overzealous officer

[BillyBoy]

Hi all!

I have a question regarding my rights - but first, here's the situation.

I live near a college campus. Last night, I was walking through the campus when I was accosted by an officer. He asked if I was a student, and I said no. He asked what I was doing there, and I said (truthfully) that I was just walking through.

He then said that answer wasn't good enough. Throughout the remainder of the exchange he repeatedly asked me what I was doing there - each time, I answered the same. The truth only seemed to piss this guy off. At this point, sensing some animosity, I offered to leave the campus area if I was somehow trespassing. Instead of allowing me to leave at this point, the officer searched me without asking for my consent or even saying that he was about to search me (in other words, he just grabbed me and started rifling through my pockets.

He then called for backup (any who have met me will surely laugh at this, I am clearly not an imposing figure to look at).

So now I'm talking to three officers instead of one. They ask for ALL of my personal information. I can understand wanting a few pieces of info to identify me and confirm that I am who I say I am... but my home AND work address? My car's license plate? When I ask if all of this is necessary (reminding them that I'm really only taking a walk and will gladly get off the campus if it is a problem), the only answer I get is "give us the info and shut up".

Eventually, they let me go. However, I really do feel violated by this encounter and am wondering if I have any grounds for a suit. I am pretty much completely unaware of how the law works, so I was wondering if some of my fellow SDMB folks might be able to enlighten me. Any and all comments are welcome!

Thanks
-BillyBoy

[wring]

depending on the college, it may have been private property.

While the officer may have seemed heavy handed to you, let me point out some possibilities
A. There may have been a recent crime occuring.
B. Some one may have seen you and gotten afraid and called the police to investigate
C. there may have been some criminal activity around there for a while

Any of these things would explain why they'd want to at least queary some lone person walking around.

Basic rule of thumb with officers. They have no sense of humor while on the job. (I have no experience of them off the job). So, if they asked "what are you doing here" and you answered exactly the same thing several times without elaboration, yea, they'll start thinking you have something to hide.

Example: what are you doing here?
Walking around.
What are you doing here?
I'm coming home from work. I work over there (point) and live over here (point) and I find this to be the nicest/most efficient way home.

I guess for me, if the cop had asked the question the second time, I would have started with "If I'm tresspassing, I was unaware of it, and will leave."

Police do NOT need a warrant or permission if they have "Probably cause" I'm sure they felt that your repeated statement was probable cause ("I asked the subject what he was doing there. He replied 'walking around'. I repeated my question several times, he kept repeating his answer"). Sorry you went through this. Find out from the college if it's public or private property.

[BillyBoy]

Well, I did post a slightly condensed version of the conversation. I elaborated as best as I could that I lived near the campus and that this was a simply a walk through the campus and nothing more (pretty close to how you . I have not seen this campus before, and wanted to walk through it. It's not that I was just repeating a 4 word answer over and over again. I tried as hard as I could to be friendly and answer his questions as fully as possible.

I also did just as you suggested, stating that if I was trespassing, I was unaware of it and would gladly leave. That's actually the part that burns me the most. If the problem was my mere presence, the conversation should have been over within 10 seconds, for that is how long it took me to offer to get off the property. He would not allow me to leave, however.

I agree with your points A, B, and C. The fact that they queried me doesn't bother me at all. However, I don't believe that I gave them any cause for concern outside of the fact that I was on their campus.

Even if they have probable cause to search (which I still argue they didn't in this case), don't they first need to notify you that they are about to do so? And did I mention that they searched me a second time when the backup came?

[AWB]

Were they real police or campus security? They sound like the latter. (The statement "give us the info and shut up" should never be uttered by a real policeman.) As to being searched outside of the realm of arresting you, 2 words: major lawsuit! whoever they were.
Are you a member of a minority group? If so, they may have been using profiling to justify questioning you.
Did you look "out of place"? Hard to imagine on a college campus, since I had classmates that wore everything from slacks and sport jackets down to hole-iest jeans and ratty T-shirts.
Were you holding a knife dripping with blood? :D:D


Only the last would be a justifiable reason for them to detain you. It really sounds like over-zealous campus cops who have never studied the Constitution. I hope you got badge numbers, because I think you have a good complaint on your hands.

[Doctor Who]

A great man once told me: (and I'm sure that it applies to most of you Dopers to...)

"Remember when you're dealing with police that you're smarter than most of them."

These guys sound like goons. And you have to realize a lot of people want to be police just so they can go on some sort of crazy power trip.

By the way:

If police are 5.0s then what are campus security?
2.5s.

[BillyBoy]

Originally posted by AWB
[B]Were they real police or campus security? They sound like the latter. (The statement "give us the info and shut up" should never be uttered by a real policeman.)[B]

To be fair, these weren't the officers exact words... this was definitely the sentiment of what he said, though

[B]Are you a member of a minority group?[B]

Nope. I am the average white male. Brown hair. Brown eyes. Pictures of the average American family from back in the 1950s bear a striking resemblance to my family portraits. They also bear a striking resemblance to the majority of students at this University, so I don't think they were singling me out for that reason

[B]Did you look "out of place"?[B]

Hehe... apparently I did....

[B]As to being searched outside of the realm of arresting you, 2 words: major lawsuit! whoever they were.[B]

That is what I was wondering... do you happen to know where I could find more information about the laws that apply here?

[BillyBoy]

(sorry for making that whole post bold)

[CandyMan]

No, they don't have to warn you before they search you. Being searched the second time, I would guess was to do a better search than the first pat down.

I have said this in another thread, but police can and SHOULD get backup and show excessive force. SHOW. Remove any hope of fight or flight and everyone is safer.

