Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:09 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I would answer using my training and experience but too many police state/they are just going to plant evidence answers for me to bother.

Same here.

But with that said I would not let another cop (or anyone else) search anything of mine voluntarily.

I won't even allow the person at the Walmart look at my bags/receipt. Sounds fanatical but there's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #52  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:14 PM
purplehorseshoe purplehorseshoe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
We've had similar threads like this in the past, and the consensus is always the same: you should never give permission for an LEO to search your vehicle. Even if you have "nothing to hide," there's a chance there's illegal drugs or contraband in your vehicle that have been there for years and you're completely unaware of it. And then there's the risk of a rogue cop planting evidence.



There's nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by granting permission for a search. It's simply not worth it.
I've heard or somehow gotten the idea that disallowing a search is considered probable cause (because if I had nothing to hide, why wouldn't I consent?) and therefore you can't really do much to prevent a search anyway.

Catch-22.

Can anyone comment if that's true, or just one of those things people tell each other?
__________________
I can haz sig line?
  #53  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:19 PM
LTU2 LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe View Post
I've heard or somehow gotten the idea that disallowing a search is considered probable cause (because if I had nothing to hide, why wouldn't I consent?) and therefore you can't really do much to prevent a search anyway.

Catch-22.

Can anyone comment if that's true, or just one of those things people tell each other?
Quite untrue!
  #54  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:22 PM
Drum God Drum God is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Central Texas, USA
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I would answer using my training and experience but too many police state/they are just going to plant evidence answers for me to bother.
I'm sorry to hear that. My question was asked out of simple curiosity and not any sort of malice toward any police officer. In my most-recent traffic stop (which only occur about every fifteen years or so for me), the two Texas State Troopers behaved professionally and courteously. The only thing unusual to me was the request to lower the rear window, but I assumed this was so that the officer could better assess his safety. I am in a border region and it is quite possible that these particular troopers were there to assist in immigration enforcement.
__________________
At the feast of ego, everyone leaves hungry.
  #55  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:41 PM
LTU2 LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
IIRC in a recent court decision (Appeal? SCOTUS?) it was determined that extending a traffic stop beyond what was necessary (in this case, actually to get the dogs to arrive) was considered arrest, and therefore needed probable cause. Broken taillight was not probable cause beyond the time it would normally take to right the appropriate ticket. For a detention beyond that, they needed the proper PC to keep the person around afterwards.
Any extended UNjustified detention could very well be considered an Arrest, yes, that was addressed many many years ago by SCOTUS.
  #56  
Old 02-05-2019, 11:11 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
No, it's not. Without reasonable cause, searching my car is a violation of my rights. Would you feel the same if the police wanted to search your car? Your phone? Your laptop?

An unjustified search is not protection, it's an invasion of privacy and violation of your civil rights. The police have a difficult and dangerous job to do, and we want them to do it. But that doesn't give them free reign to ride roughshod over an individual's rights. The police have the powers they need to do the job at hand.
This assumes that "unjustified search" is equivalent to "searches not authorized without warrant by the Constitution." That's an improper equivalence.

The Constitution puts some strict limits on unwarranted (in the meaning of lacking a warrant) searches. It does so for a good reason: the Founding Fathers had plenty of experience with the King's representatives searching people and their premises for a whole host of reasons that didn't have much to do with anything other than the rumor that the person was traitorous. The whole American judicial/criminal system hinges upon the idea that we treat people as NOT committing a crime unless and until we have good reason to believe otherwise. Thus, we either go get a judge to authorize a search, or we have some very limited circumstances where we go ahead and search without that permission.

The trouble with this is that it has the potential to allow people who are committing a violation of the law to avoid being detected, because while a reasonable suspicion is being formed, the relevant higher standard for a warrantless search has not been met. In addition, in the modern era (starting roughly with the Warren court of the 1950s), judges have been encouraged to second-guess such searches from a hind-sight standpoint. Yes, we are always told that the review of the search should be based on what the officer knew at the time, but some courts simply pay lip service to that standard. So an officer may have a decent enough reason to think, "maybe I ought to search the car", but may either a) lack "proper" reason under case law, or b) be worried that he'll be second-guessed as lacking that proper reason.

