Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:46 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
My bolding. The level of proof needed to stop a car is a reasonable articulable suspicion not probable cause. In order to write a summons for a violation or conduct a search there must be probable cause but not to stop a car.
Agreed and thanks for clarifying. I was trying to run through 80 odd years of Constitutional law in a few sentences. Doing so, I left out the reasonable articulable suspicion standard but it had been noted several times before.
  #102  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:41 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
And yet the trunk with the shotgun wielding dude hidden within is off limits . . .
Have you ever ridden in a trunk? Popping out is difficult, rather slow and obvious.
  #103  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:48 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
...

Clearly Loach is correct in that in order to address the question we've pushed the hypothetical past the point of normal police work. The GQ answer to the OP's question is no, an officer can't make someone lower their rear windows because that's not always technically possible. ...
No, a cop certainly can make you do so. Now, if, on the very rare case that the rear windows cant be rolled down, then we have a problem. Just because a rare "lifeboat' cases exists, that doesnt impede a police officer in his day to day duties. As i posted and cited, more or less a cop can order you do do anything that isnt a illegal order.

In fact, he can order you to open your trunk. Just that if he does so against your wishes, contraband back there isnt admissible. That doesnt mean you wont be arrested, the car impounded, the contraband confiscated and you put in jail, having to make bail and hire a lawyer. Sure, then your lawyer will get the case kicked out. You are still out $10000 in bail and lawyer fees, you car has been totally legally ripped apart and in the impound lot, and your drugs gone. Maybe, the cop might be chewed out by his Sgt.
  #104  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:56 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 31,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Have you ever ridden in a trunk?
Yes, I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Popping out is difficult, rather slow and obvious.
I had no desire or need to pop out.
  #105  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:07 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, a cop certainly can make you do so. Now, if, on the very rare case that the rear windows cant be rolled down, then we have a problem. Just because a rare "lifeboat' cases exists, that doesnt impede a police officer in his day to day duties. As i posted and cited, more or less a cop can order you do do anything that isnt a illegal order.

In fact, he can order you to open your trunk. Just that if he does so against your wishes, contraband back there isnt admissible. That doesnt mean you wont be arrested, the car impounded, the contraband confiscated and you put in jail, having to make bail and hire a lawyer. Sure, then your lawyer will get the case kicked out. You are still out $10000 in bail and lawyer fees, you car has been totally legally ripped apart and in the impound lot, and your drugs gone. Maybe, the cop might be chewed out by his Sgt.
I think you're missing a distinction here. Crank windows are not a "lifeboat," they simply highlight the fact that rolling down the windows is not an order you need comply with.

You need to comply with an order to produce an ID during a traffic stop. If you don't, you can literally be arrested for failing to comply with a lawful order. If you're unable to produce an ID because you don't have one, or it's locked in a box and you don't have the key, or your arm is broken, none of these excuses matter -- you'll still be arrested.

However, if a cop asks you to roll down your windows and you can't because they're crank windows, are they going to arrest you? Seems laughable. So if they can't arrest you because of a technical issue, how are they going to arrest you if you claim that the windows are broken? And if you can just lie and say they're broken, is it really an enforceable order? Clearly not.
  #106  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:39 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
The totality of the circumstances would dictate whether I could or not. Iím sure pkbites would agree that he canít routinely open up all the doors of a car just because.
Of course not. And I never said that. I would be able to articulate a perfectly justifiable reason why I did what I did.

And like I posted earlier, this kind of thing rarely comes up. It is rare that I canít see through tinted glass with a flashlight. It is rare that I canít see into the back seat from the drivers window. And it is very rare that someone wonít put the windows down when asked.

But if it does come up that I am not sure there is another human back there and my Spidey senses are tingling, Iím going to look. Iíd much rather have any potential evidence thrown out than be dead.

I know officers who order everyone out of the car at every traffic stop. And it doesnít matter if it is a car load of Q-tips, Junior Knowitalls, or Grandpa Beazel Neck. They make them get out and stand or sit by the car while they go back to the squad are write a cite. This allows them to look inside while the car doors are open.

I know one officer who makes the driver remain in the car, but open the door and turn so they are sitting sideways with their feet on the pavement.

