From your LEO experience when pulled over

[mljdeckard]

Lawyers win cases by pointing out if cops did their job incorrectly.

Somewhere along his education, Duke learned that you put a space between sentences and that Lawyers is not capitalized. Just sayin'.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

pbearperry: "Duke of Doubt you really crack me up.The reason Cops use the same words in court is because they are taught many of these phrases in the Academy to illustrate what they observed.Are you telling me that Lawyers don't all use the same words?I guess you never read any contracts?"

My point is that while boilerplate language in contracts can be useful to avoid mutual mistake and to save proofing time, when a cop documents what he observed, he should tell the truth and not give the standard academy answer which he thinks will win the DA the case. Boilerplate is inappropriate for written accounts of observed behavior. That doesn't mean there won't be similarities, but having represented a great many OUI defendants over the years, the "magic words" just are not funny to me anymore (they used to be).

pbearperry: "I used the term "Glassy eyed" because that's what most eyes look like when under the influence of alcohol.Do you have a better example? If you do please share.Would you rather hear the Cop say your client had slurred speech,or that he had a mouthfull of turds?"

It's not one single term. It's the same combination of the same exact phrases which appear in every report. A cop friend (yes, I have plenty, believe it or not) laughed and confirmed just exactly what I'm talking about. The report language evolves in response to experiences in court. It's not some sort of conspiracy, it's just a learned behavioral response. But I find it objectionable.

pbearperry: "My guess is that if you really are an attorney,you are probably not a very good one because you have a lot of time to be on the internet.Most of my Lawyer friends are too busy for such foolishness.Maybe you are retired like me?If that's the case I apologize about not being that good of an attorney."

Well, I never claimed to be a good attorney. As it happens, the past couple months have been abnormally slow -- record cold weather drove my best clients south for the winter. Besides, court never lasts all day and I enjoy writing and talking about guns during the winter months.

pbearperry: "If courts had a reliable lyometer ..."

No such thing as a reliable polygraph. That's why those quack devices are inadmissible in any court in the land.

pbearperry: "... in court,I believe it would quiver during some cops testimony,but it would blow up when lawyers put their clients on the stand,or when they made outlandish statements to get the client off.Good Lawyers win cases by doing their homework,but crummy Lawyers win by attacking the cops because they have no defense.Ya,I am way off base here.lol"

The difference is, the cop is not at risk of prison based on the defendant's lies. The defendant is at risk of prison based on the cop's lies.

 

[t165]

Terry stop and frisk

I read some of the experiences listed in this thread and there is a gray area between a simple traffic stop/or questioning by law enforcemant and a search warrant execution/custodial arrest. It's kind of a slippery topic which many law enforcement officers define differently. Probably the best Federal case I can site is Terry V Ohio (1968 I believe). If you are pulled over by a law enforcement officer and the officer has a "strong hunch" that you are about to engage in criminal activity or simply fears for his or her safety the law enforcement officer can...

(1) Do a simple frisk/pat-down of your person for weapons. you do not have to pull your pants down or anything but law enforcement can lightly feel outside of your clothing for a weapon.

(2) Search the immediate area of your vehicle for weapons which may be used to harm the law enforcement officer. This includes the passenger compartments...under front seats...bags, suitcases...and the glove compartment.

If the driver of the vehicle can quickly reach and grab a weapon from inside the vehicle it may be searched absent a warrant if the officers simply feels he/she may be in danger or suspects you may be getting ready to commit a crime. This also applies to pedestrains and the immediate area they may be standing.

This Court decision is one of the main cases taught in Federal and State Law Enforcement Academies across the United States. Many do not like this case law but it still stands and is 100% legal. The purpose of a terry stop and frisk is for the safety of the law enforcement officer. If, during the terry stop and frisk, drugs or other illegalities are discovered then they are grounds for arrest.

Yeah, a lot of trust is given to law enforcement to only use the terry stop and frisk when appropriate. It is a leap of trust the courts have granted law enforcement not to misuse. And as my ILEA Instructor made very clear to me and my fellow classmates...if you misuse the purpose of the terry stop and frisk then the courts can just as easily take that trust away! In a nutshell the courts will make a terry stop and frisk illegal.