Of course, all this is obviated by the simple question, "May I search your car?" If I get a "Yes" answer, I can proceed without worrying about the lack of the warrant. There's nothing inherently wrong with an officer doing that.
  #57  
Old 02-06-2019, 06:20 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,986
I wasn't using unwarranted in a legal sense. Substitute "unnecessary" instead. Sorry for the confusion.
  #58  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:08 AM
spifflog spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
We've had similar threads like this in the past, and the consensus is always the same: you should never give permission for an LEO to search your vehicle. Even if you have "nothing to hide," there's a chance there's illegal drugs or contraband in your vehicle [I]that have been there for years and you're completely unaware of it[/] . . .
I read this all the time on these threads. I understand DWB concerns over sections of our country. That is absolutely horrible, but I unfortunately understand that concern, and would probably factor that significantly in any decision I’d make.

But this whole “you never know if a prior owner left a crack pipe in your car that you never saw” or “you never know if your son’s friend left drugs in your car” is a crock. If you’re hanging with people that are leaving drugs in your car, that’s a YOU problem. And if you really think there is cocaine left in your car for five years ago when you bought it you’re just looking for an excuse.
  #59  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:12 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
Nothing in this thread has changed my mind that if you don't have something to hide, you don't have anything to worry about. If you act like a dick of course the cops will think you have something you shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
To each his own, I agree. And this is EXACTLY what a federal case is. The quickest way to move on to work that is important to our society is if he doesn't search your car. Just cause he or she has a badge and a gun doesn't make them right.

A search without probable cause isn't work that is important to our society.
This.

Patrick Henry, the Give me liberty or give me death guy was against the Bill of Rights, giving as the reason the fear that people would come to regard them as the only rights they have as opposed to deliniating the rights government has, a prediction that has become true in the long term.

Here is a four-minute YouTube video on how to act at a traffic stop -- with exaggerated acting; I have never had a cop act that unprofessionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I won't even allow the person at the Walmart look at my bags/receipt. Sounds fanatical but there's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way.
For Burning Man I camp with a group of about 250, one of the larger camps there. In early August I'm part of the crew that buys about $3,200 worth of consumables for the camp; it comes to about three orange truck stacked to waist-high with the square stuff and two shopping carts with the irregular bags.

On leaving the store, we 'insist' the door-checker tick off every item; they just roll their eyes and wave up through.
  #60  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:22 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
If you’re hanging with people that are leaving drugs in your car, that’s a YOU problem.
Personally, I see it as a feature, not a bug.
  #61  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:45 AM
spifflog spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Personally, I see it as a feature, not a bug.
We'll, If they leave and and don't share it's a problem.
  #62  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:58 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
But this whole “you never know if a prior owner left a crack pipe in your car that you never saw” or “you never know if your son’s friend left drugs in your car” is a crock. If you’re hanging with people that are leaving drugs in your car, that’s a YOU problem. And if you really think there is cocaine left in your car for five years ago when you bought it you’re just looking for an excuse.
There's also the risk that you'll get arrested for having stuff in your car that is absolutely not drugs in any sense of the word. People have been arrested for having donut crumbs, flour, herbs, any item that conceivably looks like a drug could get you hauled away.

My vote is no, you don't get blanket permission to search my stuff just for asking. If they had the authority to search my car, they'd just search it.

What's the difference between letting a cop search my car and letting some rando on the street search it? Answer - The cop is looking for a reason to arrest me, and the rando isn't.
  #63  
Old 02-06-2019, 09:59 AM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckdawrek View Post
I said "IMHO", Your opinion is different.
It's not an opinion. Ask any lawyer in the country. It's a legal fact that you have much to lose and nothing to gain by consenting to a search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe View Post
I've heard or somehow gotten the idea that disallowing a search is considered probable cause (because if I had nothing to hide, why wouldn't I consent?) and therefore you can't really do much to prevent a search anyway.

Catch-22.

Can anyone comment if that's true, or just one of those things people tell each other?
Not true. If an officer has probable cause, they will not ask your permission. Asking your permission to search your vehicle is an admission by the officer that they have no legal reason to search you and they're just fishing.

That said, there is very little stopping a cop from saying "I smell weed" and using that as probable cause. So you're correct that there isn't much you can do to stop a search if the police are determined enough to perform one. But once they've asked your permission, you already know they aren't that determined. So just say no.
  #64  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:27 AM
rbroome rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I would answer using my training and experience but too many police state/they are just going to plant evidence answers for me to bother.
I am not a cop and I appreciate your contributions to the many threads you have helped over the years. In this case I have to agree with you. For some reason this thread is full of negativity toward daily police work. Not all threads are.

The OPs question has been answered. If someone is pulled over and the officer establishes probable cause there will be a search. If not, no search. At that point the OP has his answer.