I almost never do anything like that. After the stop sometimes a driver will jump out of their car and start walking back to the squad. I immediately get out and tell them to get back in their car. After the initial contact at the driver window I tell them I am going back to my squad to evaluate the information, and that it will take a few minutes and they must stay in their car while waiting. Almost everyone complies. It is very rare when someone doesnít.
  #107  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I think you're missing a distinction here. Crank windows are not a "lifeboat," they simply highlight the fact that rolling down the windows is not an order you need comply with.
...
However, if a cop asks you to roll down your windows and you can't because they're crank windows, are they going to arrest you? Seems laughable. So if they can't arrest you because of a technical issue, how are they going to arrest you if you claim that the windows are broken? And if you can just lie and say they're broken, is it really an enforceable order? Clearly not.
You said windows that CANT be rolled down. Crank windows are now very rare, the number of whom with black window coverings are even more rare.

Getting into weird hypotheticals is not helping. A Cop certainly can order you to lower your rear windows. It is not a illegal order. He can order you- and all the passengers- out of the vehicle and to lay on the ground. If you refuse, you can be arrested.



Lying to a police officer is a crime.
  #108  
Old 06-12-2019, 03:00 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A Cop certainly can order you to lower your rear windows. It is not a illegal order.
Under what authority can he order me to roll down windows if I refuse a search?

And let's assume that I'm in the United States so that the law isn't whatever the cop makes up on the spot and let's assume I'm not obligated to forego my Constitutional rights to make things easier on the police.
  #109  
Old 06-12-2019, 03:22 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Lying to a police officer is a crime.
Is this true? Not a federal officer, but a regular city police officer?
  #110  
Old 06-12-2019, 03:53 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is this true? Not a federal officer, but a regular city police officer?
Yes. At least in my state it is. It’s called “Resisting or Obstructing an Officer”. It is a class A misdemeanor and punishable by both 9 months imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.946.41

Last edited by pkbites; 06-12-2019 at 03:58 PM.
  #111  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Under what authority can he order me to roll down windows if I refuse a search?

And let's assume that I'm in the United States so that the law isn't whatever the cop makes up on the spot and let's assume I'm not obligated to forego my Constitutional rights to make things easier on the police.
It is an illegal order? Is he/she ordering you to do something against the law? If not, then he can do it. I quoted the laws and legal cites from real lawyers, not to mention the ACLU.

Now, if what you are saying is that if he arrests you for not doing it, impounds your car, puts you in handcuffs, gives you a night in jail, makes you post bail to get out, you have to hire a decent lawyer- are you asking whether or not that lawyer can get it dismissed? Yeah, quite possibly. But after all that- you have really lost , havent you?

Because any order that isnt illegal is gonna be legal until you get in court. Very very rarely is there the ACLU there to defend you on the spot and a judge to give the ruling.
  #112  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is this true? Not a federal officer, but a regular city police officer?

Well, true I was a fed, and it's always illegal there (altho oddly, the IRS gives you quite a bit of leeway to dig yourself into a hole), but I know it's illegal in most states or localities. Might be one where it's not.

Except you can always say you didnt do it. If you stick to that one lie, with no funny stuff, you are almost always Ok.


https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/20...-to-a-cop.html
https://www.wklaw.com/lie-to-a-police-officer/
https://www.copleyroth.com/criminal-...t-lie-to-them/
  #113  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:17 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It is an illegal order? Is he/she ordering you to do something against the law? If not, then he can do it.
No he can't. That is the point in being in the United States. Your legal theory boils down to "He has a gun and handcuffs, so yes. You pretty much have to do anything he sez."

Let me put it this way. A cop comes up to your door in your house and demands that you open the door and let him look around your house. That is not an illegal act so you are claiming you MUST comply. The 4th Amendment does not exist?
  #114  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
No he can't. That is the point in being in the United States. Your legal theory boils down to "He has a gun and handcuffs, so yes. You pretty much have to do anything he sez."

Let me put it this way. A cop comes up to your door in your house and demands that you open the door and let him look around your house. That is not an illegal act so you are claiming you MUST comply. The 4th Amendment does not exist?
It is an illegal act. So, you are wrong there. "Illegal search and seizure".

and it's not "MY" theory, it is what the lawyers and the ACLU I cited have said, and so have police officers here.