You never did answer, were they real officers or campus police?

CandyMan

[BillyBoy]

No, they don't have to warn you before they search you. Being searched the second time, I would guess was to do a better search than the first pat down.

Ok, now I've heard that they do have to warn me and that they do not have to warn me. Some folks say they can search me, some say they violated my rights by doing so... can someone point me towards any resources online that will lend some clarity?

I have said this in another thread, but police can and SHOULD get backup and show excessive force. SHOW. Remove any hope of fight or flight and everyone is safer.

As a general rule, I can see why you would say this... but I don't think its valid in this particular situation. Why would you need backup just to talk to someone? If the answer is anything along the lines of "just in case", then they should be travelling in groups to begin with. Who is more of a threat, me or one of the 4 packs of loud, angry, drunken frat boys that stumbled by us while all this was taking place? I can only hope that nothing bad happened elsewhere on the campus while they tied up all of their resources to talk to a lone man who simply wanted to walk.

You never did answer, were they real officers or campus police?

They were campus cops... however, I can't help but feel that my complaint would be the same if they had been real officers.

[Sofa King]

It might be worth illuminating the perspective of the guards and/or officers involved. The major concern of campus security is the safety of the students, particularly the female students. College campuses are some sexual predators' preferred hunting grounds. Therefore anyone who is not a student and is wandering about the campus is bound to attract a large degree of suspicion.

Furthermore, they are going to want to know everything they can possibly find out about you. Just in case you turn out to be a baddie, they'll have evidence they can use to track you down. It's not cool, but they are trying to do a difficult job, and the intent is in the right place, even if their tactics aren't in this case.

[pldennison]

Can you tell us what college campus it is? They may have information online specific to their campus which details the powers their security officers do and do not have. (My best friend who is a police officer and formerly worked security for two different colleges, each of which had very different powers.)

Once you have that information (or even before), I would definitely start making phone calls, first to the head of security, then to the Dean, then to the President, then to the president of the Board of Trustees. As political as most colleges are, I can assure you that nobody wants the Trustees pissed off at them, nor do they want the image problem with the community that will result from the letters you will inevitably write to the mayor and the local press. :)

[wring]

your complaint may have been the same for real vs. campus cops, but the answers would be different.

some campus police are fully recognized units of law enforcement. Others have very limited powers.

To find out the scope of their authority, 1. contact their post and ask questions. 2. also contact the city attorney of the city the campus is in. You may get two different answers.

Regarding the search question. My understanding is that the issue is usually "do you need the person's consent" and usually, if the cop can say there was probable cause, the answer is "no". I guess you weren't looking for the answer about consent, but notification. I've got to admit that's never been something I paid attention to. When I ran the correction center and needed to do a search, I simply stated that I was going to search the purse/pockets etc. but that was AS I WAS DOING IT. I didn't "have" to say it, I just did as a filler. When doing room searches, as well, I'd knock AS I WAS ENTERING. So notification has never been a concept that I've paid attention to when discussing the law.

But. If you seriously believe your rights were mangled, contact the city attorney's office, find out the scope of the powers of the campus cops and go from there.

On the side of what did you endure, I went through worse when I went through customs (delay, search, search, delay and no, I didn't have anything).

[BeerDog]

What time of night was it?

If it was late, then the police (IMHO) were right to detain and question a lone guy who is not a student.

I don't know about where you live, but around here the University campus is apparently the home of the sexual assault. We actually started a program called "Safe Walk" where students(mostly female) could call and have someone escort them where they wanted to go. While I did volunteer my services for this (it was a great way to meet women :D), I still think it is a pretty lousy situation when a woman can't feel safe just walking to and from class.

If the police can prevent this sort of thing by ID'ing everybody who goes on the campus, more power to them.

Sorry for your inconvenience dude.

[BillyBoy]

...and the intent is in the right place, even if their tactics aren't in this case.

If the police can prevent this sort of thing by ID'ing everybody who goes on the campus, more power to them.

I agree. From the beginning, my issue was with their tactics, not the intent. The fact that they wanted to ID me is understandable. The rest, IMO, is not.

[mk9kahr]

I do not know what state you are in, but in Texas, Campus police are usually a full Police force. And they have a wider jusrisdiction and more powers then most municipal police. My guess as to what happened was that there was some sort of crime that was committed on campus and they thought that you were a "possible" but they did not have enough to arrest you. They got all of the info so that if things pointed to you, they can find you. Wrong place, wrong time.

It seems that they handled it poorly on the PR end of it though. That sucks, and when it happens it gives all cops a bad name. But remember, cops have probably the worst job possible- Low pay, constant threat of danger, 90% of the people who talk to them lie, everyone thinks they are stupid, and 100% of the people who they interact with do not want to deal with them.

[Engineer Don]

In California, most State colleges have camups police similar to those in Texas. In small towns they frequently work with the local police on Campus and in town. Police are human, and the ones I know (my wife's family) have great senses of humor on duty and off. They have to. My brother-in-law spent Christmas eve running down the street in South Central LA, carrying a shotgun, yelling "Merry Christmas, which way did the guys with the guns go?"
Do you know what crime they were called there for? It is difficult to understand their behaviour without knowing the whole story. That officer might have just finished interviewing a young coed about a theft, or assault, or rape, and you might have in some way fit the description of the "perp" (TV cop lingo for person who did it). They might have seen something horrible and really been anxious to find the guy who did it. If you were there, and were the only person without a really good reason to be there, then you were probably their best lead at the time, so they were questioning you. Not a good lead, but the best available at the time.
If you really want to know, go to the station, identify yourself and ask about it. This might make them suspect you more, but if you explain your concerns you will probably find them more than willing to explain what was going on and why they did what they did. If you are hostile and threaten a law suit, then they probably will pawn you off on a PR guy, and you won't learn anything.
Or search through the local papers for the police blotter, and check the place and time.

