Vehicles, residences, etc. I have searched have NOT been trashed. All the agents in my office when I was there have NOT trashed residences, vehicles, etc. All the agents from other fed, state, and local LE agencies that I have done joint investigations with have NOT trashed residences, vehicles, etc. That's a lot of searches where things haven't been trashed. When I empty a drawer I won't be folding everything and sorting by color like you do, but it all goes back in the drawer, drawer goes back in the dresser, etc. When I look in CD cases, don't expect them all to go back in the rack alphabetized first by artist, and band like you had them, but they will all be stacked neatly near the rack, NOT scattered about. I empty a glove bock, it all goes back in when I'm done, same for center consoles, trunks, etc. I won't clean it up like I'm a Merry Maid service, but I am definitely NOT trashing anything.
traffic stop searches - how do they ask
- Thread starter Stebalo
- Start date
- Status
Well it's allowed in federal courts, so KS or not, if you are detained and a fed has reasonable suspicion to believe there are weapons in the car he can conduct a Terry frisk of the vehicle. Any evidence found within the scope of a Terry frisk of the vehicle will be admitted.
I don't have the specific ruling handy, but the idea is that if a Terry stop is conducted and the person is removed from the vehicle it is unreasonable to only frisk the individual when the weapon may be in the vehicle, and if the person is released they would be able to enter the vehicle and access the weapon which is the reason for the Terry stop in the first place.
I will see if I can find the actual court decision later.
jimpeel
Member
DMF
But it doesn't always happen that way ...
Read THIS.
And then there was the one about how the BATF raided a guy's house looking for illegal weapons and when they didn't find any they left. The guy comes home, his front door is standing open and his firearms are stacked in a pile on the livingroom floor!
I looked for that thread on TFL but it is apparently not there anymore.
But it doesn't always happen that way ...
Read THIS.
And then there was the one about how the BATF raided a guy's house looking for illegal weapons and when they didn't find any they left. The guy comes home, his front door is standing open and his firearms are stacked in a pile on the livingroom floor!
I looked for that thread on TFL but it is apparently not there anymore.cropcirclewalker
member
So, I was handcuffed at the St. Louis Airport for having a weapon on the seat of my car. (an entirely legal act)
My pocket contents were laid out on my trunk.
Then I sat, cuffed behind my back, on a curb in the presence of hundreds of spectators and watched as the bomb sniffing dog and his handler went through my car.
I was not asked permission.
I was not charged.
I was returned my weapon and sent on my way.
Some people say I should sue.
My pocket contents were laid out on my trunk.
Then I sat, cuffed behind my back, on a curb in the presence of hundreds of spectators and watched as the bomb sniffing dog and his handler went through my car.
I was not asked permission.
I was not charged.
I was returned my weapon and sent on my way.
Some people say I should sue.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
Case Law for DMF
In Knowles v. Iowa the USSC held that;
Additionally, Terry itself states that it's authority to search for weapons applies to people and makes no mention of vehicles. Without seeing caselaw to justify your position I must still disagree. The warrantless search of a vehicle absent PC or exigent circustances is violative of the fourth amendment.
I.C.
In Knowles v. Iowa the USSC held that;
Additionally, Terry itself states that it's authority to search for weapons applies to people and makes no mention of vehicles. Without seeing caselaw to justify your position I must still disagree. The warrantless search of a vehicle absent PC or exigent circustances is violative of the fourth amendment.
I.C.
jimpeel,
That link is more BS that can't be backed up. If the things alleged in that link were true, what was the result of the law suit? Why no record of a successful Bivens action against those ATF agents? So you think ATF just gets to ignore the Constitution and laws?
The reality is judges don't take too kindly to LE agents that do that kind of stuff, and they will penalize them severely. So I still want to see the successful Bivens actions against ATF agents.
NOTE: I've participated in a few threads now about alleged abuses by ATF and I'm the only one that produced a court case that confirmed any wrong doing by an ATF agent. (Groh v. Ramirez et al US Supreme Court Feb 04) However, anyone that reads the case will see the agent made a simple paperwork error. NO JBT trampling of 4A rights, he just fouled up and forget to attach the affidavit to the warrant, even the warrant was signed by the Magistrate, and the affidavit was filed with the court. So it was an ATF agent getting hammered for a paperwork error, not some subject of ATF action. 32 years of ATF, if the abuses are as severe as people claim show me the successful Bivens actions against ATF agents for those abuses. You can't because it isn't true!
Also, I've been hearing that BS about the open front door and stack of firearms for at least 20 years now. Unless someone can show me real proof, I'm chalking it up to urban legend/BS propaganda.
What really irks me about this stuff (cop bashing in general and ATF bashing specifically) is that it is done to whip up support for the gun lobby. They can't villify the Congressmen who pass the stupid gun laws, because then the lobbyist would be out of business when the Congressmen they PO'd refused to talk to them. Also, those Congressmen aren't scary enough to get people to open their wallets.
So instead they distort the facts, and outright lie, to villify the ATF and other LE agencies so that people will join the NRA and other gun lobbying groups, and donate more money. What better way to whip people into a frenzy and get the money flowing than to convince them that the ATF will come storming in at 5am and shoot the puppy because they used poor penmanship on a 4473.
Total BS, but it's better for getting membership dues, and donations, than just argueing the facts about the stupid legislation. The truth isn't scary enough to get the money rolling in, so BS like that link you posted gets spread around.
Until they stop lying, and start making logical arguments they won't get any of my money. I'd rather just write my representatives about changing the current laws, and not passing any other stupid ones, and cast my vote for those I think will listen to me, rather than ally myself with a bunch of liars.
That link is more BS that can't be backed up. If the things alleged in that link were true, what was the result of the law suit? Why no record of a successful Bivens action against those ATF agents? So you think ATF just gets to ignore the Constitution and laws?
