didn't know very much.

Dragnet!

 

I suspect when the courts hear this case it will come down to reasonableness, dragnet, and treatment.

 

Please keep in mind that my points are all about our rights and when they are encroached upon or nullified.

 

My point about your reading about the 4th and its intended purpose still stands.

But it is in no way something that the 4th amendment says that limits its scope and application.

We must blame the courts for their abuse of our rights and the integration of those abuses into case law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BSD, whatsa matter, hitting to close to home or what? There will always be people that don't trust the cops and have not much good to say about their tactics.

 

Why pick on firefighters, they are there to help people, not harass then and find a way to make it legal. :lol:

 

Not at all, I've heard this garbage for 30 years, nothing new here. Seasoned LEO's sit back and laugh at the trolls and their comments as they flame away from the safety of their keyboards. Again, if someone really wanted advice, they'd check with their local Attorney General or Prosecuting Attorney, not a board loaded with trolls and haters. ;)

 

BSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minute they were stopped, they were detained.......the handcuffs are for protection, and for controlling large number of folks while police investigate.....was it necessary, I don't know, wasn't there.....I would not place a lot of faith in news articles being accurate......my point is that there are exceptions to a search warrant.

 

 

Seriously Concho the way you are saying it is, the next time there is a bank robbery LEOs can shut down the all the streets and search every car because a crime has been committed, that sir is what it sounds like whether that's is what you actually mean or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be people that don't trust the cops and have not much good to say about their tactics.

 

 

I sure can't argue with that. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I see all the cordial discussion and good things that have come out of this. I feel much better now. "I'll like to buy the world a Coke........"

 

Well - there have been some good posts and not-so-good. Pretty much any thread can produce that...nothing surprises me so have at it. Blame me and despise me all ya want...My post was a fair inquiry to pards thoughts - can't be responsible for ithose who want to have an opinion - whether I like it or I'll not. If the moderators see an issue they will remove the thread so nobody's feeling get hurt.

 

I'll take that Coke though ~ Thanks! :D

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure can't argue with that. :lol:

 

 

There's alot of those types...most of 'em in prison because they were caught by cops doing awhile they (the bad guys) were doing things to people ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I see all the cordial discussion and good things that have come out of this. I feel much better now. "I'll like to buy the world a Coke........"

 

 

Well all things considered it's a lot more cordial that some Wire discussions on Henry Big Boys, category changes and "gamers". :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's alot of those types...most of 'em in prison because they were caught by cops doing awhile they (the bad guys) were doing things to people ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

Naw, I've met plenty of pretty normal folks from both ends of the political spectrum who think that way. Evebn got a few distant relatives like that.

Different strokes I reckon.

 

 

(Always wondered what they'd do if they saw me gettin my a** kicked on a traffic stop though) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw, I've met plenty of pretty normal folks from both ends of the political spectrum who think that way. Evebn got a few distant relatives like that.

Different strokes I reckon.

 

 

(Always wondered what they'd do if they saw me gettin my a** kicked on a traffic stop though) ;)

 

Sorry to compliment the work of the LEO's who put the majority of cop haters in the pen...:lol: I also wager that both ends of the political spectrum ( and then some) are hangin' under the same roof too ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Always wondered what they'd do if they saw me gettin my a** kicked on a traffic stop though) ;)

 

We'd pull our Henry Big Boys out of the trunk and beat the perp off of ya, Bob :D (Assuming they weren't of the, "Darn that thing is ugly," camp and would run at the mere sight of such a thing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just sit back, take a deep breath and not go off half cocked with zero knowledge of exactly what happened short of what was told by the media. We all know how accurate the media is, don't we? Our opinions, and that is what most of what was said here, is just that. Unless you have exact training and taught Constitutional Law, you are basing your opinions on emotions, not fact.

 

Legalities? That is what the Courts are there for.If exigent circumstances exist, no warrants are needed to perform searches. Asking permission to search allows LEO's to eliminate anybody from a suspect list. Refusal, and you can and will be detained until a search warrant is obtained.

 

Personally, if I were the ranking LEO on the scene, I wouldn't have sealed off the area based on an anonymous phone call without verification of an actual crime. I would have wanted a description of said offender, wanted vehicle info, direction of flight etc. Upon verification, I would have sealed it tighter than a lid on a mason far full of pickles. My actions would be based on current case law in my jurisdiction. I have been extensively trained by people with much better Constitutional Law Credentials than our illustrious POTUS. Plus, I have spent many hours in Court and even had a case of mine affirmed in the SCOTUS.

 

BTW, that radio transmitter for the GPS in the money has been in use for many years, at least 8 that I have been aware of because I was trained in tracking via our GPS system from the CPD. That, my friends is PC and gives you all the authority to seal an area and perform a search for said money pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously Concho the way you are saying it is, the next time there is a bank robbery LEOs can shut down the all the streets and search every car because a crime has been committed, that sir is what it sounds like whether that's is what you actually mean or not

 

 

 

That's not what i am saying and you know it........seems to me that law abiding citizens would not have a problem.......are you saying that if a local store was robbed, the bad guy was still inside when the police arrived, they wouldn't/couldn't hold everyone in the store to investigate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in this case done by the OP of this thread, the criminals are whom?

All the people at the intersection are criminals.

Not a chance.

 

Now lets look at the post the GG posted. I have a quote about consent.

 

 

 

I personally consider being handcuffed, forced to sit on the curb, with cops with loaded guns some being pointed at me while being cuffed etc to be under coercion or duress. So I don't see that those searches again of the OP were in fact based on legal consent.

The courts probably disagree. But they have been in bed sniffing the same glue that LEO appear to sniff when it comes to our rights.

 

As for the automobile exception, why did LEOs on scene ask for consent to search if they could have used this sneaky exception.

Time was NOT important here as they blocked off the intersection for multiple HOURS. And the example and description on the .edu page doesn't ring true for this case anyway. And they really didn't have real good PC anyway.

 

Finally, not that I doubt GG for finding the page but it is a edu page and not a legal page.

The best authority on this would be the case writeup from some court case. This is not.

Also please remember that this situation was not a single vehicle but between 15 and 25 of them.

This looks like a dragnet type approach.....

Could this be LEOs claiming to use exceptions to search warrants to make up for lack of information?

Then again why did LEOs ask for consent to search in the first place?

In the last link that posted about this situation there were some good quotes from LEO spokesman.

They (LEOs) didn't know who they were looking for. Didn't have a description. Didn't know the race. Didn't know what type of vehicle.

Sounds like they didn't know very much.

Dragnet!

 

I suspect when the courts hear this case it will come down to reasonableness, dragnet, and treatment.

 

Please keep in mind that my points are all about our rights and when they are encroached upon or nullified.

 

My point about your reading about the 4th and its intended purpose still stands.

But it is in no way something that the 4th amendment says that limits its scope and application.

We must blame the courts for their abuse of our rights and the integration of those abuses into case law.

 

 

there have been a few decisions in the last 200 years clarifying exactly what law enforcement can and can't do.......might want to study on those a bit also......and you are correct that it will probably come down to what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation......it doesn't seem too far out-of-bounds to me......ah, never mind......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well all things considered it's a lot more cordial that some Wire discussions on Henry Big Boys, category changes and "gamers". :lol:

 

That is so true. What fun do thing I could start by saying Dillon reloaders were over-priced POS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - there have been some good posts and not-so-good. Pretty much any thread can produce that...nothing surprises me so have at it. Blame me and despise me all ya want...My post was a fair inquiry to pards thoughts - can't be responsible for ithose who want to have an opinion - whether I like it or I'll not. If the moderators see an issue they will remove the thread so nobody's feeling get hurt.

 

I'll take that Coke though ~ Thanks! :D

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Coke? Really? Naw, you seem like a Pepsi man to me. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how much latitude an officer has to search a vehicle depends on the jurisdiction.

 

The "Automobile Exception" is not a general rejection of the Fourth Amendment, only a recognition of a reality that did not exist in 1788. That means the exception is narrow and if the officer exceeds the limits of the exception any evidence will be inadmissible. And if the officer exceeds their authority they might find themselves subject to civil suit.

 

Frankly, if I'd been one of the 40 detained, my first phone call after release would have been to my lawyer and get him to look into a class action suit against the police agencies involved. While stopping traffic to look for a perpetrator would be permitted, pulling people en masse from their vehicles, handcuffing them, and then searching vehicles without at least reasonable suspicion crosses a bunch of lines. The officer in charge, here, needs a World Class Dope Slap for being arrogant and stupid, all at the same time.

 

We've been warned about the consequences of the oft time competitive nature of ferreting out crime. We've got, here, a very disturbing example of that behavior.

 

SQQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coke? Really? Naw, you seem like a Pepsi man to me. ^_^

 

Pepsi - YUCK! :lol: ...Coke is the way.

 

Anyway, sorry about how the thread went pard. Thanks for your service to community.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there have been a few decisions in the last 200 years clarifying exactly what law enforcement can and can't do.......might want to study on those a bit also......and you are correct that it will probably come down to what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation......it doesn't seem too far out-of-bounds to me......ah, never mind......

 

Thank you.

You sir, are entitled to your opinion as am I.

I just would prefer it if we did it without name calling, labeling or antagonism.

But what decisions to find is the biggest problem. I am not a lawyer nor, do I want to be.

What I am is concerned about our rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.