Mostly Positive LEO encounter

[Rugerlvr]

funkerbunny,

Your lawyer is going to tell you that it was probably an illegal search, and they probably didn't have PC, but that there's no money in suing, and it will cost you a ton to prove you were in the right.

And unless you have more money than sense, you're going to have to let it go.

And the police in question will have gotten away with violating your rights.

See AJAX22's thread here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=300731

It appears that the LEOs lied to him about having a search warrant to search his backpack, and horribly violated his 4th Amendment rights. But his lawyer basically told him there was no point in pursuing it.

I'm sorry, but my crystal ball tells me that you will decide along the same lines.

 

[bowl443]

I don't think there is any thing to pursue here without any directly involved witnesses.

The judge will always take the cops side, always, when it comes down to your word vs theirs.

"I swear that card smelled like pot."

"Why then didn't the dog smell it?"

"His sense of smell is much greater than mine, your honor. Maybe I just had the smell confused for some cat-nip.."

This has happened to me, this has happened to others, and the cops can still say "probable cause" over any little thing.

 

[coyotehitman]

The only thing that bothers me is why would they say they smelled pot on the registration papers? None of us smoke pot and I'm left with the feeling that they lied so they could search the car. (is this common when you refuse a search?) Anyways, other than delaying us a few hours, things worked out pretty well I think.

Maybe they smelled pot on the papers, maybe they thought they smelled pot on the papers, maybe they lied about smelling pot on the papers...you will never know. I would like to think it is one of the first two though.

They did not need probable cause to conduct a free air sniff of your vehicle, so I do not see reason for fabrication here.

Are you sure you were delayed a few hours...not 20-30 minutes that felt like a few hours?

What is normal is to either secure consent, have probable cause to search and to conduct said search, or to have a K9 conduct a sniff, get PC or not, and conduct a search or let you go. Your version of what transpired seems out of the ordinary.

Cars do not get stopped because of a desire to search them. What was the specific reason for the stop, were you cited, etc.?

Most of the posts I see on THR about this type of thing seem to be twisted, contorted, and spiced up to make the LEO look like a maniac and the poster look like a patron saint who has been violated beyond belief. No offense, but I question whether everything that occurred was included in the original post; just too many thing that make me raise an eyebrow.

 

[Blakenzy]

The War on Drugs, keeping us safe and our streets squeaky clean... we surely can't allow pesky rights to get in the way

 

[funkerbunny]

coyotehitman: We are definatly not saints nor do we look "normal", we where not cited for failing to switch lanes when we passed the second cop. As for how long it took, My girlfriend looked at the clock and verified it had been wayy over an hour (I'll ask her the specifics when she gets home.
If I had to guess why we got the treatment we did I would say it was a combination of the Defcon bumperstickers and my girlfriends Raver beads (even in my mind when I see them I connect them with drugs)
But in short that was everything from my point of view, if you would like I can have my honey look at the post to make sure I didnt forget anything. =)

 

[coyotehitman]

It looks like there was PC for the stop, PC for the search (If the LEO is not lying), and a K9 used (which doesn't require PC), then a detailed search which revealed a firearm and ammunition and some other indicators that may be common to those who use drugs, along with not "looking normal" which may or may not be common to a drug user. Depending on how much stuff you had to sift through, and how long it took to run and get a return on your OL's, tags, and the firearm, everything may well be by the book here. I understand it seemed overly intrusive to you, though, because it delayed your trip.

 

[Treo]

thought better of it

Bad Treo, no donut.

Wait, I'm not a cop I'm a security guard I don't get donuts.

Bad Treo, no pop-tart

 

[romeo212000]

Officers have to say that in order to search your car without permission, If you oppose them in court it is your word against a uniformed officer. Who will they believe?

 

[csmkersh]

Hardly a positive stop. What they did is called abuse of authority. You should have filed a complaint. Possible Terry Stop violation.


​

 

[SomeKid]

If your lawyer says it won't be worth suing over, hunt for a new lawyer, or if you must, use the ACLU.

Being lesbians, some homosexual groups may use you as poster girls, but at least you will get to slam some bad cops.

Oh, and arrogant, you never saw the video where the lawyer details very well why it is NEVER safe to talk police, did you?

 

[RobNDenver]

OK, If I read this correctly, the OP indicated that the ECSO pulled over two cars on I-70 and engaged in the vehicular version of knock and talk. Funkerbunny's GF did not get a ticket and the cops engaged in a pretext search which would never have stood up.