The reality is judges don't take too kindly to LE agents that do that kind of stuff, and they will penalize them severely. So I still want to see the successful Bivens actions against ATF agents.NOTE: I've participated in a few threads now about alleged abuses by ATF and I'm the only one that produced a court case that confirmed any wrong doing by an ATF agent. (Groh v. Ramirez et al US Supreme Court Feb 04) However, anyone that reads the case will see the agent made a simple paperwork error. NO JBT trampling of 4A rights, he just fouled up and forget to attach the affidavit to the warrant, even the warrant was signed by the Magistrate, and the affidavit was filed with the court. So it was an ATF agent getting hammered for a paperwork error, not some subject of ATF action. 32 years of ATF, if the abuses are as severe as people claim show me the successful Bivens actions against ATF agents for those abuses. You can't because it isn't true!
Also, I've been hearing that BS about the open front door and stack of firearms for at least 20 years now. Unless someone can show me real proof, I'm chalking it up to urban legend/BS propaganda.
What really irks me about this stuff (cop bashing in general and ATF bashing specifically) is that it is done to whip up support for the gun lobby. They can't villify the Congressmen who pass the stupid gun laws, because then the lobbyist would be out of business when the Congressmen they PO'd refused to talk to them. Also, those Congressmen aren't scary enough to get people to open their wallets.
So instead they distort the facts, and outright lie, to villify the ATF and other LE agencies so that people will join the NRA and other gun lobbying groups, and donate more money. What better way to whip people into a frenzy and get the money flowing than to convince them that the ATF will come storming in at 5am and shoot the puppy because they used poor penmanship on a 4473.
Total BS, but it's better for getting membership dues, and donations, than just argueing the facts about the stupid legislation. The truth isn't scary enough to get the money rolling in, so BS like that link you posted gets spread around.
Until they stop lying, and start making logical arguments they won't get any of my money. I'd rather just write my representatives about changing the current laws, and not passing any other stupid ones, and cast my vote for those I think will listen to me, rather than ally myself with a bunch of liars.
jimpeel
Member
DMF
Her are the follow-ups:
Arizona Gun Dealer Raided a Second Time
BATF Victim Gets Hundreds of His Guns Back -- Civil Suit Possible
Her are the follow-ups:
Arizona Gun Dealer Raided a Second Time
BATF Victim Gets Hundreds of His Guns Back -- Civil Suit Possible
jimpeel
Member
DMF
Considering that this incident only happened about 4-6 years ago makes you quite prescient.
jimpeel
Member
DMF
But I guess that maybe it was just poor penmanship on their part that 25 children died to protect them from bad 'ol David Koresh.
Oh, yeah, can you explain why the ATF and FBI were involved in a child abuse case? That's what Ms. Reno stated; and she wouldn't lie to us -- would she?
If you will recall, the ATF left the warrant elsewhere when they raided the Branch Dividian "compound". They later modified the warrant to add "Suspected Methamphetamine Lab" to the warrant. This allowed the military to become involved because it became a drug interdiction issue instead of a firearms issue. When Ann Richards found out that she had been duped into allowing the military to be used she was furious.
But I guess that maybe it was just poor penmanship on their part that 25 children died to protect them from bad 'ol David Koresh.
Oh, yeah, can you explain why the ATF and FBI were involved in a child abuse case? That's what Ms. Reno stated; and she wouldn't lie to us -- would she?
SOURCE
Molon Labe
Member
Great advice, alduro. But I disagree with you about this:
I make it a point to never use "sir" when addressing a cop, as doing so implies a hierarchical/authoritative relationship between me and the cop. If anything, the cop should use "sir" when addressing me, since the cop (in theory) is working for me...
I make it a point to never use "sir" when addressing a cop, as doing so implies a hierarchical/authoritative relationship between me and the cop. If anything, the cop should use "sir" when addressing me, since the cop (in theory) is working for me...
Traffic stop searches
My own take is to keep it light, but unambiguous. "Nope; I don't consent to searches." Why? "I just don't." And that works, most of the time. Sometimes, it doesn't, and you've got to handle that, too.
I was told by a particularly experienced and respected criminal attorney that I put a pretty good primer for it into my first murder mystery, Home Front, the relevant section of which follows, well, here:
The state trooper pulled us over a few miles west of Maple Grove.
I had quickly transitioned into distance driving mode ‑‑ it was clear that Tenishia wasn't going to be much for sparkling conversation, or much of any conversation at all, and once the cat, still in his pillowcase, settled in for a nap on the front seat while Snake settled in in the back, there wasn't much else to do but settle in for a long drive ‑‑ and it took him a couple of blasts from his whoop‑whoop‑whoop siren, whatever they call it, for me to realize that the flashing lights were meant for me.
I have the same reaction I always get when pulled over; my heart started pounding, and I got a bitter, steely taste in my mouth.
Tenishia's eyes were wide and round.
"Relax." I already had my license out, and reached past her to open the glove compartment for my registration and insurance card.
"Easy for you to say." She sniffed. "I don't like police."
"Now, don't be silly. Police officers are just there to help you."
She didn't know quite how to take that. Sarcasm is lost on the young.
He was taking his time getting out of the car. I guess maybe he had a doughnut to finish or something.
I watched through the side view mirror as he got out, shotgun in hand. I do have a keen eye for the obvious, some times: this was starting to look like something other than a typical speeding stop.
????.
"Driver," he said, blaring it over his loudspeaker, "remove the keys from the ignition, and drop them out through the window."
I didn't feel like dropping my keys into the cold, wet snow, but it didn't seem like my preferences were going to have a whole lot to do with what was going to happen, so I did.
He barked out, again over the loudspeaker: "Driver, get out of the car, with your hands in plain view."
"Snake, sit. Stay."
The dog sat.