All the speculation and assumptions that have been provided are ancillary to the question and really shouldn't be in GQ.
  #65  
Old 02-06-2019, 11:03 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe
I've heard or somehow gotten the idea that disallowing a search is considered probable cause (because if I had nothing to hide, why wouldn't I consent?) and therefore you can't really do much to prevent a search anyway.
This is not true. The common definition of probable cause is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". Are you nervous/fidgety? Refusing to consent to a search?
Maybe you don't want the officer pawing through your perfectly legal collection of bondage gear and latex masks. Or finding your legit prescription bottle of Viagra. Or the big bag of Poise incontinence pads you just bought. Or maybe you just don't want him getting dirt all over the light-colored upholstery in your new Tesla. There could be a hundred reasons why someone would not consent to a search; "breaking the law" is only one of those possible reasons. That being the case, refusal to consent would mean only a one-in-a-hundred chance that someone is breaking the law; hardly probable cause.

OTOH, there aren't many things that smell like marijuana that are not in fact marijuana, and there aren't many things that look like an open container on the floor or a gun on the seat that are not in fact those things. If a cop smells something like weed, or sees something like a beer can or gun, that's probable cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Not true. If an officer has probable cause, they will not ask your permission. Asking your permission to search your vehicle is an admission by the officer that they have no legal reason to search you and they're just fishing.
If they're asking permission, they may or may not have probable cause; you have no idea which is the case. If an officer believes he has probable cause for a search, he may still ask for permission, which serves as a backup against his probable cause being thrown out later in court. So if he believes he has PC, and he asks you for permission to search, there are two possibilities:

#1: You consent, and he searches and finds evidence that leads to criminal charges. His probable cause is later found out to be bogus/unacceptably weak, but it doesn't matter because you consented to the search. The evidence remains in place against you.

#2: You don't consent, but he searches and finds evidence that leads to criminal charges. His probable cause is later found out to be bogus/unacceptably weak, and the evidence he found against you is disallowed.

Last edited by Machine Elf; 02-06-2019 at 11:04 AM.
  #66  
Old 02-06-2019, 11:21 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Not true. If an officer has probable cause, they will not ask your permission. Asking your permission to search your vehicle is an admission by the officer that they have no legal reason to search you and they're just fishing.
This statement is demonstrably false. An officer will often ask permission, even in the presence of evidence justifying a warrantless search, because, as I pointed out, consent to the search ends any second-guessing by a court later. I have, on two occasions, had my car searched after having declined to assent to such searches. Whether or not the officer actually had a valid justification for the search in each case was never tested, as, of course, there was nothing turned up in the search.
  #67  
Old 02-06-2019, 12:11 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
People have been arrested for having donut crumbs, flour, herbs, any item that conceivably looks like a drug could get you hauled away.
This is what a Narcopouch is for. I'd much rather determine what something is in the field rather than go through the entire process of booking someone, sealing up a lab kit, etc.. If I bring in a crumb of a doughnut that is obviously a crumb I'm going to get my ass chewed, first by the lab techs, then by my brass.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I Not true. If an officer has probable cause, they will not ask your permission. Asking your permission to search your vehicle is an admission by the officer that they have no legal reason to search you and they're just fishing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
This statement is demonstrably false. An officer will often ask permission, even in the presence of evidence justifying a warrantless search, because, as I pointed out, consent to the search ends any second-guessing by a court later.
This is what I was going to post. I've yet to see an attorney beat both PC and consent.
  #68  
Old 02-06-2019, 12:46 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna Johanna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I would answer using my training and experience but too many police state/they are just going to plant evidence answers for me to bother.
What's with the passive-aggressive snit? If you have something to say, just say it already. Let your argument stand or fall on its own merits.

Last edited by Johanna; 02-06-2019 at 12:47 PM.
  #69  
Old 02-06-2019, 01:28 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
This is what a Narcopouch is for. I'd much rather determine what something is in the field rather than go through the entire process of booking someone, sealing up a lab kit, etc.. If I bring in a crumb of a doughnut that is obviously a crumb I'm going to get my ass chewed, first by the lab techs, then by my brass.
Glazed Donut Crumb field tests positive as Meth with a bonus of drywall dust testing positive as cocaine.