Coyotehitman . . "Cars do not get stopped because of a desire to search them. What was the specific reason for the stop, were you cited, etc.?"

I searched plenty of cars when I was a street cop, because I felt like it. Cars get stopped all the time because cops are engaged in fishing expeditions, they don't like the look of the occupants, the time of the day, the time of the month. . . This was a bull**** search, and there is nothing that is going to persuade me otherwise.

 

[Reyn]

This was a bull**** search, and there is nothing that is going to persuade me otherwise

You have come to this conclusion based on an internet post where you are getting one side of a story from a stranger.

 

[Orthonym]

Defcon sticker? Obviously you're an Enemy of the State

... and the RIAA, and the MPAA...

I suppose you've heard about the Federal injunction the clueless Boston Transit guys got against the folks from MIT who pointed out the cluelessly-hopeless security in their "smart" cards at the most recent DEFCON?

It's been discussed at the Volokh Conspiracy, at length.

 

[Headless]

Wow. If this is considered a mostly positive encounter, i think it speaks volumes about the state of things in this country. As for coyothitman saying that having firearms being a valid reason to think someone is dealing drugs... what the hell? Are you on drugs? Do you own firearms? I suppose that because some murderers own firearms, if you pull someone over and they have a gun in their car they are likely a murderer? Some rapists use knives to intimidate their victims, so if you pull someone over and they've got a knife, they're probably a rapist? Some gangbangers use baseball bats to beat a victim to death, so if you pull someone over who has a baseball bat in their car they're probably a gangbanger?

 

[coyotehitman]

I searched plenty of cars when I was a street cop, because I felt like it. Cars get stopped all the time because cops are engaged in fishing expeditions, they don't like the look of the occupants, the time of the day, the time of the month. . . This was a bull**** search, and there is nothing that is going to persuade me otherwise.

You have come to this conclusion based on an internet post where you are getting one side of a story from a stranger.

Thank you Reyn. +1

RobnDenver, if you have any police experience, the fact that the OP added more to the story when I questioned the facts should raise an eyebrow. Furthermore, cars get stopped for cause or reasonable articulable suspicion. Fishing expeditions are absolutely fine as long as their foundation includes one of the above.

If the OP feels wronged, file a complaint, file a civil action. I hope you tell the truth and divulge all pertinent facts, though. And I hope you have the ethical integrity not to make this an issue of sexual orientation, unless it was actually an issue of sexual orientation.

 

[Kentak]

I haven't read all three pages yet.

What was the reason for the traffic stop?

And, what's positive about being delayed on your trip and having your car tossed?

K

 

[Matt G]

I'm disturbed by the lack of critical thinking here. The assumption by the majority of those who chose to post here is that, if the anonymous poster here says that she had no marijuana on her, then the police officers lied.

Really? That's the ONLY answer?

Other very real possibilities that I can think of, which don't involve a cop risking his career and a felony indictment over a fishing expedition would be:

1. The officer was simply mistaken.
2. There had at one time been marijuana next to the registration papers, but not on that date.
3. The prior owners of the used car had used the glove box as a marijuana storage area (stupid, but surprisingly common), and the smell permiated the glove box fabric lining, and the dash insulation, so that papers left in the glove box for a long time would become imbued with the sent. (Common with backpacks used to carry pot-- you can't ever get that sent out, it seems.)
4. Our anonymous poster is not conveying all of the facts to us correctly,whether intentionally or otherwise.

Truthfully, I tend to feel that Occam's razor shows that the greater liklihood falls in the above 4 possibilities, rather than "the cops lied," given the severe ramifications of lying to conduct a fishing expedition. While I'm certain that there are cops out there that do lie to conduct searches, it's amazingly stupid, when you consider the danger to their carreers, their credibility, and their freedom. I can tell you with a clear conscience that I don't personally know of a single cop who will lie to perform a search. And if I did, I'd personally do what I could to put them in prison for it.

There are indeed terrible instances of criminals wearing police uniforms. But they're not police officers, anymore; they're just criminals who haven't been busted yet. I'm so very sorry, and angry, that those "officers" work, that I cannot express my sorrow. But know that they're NOT the norm. I couldn't put on the uniform if it were so.

I don't view the Fourth Amendment as a horrible obstacle to my job that some ACLU lawyers threw in my way; I see it and all of he other rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution as a necessary tool that protects our citizenry and myself more thoroughly than my pistol ever could.

 

[realmswalker]

I was just curious as to why the OP said no to a search. I don't see why, if you have nothing to hide, you would say no to a search. I know some people believe it's an infringement of rights, but just saying yes and being on your way gets you out of their a lot faster than saying no.

It also eases the officer and makes him more all around friendly.

 

[Treo]

I was just curious as to why the OP said no to a search. I don't see why, if you have nothing to hide, you would say no to a search.

Yeah I mean after all it's not like any cop has ever planted evidence right?

How about the OP refused the search because that's her SOP ?
I would never consent to a search of my vehicle and I haven't used marijuana since 1982.

 

[Rugerlvr]

Living in Utah, I will say that I-70 between Cali and Colorado is a huge drug pipeline. Huge.

 

[The Tourist]

If the officer has legitimate probable cause he can get a warrant.

I'll wait. I'm retired.

 

[Deanimator]

I would never consent to a search of my vehicle and I haven't used marijuana since 1982.

I've NEVER used illegal drugs, nor abused prescription or over the counter drugs and I would NEVER consent to ANY search, EVER.

Whatever I lose from a false arrest I will get back 100,000 fold in written complaints and civil litigation. It'd be worth it just to see the tortfeasors in question groveling in an utterly futile search for mercy from someone totally lacking in it.

 

[Deanimator]

I was just curious as to why the OP said no to a search. I don't see why, if you have nothing to hide, you would say no to a search. I know some people believe it's an infringement of rights, but just saying yes and being on your way gets you out of their a lot faster than saying no.

It also eases the officer and makes him more all around friendly.

The only thing more foolish in a police encounter than being needlessly belligerent is to consent to ANY searches and to engage in unnecessary conversation.

Memorize:

After providing any identification requested and LAWFULLY REQUIRED to be provided by you (name and address, driver's license and proof of insurance if driving, license or permit if carrying a firearm and such is required):

"I do NOT consent to ANY searches, Officer."

"I do NOT speak to the police without a lawyer present, Officer."

"Am I free to leave, Officer?"

(If the answer to the above question is "no"
"If I am not free to leave, Officer, am I under arrest? Of what crime am I suspected"?

"Please have a field supervisor brought to this location immediately, Officer."

Repeat as necessary and say NOTHING else.

Officers don't need to be "eased". They need to obey the law. You need to do everything practicable to protect yourself in the event that they do not.

 

[Deanimator]

Truthfully, I tend to feel that Occam's razor shows that the greater liklihood falls in the above 4 possibilities, rather than "the cops lied," given the severe ramifications of lying to conduct a fishing expedition. While I'm certain that there are cops out there that do lie to conduct searches, it's amazingly stupid, when you consider the danger to their carreers, their credibility, and their freedom. I can tell you with a clear conscience that I don't personally know of a single cop who will lie to perform a search. And if I did, I'd personally do what I could to put them in prison for it.

There are places where there are NO "ramifications" to a police officer lying, nevermind "severe" ones. Lying to justify warrantless searches or indeed to obtain search warrants is only "stupid" if there's a reasonable likelihood that:

1. The officer doing so will be caught.

2. Anyone in a position of authority will care IF he's caught.

3. There will be any meaningful negative consequences for the misconduct once it's discovered.

You just need to read a Chicago newspaper to see that there are places in this country where NONE of those things is likely. In a place where (at best) a criminally negligent homicide is "punished" with a 30 day suspension, why should I think that somebody's going to be in hot water for lying to justify a warrantless search in the street? There are places where the ONLY meaningful check on officer behavior is the civil courts. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

 

[Matt G]

Dean, that's all pretty good advice that I certainly would take no umbrage at hearing if I were the investigating officer.

However, I would point out that, in a lot of jurisdictions, the officer who stops you may well be the ONLY officer on duty at that time in his department. Thus, he is the "field supervisor," per se. It's important to be aware that the officer is not just being obstinate when he says "that's not possible," when the driver asks for a field supervisor. Also, simply because the driver demands one and there is a field supervisor on duty, the supervisor is not duty bound to drop what he's doing to come render customer service to an irate citizen. He may actually have other serious duties that he can't leave.

Keeping this on topic, I do notice that the officer was reported as being polite and not overly interested in the shotgun. If he respected her rights under the 2nd Amendment, why do we automatically assume that he trampled her 4th Amendment rights?