I opened the door and stepped out into the cold wind, then slammed the door closed. I started to put my hands in my pockets, but stopped myself just before he blared, "keep your hands out of your pockets."
You know you're getting old when the cops start to look like kids, and this one did ‑‑ although a bullet‑headed-Anglo‑Saxon-mother's son kind of kid. He was only around twenty, twenty‑five, but he had the whole cop‑manner down, as he stood behind the safety of his driver's door, the barrel of the shotgun resting against the frame.
"Passenger," he blared again, as cars whipped by us, barely slowing down to see if there was anything interesting happening, "get out of the car with your hands in plain sight."
She did, and we waited. He was talking into his microphone, presumably getting the SWAT team out to handle a couple of desperadoes like Tenishia and me.
"Tenishia," I said across the hood, "you got a lot of experience with cops?"
"????. You know a ****** who hasn't?"
"Nope." I shook my head. "Never met a ******. Haven't met any dagoes, wops, kikes, or greasers, either. But you didn't answer the question ‑‑ do you have a lot of experience with cops?"
"Yeah, I been hassled by cops. Lots of times."
"Well, as we all know, Bob," I said, "what you give them is your name, rank, and serial number ‑‑ your name and address will do. Anything else, you either don't hear the question, or you shrug, or you say, 'I don't want to talk to you about that.'"
"????. Then they really hassle you."
"Yup. They do. And then you say, 'No, I don't want to talk to you about that.' Got it?"
"????."
"Yes, ????. But do you have that all down?"
"I hear you."
"I'll do all the talking for the both of us."
"You like to hear yourself talk."
"Well, yeah. You got a problem with that?"
She just glared.
While Tenishia and I were reaching a meeting of the minds, another statie had pulled up, and then a third one pulled past us and onto the shoulder, neatly bracketing my car.
The door of the third car opened, and a fiftyish cop stepped out. It was hard to tell whether he had a beer belly or just a lot of insulation under his short jacket, but given the roundness of his face under his DI‑style hat, I would have guessed the former.
"License and registration," he said, his hand on his gun, as he stopped about a lunge‑and‑a‑half away.
"I've got them," I said. "In my pocket."
"License and registration, sir. Show them to me now, sir."
You know you're in trouble when they start sirring you all over the place.
"Well, I'd love to do that, Sergeant, but there's this other cop behind me, not quite pointing a shotgun at me, and he's told me to keep my hands in view. How about you two work out between yourselves whether or not I can put my hands in my pockets, and then let me know?"
He made a come‑on signal with his free hand. "Just go ahead and show me your license and registration, sir."
I reached, very slowly, into my pocket and even more slowly pulled out all three cards. Wouldn't want somebody mistaking my drivers license for an Uzi. "You've got the insurance card there, too."
He stepped forward to take them from me, stepped back, then glanced down at them. "Ernest Hemingway?"
"Not the writer. He's dead."
"Is your name Ernest Hemingway?"
"Yes, but I'm not the writer. He's dead."
"You want to shut up and just answer my questions, sir?"
"I don't think I can do both at the same time." I've never gotten along with authority terribly well. "And, no, not particularly."
"You talking back to me, sir?"
"Possibly." I cleared my throat. "You got one of those video cameras in your car? Pointed at us?"
"You never mind about that," he said, still holding onto the two cards. I heard footsteps behind me, but didn't turn around as the younger cop walked around me, his shotgun no longer in evidence, and accepted the license and registration from the sergeant, took them, and then stalked back to his own car.
Cars on the highway whipped by. If they were slowing down to rubberneck, they were only slowing down to about seventy.
"Your address current?" the sergeant asked.
"Yeah." He looked like he expected me to say more, so I didn't.
"What's your name?" he asked Tenishia.
She told him.
"You got your drivers license on you?"
She shook her head. "Don't drive."
"Where are you going?" he asked.
She shrugged.
"That mean you're a runaway?"
She shook her head. "This my Dad's cousin. Going for a visit."
"Where?"
"His house."
He was having about as much luck getting conversation out of her as I'd had, so he turned back at me. "Do you know why I stopped you, sir?"
"You didn't stop me," I said. "The other cop did."
He frowned at that. "Do you know why the other officer stopped you, sir?"
"I think he wanted to ask me something."
"And what would that be, sir?"
"I don't know. I guess you could ask him, if you'd like. Would you like me to?"
"No wants or warrants," blared over the loudspeaker. "Plate numbers check."
"So," he said, "you don't mind me giving your car a quick once‑over for weapons or drugs, just for my personal safety, do you?"
He took a step toward the car, and was reaching for the door handle when I said, "I do mind. So does the dog."
Snake was sitting up and wagging his tail. "Down, Snake," I said. "Down. Stay."
He stopped himself. "You hiding something, sir?" He gave a very theatrical frown. "That makes me suspicious."
"Oh."
"Look at it from my situation, Ernest." We were buddies now. "You're driving down the road in a car that was reported to be involved in a shooting in Minneapolis ‑‑ "
Tenishia started to say something, but stopped herself. Good girl.
" ‑‑ and you don't want to answer any questions or let me search the car." He hadn't missed anything.
"Sorry; I don't know anything about any shooting," I said.
"You were in Minneapolis?"
I didn't say anything.
"I asked you if you were in Minneapolis. I asked you nicely, like a gentleman. If you don't want to answer questions here, we can just go down to the station and I'll ask them there."
"I'd just as soon get going. Are we done here?"
"Eh?"
"If you're done asking me questions, I'd like my license and registration back, and then I'd like to get back on the road."
"Go ahead and put your hands on top of the car, sir," he said. "Now."
I did, and after a quick and presumably disappointing search, he told me that I could put my hands down.
"Is there a gun in the car, sir?"
"No. Just a dog. And a cat."
"Then you won't mind me searching it."
I raised my voice. "I do not give you permission to search the car. I will not give you permission to search my car."