Quote:
This is what I was going to post. I've yet to see an attorney beat both PC and consent.
It's not my job to help you beat my attorney, and it's more than a little uncool to pressure me to do so.
  #70  
Old 02-06-2019, 01:40 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
What's with the passive-aggressive snit? If you have something to say, just say it already. Let your argument stand or fall on its own merits.
If the assumption is the police are criminals who will do whatever they want and the law be damned then the well is too poisoned to have a good discussion about the law. That’s neither passive aggressive nor a snit.
  #71  
Old 02-06-2019, 01:47 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
That said, there is very little stopping a cop from saying "I smell weed" and using that as probable cause. So you're correct that there isn't much you can do to stop a search if the police are determined enough to perform one. But once they've asked your permission, you already know they aren't that determined. So just say no.
It's also possible that the cop is saying "I smell weed" to see your reaction, and also to get you to say "I don't have any weed" so he can say "then I can go ahead and search?" and you will then say Yes. If he says "I smell weed" and you respond "I don't consent to any searches" and he goes ahead and searches anyway, then he has or thinks he has probable cause. If he then finds weed, you are SOL. If he doesn't, then you might be able to complain but it is going to be your word against his.

The basic answer to "what happens after you decline a search" is that the officer tries to get you to consent. They are good at that. You don't have to consent, anymore than you have to answer questions. If standing on your rights is worth the hassle of prolonging the stop, good for you and that is a principled position. If just saying "go ahead and search if you want" gets you on your way sooner, and you are reasonably sure that your best friend or son or whatever didn't leave his crack pipe under the seat, then there is an upside to not standing on your rights. You might still get a ticket, but at least you won't be standing on the roadside for as long.

The idea that cops routinely carry drugs which they then plant on people willy-nilly just because, or to pad their arrest statistics, strikes me as unlikely.

As I have mentioned before, if I were accused of a crime and I was innocent, I would blab my head off, let the police search my car, whatever. If I were guilty, I would refuse searches, refuse to answer questions, the whole nine yards. IOW I would expect to act like I had something to hide, because I did.

Do I believe that people who invoke their rights should be considered guilty, either by the cops or by the courts? Hell no. But I still think most of them are.

And of course, my extensive research (in the form of watching Cops) leads me to believe that most criminals, especially street criminals, are really fucking stupid. And those criminal's "sure - go ahead and search, I've got nothing to hide" is usually followed by "those aren't my drugs". And there's been no planting involved.

Regards,
Shodan
  #72  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:31 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Certainly there are racist cops but I've seen plenty of horrifying videos where they blow white people away for no reason as well like that video where the SWAT team guy shoots the terrified young white guy on the floor, in a hotel hallway for failure to follow impossible to obey commands, I think the bigger issue is the whole militarization of the police in general, race is certainly part of it but it's the smaller symptom of the overall problem....
Sorry off topic, but my opinion anyway.
Even non racist cops tend to treat minorities a bit different*, but it is more on how you are dressed, you car and how you comport yourself. If you are wearing gang colors, expect to be hassled. Talking back instead of respect- hassled.

But yeah, the militarization of police is a big issue. Notice how they call non-police "civilians" where of course most police are civilians themselves.

* in areas where there are ghettos, there is more crime there, so .....
  #73  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:32 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
I understand not wanting trouble and all, but isn't not being enemies a two-way thing? If he's not treating you like the enemy, why is he searching your car?
Maybe you are on a major drug highway or in a neighborhood known for drug sales.
  #74  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I would answer using my training and experience but too many police state/they are just going to plant evidence answers for me to bother.
Now that I am older, drive a Volvo and am a retired Fed, they never ask to search my car.

But yeah, when I was a young smartass driving a souped up Impala, they did, and the LAPD even planted drugs on me once. Dismissed of course.
  #75  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:39 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe View Post
I've heard or somehow gotten the idea that disallowing a search is considered probable cause (because if I had nothing to hide, why wouldn't I consent?) and therefore you can't really do much to prevent a search anyway.

Catch-22.

Can anyone comment if that's true, or just one of those things people tell each other?

Very untrue and the same with "taking the 5th". Saying "Am I free to go?" and if the answer is no or they read you your rights, your only response (after basic ID) should be "I want to call my attorney" and then STFU.

I do believe that if they are asking you questions just as a witness, you should answer. But still, be careful.
  #76  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:41 PM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,540
I'm retired from the job and currently instruct in a police academy. The simple answer to OP is this - if he has probable cause he can/will search without your permission. If he doesn't and you refuse consent, that ought to be the end of it. In my state the officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that (far less than probable cause) to believe that there may be evidence of a crime in the car to even ask for consent. There is a form that you must read/have read to you spelling out all your rights regarding a consent search. Smelling weed on your coat would be considered RAS. In fact, that might be considered probable cause. As the marijuana laws are changing that will get murkier.