A terry stop and frisk is intrusive and many people do not like it. I had it happen to me as a teenager and I didn't like it. I have seen so many people get mad and start to fight and wind up getting arrested that would have been let go if they had just complied. Battery on a law enforcement officer is not a charge any gun owner needs on their criminal record. That in and of itself may make terminate the right of a person to posess a CCP or even own a firearm. I know, in the real world the terry stop and frisk gets abused but it is over quickly and not worth the punishment for not complying. The truth is most law abiding Americans will never experience going through a terry stop. I would encourage everyone interested to read the court decision for themselves because I am only human and make mistakes...like I said before, this is a slippery subject.

 

[Rockwell1]

I said it before, I'll say it again

1. Never consent to a search. Politely decline but DO NOT RESIST.

2. If the Officer is talking about searching you,you probably AREN'T free to go and this would be an excellent time to ask for a lawyer and stop talking.

The police aren't Burger King, they aren't obligated to produce a supervisor at your whim. That's generally not a worthwhile request(IMO).

The more you talk the more likely you are to say something that could be detrimental.

1. I do not consent to this search

2. I don't feel it's in my best interests to answer any questions

3. I'd like to speak to my attorney

Those are the only lines I'd be delivering

 

[Deanimator]

The police aren't Burger King, they aren't obligated to produce a supervisor at your whim. That's generally not a worthwhile request(IMO).

If there's something not right with the cop in question, you need as many witnesses as possible, especially witnesses who can be leaned on to protect their own careers.

If he doesn't get a supervisor, you've lost nothing and given up no information. You've also given that cop something else to explain about his behavior.

If the system's fighting itself, it's expending less effort fighting you.

 

[Rockwell1]

If he doesn't get a supervisor, you've lost nothing and given up no information. You've also given that cop something else to explain about his behavior.

What are you going to do if the supervisor shows up? Start talking W/out a lawyer?

Watch COPS sometime, the criminals always sink themselves as soon as they start talking

 

[2nd 41]

Explain please

I said it before, I'll say it again

1. Never consent to a search. Politely decline but DO NOT RESIST.
2. If the Officer is talking about searching you,you probably AREN'T free to go and this would be an excellent time to ask for a lawyer and stop talking.
The police aren't Burger King, they aren't obligated to produce a supervisor at your whim. That's generally not a worthwhile request(IMO).
The more you talk the more likely you are to say something that could be detrimental.
1. I do not consent to this search
2. I don't feel it's in my best interests to answer any questions
3. I'd like to speak to my attorney
Those are the only lines I'd be delivering
__

What is the issue with consenting to a search?

 

[DCortez]

Don't know about the legality but the reality is that if you are by yourself when you are pulled over you are pretty much at the mercy of the police. Your word against theirs.

Made me think of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl67FmVRjYs

 

[danny]

2nd 41
You ask "What is the issue with consenting to a search?".

1. Things have been known to be "found" after falling out of the LEOs pocket. Not frequently but even if 1 in a million, would you like to be the one?

2. A few years ago my son and some fellow students were returning to college late one night when they were pulled over by the MO state police. The officer asked if there were any drugs in the car and they answered "no". Probably assuming that to be a lie, after all....college students, the officer asked to search the car.
Having nothing to hide, the driver agreed. Several more officers arrived and assisted in the search. They removed the seats, headliner, door panels, trunk liner, etc. Upon finding no drugs, the officers smiled and told them to have a nice day. When asked if they were going to reassemble the car, the officers found that to be quite amusing and drove off.

 

[Rockwell1]

What is the issue with consenting to a search?

What do you have to gain by consenting?

Is every police officer in the world honest?

I make it policy (hasn't been an issue in years) to politely decline all requests for a search.

There's a video link in this thread to a video called " Don't talk to the Police" in part 2 a veteran police officer point out that silence is your best defense & I believe he also mentions not consenting to a search. He also mentions in relation to this thread that he has almost 30 years experience "interviewing" suspects if you try to match wits with him you WILL lose.

1. Do not consent to a search

2. Do not speak to police

3. Ask for your lawyer

 

[mljdeckard]

NEVER, EVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH. No good can ever come of it, no matter how innocent you are. The cop is asking you to do his job for him. Do you work hard for your money? MAKE HIM WORK FOR HIS.

As stated above, memorize the following: "Am I free to leave? I do not consent to any searches. I do not wish to make any statements without my lawyer present."

Terry v Ohio is probably the most abused decision. It does NOT give police the power to search everyone they ever come across 'for their safety'. It allows police officers to frisk for weapons only WHEN THEY HAVE AN ARTICULABLE REASON to fear for their safety. "I had a hunch" or "because my experience has made me suspicious of everyone so I always search" is NOT sufficient reason to search under Terry v Ohio. They abuse it because they get away with it often enough to make it worth the risk.

 

[Deanimator]

What are you going to do if the supervisor shows up? Start talking W/out a lawyer?

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about HIM. If he's saying or doing things which clearly make him "off", LOTS of people need to know about it. It's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that his own department might be willing to act to at least stop him doing what he's doing right now.

Again, if a supervisor does come and takes action against HIM, I've lost nothing.

 

[2nd 41]

Having nothing to hide, the driver agreed. Several more officers arrived and assisted in the search. They removed the seats, headliner, door panels, trunk liner, etc. When asked if they were going to reassemble the car, the officers found that to be quite amusing and drove off.

Enough said. Thanks

 

[K3]

I agree with you, but to a cop on the street, a guy with a laptop is less "scary" than a guy with a gun.

I think it sucks, but this is the world we live in. A cop that pulls you over knows very little about you. Sometimes that makes them a bit jumpy. The best thing to do is stay calm and cooperate. If they violate your rights, hire a lawyer and sue them later... don't argue about it on the street.

I hate to say it, but this line of thinking sucks. It's a liberty stifling line of thinking. I don't care what's scary to a cop. They CHOSE a career that is known to entail risk.

 

[beatcop]

So when is it legal for an LEO (nationwide, local LEO) allowed to search your vehicle?

Not to sound negative, but try the search function. This will likely give you a generalized idea of search and seizure. Follow this up with a little Google, and top it off with a "police" field handbook for your State (lexisnexis/gould law).

This topic comes up every other day...and usually follows the same course:

"I have a friend who was pulled over..."
Some accurate info being put out to actually inform folks,
followed by the tin foil crew,
and the generalized cop-bashing.

There are no "secrets" to vehicle searches, probable cause, Terry Stops, etc...only varying interpretation of the actual laws. Some variations are due to a particular State's case law, enacting legislation that affords their residents greater protections that are described in Criminal Justice 101, or just plain misinformation.

Good luck

 

[Stirling XD]

I am sorry,no lawyer is that slow.

pbear,
There are professionals that are bad at what they do and have a lot of spare time on their hands. There are professionals that are pretty good at what they do and stay busy. Then there are professionals that are really good at what they do and don't have to work near as much as those that are pretty good.

I don't always agree with Duke's comments, but I respect his opinion and perspective. If you can rationally rebut someone's comment, I for one would love to hear it. I usually assme that a personnal attack is launched because attacker has no leg to stand on.

 

[t165]

Terry V Ohio

There seems to be some confusion concerning Terry V Ohio. The case law was never meant to be a way around probable cause or a judicial search warrant. The case law is a way to afford a law enforcement officer protection from a potentially dangerous individual obtaining a weapon from his/her immediate area. The law enforcement officer does not need the vehicle owners consent to conduct a terry stop. The driver and passengers may be handcuffed during the terry stop. Any attempt to stop the frisk or immediate area or vehicular search could easily result in a custodial arrest. Assaulting a law enforcement officer may very well negate your CCP or right to even own a firearm.

mljdeckard typed..."because my experience has made me suspicious of everyone so I always search". That is not a terry stop and frisk. That is an illegal search which violates an individuals civil rights. And mljdeckard...a "strong hunch" and "WHEN THEY HAVE AN ARTICULABLE REASON" are synonymous to me. Any argument otherwise is a based on semantics and an exercise in futility.

Law enforcement officers CAN search a Individual and the immediate area (including a vehicle) for a weapon without probable cause or a judicial warrant. The case law is clear and terry search and frisks happen thousands of times every day. If a law enforcement officer believes a crime has, is, or is about to occur, or they fear for their safety, they can conduct a terry stop and frisk and it is 100% legal. Lawyers and criminals have argued unsuccessfully against terry stop and frisks for decades. However, the terry stop and frisk has to fall within the parameters of the case law. Any reasonably intelligent person should know a terry stop and frisk cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

Nobody likes to be pulled over. I don't like it. If a law enforcement does something you feel is wrong then report him/her to their superiors. At times contacting a different law enforcement agency is proper if you feel you are not being taken seriously. Good law enforcement officers take pride in their jobs and wish the integrity of the system to be reputable. Rudeness and bullying reflect on the good officers wearing similar uniforms representing law and order and should be eliminated.

I also understand some people simply do not like law enforcement. I've seen individuals who think they are above the law and should not be pulled over. Every community has these types. Their egos are out of control. They will pay lawyers thousands of dollars to get out of a $100.00 ticket or minor arrest and think they have accomplished something. Afterwards the cop and lawyer (and at times the judge) will sit around and laugh their ass off at the fool. Most of the time they spend thousands of dollars and still get a negative adjudication. I never understand why people just don't admit when they are wrong. Unless the crime is serious then a defense attorney can almost always get it plead down to almost nothing. Just for the record I've paid every ticket I have ever been issued.

Now, I do know of innocent people have been arrested, prosecuted and imprisioned. No self respecting law enforcement officer wants this. That is why defense lawyers are vital. I wish I knew a way to fix this but no system is perfect. If you find yourself in this position then fight like hell! For the most part if you are hospitable to the law enforcement officer he will he respectable to you. There is an old saying that goes something like "you reap what you sow".

Again, If interested read up on Terry V Ohio and subsequent supporting case law. I advise people to not ask a lawyer, a student, a law enforcement officer or someone who thinks they are a lawyer to explain a terry stop and frisk. Everytime two lawyers walk into a courtroom and argue one of them is WRONG. That is why it is called "practicing law". Lawyers are wrong all the time. They are not rocket scientists. Oh course they still want you to pay them. Educate yourself and you will have a better understanding of the law and why it exist.

 

[Deanimator]

Law enforcement officers CAN search a Individual and the immediate area (including a vehicle) for a weapon without probable cause or a judicial warrant. The case law is clear and terry search and frisks happen thousands of times every day. If a law enforcement officer believes a crime has, is, or is about to occur, or they fear for their safety, they can conduct a terry search and frisk and it is 100% legal. Lawyers and criminals have argued unsuccessfully against terry stop and frisks for decades. However, the terry stop and frisk has to fall within the parameters of the case law. Any reasonably intelligent person should know a terry stop and frisk cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

Unfortunately, some cops are not apparently "reasonably intelligent", given that they violate the strictures of Terry, by among other things, detaining, disarming and searching citizens merely for openly carrying a firearm in a state where to do so is perfectly legal. In such cases, there's simply no reason for the citizen not to hammer the officer(s) in question. Crimes and civil torts have been committed against them. Were they to physically attack police officers, I'm sure you'd want to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal prosecution of police who violate the rights of citizens is unlikely in many areas. That leaves the remedy of the civil courts. There's simply no reason why the citizen should not resort to that remedy, and to the nth degree.

 

[K3]

Law enforcement officers CAN search a Individual and the immediate area (including a vehicle) for a weapon without probable cause or a judicial warrant. The case law is clear and terry search and frisks happen thousands of times every day. If a law enforcement officer believes a crime has, is, or is about to occur, or they fear for their safety, they can conduct a terry search and frisk and it is 100% legal. Lawyers and criminals have argued unsuccessfully against terry stop and frisks for decades. However, the terry stop and frisk has to fall within the parameters of the case law. Any reasonably intelligent person should know a terry stop and frisk cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

How about getting out and locking the car behind you? That way, if it's a safety issue, he would only need to Terry frisk the person. Car is locked, so no safety issue there.


Does that hold any H2O?

 

[Reyn]

The report language evolves in response to experiences in court. It's not some sort of conspiracy, it's just a learned behavioral response. But I find it objectionable

From dealing with defense attorneys and their tactics.

Here is what LEOs find objectionable about attorneys. This was posted by an officer and sums it up pretty good.

"If the defendant is factually innocent, fine, attack the facts presented by the state. If the law was inappropriately applied, fine, point out the error in the charges. If there's justification, fine, let's hear it.

But, no.....faced with good charges against a factually guilty client, what do you (generic) do? You lie. You lie by omission, you misdirect, you make up absurd alternate theories of the crime, you come up with bizarre aliens that must somehow be reasonable doubt. You try to not only make the state prove its case beyond any doubt, but you try to make the state disprove all of your theories beyond any doubt. Knowing that the stop was good, you file motions to supress anyway, and claim that those lies are part of "defending my client to the best of my ability". I can't believe that defense attorneys don't know that deep down.

Some of the game I'm willing to let slide. For instance, I know that I've got to make a decision in a second, and the courts will pick it apart for months. Okay, that's the nature of the beast. But I've been present for enough courtroom rapes of victims and witnesses to know that a goodly number of lawyers have substituted the ethics of the bar for the ethics of humanity.

Then comes the "just answer yes or no" questions. My oath was to tell the whole truth, and you ask those series of questions in full knowledge that the answer is anything but the whole truth. The attorneys are probably thinking, "well, that's what redirect is for" and missing the entire point of this paragraph. I'll leave the discovery of the point as an exercise in returning to the ethics of humanity"

"Criminal lawyers never lie -- because they do not testify."

Justify it anyway you want.

 

[Deanimator]

If the defendant is factually innocent, fine, attack the facts presented by the state. If the law was inappropriately applied, fine, point out the error in the charges. If there's justification, fine, let's hear it.

If the testimony by the officer is intentionally false, its truthfulness and the officer's veracity should and will be questioned.

Sometimes officers lie under oath. In fact, it was policy in the BATF in the '90s to lie under oath regarding the accuracy of the NFA database. They even made an official training video on how to lie under oath about the NFA database. Are you saying defendant's (or plaintiff's) counsel shouldn't point out when an officer lies, both in official documents and on the stand?

If I can prove that you lied against me, either in official documents, or in your sworn testimony, I'm going to Brady you right out of a law enforcement career. I don't imagine that a cop can get too far in his career if no prosecutor will ever let him testify...

 

[t165]

Actually K3 that argument has been tried and failed in court because it was held that as soon as the vehicle was unlocked the individual(s) could then have immediate access to a weapon which could be used to harm the law enforcement officer. I'll try and dig out the cases and site them if you wish to read them.

And you are right Deanimator...a law enforcement officer who abuses his authority should be held accountable and a civil suit is one remedy available. Officers who abuse a terry stop are not the norm. The problem is, if one officer abuses his authority all officers get painted with the same brush. A terry stop and frisk is a courtesy from the courts to afford an officer an added measure of protection in the streets. If it gets abused then officers run the risk of losing that privilege.

Vincennes is a small town, and believe me, if an officer starts removing people from their cars and conducting a terry stop then he had better have a good reason. I am not at all condoning the frivolous use of a terry stop. It would piss me off if it happened to me or a family member. Hell, I don't want it happen to anyone...it sheds a bad light on law enforcement when officers start acting like the bad guys.

 

[Reyn]

Are you saying defendant's (or plaintiff's) counsel shouldn't point out when an officer lies, both in official documents and on the stand?

Sure,but they should base it on actual circumstances or facts as opposed to bringing up the incident in 2nd grade when he told his buddy santa clause existed.

 

[AllAmerican]

So Duke has some time on his hands big deal. I have some time on my hands too. Winter is very slow for me as an HVAC contractor and the economy isnt helping.

While I agree with everyone when it is said:

"Do not consent to a search". I wonder if this doesnt give the officer reasonable doubt to go ahead and get the warrant. THEN when he finds out you're clean something drops out of his pocket and onto your floorboard.

 

[Reyn]

"Do not consent to a search". I wonder if this doesnt give the officer reasonable doubt to go ahead and get the warrant. THEN when he finds out you're clean something drops out of his pocket and onto your floorboard.

If an officer is that corrupt to plant evidence then he is not gonna worry about asking for consent or getting a warrant.