"You don't have to yell at me, Ernest. It makes me think you're going to try to jump me or something."
I shook my head. "Wouldn't even think of it." I toed at my keys, which were still lying in the snow. "Okay if I pick up my keys?"
"I'll pick them up for you."
"Thanks. Can we go now?"
"You two go ahead and sit in the back of my car, and we'll see." He grabbed my right arm with his left hand and steered me over to his car. "You want to watch your head getting in, sir," he said.
"You just wait right here and I'll be back in a minute."
He helped Tenishia in on the other side, then closed the door and walked away. There weren't any handles on the inside of the door.
"Smile for the birdie," I said.
"What?"
"There's a video camera in the front, pointing at us, recording what we say. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind. I figure that, since we're family, you'd want to know that."
She actually grinned.
"Now, I don't think we necessarily need to file charges for the way that that sergeant felt you up while searching you for weapons, but did he grab both of your breasts, or was it just the one?"
"Both," she said. She was catching on fast. "He try to slip his hands down my pants, too."
"But they're too tight, so he just fondled your crotch a little?"
"Yeah. He stuck his tongue in my ear, and licked me."
"Yuck."
"Said he wanted to stick something else in me, too."
"Enough."
I watched through the back window as all three of them gathered around the car, peering in. A territorial dog would have been barking angrily at them, at the threatened violation of his territory, but I couldn't hear anything.
They spent a few minutes consulting with themselves as to what to do, then the sergeant walked up and opened Tenishia's door, and gestured both of us out.
"We do need to search the car, sir," he said. "There's a dangerous weapon in plain sight."
I shook my head. "No, there isn't."
"The dog is a dangerous weapon."
I laughed. It sounded forced in my ears, but he reddened. "I don't think so. Not that," I added loudly, for the benefit of the tape, "I would in any way offer any resistance, but you don't have my permission to search my car, and you don't have my permission to detain me. I'd like to get going now, just as soon as you play the tape you made of us while we were sitting in your patrol car."
His face was studiously neutral. "I don't know what you're talking about."
"Sure. We done here?"
He thought about it. He didn't like it much, but I'd missed about ten different ways of giving him an excuse to search the car or shoot the dog.
"MPD ‑‑ that's the Minneapolis Police Department ‑‑ says that this car was involved in a shooting. That gives us the right to search it."
"Nah." I shook my head. I was tempted to ask how a car could be involved in a shooting that never happened, but that would have made things easy for him. "I don’t know anything about a shooting, and it's getting cold out here. I'm going to ask you, again, for my keys and license."
"And if I don't give them to you?"
"Then I'll probably file some sort of complaint, when I get home. Or, if you'd like, we can all stand around in the cold here until you get bored."
"You threatening me, sir?"
"Nope." I smiled. "Wouldn't even consider it, not for a minute. You can illegally detain me here for a year and a day, and all you'll buy is a complaint and maybe a lawsuit. Can I go now?"
"I can hold you here until I get a warrant, sir."
We went back and forth on that theme for awhile, while the younger cop opened the door of the sergeant's car, and came out with a manila folder that probably concealed the VCR tape, then walked back to his car.
After a couple of minutes, he got out and shook his head.
"Interesting tape?" I asked.
"No tape, sir," he said. "I guess the machine isn't working."
The sergeant, poker‑faced, handed over my keys and paperwork. "Don't go back to the car until after we leave, sir."
"Sure. And you have a nice day, too. Don't go licking any more young girls, now."
He glared at that, then turned around and walked to his car. The third patrol car was already pulling away, and the one that had stopped us was only moments after him.
The sergeant pulled out with an entirely unprofessional squealing of tires and spurt of snow from under his tires.
"That was fun," I said. "You drive?"
"Yeah. Don't have no license, though. Any license."
I shrugged. "Well, at least your hands aren't shaking." I handed her the keys; they jingled like bells. "Keep it under the speed limit."
"Where we going?"
"Straight to Fargo, then hang a right."
My own take is to keep it light, but unambiguous. "Nope; I don't consent to searches." Why? "I just don't." And that works, most of the time. Sometimes, it doesn't, and you've got to handle that, too.
I was told by a particularly experienced and respected criminal attorney that I put a pretty good primer for it into my first murder mystery, Home Front, the relevant section of which follows, well, here:
The state trooper pulled us over a few miles west of Maple Grove.
I had quickly transitioned into distance driving mode ‑‑ it was clear that Tenishia wasn't going to be much for sparkling conversation, or much of any conversation at all, and once the cat, still in his pillowcase, settled in for a nap on the front seat while Snake settled in in the back, there wasn't much else to do but settle in for a long drive ‑‑ and it took him a couple of blasts from his whoop‑whoop‑whoop siren, whatever they call it, for me to realize that the flashing lights were meant for me.
I have the same reaction I always get when pulled over; my heart started pounding, and I got a bitter, steely taste in my mouth.
Tenishia's eyes were wide and round.
"Relax." I already had my license out, and reached past her to open the glove compartment for my registration and insurance card.
"Easy for you to say." She sniffed. "I don't like police."
"Now, don't be silly. Police officers are just there to help you."
She didn't know quite how to take that. Sarcasm is lost on the young.
He was taking his time getting out of the car. I guess maybe he had a doughnut to finish or something.
I watched through the side view mirror as he got out, shotgun in hand. I do have a keen eye for the obvious, some times: this was starting to look like something other than a typical speeding stop.
????.
"Driver," he said, blaring it over his loudspeaker, "remove the keys from the ignition, and drop them out through the window."
I didn't feel like dropping my keys into the cold, wet snow, but it didn't seem like my preferences were going to have a whole lot to do with what was going to happen, so I did.
He barked out, again over the loudspeaker: "Driver, get out of the car, with your hands in plain view."
"Snake, sit. Stay."