Find a SDMB lawyer and have him say the opposite, then.

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-12-2019 at 06:20 PM.
  #115  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:26 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Let me put it this way. A cop comes up to your door in your house and demands that you open the door and let him look around your house. That is not an illegal act so you are claiming you MUST comply. The 4th Amendment does not exist?
Apples and oranges. During a traffic stop you, your vehicle, and all passengers in the vehicle are being temporarily seized. I have the duty to know how many people I have detained. No, I can’t just pop the trunk. Unless I have reason to believe someone is in there.

And as I have said umpteen times, if the windows are tinted to an illegal degree I can insist they be put down before your resume operating on a public road.

But this is so silly. Stuff like this never comes up. I don’t remember the last time I couldn’t view the back seat from the drivers door.

Last edited by pkbites; 06-12-2019 at 06:28 PM.
  #116  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:01 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Yes. At least in my state it is. Itís called ďResisting or Obstructing an OfficerĒ. It is a class A misdemeanor and punishable by both 9 months imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.946.41
Thanks, but that means if the cop asks "Any drugs in the car?" and the driver says "No" but then the cop finds drugs, the driver could also be charged for lying to the cop?
  #117  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:06 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Thanks, but that means if the cop asks "Any drugs in the car?" and the driver says "No" but then the cop finds drugs, the driver could also be charged for lying to the cop?
No, you can state a denial of a crime. Usually. ianal.
  #118  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:24 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It is an illegal act. So, you are wrong there. "Illegal search and seizure".

and it's not "MY" theory, it is what the lawyers and the ACLU I cited have said, and so have police officers here.

Find a SDMB lawyer and have him say the opposite, then.
Can the officer demand that you hop on one foot while whistling the Star Spangled Banner? That's not "illegal."
  #119  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:25 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
No he can't. That is the point in being in the United States. Your legal theory boils down to "He has a gun and handcuffs, so yes. You pretty much have to do anything he sez."

Let me put it this way. A cop comes up to your door in your house and demands that you open the door and let him look around your house. That is not an illegal act so you are claiming you MUST comply. The 4th Amendment does not exist?
An act in violation of the constitution is illegal. It may not be criminal. These are two different concepts.
  #120  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:57 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
and it's not "MY" theory, it is what the lawyers and the ACLU I cited have said, and so have police officers here.
None of your cites say that. Here is what your cites say

DO make sure the officer knows you do not agree to be searched (they might search you anyway, but make your opposition known). Say “I do not consent to a search.”
DON’T forget that police are legally allowed to lie, intimidate, and bluff.
DO say “I do not consent to a search.”

404 Error



And no offense to pkbites but I don't think that the police are ANY authority on this. Their profession* is notorious for making up shit just to fuck with people.

Do you want me to post the video of the Fresno cop who asked a white woman her name then moved on to a black woman, demanded to see her ID (she does not have to comply in California), then threw her to the ground and arrested her for not following his made-up law.

How about the latest video of a cop yelling "Gun Gun Gun" when the black man has his hands on the steering wheel THEN telling him to not move and then to move his hands [apparently for an excuse to shoot him in the face].

How about the numerous videos of cops planting evidence. Or better yet how about the numerous videos of cops that refuse to answer simple questions and intimidate the populous. You know, the video that go like this
<driver> Am I free to go?
<LEO> Sir I just want to talk to you
<driver> Am I free to go?
<LEO> Why are you out here tonight?
<driver> Am I free to go?
<LEO> Why don't you want to answer my question
<driver> Am I free to go?
<LEO> Sir you need to answer my question (no he doesn't)
<driver> Am I free to go?
<LEO> Sir why are you avoiding talking to me
et cetera

Plus we have phbites who has already decided that if I don't consent to a search that he will open my door anyways and on the off chance that someone is there that he needs to yank out of my car despite all evidence to the contrary (including being able to see a person through my tint if they were there).

That being said I do value Loach's contributions to the thread. They seem well thought out and balanced him doing his job with the rights of the driver.