As for the "dispatch says your car matches a burglary suspect's" trick, that alone, even if true, is not probable cause to search and if the officer tried that ploy, he would have to produce some evidence that it was the truth -(911 tapes or written reports regarding the burglary) at a suppression hearing. In any warrantless search the burden is on the state to prove that the search was justified, not on the accused to prove that it wasn't. Sadly, there are a small minority of officers who will search first and seek or invent PC later. In their minds "the ends justify the means". Why they would jeopardize their careers for a bullshit drug bust (or even a major one) is beyond me. My pension and security for my my family meant too much to me to pull that crap. (Not to mention its illegal.) Once you are found to have no credibility in court your career is, essentially, over. Society made the laws and if they hamper me in my ability to catch bad guys, so be it. Its not me personally paying the price but society as a whole. For the most part, I would advise family and friends to refuse consent. It pains me to say it but even if the risk is very small that they would get set up by a dirty cop, its still too big a risk. Of course, there are exceptions. If there is a manhunt underway for a school shooter or something and they ask to look in your trunk as you are passing through the area, go ahead and open the trunk (assuming you don't have a meth lab back there). A traffic stop leading to the request? Nope.

Last edited by MikeF; 02-06-2019 at 02:42 PM.
  #77  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:45 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
As I have mentioned before, if I were accused of a crime and I was innocent, I would blab my head off, let the police search my car, whatever. If I were guilty, I would refuse searches, refuse to answer questions, the whole nine yards. IOW I would expect to act like I had something to hide, because I did.
This seems like a good idea until it backfires.
Quote:
...even if you haven't committed a crime, it's dangerous to tell the police any information. You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime.
And don't forget, spouses/significant others are favorite suspects in murder cases. So you get home from work, find the missus in the living room with an axe in her forehead, you call 911 and the cops show up--YOU know you didn't do it, couldn't have because of what you think is a reasonable explanation. THEY think you're a suspect and will poke holes in your story, which you told shortly after finding your wife slaughtered like a pig in your home. You'll mess up something "trivial" like what time you left work to head home, or what time you got home, and when that doesn't fit the facts, you must have been lying. If not the cops, the DA will get you. Just don't talk.

You can't count on cops & DAs wanting to find perpetrators, you can count on them solving cases. If the facts can tell a plausible (if incorrect) story, and you fit into that story, you're done.
  #78  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:46 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
...
But this whole “you never know if a prior owner left a crack pipe in your car that you never saw” or “you never know if your son’s friend left drugs in your car” is a crock. If you’re hanging with people that are leaving drugs in your car, that’s a YOU problem. And if you really think there is cocaine left in your car for five years ago when you bought it you’re just looking for an excuse.
You dont know anyone who smokes MJ? Or takes prescription pills? They leave a tylenol with codeine there, and you dont have a 'script, and you will spend the night in jail, pay bail, pay a lawyer, and get a drug arrest on your record. Yeah, you will beat it, after thousands of dollars.

Be a smartass or fit into whatever the cop thinks is "drug mule" category and he can drop a baggie.
  #79  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:51 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But yeah, the militarization of police is a big issue. Notice how they call non-police "civilians" where of course most police are civilians themselves.
Wrong. Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters.
Quote:
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
  #80  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:11 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
Wrong. Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters.
You're flatly declaring "wrong" based on a dictionary entry? I flatly call you wrong based on my Wikipedia article, which unlike your link, comes with references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
  #81  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:12 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
Wrong. Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civilian
civilian
The most common meaning for civilian is simply someone who is not in the military. It can also refer to any object that is not military in origin — e.g., "civilian clothes" or "civilian life."


So, the police have managed to change the definition of civilian in a few cases.
  #82  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:14 PM
Sicks Ate Sicks Ate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: KS, US
Posts: 6,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civilian

civilian

The most common meaning for civilian is simply someone who is not in the military. It can also refer to any object that is not military in origin — e.g., "civilian clothes" or "civilian life."




So, the police have managed to change the definition of civilian in a few cases.
And firefighters managed to get tacked on post - 9/11.
  #83  
Old 02-06-2019, 06:29 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
You're flatly declaring "wrong" based on a dictionary entry? I flatly call you wrong based on my Wikipedia article, which unlike your link, comes with references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
The first reference is to the definition I previously linked. The second one is to dictionary.com, which has a nearly identical definition:
Quote:
noun
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
Those are the only references in the article that pertain to definition.