The dog sat.
I opened the door and stepped out into the cold wind, then slammed the door closed. I started to put my hands in my pockets, but stopped myself just before he blared, "keep your hands out of your pockets."
You know you're getting old when the cops start to look like kids, and this one did ‑‑ although a bullet‑headed-Anglo‑Saxon-mother's son kind of kid. He was only around twenty, twenty‑five, but he had the whole cop‑manner down, as he stood behind the safety of his driver's door, the barrel of the shotgun resting against the frame.
"Passenger," he blared again, as cars whipped by us, barely slowing down to see if there was anything interesting happening, "get out of the car with your hands in plain sight."
She did, and we waited. He was talking into his microphone, presumably getting the SWAT team out to handle a couple of desperadoes like Tenishia and me.
"Tenishia," I said across the hood, "you got a lot of experience with cops?"
"????. You know a ****** who hasn't?"
"Nope." I shook my head. "Never met a ******. Haven't met any dagoes, wops, kikes, or greasers, either. But you didn't answer the question ‑‑ do you have a lot of experience with cops?"
"Yeah, I been hassled by cops. Lots of times."
"Well, as we all know, Bob," I said, "what you give them is your name, rank, and serial number ‑‑ your name and address will do. Anything else, you either don't hear the question, or you shrug, or you say, 'I don't want to talk to you about that.'"
"????. Then they really hassle you."
"Yup. They do. And then you say, 'No, I don't want to talk to you about that.' Got it?"
"????."
"Yes, ????. But do you have that all down?"
"I hear you."
"I'll do all the talking for the both of us."
"You like to hear yourself talk."
"Well, yeah. You got a problem with that?"
She just glared.
While Tenishia and I were reaching a meeting of the minds, another statie had pulled up, and then a third one pulled past us and onto the shoulder, neatly bracketing my car.
The door of the third car opened, and a fiftyish cop stepped out. It was hard to tell whether he had a beer belly or just a lot of insulation under his short jacket, but given the roundness of his face under his DI‑style hat, I would have guessed the former.
"License and registration," he said, his hand on his gun, as he stopped about a lunge‑and‑a‑half away.
"I've got them," I said. "In my pocket."
"License and registration, sir. Show them to me now, sir."
You know you're in trouble when they start sirring you all over the place.
"Well, I'd love to do that, Sergeant, but there's this other cop behind me, not quite pointing a shotgun at me, and he's told me to keep my hands in view. How about you two work out between yourselves whether or not I can put my hands in my pockets, and then let me know?"
He made a come‑on signal with his free hand. "Just go ahead and show me your license and registration, sir."
I reached, very slowly, into my pocket and even more slowly pulled out all three cards. Wouldn't want somebody mistaking my drivers license for an Uzi. "You've got the insurance card there, too."
He stepped forward to take them from me, stepped back, then glanced down at them. "Ernest Hemingway?"
"Not the writer. He's dead."
"Is your name Ernest Hemingway?"
"Yes, but I'm not the writer. He's dead."
"You want to shut up and just answer my questions, sir?"
"I don't think I can do both at the same time." I've never gotten along with authority terribly well. "And, no, not particularly."
"You talking back to me, sir?"
"Possibly." I cleared my throat. "You got one of those video cameras in your car? Pointed at us?"
"You never mind about that," he said, still holding onto the two cards. I heard footsteps behind me, but didn't turn around as the younger cop walked around me, his shotgun no longer in evidence, and accepted the license and registration from the sergeant, took them, and then stalked back to his own car.
Cars on the highway whipped by. If they were slowing down to rubberneck, they were only slowing down to about seventy.
"Your address current?" the sergeant asked.
"Yeah." He looked like he expected me to say more, so I didn't.
"What's your name?" he asked Tenishia.
She told him.
"You got your drivers license on you?"
She shook her head. "Don't drive."
"Where are you going?" he asked.
She shrugged.
"That mean you're a runaway?"
She shook her head. "This my Dad's cousin. Going for a visit."
"Where?"
"His house."
He was having about as much luck getting conversation out of her as I'd had, so he turned back at me. "Do you know why I stopped you, sir?"
"You didn't stop me," I said. "The other cop did."
He frowned at that. "Do you know why the other officer stopped you, sir?"
"I think he wanted to ask me something."
"And what would that be, sir?"
"I don't know. I guess you could ask him, if you'd like. Would you like me to?"
"No wants or warrants," blared over the loudspeaker. "Plate numbers check."
"So," he said, "you don't mind me giving your car a quick once‑over for weapons or drugs, just for my personal safety, do you?"
He took a step toward the car, and was reaching for the door handle when I said, "I do mind. So does the dog."
Snake was sitting up and wagging his tail. "Down, Snake," I said. "Down. Stay."
He stopped himself. "You hiding something, sir?" He gave a very theatrical frown. "That makes me suspicious."
"Oh."
"Look at it from my situation, Ernest." We were buddies now. "You're driving down the road in a car that was reported to be involved in a shooting in Minneapolis ‑‑ "
Tenishia started to say something, but stopped herself. Good girl.
" ‑‑ and you don't want to answer any questions or let me search the car." He hadn't missed anything.
"Sorry; I don't know anything about any shooting," I said.
"You were in Minneapolis?"
I didn't say anything.
"I asked you if you were in Minneapolis. I asked you nicely, like a gentleman. If you don't want to answer questions here, we can just go down to the station and I'll ask them there."
"I'd just as soon get going. Are we done here?"
"Eh?"
"If you're done asking me questions, I'd like my license and registration back, and then I'd like to get back on the road."
"Go ahead and put your hands on top of the car, sir," he said. "Now."
I did, and after a quick and presumably disappointing search, he told me that I could put my hands down.
"Is there a gun in the car, sir?"
"No. Just a dog. And a cat."
"Then you won't mind me searching it."