[Bricker]

Here is the deal regarding detention, search, arrest, and other such matters.

There are three types of encounters between the police and private citizens. The first is a consensual encounter. The police are perfectly free to walk up to any person and ask them questions, as long as the person is free to disregard their questions and go about their business.

If the police have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and that you are the person that committed the crime, or if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you may be armed, they may briefly detain you and conduct a brief, non-intrusive search of your person for weapons -- patting the outside of your garments, for example. This is known in legal circles as a Terry stop, from Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court case that laid out the ground rules for such encounters.

Note that reasonable, articulable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, but not non-existent. It means that the officer must be able to point to specific, clear facts that gave rise to his suspicion; a Terry stop may not be predicated on a hunch, a guess, or an inchoate suspicion.

The third level of encounter involves a seizure. Whether or not you are arrested, if you are seized and searched against your will (beyond the brief detainment and non-intrusive search I mention above) then probable cause must exist that a crime was committed, and that you were the person that committed it.

Now, there is no requirement that the police tell you all of this, or what's going on. But in the end, if those standards are not met, any evidence they have gotten from you will be inadmissible - so they have a good motive for following the rules.

As wring pointed out, in the case you mention, you have no way of knowing if they just got a call from some frightened freshman that someone was peeking in her window, "...some guy with brown hair." Now, if you happened to walk by two minutes later, that certainly gives them cause at the very least for a Terry type stop.

- Rick

[Bear_Nenno]

BillyBoy, I would not dare say that the police messed up or did something wrong because no matter how detailed your story, you may accidently leave out info that you dont think is relevant, but is. And as was mentioned before, you dont know if something serious just occurred that put the police in such a serious mood.
Of course it is possible they were just really bored and assholes...
I will give you all the info I think you need concerning frisks and searches and you can make the call yourself.

I do not have the cites for this. You can either trust me or search Google.com for "Terry vs Ohio" and "Carol Doctrine"

Here is the straight dope on getting searched:

If the officer has reasonable suspicion (this is LESS than probably cause) to believe you committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a they can stop and detain you. You are not under arrest but you are also not free to leave. They have restrictions such as not moving you and such. They have to conduct their investigation right there.

Once Detained, they will almost definitely want to frisk or search you.
Search based on consent:
They will probably ASK for your permission to search your person, your car, your bags etc. If you give them permission, then of course they can search away! You also have the right to stop this search at any time. For example, if you give them permission to search your car and they start searching it, then they start to open the trunk. You just remember the Five kilos of cocaine you left in the trunk and you tell them to STOP. They MUST stop immediately. Now, they could of course bring in a drug dog at this point to obtain "probable cause" for a search, but absent some other reason, they MUST stop when you say so.

FRISK based on probable cause:
Once detained, if an officer has probable cause to believe you may have a weapon or other contraban on your person, he may FRISK you. This is much different and less invasive than a SEARCH. A frisk is just a pat down of outter garments. They may have you remove a heavy jacket or other item, but they cannot reach into your pockets or open bags or anything like that. Probable cause to frisk could be several things. The easiest justifiable reason for an officer is "the suspect made a furtive movement". So if you scratch your belly the wrong way or something else, they can frisk you to make sure they do not feel any weapon.
NOTE: They cannot just search for "officer safety". This is not a valid reason in court. Any officer who used that as justification is both an idiot and an.. .ummmm a .. well he is just a big idiot and he needs to go back to the academy before he faces a violation of civil rights lawsuit because that is exactly what he is doing.
Other reasons for a frisk could be things like a big bulge in your pants (shut up) or the fact that you fit the description of someone who was last seen holding a big bloody knife; you are personally known by the officers to be armed; weapons were just found on your buddies, etc. But remember, they need a REASON- probable cause.
THIS IS ALL JUST FOR A FRISK, a PAT DOWN.

Now for a SEARCH without consent:
After coming up with a reason to pat you down, they happen to feel something that seems to be a weapon, they can now go into that pocket or waste band or whatever and retrieve said item. If it is a weapon they can confiscate it. If you had a permit or otherwise were not breaking a law by possessing the weapon they must give it back AFTER the investigation provided you are not arrested for something else. If you are committing a crime by having that concealed weapon, you are now under arrest :). If it turns out the item was not a weapon and could not be used as a weapon, they must put it back in your pants.
If they are patting you down and feel something that they immediately recognize as drugs (a baggy of rocks or weed, etc) then they may go in and take out the drugs. If the item IS drugs, then you are arrested. If it is a bag of oregeno, then they have to put it back. (they will test it :) )

Wow this is a lot of crap... I hope I do not leave anything out.

Last one
Search incident to an arrest:
Once you are arrested for something, they can search your ass until they are tired. (no butt jokes)
They can go into your pockets, your mouth, your bags... pretty much everything! If you were arrested in your car, they can even search the passenger compartment of your vehicle. Anything they find will be added to your charges.
For example, if you walking around with a beer and violating some open container law (if you have one), the officer can come up to you and arrest you. Now he can search your entire person. If he finds a concealed gun and some drugs, you will be arrested for those as well.

Note: Walking passed a NO TRESSPASSING sign is arrestable. Check the campus. Was it a public campus? Private?

If I have left something out or you need clarification, let me know.

[Bear_Nenno]

Damnit!!!

I knew that by the time I was done typing, someone else would have beat me to it.
Good job Bricker.


Let me just add some info about the "Shut up and answer the question" comment. You ALWAYS have the right to remain silent. You NEVER have to tell an officer a thing. You can refuse to tell them your name if you wish!! Of course that would just give them reason to hold you longer and try to identify you, but you can play mute if you want! I have seen it done....

Though you have the right to not talk to an officer, you cannot LIE to an officer. So if you tell them your name is Joe, and it is really "Bob", you go to jail. If you just keep your mouth shut and say nothing... well that will really piss them off and you will probably go to jail for something else... but not for lieing :)

All that info about your car and your address and such did not have to be disclosed if you did not want to. Keep in mind that it would have just made them more suspicious of you and you would have had to deal with them a hell of a lot longer.... but had you wanted to stay silent... it is your right!!!

[handy]

Yeah, I thought Bricker would come by sooner or later :-)

"You ALWAYS
have the right to remain silent. You NEVER have to tell an officer a thing."

I would not advise that. That would be a pretty stupid idea, unless you are unable to communicate said information.

However, sort of missing is the fact that when an officer confronts you, this is called 'Voluntary Detention' & you don't have to stay. Just ask them first if you are under arrest, if not, inform them you are leaving [dont just run away for Pete's sake]. Always say that you do NOT consent to any searches.

I once wrote out this stuff about no consent to a search, etc & asked the officers to sign it; but three of them refused. Wimps.

[Bear_Nenno]

that when an officer confronts you, this is called 'Voluntary Detention' & you don't have to stay.But not all the time. YES an officer may approach you for no real reason just to ask you questions, and YES you are free to leave. But if he is stopping you under reasonable suspicion that you DID, ARE PRESENTLY, or ARE ABOUT TO commit a crime, then you CANNOT leave. But you are not under arrest.
Just ask them first if you are under arrest, if not, inform them you are leaving [dont just run away for Pete's sake].Well... actually you should probably ask "Am I free to leave?" Just because you are not under arrest does not mean you are free to go. An arrest is based on probable cause that you committed a crime. A dentention or "Terry Stop" is based on reasonable suspicion. Being detained is not the same as being under arrest. So the officer may say "No you are not under arrest. But you are not allowed to leave yet!" And he will be right. Then if you do try to leave, you can be arrested! So ask him if you are "free to leave". The advice about never consenting and getting a lawyer and not ansering questions is good advice if you possibly did something wrong.
I once wrote out this stuff about no consent to a search, etc & asked the officers to sign it; but three of them refusedI would not sign it either. I do not have to enter a contract with you just to obey the Constitution and preserve your rights. If you do not want to be searched then I will not conduct a voluntary search of your person. But if you start scratching your belly or constantly sticking your hands in your pockets or some other action you can be patted down. If you got drugs in them pockets you will be arrested. And then I will search every last nook and cranny of your clothes and bags for more illegal stuff :D
Then I will give you something to sign at Central Booking...
;)
Provided there is nothing illegal in your pockets, I will not be a dick to you and harrass you. I will get the information I need to establish the fact that you ARE or ARE NOT or COULD BE the man last seen carrying a bloody knife or peeking in windows. If you cooperate and are innocent... you are NOW free to go.

You ALWAYS
have the right to remain silent. You NEVER have to tell an officer a thing."

I would not advise thatMe neither!! But I am just letting people know what their rights are...

[Badtz Maru]

OK, I have a question, this has been a big issue in Texas lately. If an officer asks to search your car and you say no, do they have the right to detain you until they get drug dogs or a warrant? This is if there is no probable cause for a search, i.e. they pulled you over for going 5 over the limit and then asked to search your car.

Some lawyer from Colorado has made a big name for himself lately by putting up big billboards telling people not to consent to searches (with his number on it, of course) and it is making the police furious, some have demanded that he take down the billboards, etc. He says that Texas law does not consider refusing to allow a search probable cause or a reason to detain the person. I always consent to searches (if I have contraband I have eaten it before being pulled over or it is hidden in a place that the cops would never find without dogs) but I have friends who refused, and the cops wouldn't let them leave until they showed up with the drug dogs.

[Bear_Nenno]

If an officer asks to search your car and you say no, do they have the right to detain you until they get drug dogs or a warrant?The drug dog is almost always justifiable. The warrant would probably take way too long, so I would say NO to that. Unless the judge was riding with the officer or was on call or yada, yada. Besides, if there is "...no probable cause for a search" then they would never get one anyway. Bring on the dog.

Now, if there is one dog in the entire county and you are waiting five hours for him to get there.... call the lawyer.
But usually if the officer takes enough time running your name and writing the ticket for whatever reason he pulled you over, that should be pleanty of time for the drug dog to arrive. And all the dog has to do is scratch the side of your car once or twice.

[Bricker]

Bear is right on track - the key is that the detention must be reasonable. If you're pulled over for fifteen minutes while the officer writes a ticket, and the dog arrives during this time, you have no reason to complain. And of course, if the dog alerts on your car, there is probable cause to detain you and either search the car or get a warrant.

However, the officer can't keep you waiting for a long period of time, nor can he threaten to keep you waiting as a means of extorting consent which might not otherwise be forthcoming. In general, absent reasonable, articulable suspicion, the officer may not prolong the traffic stop beyond that which is necessary to issue the summons and then must let you be on your way.

Courts are divided, though, on the exact circumstances by which a traffic detention may flow into a consensual encounter. If the officer hands you back your license, gets you to sign the summons, and tells you you're free to go, and then immediately follows it up with, "Say, you don't mind if I look around your car, do you?" some courts have held that this begins a new, consensual encounter. Others have held that the traffic detention is still on-going.

Most jurisdictions have, however, adopted a "totality of the circumstances" approach, where all the factors are taken into account.

- Rick

[retsin2000]

Since this thread has already veered towards a general discussion of police searches I don't feel too bad about being OT in regards to the OP.

How accurate are the drug dogs? I would imagine that some are better than others depending on the dog's natural ability and the training it has received. I have also seen a program on television that stated that nearly all drug dogs wash out of training and are not put into service. But, what is to stop an overzealous police department from training a dog to scratch at the car on cue? Something to the tune of - Hey I pull over this guy with a beard driving a VW van, he refuses to allow the search so he *must* have something in there. Why don't we use our special dog on this one. Why is the advice of an animal trusted as probable cause?

No disrespect to the police officers on this board, but I just don't always trust the police. I mean the Rampart division in L.A. is just the latest example of what *some* cops do.

btw- I have a beard and drive a VW van in which the police would not find any drugs if I did consent to a search unless they put them there. I've never been pulled over while driving it, but if I was are my chances greater that a search would be requested because of appearance? I feel strongly that a search would violate my rights, so I would probably not consent. Would this increase my chances of something being planted if I was unlucky enough to get one of the few cops who does this sort of thing?

[bpaulsen]

Back to the original question....

I get the feeling that the answers everybody gave is for real cops searching the guy. What if it's campus security? Does the guy have more/fewer rights? Does it make a difference if it's public or private property? I would think that being stopped on private property means that they security (or cops) can pretty much do anything since the guy is trespassing. Just curious.

Brian

[handy]

bp, every cop, campus, real cops or whatever MUST have an ID on them. Ask to see it. It looks like a license. They must show it to you if you ask. Wish I knew about this sooner.

"How accurate are the drug dogs?" They can be fooled by an open sandwich or food container-just saw that happen on Cops.

[handy]

Bear_Nenno, Ive been to court with some of the local cops, they didn't tell the truth.

I have to have them write out what they say, [being deaf, you see], it's quite a chore to get them to do that & once I get them to write on paper I want them to sign it, that way they can't lie again in court.....BTW, our courthouse doesn't provide interpreters, yes, I know they have to.

[Badtz Maru]

I think planting is fairly common. One time I went to the house of the guy I sometimes bought pot from. He didn't have any, I went out to my car and saw a cop was parked just up the block. Sure enough, when I got in my car and took off he turned on his lights and pulled me over. He said one of my license plate lights was out (it wasn't, and in Texas it's OK to have only one if you can still read the plate), and then started shining his light around in my car - apparently on any traffic stop they can look in your car with a flashlight if it is dark to check for obvious weapons, but they can't do a thorough search without permission or probable cause. He asked if I had any drugs on me, and I said (truthfully) 'no'. The cop picked up a ball of dried mud that was at least twice as big as the biggest pot seed I have ever seen and said that's what it was, and that this gave him probable cause to search me and the entire vehicle, and asked me again if I had any drugs on me. I said no, told him to go ahead and search, and he called for backup. One cop searched me fairly thoroughly, made me turn out all my pockets, etc., while the other spent about 30 minutes searching the car - even made me unlock my gascap to check in there. The other cop kept asking me what I was doing at the dealers house, I said his son was a friend of mine, he asked me if I knew who lived there, I did, he asked me if I knew he sold drugs, I said if he did he never sold any to me. Finally he said 'He's out, huh?' and I said I didn't know what he was talking about, and he said if he ever saw me in that neighborhood again he would pull me over and search me again. That kinda sucked because I live in the same neighborhood. Two days later I was pulled over and arrested for DWI with a BAC of .03. The breathalyzer results were so obviously skewed that I got it dismissed (they made me blow in it 4 times without changing the filter to get a result over .10) but it still cost me a job and about $2000 in various expenses (lawyer fees, court costs, getting truck out of impound). If I was poor I probably would have ended up in jail for 30 days as retaliation for me not having any drugs for them to find.

[Bricker]

In general, private cops are simply schmoes with guns and badges, and their actions do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. On the other hand, campus police may not simply be rent-a-cops, but special officers who are granted police power by law on university property.

Drug dogs' reactions can create probable cause, but cannot, on their own, sustain a conviction. So while I guess it's possible that an unscrupulous officer could train his dog to "react" and thus gain cause to search, the efficacy of this is questionable - since, if there really are drugs there, the dog will really react anyway. If there are not drugs present, the dog's phony reaction doesn't seem to help the officer much -- what fruits does he expect the search to yield? He suspects stolen artwork, uses the dog's phony reaction to get cause, and finds the missing Monet?

I suppose anything is possible - but this seems high-risk/low-yield for the officer.

- Rick

[bpaulsen]

A question about training the dog to bark, scratch, whatever on command... Are there any records kept about the number of times that the dog gives the cop "probable cause" and the search then turns up nothing? It would seem that if I were busted by the trained dog, I would want to know if the dog barks at everything, and therefore the cop really doesn't have "probable cause."

I would think maybe I would argue that if they <i>don't</i> keep these records, the cop has nothing tangible to base his assumption of "probable cause" on.

However, IANAL.

Brian

[Bear_Nenno]

What if it's campus security? Does the guy have more/fewer rights? Does it make a difference if it's public or private property? I would think that being stopped on private property means that they security (or cops) can pretty much do anything since the guy is trespassing. Just curious.Security, the Wakenhut type, have no powers or authority over you at all- even if you are tresspassing. The most they could do is force you to leave. That is it. Thing of any security as "the owner of the property". They are basically in control of the property in the same way that you are in control of your house. They can tell people to leave, and they can stop people was breaking shit and spray painting the walls or stealing, etc. Just like you can do on your property.
The problem is that a lot of security guards do not realize this and they think they have some kind of power. They cannot search you no matter what. It doesn't matter if you are carrying a bag leaking cocaine and a bloody knife is sticking out of your back pocket. They can not detain you and they cannot search you. You can always leave and you can even lie to them :D . If for some idiotic reason you give them CONSENT to do a search and they find a huge ass baggy of pot, they cannot do anything about it. If they try to confiscate it, they are now in possession of drugs and can be arrested themselves. So if they take your pot, you can take it back from them and tell them you are leaving now... there is nothing they can do.

There are a few instances where they can actually hold you and wait for the cops to get you. But this power does not come from their security badge. Every person has the power to perform a citizen's arrest on felonies they witnessed, and certain misdemeanors like shoplifting, derauding an innkeeper (running out on your check at a restaraunt). There is nothing special about security.

[astro]

Originally posted by retsin2000

btw- I have a beard and drive a VW van in which the police would not find any drugs if I did consent to a search unless they put them there. I've never been pulled over while driving it, but if I was are my chances greater that a search would be requested because of appearance?

A VW Van? Man alive! The only thing they might suspect you of packing is Viagra or some cardiac medicine.

Retsin2000: Why did you stop me officer?

Officer: Well sir. It's just I've never seem a working one of these outside of an auto show and my Dad used to tell me how he had one way before I was born. Is it true it's got an *air cooled* engine.

Retsin2000: Sigh... Yes. Is that all? Don't you want to get a drug dog and search the van or something?

Officer: Oh no sir! Dog might scratch it up and it'd be terrible to damage an old classic like this. I was just curious about it. You're free to go.

Grind...Grind. Roarrr! Tweedle!

[Badge]

Originally posted by retsin2000
How accurate are the drug dogs?
But, what is to stop an overzealous police department from training a dog to scratch at the car on cue?

The dogs are very accurate, though some are better than others. The dog handlers keep very detailed records off all training and actual searches. Once the dog is recognized by the courts as accurate, an alert alone can provide probable cause to search or obtain a search warrant. One false hit and the dog's reputation could be shot. No K-9 handler I know would take that chance.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

I want you all to know that you cannot be arrested simply for refusing to show ID (an operators lic, if you are 'operating", yes). So, you do not have to answer any questions, or show any ID, and they police cannot give that as the sole reason for considering your behavior susp. They also cannot search you, altho they can "frisk" you.

Next, if you are "detained", you are either free to go, or "under arrest" (as opposed to being ARRESTED ie charged with a crime). So, if they stop you (note, in a traffic stop, they can stop you long enuf to give a citation, for example)
after exchanging pleasantries, if they are taking to0 long, say "I am free to go, now, right?". If they say no, then ask "Am I under arrest?". If they say "no", then say, "Then i am free to go", and begin doing so (slowly, and without provocation). The Supreme Court has said that a 'stop" is for all intents & purposes, an arrest. Thus, if they "detain" you, and you confess to something, but no "miranda" warning has been given, it is inadmissable. But if you are not "detained", ie you are free to go, then they can (usually) use what you say aginst you.

In this case, i would complain to the College, and cc to the Grand Jury, and to the ACLU.

[sailor]

Danielinthewolvesden, what you say does not jibe with what I see on COPS all the time where people are not under arrest and yet are not free to leave. And they try the same game you are proposing: "either I am under arrest or I am free to leave" and the officer says something to the effect of "you are detained while I conduct my investigation". How can they do this all the time on national TV if it is illegal?

regarding ID, I am quite sure you are required by law to have a driver's license if you are operating a motor vehicle. In most states I believe you would also be required to show the car registration and even proof of insurance.

Even if you are not operating a motor vehicle, if a cop asks to see ID, I guess you can say you are not carrying any but that may give him reason to detain you until he ascertains who you are. Taking the attitude of "i refuse to show it to you" is not going to help resolve the situation in harmony.

[Homer]

The drug dogs I've seen in action were a freaking joke. They had a demonstration when I was still in high school that showed the 'powers' of the drug dog and all it did was embarrass the officer. They planted two HUGE baggies of pot in the gym, and walked the first dog around. The first dog kept pausing at the baggie, but never indicating anything, and then would just walk on. He never found the second baggie after circling the gym three times. The second dog, they kept leading back to the first bag, and waiting, and finally, after about five times, he indicated. But that was stupid, because they kept taking him back there over and over. Uh, how does this show the dog's skill? If there's pot in a vehicle, you don't know where it is, so it doesn't help to have a dog that can't find it without direction. The second dog didn't find the second bag of pot, but the first one did after about two more passes.

Man, that demonstration sucked. The cops should be ashamed of themselves. They said that one of the dogs was 'getting old' that why it couldn't find anything well, and the second dog was 'not used to the handler' because they'd only been together 8 months. GIMME A FREAKING BREAK! They SUCKED. I can't believe a dog like that can be used for probable cause. A crying infant would do a better job!

--Tim

[Homer]

Oh, I forgot to mention. They took the dogs around to lockers and cars in the parking lot later that day. In the demonstration they said the people would hang beef jerky or something in the locker with a note that said "haha, fooled you!" How did they know this if it didn't work? Simple. It did work. That's how they know people did this. Out of a couple hundred lockers, they found one small smattering of dust and seeds. I know for a fact at least 10 people had something illegal in their lockers. And as for the cars, they indicated on like 3, but the kids who owned the car didn't give up their keys, and the cops didn't hassle 'em about it, they just gave them a lecture. Thing is, I know these cars didn't have anything in them, but some of the other (non discovered) cars did! SHEESH! Talk about crappy!

--Tim

[sailor]

Homer I am not sure what your point is, except that *those* dogs maybe were not very good. I do not think any intelligent person will deny that dogs are very effective in detecting smells and are very successfully used in searching for drugs, explosives, vegetables (by customs officials), missing people, people buried under rubble etc. They are used all the time very effectively.

[Lance Turbo]

I'm pretty sure that's what BillyBoy was stopped for. A townie on campus at night, "just walking around." My guess would be that the police thought he was there, "on business."

[Danielinthewolvesden]

sailor: it is a fine line. You are 'arrested" if you are not free to go, but you have not nessesarily been "arrested for" anything. Once you are not "free to go", they must gine you your Miranda warning to question you, or it is not admissable. The Supreme Court refused to draw a line between "detained, and not free to go" and 'arrested", ie once you are under duress, of any sort, if you blab stuff, prior to the Miranda warning, it is inadmissable*.

Now, does that mean you should walk off? No. But you can make them say that you HAVE to stay. Thus, you are under duress. Note, once any police officer reads you your rights, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! Say only one thing "I want to see my attorney", or "I want an attorney". Nothing else. Once that miranda has been read, you are not going to "talk your way out of it".

However, that does not mean that once the police have said that you can't go, but your Miranda has not been read, you should satrt confessing to anything serious. Cops DO lie, you know, and they could say that you were "free to go".

re Id: Yes, you certainly do have to show a drivers/operators license, when you are driving/operating. But not just walking around. Or as a passenger.

[Commander Fortune]

I want you all to know that you cannot be arrested simply for refusing to show ID

You can be in Colorado.

It's a leftover form draft registration.

Males over the age of 18 are required to carry ID on their person at all times and can be arrested if they do not provide said ID to an officer upon request.

[retsin2000]

Hey Astro, LOL!

Actually though my van is a 1990 Vanagon, is liquid cooled, has no problem doing 75mph, and is very solid. I still got a laugh out of your post though.

So, if a drug dog indicates there are drugs in the car and then none are found is there legal recourse for the driver? Was the search a violation of the driver's rights, or was the false positive still good enough for probable cause?

Badge, is there any independent accounting of the records that the dog handlers keep? It just seems that the temptation to fudge has to be great when so much hard work, the dog's handler's reputation, and maybe past convictions are on the line.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Commander: I am afraid the US Supreme Court has said otherwise. Basicly, it struck down all "anti-vagrancy" and "id upon demand' laws.

A male of draft age must be able to show his draft card, upon reasonable notice, to a Federal Offical, or show that he is registered. Note that the Local officials cannot enforce this, nor can you be convicted simply of not haveing the card, just of failing to register.

[Commander Fortune]

Thanks for the correction Daniel. That's good to know. When was it overturned, do you know the year?

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
I want you all to know that you cannot be arrested simply for refusing to show ID (an operators lic, if you are 'operating", yes). So, you do not have to answer any questions, or show any ID, and they police cannot give that as the sole reason for considering your behavior susp. They also cannot search you, altho they can "frisk" you.

Next, if you are "detained", you are either free to go, or "under arrest" (as opposed to being ARRESTED ie charged with a crime). So, if they stop you (note, in a traffic stop, they can stop you long enuf to give a citation, for example)
after exchanging pleasantries, if they are taking to0 long, say "I am free to go, now, right?". If they say no, then ask "Am I under arrest?". If they say "no", then say, "Then i am free to go", and begin doing so (slowly, and without provocation). The Supreme Court has said that a 'stop" is for all intents & purposes, an arrest. Thus, if they "detain" you, and you confess to something, but no "miranda" warning has been given, it is inadmissable. But if you are not "detained", ie you are free to go, then they can (usually) use what you say aginst you.

In this case, i would complain to the College, and cc to the Grand Jury, and to the ACLU.

Daniel, this is not very useful advice.

You are quite correct, as you say in a subsequent post, that for the purposes of determining whther an interrogation is custodial, it's of no significance if you are actually "under arrest." But I would absolutely not advise a person to walk away from a police officer if they have been told they are not free to go. Such action might give rise to a "Failure to Obey" charge (a misdemeanor that certain of my brethern in the PD's office used to call "Contempt of Cop.")

The police are well within the law, under certain circumstances, to detain you without arresting you. It's certainly appropriate to ask them if you're free to go. But under no circumstances should you disobey a cop that tells you to stay put.

The court will ultimately evaluate whether the investigative detention was reasonable. Common sense and ordinary human experience will govern over rigid criteria. The test is whether the police methods were calculated to confirm or dispel the suspicion quickly and with minimal intrusion upon the person detained.

- Rick

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Note that I said "slowly, and without provocation". Ie, if they then order you to freeze, or stop, you do so, of course. Note, that the Police, up to this time have NOT "ordered" you to "stop", or stay. You should be polite, non-confrontational, but firm on your insistance of your rights. But perhaps my statement could have been phrased better. Perhaps "Make as if to go, without provocation, and slowly, so they have to order you to stop, or let you go".

And, folks don't rely on COPS for proper Police proc. They routinely violate the rights of their subjects. If those shows had been filmed in MY County, and we (The Grand Jury) had seen some of those stunts, some Police Officers would be facing a not too pleasant Grand Jury investigation, assuming Police HQ had not started to do anything. Look at Law & Order. How many times have you seen the Police interrogating someone, and his Lawyer arrives, and asks "Are you charging my client with anything?" and when they say no, then saying "Then we are leaving now".

Commander: I do not have a legal search engine on this computer, but it was quite some time ago, in the early 70's i believe. In the 60's, the LAPD actually went onto the beach, and arrested youths who had no ID on them (in their bathing suits). :rolleyes:

[Bucky]

BillyBoy, are the campus cops at this campus real police or merely security? This thread has lots of hypotheticals that would be answered if you gave that info. Also, I don't think you've specified if it was a public or private school. You can walk around public campusses (sp?) all you want--well, at least the same as you would regular streets.

If they are campus cops (and most school security in my experience of visiting well over 100 schools are not "real" police), you've got a nifty lawsuit possible if you want to pursue it.

BeerDog, the Constitution and ideas of freedom might indicate flaws in your thinking.

Bucky

[bdgr]

Originally posted by Bear_Nenno
What if it's campus security? Does the guy have more/fewer rights? Does it make a difference if it's public or private property? I would think that being stopped on private property means that they security (or cops) can pretty much do anything since the guy is trespassing. Just curious.Security, the Wakenhut type, have no powers or authority over you at all- even if you are tresspassing. The most they could do is force you to leave. That is it. Thing of any security as "the owner of the property". They are basically in control of the property in the same way that you are in control of your house. They can tell people to leave, and they can stop people was breaking shit and spray painting the walls or stealing, etc. Just like you can do on your property.
The problem is that a lot of security guards do not realize this and they think they have some kind of power. They cannot search you no matter what. It doesn't matter if you are carrying a bag leaking cocaine and a bloody knife is sticking out of your back pocket. They can not detain you and they cannot search you. You can always leave and you can even lie to them :D . If for some idiotic reason you give them CONSENT to do a search and they find a huge ass baggy of pot, they cannot do anything about it. If they try to confiscate it, they are now in possession of drugs and can be arrested themselves. So if they take your pot, you can take it back from them and tell them you are leaving now... there is nothing they can do.

There are a few instances where they can actually hold you and wait for the cops to get you. But this power does not come from their security badge. Every person has the power to perform a citizen's arrest on felonies they witnessed, and certain misdemeanors like shoplifting, derauding an innkeeper (running out on your check at a restaraunt). There is nothing special about security.





Not true, at least in Texas. I worked security for a number of years, off and on(a friend of mine owns a security company). On private property, true security doesnt have more rights than the average citizen on their own property, other then to carry guns, asps etc. they can detain you for a number of reasons. And use a great deal of force in doing so. Just like a normal citizen can. The differance is they are often better equiped and more willing to do it(and often bored enough to do it). In Texas, you can pretty much use any force short of deadly force to effect a citzens arrest. And you can make a citizens arrest for any felony, or breach of the public peace committed in your presence. That means if some one uses profanity(a breach of the public peace around her, use of abusive language in a public place), you can handcuff them, and if you deem it necesarry beat them into submision with a mag light. Working in night clubs this was a common occurance with some people(I wasn't quite so aggressive myself). I can't tell you how many times we heard "your just security, you can't do anything", and it was those people who almost always wound up in hand cuffs. other breaches of the public peace included assult by contact, creating an offensive smell, criminal tresspass,...there was a long list, I don't remember all of them. Assault by contact, public intoxication, use of abusive language, criminal tresspass were the most common. We often got all of them on the same person. Assault by contact could involve just grabbing someones arm, or pretty much putting their hand on you in any way. Criminal tresspass could be if you asked them to leave and they didn't, or they left and came back. Public Intox was jut that in your opinion, the person is a danger to themselves or others. They didn't even have to be drunk, and you didn't have to prove it. Of course they often would get out the next day, and charges would be dropped, but they still got to spend the night. And in this state, its perfectly legal. Not being police officers, and not being trained, actually gives them more leeway in some situations, because they cant be expected to held to the same standards that peace officer is. Fact is most security guards won't do anything, because company policy forbids them to, not because the law does. If your guard trys to take someone down, and gets hurt themselves, they can sue the company they work for. To big a risk. As for the baggy of pot, We did catch people with dope/coke etc, and we did detain them and hand them over to the sherrif. I never searched anyone though, Never felt a need to. I just let the deputy that came and picked them up do that. Glad I'm not in that line of work anymore. I saw a lot of disturbing things.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Bricker
Courts are divided, though, on the exact circumstances by which a traffic detention may flow into a consensual encounter. If the officer hands you back your license, gets you to sign the summons, and tells you you're free to go, and then immediately follows it up with, "Say, you don't mind if I look around your car, do you?" some courts have held that this begins a new, consensual encounter. Others have held that the traffic detention is still on-going.

Most jurisdictions have, however, adopted a "totality of the circumstances" approach, where all the factors are taken into account.

I said that based upon my recollections when I was practicing. However, in 1996, the Supreme Court decided Ohio v. Robinette, and held that a consensual encounter may immediately follow the issuance of a traffic summons without violating the Fourth Amendment. In Robinette, the Supreme Court rejected a bright line rule that would have required police officers to advise citizens stopped for traffic offenses that they were free to go before the officers attempted to engage in consensual interrogations.

Rather, the Supreme Court held that "[t]he Fourth Amendment test for a valid consent to search is that the consent be voluntary and '[v]oluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.'"

So it would seem that totality of the circumstances is now the rule everywhere. I apologize for my earlier misstatement; I have tried to stay abreast of decisional law since leaving the criminal law world, but this one slipped by me, I guess.

- Rick