* Yes I know, a few bad eggs and all.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 06-12-2019 at 07:58 PM.
  #121  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:10 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is this true? Not a federal officer, but a regular city police officer?
In Ohio, if the statement misleads or is intended to mislead and has relevance, it can be
Falsification or Obstructing Official business.
  #122  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:20 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Thanks, but that means if the cop asks "Any drugs in the car?" and the driver says "No" but then the cop finds drugs, the driver could also be charged for lying to the cop?
The Fed's have eliminated the "Exculpatory No" doctrine, so your Jurisdiction/State may or may not honor it?
  #123  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:41 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, you can state a denial of a crime. Usually. ianal.
Not exactly. You may want to just shut up instead of lying.

If I ask you if you have any sharp objects in your pocket before a lawful search, and you say no and I end up pricking myself of the needle in you pocket, I can charge you with both Obstructing and battery to a peace officer.
  #124  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:20 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,049
Moderator Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Not exactly. You may want to just shut up instead of lying.
Dial it back quite a bit, please. This is GQ. Stick to the facts, and attack the post, not the poster. Take the accusations of lying to the Pit if you must, and do not tell others to shut up in this forum.
  #125  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:00 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Note
Dial it back quite a bit, please. This is GQ. Stick to the facts, and attack the post, not the poster. Take the accusations of lying to the Pit if you must, and do not tell others to shut up in this forum.

You're kidding me, right? Did you read the context of my post by reading the previous posts?

I was advising that during a police encounter it is better to shut up [remain silent] rather than telling a lie to an officer.

I was not telling DrDeth to shut up, I was not calling DrDeth a liar.

There was nothing inappropriate about that post.

Your bad!
  #126  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:58 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,065
Yeah, it seemed pretty clear to me that he was telling the "hypothetical liar to the cops" to shut up, not DrDeth.
  #127  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:43 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
You're kidding me, right? Did you read the context of my post by reading the previous posts?
Whoops, my bad.

Someone reported it as an accusation of lying, and with that bias in mind before I even read the post, I obviously misunderstood.

My apologies. Carry on.
  #128  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:42 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Do you really think that restricting all cops from taking reasonable common sense measures to ensure their own safety is a sensible way to address the problem of bad cops?

I agree with Bill Maher on this. Cops are too focused on protecting their own safety. They should be trained that it is public safety they are to protect, and civil liberties they are to respect. This obviously makes the job quite a bit more dangerous, but if they cannot abide that, itís not the military: they are free to quit and seek a safer vocation.
  #129  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:09 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Thanks, but that means if the cop asks "Any drugs in the car?" and the driver says "No" but then the cop finds drugs, the driver could also be charged for lying to the cop?
In Virginia, at least, it is a crime to "knowingly and willfully make[] any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer . . . who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another." Va. Code 18.2-460. This is generally interpreted as requiring the lie to be made by someone other than the suspect. See Atkins v. Commonwealth ("By its plain language, subsection D only applies to a false statement or representation made while the officer is investigating a "crime by another," which necessarily means a crime committed by someone other than the person making the false statement or representation.").

So, if the cop asks you whether you have drugs in the car and you lie, then I don't think you have violated the statute because you are the one whose criminality is being investigated (all references to you are not intended to imply you personally).

Last edited by Falchion; 06-13-2019 at 11:10 AM.
  #130  
Old 06-13-2019, 04:04 PM
Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I know officers who order everyone out of the car at every traffic stop. And it doesnít matter if it is a car load of Q-tips, Junior Knowitalls, or Grandpa Beazel Neck. They make them get out and stand or sit by the car while they go back to the squad are write a cite. This allows them to look inside while the car doors are open.

I know one officer who makes the driver remain in the car, but open the door and turn so they are sitting sideways with their feet on the pavement.
I'm not questioning the veracity of what you wrote. I believe you. But I am astounded that making everyone get out of a vehicle during a routine stop is legal and routine.

I am even more astounded that making a driver rotate in his seat so his legs are outside the car and his car door is open can be legal and routine. What if the driver says he has a bad back and it would be painful and perhaps injurious to follow this apparently legal order? What about the cars whizzing by? Aren't they likely to tear the door off the hinges?
  #131  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:12 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orwell View Post
I'm not questioning the veracity of what you wrote. I believe you. But I am astounded that making everyone get out of a vehicle during a routine stop is legal and routine.