I raised my voice. "I do not give you permission to search the car. I will not give you permission to search my car."
"You don't have to yell at me, Ernest. It makes me think you're going to try to jump me or something."
I shook my head. "Wouldn't even think of it." I toed at my keys, which were still lying in the snow. "Okay if I pick up my keys?"
"I'll pick them up for you."
"Thanks. Can we go now?"
"You two go ahead and sit in the back of my car, and we'll see." He grabbed my right arm with his left hand and steered me over to his car. "You want to watch your head getting in, sir," he said.
"You just wait right here and I'll be back in a minute."
He helped Tenishia in on the other side, then closed the door and walked away. There weren't any handles on the inside of the door.
"Smile for the birdie," I said.
"What?"
"There's a video camera in the front, pointing at us, recording what we say. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind. I figure that, since we're family, you'd want to know that."
She actually grinned.
"Now, I don't think we necessarily need to file charges for the way that that sergeant felt you up while searching you for weapons, but did he grab both of your breasts, or was it just the one?"
"Both," she said. She was catching on fast. "He try to slip his hands down my pants, too."
"But they're too tight, so he just fondled your crotch a little?"
"Yeah. He stuck his tongue in my ear, and licked me."
"Yuck."
"Said he wanted to stick something else in me, too."
"Enough."
I watched through the back window as all three of them gathered around the car, peering in. A territorial dog would have been barking angrily at them, at the threatened violation of his territory, but I couldn't hear anything.
They spent a few minutes consulting with themselves as to what to do, then the sergeant walked up and opened Tenishia's door, and gestured both of us out.
"We do need to search the car, sir," he said. "There's a dangerous weapon in plain sight."
I shook my head. "No, there isn't."
"The dog is a dangerous weapon."
I laughed. It sounded forced in my ears, but he reddened. "I don't think so. Not that," I added loudly, for the benefit of the tape, "I would in any way offer any resistance, but you don't have my permission to search my car, and you don't have my permission to detain me. I'd like to get going now, just as soon as you play the tape you made of us while we were sitting in your patrol car."
His face was studiously neutral. "I don't know what you're talking about."
"Sure. We done here?"
He thought about it. He didn't like it much, but I'd missed about ten different ways of giving him an excuse to search the car or shoot the dog.
"MPD ‑‑ that's the Minneapolis Police Department ‑‑ says that this car was involved in a shooting. That gives us the right to search it."
"Nah." I shook my head. I was tempted to ask how a car could be involved in a shooting that never happened, but that would have made things easy for him. "I don’t know anything about a shooting, and it's getting cold out here. I'm going to ask you, again, for my keys and license."
"And if I don't give them to you?"
"Then I'll probably file some sort of complaint, when I get home. Or, if you'd like, we can all stand around in the cold here until you get bored."
"You threatening me, sir?"
"Nope." I smiled. "Wouldn't even consider it, not for a minute. You can illegally detain me here for a year and a day, and all you'll buy is a complaint and maybe a lawsuit. Can I go now?"
"I can hold you here until I get a warrant, sir."
We went back and forth on that theme for awhile, while the younger cop opened the door of the sergeant's car, and came out with a manila folder that probably concealed the VCR tape, then walked back to his car.
After a couple of minutes, he got out and shook his head.
"Interesting tape?" I asked.
"No tape, sir," he said. "I guess the machine isn't working."
The sergeant, poker‑faced, handed over my keys and paperwork. "Don't go back to the car until after we leave, sir."
"Sure. And you have a nice day, too. Don't go licking any more young girls, now."
He glared at that, then turned around and walked to his car. The third patrol car was already pulling away, and the one that had stopped us was only moments after him.
The sergeant pulled out with an entirely unprofessional squealing of tires and spurt of snow from under his tires.
"That was fun," I said. "You drive?"
"Yeah. Don't have no license, though. Any license."
I shrugged. "Well, at least your hands aren't shaking." I handed her the keys; they jingled like bells. "Keep it under the speed limit."
"Where we going?"
"Straight to Fargo, then hang a right."
Nothing ever "always happens that way." There will and have been abuses in the way LE executes searches, just like there have been abuses in the feed grain industry and the registration of purebred dogs. I still hold that out of the thousands of LE contacts that occur everyday the number thet involve inadvertant procedural errors are minute, and the number that involve blatant intentional Constitutional violations are infinitesimal. Furthermore there are built in checks and balances that are designed to catch errors and wrongdoings.
The examples cited are few and far between. None of the cases cited are "class-action" but involve individual cases that some extrapolate as being indicative of standards and practices. Instead, these individuals cases are driving the standards and practices of the entire US law enforcement profession. If we practiced medicine the same way we practice law we'd all be dead.
I have been a local, county and state level LEO and as such have worked with various and sundry federal agencies, including the BATFE. While I am confident each and every one of those agencies has employess who are less than professional, and while in general I am not a big fan of federal LE, I have'nt noticed anything that would lead me to believe that they have some standardized system of abuse and wrondoing.
I say "Yes sir" and "No Sir" because I am polite, not for any other reason. If a person thinks I should automatically call them sir because I obstensibly work for them, well, respect is earned, not given.
The examples cited are few and far between. None of the cases cited are "class-action" but involve individual cases that some extrapolate as being indicative of standards and practices. Instead, these individuals cases are driving the standards and practices of the entire US law enforcement profession. If we practiced medicine the same way we practice law we'd all be dead.
I have been a local, county and state level LEO and as such have worked with various and sundry federal agencies, including the BATFE. While I am confident each and every one of those agencies has employess who are less than professional, and while in general I am not a big fan of federal LE, I have'nt noticed anything that would lead me to believe that they have some standardized system of abuse and wrondoing.
I say "Yes sir" and "No Sir" because I am polite, not for any other reason. If a person thinks I should automatically call them sir because I obstensibly work for them, well, respect is earned, not given.