Cambridge, Macillan, Oxford Advanced Learner's also include police in the definition.
  #84  
Old 02-06-2019, 06:45 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
The first reference is to the definition I previously linked. The second one is to dictionary.com, which has a nearly identical definition:


Those are the only references in the article that pertain to definition.

Cambridge, Macillan, Oxford Advanced Learner's also include police in the definition.
You are declaring someone wrong based on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they describe various ways people use words.

I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones.
  #85  
Old 02-06-2019, 07:40 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
You are declaring someone wrong based on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they describe various ways people use words.

I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones.
Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it is not a reliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...eliable_source

What value it has comes from being a quick and easy way to find proper references, if the article is properly cited. And in this case, despite what the text of the article says, the references cited in the article concerning the definition agree with what I linked. The first citation IS what I linked. The author misquotes the definition cited as "a person who is not a member of the military” when it in fact says "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force"
  #86  
Old 02-06-2019, 07:49 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it is not a reliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...eliable_source
That you are attempting to discredit Wikipedia as an entity instead of solely attacking the facts in the article is telling.

Quote:
And in this case, despite what the text of the article says, the references cited in the article concerning the definition agree with what I linked. The first citation IS what I linked. The author misquotes the definition cited as "a person who is not a member of the military” when it in fact says "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force"
"The" references, eh? I made it clear I am talking about "legal" references. Go attack those and get back to me.
  #87  
Old 02-06-2019, 07:50 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
In my experience, they come back after a few minutes in their car and say they radioed in your plate and were told the vehicle had been used in a burglary. That justifies their search, and of course you have no way to challenge what they "heard" the dispatcher report.
Assuming the vehicle was NOT used in a burglary, you'd win that lawsuit so fast the lawyers would get whiplash.
  #88  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:00 PM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
Police are not civilians. Nor are firefighters.
When I was in the military, they sure seemed civilian to me.

Just because they often have ARs instead of shotguns now, or might have surplus military gear on hand, does not make civil police (nor firefighters) noncivilian. I understand this a pooly expressed way to say "us" and "them" to each other, but that does not make the expression correct.
  #89  
Old 02-06-2019, 09:13 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Glazed Donut Crumb field tests positive as Meth with a bonus of drywall dust testing positive as cocaine.
These are anomalies. Usually doesn't happen this way. And it's better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab. And those payouts are ludicrous! Bad arrests are truly a terrible, terrible thing to happen, but those made on good faith don't result in payouts that high around here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It's not my job to help you beat my attorney, and it's more than a little uncool to pressure me to do so.
Asking for permission to search your vehicle isn't "pressuring" you.
  #90  
Old 02-06-2019, 09:28 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
These are anomalies. Usually doesn't happen this way.
So what? "Not usually" and "anomalies" doesn't equal rare. From that same article:
Quote:
A 2016 investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times found that tens of thousands of people are sent to jail each year based on the kits' results, which often generate false positives:

Quote:
"Some tests ... use a single tube of a chemical called cobalt thiocyanate, which turns blue when it is exposed to cocaine. But cobalt thiocyanate also turns blue when it is exposed to more than 80 other compounds, including methadone, certain acne medications and several common household cleaners. Other tests use three tubes, which the officer can break in a specific order to rule out everything but the drug in question — but if the officer breaks the tubes in the wrong order, that, too, can invalidate the results. The environment can also present problems. Cold weather slows the color development; heat speeds it up, or sometimes prevents a color reaction from taking place at all."
Data from the state law enforcement lab in Florida found that 21 percent of the evidence recorded by police as methamphetamine was not in fact methamphetamine, and of that, half was not illegal drugs at all, according to the ProPublica investigation: "When we examined the department's records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result."
Quote:
And it's better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab.
It's even better to not give the cops permission to field test your doughnut crumbs.
  #91  
Old 02-06-2019, 09:57 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
That you are attempting to discredit Wikipedia as an entity instead of solely attacking the facts in the article is telling.


"The" references, eh? I made it clear I am talking about "legal" references. Go attack those and get back to me.
If I'm "discrediting" Wikipedia, then so is Wikipedia. Those were their words, not mine. And I'm not attacking anything. "The" references are the references cited IN THE ARTICLE.

I've already demonstrated that the cite given for the definition at the beginning of the article doesn't support the author's definition. The line the author put in quotes is not in the footnoted reference.

The document linked at the end that is claimed to be the DoD "definition" of civilian does not itself claim to be a legal definition of civilian. It's a directive for cooperating with "civilian law enforcement officials". The definition section just clarifies what the word means in the context of that directive, not what it means outside that context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
When I was in the military, they sure seemed civilian to me.

Just because they often have ARs instead of shotguns now, or might have surplus military gear on hand, does not make civil police (nor firefighters) noncivilian. I understand this a pooly expressed way to say "us" and "them" to each other, but that does not make the expression correct.
It's more the other way around. The military thinking of police as civilian matches Oxford's informal definition, "A person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group," but like it or not the formal definition of civilian excludes police.
  #92  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:54 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug K. View Post
If I'm "discrediting" Wikipedia, then so is Wikipedia.
You're not getting my point. Going after Wikipedia as a whole instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article is what's telling.

Quote:
I've already demonstrated that the cite given for the definition at the beginning of the article doesn't support the author's definition. The line the author put in quotes is not in the footnoted reference.
That happens as the content in links change. Since it's a link to an online dictionary page, it's not surprising. Dictionaries change definitions. It's not necessarily a case of misquoting as you contended. But I don't really care as I have pointed out, I obviously did not link to the entry for dictionary definitions- I obviously quoted the entry for the legal definitions as I keep telling you.

Quote:
The document linked at the end that is claimed to be the DoD "definition" of civilian does not itself claim to be a legal definition of civilian. It's a directive for...
"Claimed" to be? It's a direct link to a DoD Directive on fas.org. Seriously?

Hell, I'll just spoon feed it to you:
Quote:
According to Article 50 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, "1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. 2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. 3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." The definition is negative and defines civilians as persons who do not belong to definite categories. The categories of persons mentioned in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of the Protocol I are combatants. Therefore, the Commentary to the Protocol pointed that, any one who is not a member of the armed forces is a civilian.
Technical and legal. That trumps dictionary definitions by far.

As far as a DoD directive not being a legal definition, it is a technical one. Again, trumping dictionary definitions. BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don't include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong?
  #93  
Old 02-06-2019, 11:33 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
It's even better to not give the cops permission to field test your doughnut crumbs.
Post #51.

But that's me. If other people want to give permission that's their choice. And in my experience about 80%+ give permission, including those that have something to hide.
  #94  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:03 AM
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Chicago Savant
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
Assuming the vehicle was NOT used in a burglary, you'd win that lawsuit so fast the lawyers would get whiplash.
Really? Assuming anyone would take (or allow to proceed to trial) a Section 1983 case where there are no damages, what evidence can I offer that overcomes the cop's testimony that he thought the dispatcher said "it's dirty." Or that the dispatcher heard "five" when he'd said "nine?"
  #95  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:23 AM
K2500 K2500 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post

Asking for permission to search your vehicle isn't "pressuring" you.
True, though I'll say sometimes it feels like pressure. Maybe it's the circumstance or maybe some of these guys are really good at making questions sound very unquestionable. Which I suppose could be an advantageous ability.

---

For my part, I would refuse permission. If he's got his cause or can manufacture one he'll search anyways and if he doesn't he won't. Hell, I won't even give my name unless our specific interaction demands it.
  #96  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:25 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,812
I lived in Japan for 25 years over almost 40! year period. (Damn, I’m getting old.)

It interesting to compare the differences in the legal systems and how police act, etc.

Police in Japan and Taiwan are much less active(?) in terms of searching out people to search. Fewer traffic stops, fewer tickets and not really the issue with searching.

However, if you get on the wrong side of the things, there are fewer safeguards. There is a huge problem with forced confessions in Japan. The conviction rate is something like 99%, which is insanely high. There’s just no way that the police and DAs are that good. Many of the convictions are from forced confessions.