I am even more astounded that making a driver rotate in his seat so his legs are outside the car and his car door is open can be legal and routine. What if the driver says he has a bad back and it would be painful and perhaps injurious to follow this apparently legal order? What about the cars whizzing by? Aren't they likely to tear the door off the hinges?
It's perfectly legal on both. Though I'm sure if someone had a physical reason not to it's taken into account.

If you've been reading you'll remember that neither is something I do. I think it's safer for both the occupants and me if they remain in the vehicle. Especially when a motorcycle is involved.

And most officers I know feel the same. But there are a few that make everyone get out and sit on the curb or stand near the right front corner of the car. I understand some of the reasons they have for doing it, I just don't happen to agree.
  #132  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:51 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
It's perfectly legal on both. Though I'm sure if someone had a physical reason not to it's taken into account.

If you've been reading you'll remember that neither is something I do. I think it's safer for both the occupants and me if they remain in the vehicle. Especially when a motorcycle is involved.

And most officers I know feel the same. But there are a few that make everyone get out and sit on the curb or stand near the right front corner of the car. I understand some of the reasons they have for doing it, I just don't happen to agree.
I was watching a Cops-type show last night and wanted to get your impression of this scenario. We've done it in the "openly carrying assault-type weapons" threads, and I hope this isn't too much of a hijack, and if it is I'll take it elsewhere, but I think it is keeping with the spirits. Here is the scenario:

A guy is opening carrying an AR-15 in a city area and there is a report about it and about five cops show up. The guy starts his spiel about how open carry is legal and the cops have no RAS to stop him, that they are thugs, is he free to leave, etc.

The officer very politely explains that he does not know what type of weapon that the man is carrying and that as it looks identical, at least from a distance, to an illegal fully automatic M-16, and he has a RAS that the man is illegally in possession of a fully automatic weapon.

After about a minute of bitching back and forth, the officer makes the man put his hands out to his side while the officer takes the rifle, unloads it, inspects it, verifies that it operates semi-auto only, politely declares that his RAS has been dissipated, hands the rifle back to him and tells him that he is free to go.

The segment ends with the man walking away and bitching that this was not RAS as there are vanishly few full auto M-16s around and that the mere possession of an AR-15 cannot rise to RAS.

What say you? I am undecided at this point as the officer makes a decent, yet not entirely convincing to me, argument.
  #133  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:52 PM
Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 2,083
I would say the above scenario fails in the "R" portion of RAS. There are so few full-auto M-16s that it is unreasonable to think that the man was carrying a machine gun. Even if it were an automatic rifle, where is the reasonable suspicion that the man doesn't possess the tax stamp allowing legal ownership? I suspect the interaction was technically legal, but it surely also represents de facto harassment and suppression of rights.
  #134  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...

The officer very politely explains that he does not know what type of weapon that the man is carrying and that as it looks identical, at least from a distance, to an illegal fully automatic M-16, and he has a RAS that the man is illegally in possession of a fully automatic weapon.

After about a minute of bitching back and forth, the officer makes the man put his hands out to his side while the officer takes the rifle, unloads it, inspects it, verifies that it operates semi-auto only, politely declares that his RAS has been dissipated, hands the rifle back to him and tells him that he is free to go.

The segment ends with the man walking away and bitching that this was not RAS as there are vanishly few full auto M-16s around and that the mere possession of an AR-15 cannot rise to RAS.

What say you? I am undecided at this point as the officer makes a decent, yet not entirely convincing to me, argument.
Not reasonable, but anyone open carrying a AR15 around in a city area is a jerk, so I have no sympathy.

Holstered sidearm? Sure, fine, if he really wants to.
  #135  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:48 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What say you?
Itís absolute crap. Is that officer at the local range checking everyoneís rifle? The AR is an immensely popular firearm. Unless he could clearly articulate that he could observe a selector switch it is a bad stop.

Kind of reminds me of the stories I have heard about officers detaining open carriers so they could check that their weapon is not stolen. I donít know how often that has actually happened, but if it happened once itís too much!
  #136  
Old 06-14-2019, 04:09 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
I have brought this up before on these boards:

Every now and then, usually around Christmas, youíll hear stories about cops pulling people over on public roads to give them a gift card. No traffic violation involved. Itís either to give an Xmas gift to someone driving a junky car, or as a reward for being observed following traffic laws.

But it happens on public roads involving a full stop, lights and siren.

Myself and other officers Iíve discussed this with cannot fathom With no RAS of a violation HTF are these not illegal seizures?

If any department around here tried this the DA, if not the State Attorney General would shit.
  #137  
Old 06-14-2019, 04:25 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What say you? I am undecided at this point as the officer makes a decent, yet not entirely convincing to me, argument.
I do not think the police have a reasonable suspicion to think it is a fully automatic gun. As mentioned fully auto M-16s are very rare among the public and AR-15's are common among the public.

That said the Supreme Court has gutted the 4th amendment over the years and have given very wide latitude to the police when it comes to them deciding who they can stop. Put another way, if this guy complained his way all the way to the Supreme Court over this I'd be willing to bet he'd lose and the court would allow that stop.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-14-2019 at 04:25 PM.
  #138  
Old 06-14-2019, 04:33 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This obviously makes the job quite a bit more dangerous, but if they cannot abide that, itís not the military: they are free to quit and seek a safer vocation.
I dunno...police in places like the UK somehow manage to not keep killing criminals they are after and I do not think British police are victims more often than US police.

And FTR on the list of most dangerous jobs in the US police officer ranks as #18 so, while not "safe", it is not especially dangerous either. I think they can manage ok without being so quick to "protect" themselves.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #139  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:32 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Here's one problem that bugs me about all these "officer safety" arguments. If I were a criminal planning to kill a police officer, I wouldn't wait to reach for a gun when he's looking right at me with his hand near his holster. Not would I lurk in some backseat. I would obtain a rifle if possible, and fire as early in the encounter as feasible, when the ranges are long.

I would expect officers killed in traffic stops to have been engaged the moment they step free of their cruiser - that's the first moment their body is fully exposed and a criminal waiting in ambush should open fire right then.

If that doesn't happen, I would expect the outcome to be a peaceful encounter.

So it's one of those things - all those police shootings where this is exactly what happened, and the criminal waits to "go for his gun" until the officer has him at gunpoint and is shouting at him. And, surprise, in a scenario like this it turns out he wasn't going for a gun. Criminals may not always be smart but the average one is probably at least a marginally competent human.
You would be wrong in all your assumptions. The more typical situation is that the driver or passenger has a handgun, which is far easier to hide and used in the confined space of a vehicle. And the person with the gun is more likely to start shooting when the officer either steps up to the driver's window, or when the exchange turns from "do you know why I stopped you," to "would you step out of the vehicle please."
  #140  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:03 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have brought this up before on these boards:

Every now and then, usually around Christmas, youíll hear stories about cops pulling people over on public roads to give them a gift card. No traffic violation involved. Itís either to give an Xmas gift to someone driving a junky car, or as a reward for being observed following traffic laws.

But it happens on public roads involving a full stop, lights and siren.

Myself and other officers Iíve discussed this with cannot fathom With no RAS of a violation HTF are these not illegal seizures?

If any department around here tried this the DA, if not the State Attorney General would shit.
Yeah, I'm just waiting for one of these to backfire, like when an officer pulls someone over thinking that the driver would be a nice person to give a gift card to and once he gets to the driver's window he finds the driver drunk, the floor board filled with liquor bottles and a dead body in the backseat gutted and stuffed full of cocaine with machine guns in each hand.

When it gets to court it is pretty clearly an illegal seizure and the evidence would have to be suppressed. The driver probably gets to keep the gift card as well.
  #141  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:15 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
And FTR on the list of most dangerous jobs in the US police officer ranks as #18 so, while not "safe", it is not especially dangerous either. I think they can manage ok without being so quick to "protect" themselves.
That's under the current officer safety procedures (which you are so busily complaining about).

I can only guess how much more dangerous it would be under your rules!
Or how few people we would have willing to be cops.
  #142  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:24 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have brought this up before on these boards:

Every now and then, usually around Christmas, youíll hear stories about cops pulling people over on public roads to give them a gift card. No traffic violation involved. Itís either to give an Xmas gift to someone driving a junky car, or as a reward for being observed following traffic laws.

But it happens on public roads involving a full stop, lights and siren.

Myself and other officers Iíve discussed this with cannot fathom With no RAS of a violation HTF are these not illegal seizures?

If any department around here tried this the DA, if not the State Attorney General would shit.
But I see your larger point. Although most people are happy to receive the gift cards, what is happening is that the officer is using the power of law to command the driver to stop, despite having no lawful authority to do so, scaring the driver into thinking he or she is getting a citation and then showing the "joke" that it is really a Christmas present.

First, it is an illegal seizure. It is just good fortune that the driver is happy. It would be a few steps more intense, but it would be akin to me pulling a bag over my wife's head, stuffing her in the trunk, driving a hundred miles, forcing her out of the trunk and then SURPRISE! you're not really being kidnapped, it is me taking you to your favorite weekend getaway spot! The ends don't justify the means.

Second, maybe that person that was pulled over valued whatever they were doing more than the gift card? What if the person was late for work (and they were on their last warning) or were going to the hospital to see a spouse? It is one thing to be approached by someone handing you a leaflet or a gift card that you can waive away and continue. This is an order to stop and I think it is pretty cavalier to use that authority in such a way, even if the intention is right.
  #143  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:32 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not reasonable, but anyone open carrying a AR15 around in a city area is a jerk, so I have no sympathy.

Holstered sidearm? Sure, fine, if he really wants to.
Some videos on youtube have those. One I remember the man and cop went around, and the man said as such "Open carry, even of this assault type rifle is legal, so why did you stop me". The cop said "We have to respond to a call when we get one", etc.

Some of those videos, other subjects too, are hilarious, most have some slight knowledge of law, some more, and most quote Terry v. Ohio and won't quit yapppin.

One person stopped said he did not need a Driver's license because he was not a U.S. citizen by definition and his car was not a motor vehicle because it was not transporting in Interstate Commerce. He probably got that off that crazy dude who made a video that quoted the definition of "Carriage" from a law dictionary from the 1850's.
  #144  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:53 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2 View Post
One person stopped said he did not need a Driver's license because he was not a U.S. citizen by definition and his car was not a motor vehicle because it was not transporting in Interstate Commerce. He probably got that off that crazy dude who made a video that quoted the definition of "Carriage" from a law dictionary from the 1850's.
That's all standard Sovereign Citizen BS, it's all over the place. And of course none of it has ever worked.
  #145  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:22 AM
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 79
As far as the open carry stuff, an officer can talk to someone and make requests without it being a stop.

For the car stuff, there are distinctions that are important to make between what orders you might be required to follow or be subject to prosecution, times when it might be wise to follow an order, times when an order or subsequent action by an officer could violate the 4th Amendment, and what the consequences of that are, and times when it will be Impossible to know whether an officer's orders and actions are lawful.

The two most important points in my opinion are that there are established remedies for unconstitutional police conduct. And the system is almost entirely set up to sort those determinations out in court. There are both policy and practical reasons for that.

Importantly, there are going to be times when neither the driver nor the officer can be truly sure about the constitutionality of the officer's acts until a court rules. The court rules based on the totality of the circumstances, which can include many circumstances unknown to you as the driver of the car. You might have committed a traffic violation, and also fit the description of a person who robbed a bank 2 blocks away, with 3 other people and a bunch of guns. If you do fit the description, police can be justified in doing much more than in a plain old traffic stop, and you would not necessarily know what was going on.

At the same time, if the officer asks you to roll your windows down, you can make as clear as possible that you do not consent to a search, you can make sure it's an order, and then comply. If evidence that can be used against you is discovered, you can move to suppress it. This is when a court will say whether the officer violated your rights or not. So, like the ACLU says, clarify that you are not consenting, that you are being ordered, and then, comply with requests.* If there's no crime evidence discovered, but your vehicle is damaged, or you are greatly embarrassed by the police seeing noncontraband items, etc., you may be able to sue for violation of your constitutional rights.

* What you are required to comply with varies by jurisdiction, and won't necessarily perfectly overlap with when evidence will be suppressed

** Lying is a bad idea. If the officer did not violate your rights, the fact that you lied can be used to show knowledge and consciousness of guilt.

*** This is not legal advice. We have no lawyer client relationship. Seek legal advice from a lawyer in your jurisdiction if you find yourself in any of these situations.
  #146  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:03 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But I see your larger point. Although most people are happy to receive the gift cards, what is happening is that the officer is using the power of law to command the driver to stop, despite having no lawful authority to do so, scaring the driver into thinking he or she is getting a citation and then showing the "joke" that it is really a Christmas present.
Or even worse, cop killing and escape is better than another 20 years.
  #147  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:12 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have brought this up before on these boards:

Every now and then, usually around Christmas, youíll hear stories about cops pulling people over on public roads to give them a gift card. No traffic violation involved. Itís either to give an Xmas gift to someone driving a junky car, or as a reward for being observed following traffic laws.

But it happens on public roads involving a full stop, lights and siren.

Myself and other officers Iíve discussed this with cannot fathom With no RAS of a violation HTF are these not illegal seizures?

If any department around here tried this the DA, if not the State Attorney General would shit.
That sounds like a horrible idea. I can see all sorts of ways it could go badly wrong. And you know, if you did that to me, I'd be really pissed. I want to be left alone and get where I'm going on time a lot more than I want some random gift card. And that's without anything really bad happening.
  #148  
Old 06-16-2019, 07:51 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I have brought this up before on these boards:

Every now and then, usually around Christmas, youíll hear stories about cops pulling people over on public roads to give them a gift card. No traffic violation involved. Itís either to give an Xmas gift to someone driving a junky car, or as a reward for being observed following traffic laws.

But it happens on public roads involving a full stop, lights and siren.

Myself and other officers Iíve discussed this with cannot fathom With no RAS of a violation HTF are these not illegal seizures?

If any department around here tried this the DA, if not the State Attorney General would shit.
Somewhat related question; flipping channels & one of those Cops / Live PD / etc. shows came on. If a private citizen or a TV/movie production company pulls out a camera & starts videoing me doing ____ in public they have that right but I have the right to turn & walk/drive away.
When a police officer stops me, I am not free to walk or drive away. That cameraman is then using my legal detainment to use my image in a commercial endevour which I do not agree to participate in; it is very different than the officer's body cam which is for documentation purposes. If I am pulled over by a cop on one of those shows do I have any right to demand they stop filming/not use that footage in any show?
  #149  
Old 06-16-2019, 08:10 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Somewhat related question; flipping channels & one of those Cops / Live PD / etc. shows came on. If a private citizen or a TV/movie production company pulls out a camera & starts videoing me doing ____ in public they have that right but I have the right to turn & walk/drive away.
When a police officer stops me, I am not free to walk or drive away. That cameraman is then using my legal detainment to use my image in a commercial endevour which I do not agree to participate in; it is very different than the officer's body cam which is for documentation purposes. If I am pulled over by a cop on one of those shows do I have any right to demand they stop filming/not use that footage in any show?
Probably not.

If a citizen walking by on a public sidewalk pulls out their cellphone and starts recording you, can you demand that they stop recording you in public?

If a news reporter sees this, and reports on it in their newspaper (a commercial venture), can you demand that they don't report about you?

As far as I know, if:
1) this is happening in public, and
2) they are not interfering or obstructing the police,
then I believe that you are not able to stop them from recording, reporting, or publishing about this.
  #150  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:11 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2 View Post
The cop said "We have to respond to a call when we get one", etc.

While this is mostly true, it does not give the officer cause to detain someone who is not doing something illegal. He can walk along side them and talk to them, but an actual stop, no. Just because somebody was upset over it and called the police does not make the reported act RS for a stop. People call the police all the time for stuff they don't like. Doesn't make that stuff illegal.

My state added a sub-section to it's Disorderly Conduct statute specifically stating that openly carrying a firearm was not Disorderly Conduct, and a person could not be charged with DC for doing it. So when Granny Fanny Nesslerode loses her shit because someone is walking down the street exercising their right to openly carry a firearm, it doesn't make the OCer suspect just because somebody doesn't like it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017