You are referring to the FBI not ATF. ATF was involved in investigating weapons violations. After Vernon Wayne Howell, and his followers murdered 4 ATF agents and injured 16 others then the FBI got involved. During the standoff which last many weeks the FBI told Reno there was evidence of abuse of the children.
From your own cite:
jimpeel,
That is hardly proof of anything. The ALLEGED incident occurred in 2000, that BS with no references to any court documents or court cases, was published in 2002 and now in 2004 still no proof of a successful Bivens action. All those stories do is link to other stories on keepandbeararms.com, TFL, etc. They never link to any real source that confirms any abuse. AGAIN where is the successful Bivens action? What court, what judge, which agents named in the suit, what award did the jury give the plaintiffs, etc? All you have is BS generated by people with an agenda, but no proof.
Try again.
That was a full search after a traffic stop and citation, not a search incident to arrest or a Terry Stop and frisk. That search clearly violated the 4A and has zero relevance to anything I posted.
But thanks it was an interesting read.
Especially this part:
Which is where the judges are referring to a Terry stop and frisk. This case does not change Terry v. Ohio, it just explained that the state of Iowa cannot authorize full vehicle searches without PC simply because there was a traffic stop and citation.
Well back in the early 80s before I got a clue and realize what was going on, I used to be an NRA member. They published stories in the "American Rifleman" about the ATF raiding homes, leaving doors open and gun stacked up on the living room floor. Again, like your story they offered no proof, it was all urban legend.
I take pride in the fact that I quit being an NRA member, based on that BS, several years before the first President Bush came to the same conclusion and quit also.
DMF (professed federal agent) asserts that the only criterion for judging the actions of other federal agents is the existence of successful Bivens actions. Dismiss everything else as BS. No wonder. He knows that the answer to this question is, practically speaking, a null set.
Source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0303d.asp
DMF, or course, will attribute the absence of successful Bivens cases, to the professional conduct of his fellow federal agents. A more unbiased analysis may yield other conclusions, however.
Source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0303d.asp
DMF, or course, will attribute the absence of successful Bivens cases, to the professional conduct of his fellow federal agents. A more unbiased analysis may yield other conclusions, however.
hammer4nc,
Bivens allowed for fed agents to be sued, however like all other court cases filing suit doesn't mean anything actually occurred. The allegations must be proven in court. Anyone can file suits for anything, but again the proof comes out in court. You're right I most certainly WILL "will attribute the absence of successful Bivens cases, to the professional conduct of his fellow federal agents." If your numbers are correct, and sorry I don't have numbers on Bivens actions, then only 1/4 of one percent of all Bivens actions suits were able to be proven in court. Also, keep in mind in a civil tort the burden of proof is much lower than in a criminal proceeding and still 99.75% of the cases couldn't be proven.
Unless of course your claim is that if a suit gets filed, whether successful or not, there must be some wrong committed by the defendant. If that is your stance I have a problem with it. I think many frivolous suits get filed. For example, I feel the lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers crimes committed by people using their guns are frivolous. So far the gun industry has successfully defended those suits. I would hate to think you were claiming that just because numerous suits were filed, and even argued in court, that regardless of the outcome the gun manufacturers were still at fault.
Then there is this BS:
Keep in mind however, that the Supreme Court does not hear the actual Bivens tort. That will be heard by a judge or jury in some lower court, most likely a state court. So you can't blame the Court if the plaintiff can't prove his case to the judge or jury.
Bivens allowed for fed agents to be sued, however like all other court cases filing suit doesn't mean anything actually occurred. The allegations must be proven in court. Anyone can file suits for anything, but again the proof comes out in court. You're right I most certainly WILL "will attribute the absence of successful Bivens cases, to the professional conduct of his fellow federal agents." If your numbers are correct, and sorry I don't have numbers on Bivens actions, then only 1/4 of one percent of all Bivens actions suits were able to be proven in court. Also, keep in mind in a civil tort the burden of proof is much lower than in a criminal proceeding and still 99.75% of the cases couldn't be proven.
Unless of course your claim is that if a suit gets filed, whether successful or not, there must be some wrong committed by the defendant. If that is your stance I have a problem with it. I think many frivolous suits get filed. For example, I feel the lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers crimes committed by people using their guns are frivolous. So far the gun industry has successfully defended those suits. I would hate to think you were claiming that just because numerous suits were filed, and even argued in court, that regardless of the outcome the gun manufacturers were still at fault.
Then there is this BS:
Hardly fact when the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject was in February of 2004 (Groh v. Ramirez et al), and allowed the agent to be sued, for what amounted to a paperwork mistake. Even the majority agreed that there was no malicious act by the agent, but just a paperwork error. However, the five judges of the majority felt that if they didn't allow the Bivens suit in this case that it might open the door to future abuses.
Keep in mind however, that the Supreme Court does not hear the actual Bivens tort. That will be heard by a judge or jury in some lower court, most likely a state court. So you can't blame the Court if the plaintiff can't prove his case to the judge or jury.
DMF inquired:
No, to assert that would be an extreme position.
Likewise, the opposite extreme, which you've explicitly argued, is also wrong. Specifically, that absent succesful Bivens' cases, no wrongdoing by law enforcement exists. I'm wondering if FLETC teaches this theory; perhaps you can elaborate?
Like many situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to agree with the conclusion expressed in the cite above, that legal precedents have made Bivens an impossibly high barrier; despite Groh v. Ramiriez. One case does not prove the rule. The statistics for successful Bivens actions look suspicious.
Another salient point made in the link above:
This thread started with discussion of traffic stops/searches. One aspect of traffic stops that's been extensively documented, is how under "PC" codes, officers rarely ticket other officers. Two tiered justice. If this exists for something as trivial as speeding tickets, what takes place when more important issues (say relative to an enforcement agent's career) are on the line? Obvious conclusion.