In America, I’m another middle age, middle class white guy. The only interaction I’ve had with American LEO in the last 30 years was quite professional. I was stopped in Georgia for going over a double yellow line. I only had my Taiwanese drivers license on me. My wife had our International Permits (which are just a translations anyway) but they were really cool about it. They were quite polite and professional. They asked if I had been drinking, which is a reasonable thing to ask, and I laughed because I had just pulled out from the parking lot for the AA meeting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
I’d like to move on as quickly as possible, and I’d like him to move on to other work, that is important to our society.
Officers should be doing their work, which is to not waste time on fishing expeditions. If there are reasonable grounds for a search, do the search. If there isn’t, then the responsibility for not wasting the officer’s time doesn’t fall on the driver; it’s up to the officer to take a “no” and ove one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
Sometimes just cooperating with the police, not treating them like the enemy and showing them a bit of respect is the way to go.
Other people have commented on this, but declining a search is not treating someone like an enemy nor is it being disrespectful. One can be respectful while declining. There isn’t a need to go all sovereign citizen on the officer. Just say no.
  #97  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:35 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
But this whole “you never know if a prior owner left a crack pipe in your car that you never saw” or “you never know if your son’s friend left drugs in your car” is a crock. If you’re hanging with people that are leaving drugs in your car, that’s a YOU problem. And if you really think there is cocaine left in your car for five years ago when you bought it you’re just looking for an excuse.
An excuse for what?
  #98  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:14 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
These are anomalies. Usually doesn't happen this way. And it's better to field test than to take every little speck in and clog up the state crime lab.
It's better for you, I fail to see how it's better for me.
Quote:
Asking for permission to search your vehicle isn't "pressuring" you.
Do you think you get 80% acceptance without the people you ask feeling pressure to acquiesce?

You're a cop. You have me in a compromised position, a position of extreme uncertainty. Uncertainty that you, the cop, are in absolute control over. You then suggest that this position of uncertainty (of which you are in complete control) will end favorably if I agree to something. If that's not pressure, I'm happy to use an alternate word to describe it, but it's why people agree to it.
  #99  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:47 AM
Doug K. Doug K. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
You're not getting my point. Going after Wikipedia as a whole instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article is what's telling.
Pointing out that Wikipedia acknowledges being an unreliable source is a response to this:
Quote:
I am declaring you wrong based on a Wikipedia article that actually uses prescriptive defenitions- legal ones.
And I have dug into the sources for the opening section. They don't support the opening section.
Quote:
That happens as the content in links change. Since it's a link to an online dictionary page, it's not surprising. Dictionaries change definitions. It's not necessarily a case of misquoting as you contended. But I don't really care as I have pointed out, I obviously did not link to the entry for dictionary definitions- I obviously quoted the entry for the legal definitions as I keep telling you.
The content of the link has not changed since at least 2009, which is as far back as the Wayback Machine goes. What has changed is the text of the article. And less than two months ago. Here's how the article began until 12/23/2018
Quote:
A civilian is "a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force".
Quote:
"Claimed" to be? It's a direct link to a DoD Directive on fas.org. Seriously?

Hell, I'll just spoon feed it to you:

Technical and legal. That trumps dictionary definitions by far.

As far as a DoD directive not being a legal definition, it is a technical one. Again, trumping dictionary definitions. BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don't include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong?
The link to the DoD directive reads "US DoD definition of the term Civilian, refers to civilian law enforcement agencies". The document linked includes definitions for "Civilian Agency" and "Civilian Law Enforcement Official", but not for "Civilian", although their definitions imply that they are using the term in the "specialist in Roman or modern civil law" sense.

I've already read the section on Geneva Convention protocols, and I also checked those references. Article 50 is defining who is covered by article 51, but it doesn't dictate the use of the term outside the Geneva Conventions.
  #100  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:19 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
This seems like a good idea until it backfires.And don't forget, spouses/significant others are favorite suspects in murder cases. So you get home from work, find the missus in the living room with an axe in her forehead, you call 911 and the cops show up--YOU know you didn't do it, couldn't have because of what you think is a reasonable explanation. THEY think you're a suspect and will poke holes in your story, which you told shortly after finding your wife slaughtered like a pig in your home. You'll mess up something "trivial" like what time you left work to head home, or what time you got home, and when that doesn't fit the facts, you must have been lying. If not the cops, the DA will get you. Just don't talk.
Nope. I am innocent, which means someone else did it. I want that someone else caught and convicted. If I can tell the police anything that will assist that, I am willing to take the chance.

Yes, of course I am going to make mistakes and there will be inconsistencies. All stories, true and false, have inconsistencies. So what if I said I left work at 5:30 and it was really 5:45? I didn't do it. If inconsistencies in an alibi were all that it took to convict someone, nobody would ever be acquitted.
Quote:
You can't count on cops & DAs wanting to find perpetrators, you can count on them solving cases. If the facts can tell a plausible (if incorrect) story, and you fit into that story, you're done.
Sorry - I don't believe this. "We don't care if you are guilty or innocent as long as we can clear the case" - not buying it.

TV isn't real, and false convictions are man bites dog cases. Besides - I am upper-middle class, boringly conventional, and I didn't do it.

Regards,
Shodan
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 05:39 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