No, to assert that would be an extreme position.
Likewise, the opposite extreme, which you've explicitly argued, is also wrong. Specifically, that absent succesful Bivens' cases, no wrongdoing by law enforcement exists. I'm wondering if FLETC teaches this theory; perhaps you can elaborate?
Like many situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to agree with the conclusion expressed in the cite above, that legal precedents have made Bivens an impossibly high barrier; despite Groh v. Ramiriez. One case does not prove the rule. The statistics for successful Bivens actions look suspicious.
Another salient point made in the link above:
This thread started with discussion of traffic stops/searches. One aspect of traffic stops that's been extensively documented, is how under "PC" codes, officers rarely ticket other officers. Two tiered justice. If this exists for something as trivial as speeding tickets, what takes place when more important issues (say relative to an enforcement agent's career) are on the line? Obvious conclusion.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
DMF
As I pointed out, Terry does not specifically authorize the search of a vehicle, only a person. As I stated before, if you remove someone from the vehicle any weapons are no longer accessible to them. Under that premise the Terry "safety concerns" have been satisfied. You cannot reasonably conclude that a *potential* weapon in a vehicle 20 ft away from a person which you have custodial control over is a threat.
You and/or your department may indeed unlawfully search vehicles under Terry but I challenge you to show caselaw that supports this doctrine. I have one or two others to point out, but I'll wait for you to substantiate your claims. Please post the caselaw which you believe auithorizes such behavior.
I.C.
As I pointed out, Terry does not specifically authorize the search of a vehicle, only a person. As I stated before, if you remove someone from the vehicle any weapons are no longer accessible to them. Under that premise the Terry "safety concerns" have been satisfied. You cannot reasonably conclude that a *potential* weapon in a vehicle 20 ft away from a person which you have custodial control over is a threat.
You and/or your department may indeed unlawfully search vehicles under Terry but I challenge you to show caselaw that supports this doctrine. I have one or two others to point out, but I'll wait for you to substantiate your claims. Please post the caselaw which you believe auithorizes such behavior.
I.C.
No Terry does not, but as I said earlier there was a case that applied Terry to vehicle passenger compartments. Also, I promised to provide it when I got the chance to look it up.
So for your edification, and to fulfill my earlier promise, and your later request, for supporting case law, I give you the US Supreme Court decision in MICHIGAN v. LONG, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=1032
So for your edification, and to fulfill my earlier promise, and your later request, for supporting case law, I give you the US Supreme Court decision in MICHIGAN v. LONG, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=1032
emphasis added
mondocomputerman
Member
I know you can refuse a search of your car, but what if they ask you if you have any firearms in the car. What if you have a rifle in the trunk, do you have to tell them if they ask you after pulling you over for speeding?
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
Molon Labe....I guess I'm just of the opinion that manners never hurt. I even say yes sir and no sir to the Taco Bell guy. It's just good 'ol manners as far as I'm concerned. Kind of like opening the door for ladies. Somthing I just do, not because they're better than me, or because I like them or know them even, just because it's manners.
Not everyone comes from where I do, I can respect that.
I'm not sure that a Biven's Action, even upon successful completion, would be publicly disclosed as most civil suits are not. However, I cannot say I have ever seen a Biven's Action transpire first hand so that is just what I would call a "semi" educated guess. I've seen quite a few civil cases though and only once was the judgement and court transcript available for review.
"if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts,"
in other words, if contraband is found...he better be pretty specific as to why a Terry Frisk needed to take place. However, if you were to give the officer consent...he doesn't need to explain anthing....you gave consent.
As far as a rifle being in the trunk.....do you WANT to tell him? He cannot Terry frisk the trunk since it is not part of the passenger compartment. However, if you are honest about the rifle being in the trunk, and there was say a bank robbery using a rifle nearby, you just gave an argument for established probable cause. Personally, I would search the vehicle if the above facts were true. However the circumstances leading to such would be rare if not bad luck. So I wouldn't worry about it.
Not everyone comes from where I do, I can respect that.
I'm not sure that a Biven's Action, even upon successful completion, would be publicly disclosed as most civil suits are not. However, I cannot say I have ever seen a Biven's Action transpire first hand so that is just what I would call a "semi" educated guess. I've seen quite a few civil cases though and only once was the judgement and court transcript available for review.
"if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts,"
in other words, if contraband is found...he better be pretty specific as to why a Terry Frisk needed to take place. However, if you were to give the officer consent...he doesn't need to explain anthing....you gave consent.
As far as a rifle being in the trunk.....do you WANT to tell him? He cannot Terry frisk the trunk since it is not part of the passenger compartment. However, if you are honest about the rifle being in the trunk, and there was say a bank robbery using a rifle nearby, you just gave an argument for established probable cause. Personally, I would search the vehicle if the above facts were true. However the circumstances leading to such would be rare if not bad luck. So I wouldn't worry about it.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
I'm angered by the two common questions:
"Do you have any guns or drugs (etc.) in the car?"
Guns aren't illegal and drugs could be over-the-counter or prescription so answering is tricky. The question is tailor-made to get you flustered.
"Do you mind if we search the car?"
Trick question: the answer is "yes" (I mind), but sounds like consent. "No" could mean "No, I don't mind".
MR
"Do you have any guns or drugs (etc.) in the car?"
Guns aren't illegal and drugs could be over-the-counter or prescription so answering is tricky. The question is tailor-made to get you flustered.
"Do you mind if we search the car?"
Trick question: the answer is "yes" (I mind), but sounds like consent. "No" could mean "No, I don't mind".
MR
artherd
member
Not only that, but answering in the affirmative may be PC for a search (at least in the PRK.) As terry doctorine provides for the securement of LEGAL as well as illegal weapons.
It's a trick question.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked