Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:26 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
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.
I know. My point that you have gone after Wikipedia as a whole, instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article remains.

Me saying "I am declaring you wrong" was in response to you claiming someone else was wrong because "look what this dictionary says." I don't usually go around declaring there is one way to define a word, but me doing so in this case was based on your fiat declaration that firefighters and police aren't civilians because of a dictionary definition.

Quote:
The content of the link has not changed since...
Read the part where I don't care. I care about the prescriptive definitions in that entry!

Quote:
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.
Wow, are you stretching! A "Civilian Law Enforcement Official" is...a civilian.

Quote:
I've already read the section on Geneva Convention protocols
I bet you have. It's why you skipped to a link on the bottom of the wiki article to tackle instead of the content you were aware I was referring to which isn't so easy to.

Quote:
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.
This is great! Your rebuttal to the a official definition of a word in the Geneva Conventions, a legal Act binding in close to two hundred countries, is that it has no authority to define the word OUTSIDE of the Geneva Conventions? Love it!



And your official definition is where? You skipped this question:

BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don't include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong?

A poster referred to police officers not in the military as being civilians and you flatly called him "wrong" and based it on one dictionary definition. That definition included firefighters, yet when you cited two more dictionaries, firefighters weren't part of the definition.

Are volunteer firefighters civilians, or just paid firefighters? What about full-time paramedics? EMTs? Mall cops?

That definition you based him "wrong" on also said that one not on active duty in the armed services is a civilian. That's news to me! Commissioned and enlisted members of the Reserve and National Guard are members of the military and as such aren't "civilians."

The VA specifically calls members of the Merchant Marine civilians here:

Quote:
Those who serve in the Merchant Marine are called Mariners (not Marines). They are civilians who are only considered military personnel during times of war; Mariners are given Veteran status if they served in a war.
https://www.va.gov/vetsinworkplace/d...vereserve.html

Notice they don't say that about National Guard or Reservists. I wonder why that is?
  #102  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:05 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
I know. My point that you have gone after Wikipedia as a whole, instead of solely the facts given with sources in the article remains.

Me saying "I am declaring you wrong" was in response to you claiming someone else was wrong because "look what this dictionary says." I don't usually go around declaring there is one way to define a word, but me doing so in this case was based on your fiat declaration that firefighters and police aren't civilians because of a dictionary definition.

Read the part where I don't care. I care about the prescriptive definitions in that entry!
Not just "this dictionary". Multiple dictionaries, including Oxford University Press, publishers of the world's most authoritative English dictionary, and Merriam Webster, the one cited in the article.

Quote:
Wow, are you stretching! A "Civilian Law Enforcement Official" is...a civilian.
No, a "Civilian Law Enforcement Official" is ...
Quote:
An officer or employee of a civilian agency with responsibility for enforcement of the laws within the jurisdiction of that agency.
And a "Civilian Agency" is
Quote:
3.1. Civilian Agency. An agency of one of the following jurisdictions:

3.1.1. The United States (other than the Department of Defense, but including the U.S. Coast Guard). This includes U.S. agencies in international areas dealing with U.S. flag vessels or aircraft in violation of U.S. law.

3.1.2. A State (or political subdivision of it) of the United States.

3.1.3. Commonwealth, Territory, or Possession (or political subdivision of it) of the United States.
If that defines civilian, then I'm not a civilian.

Quote:
This is great! Your rebuttal to the a official definition of a word in the Geneva Conventions, a legal Act binding in close to two hundred countries, is that it has no authority to define the word OUTSIDE of the Geneva Conventions? Love it!
That's not what I said. I said that it defines the term for the purpose of clarifying who Article 51 protects. And it does.

Quote:
A poster referred to police officers not in the military as being civilians and you flatly called him "wrong" and based it on one dictionary definition. That definition included firefighters, yet when you cited two more dictionaries, firefighters weren't part of the definition.
Not quite. The poster said "of course most police are civilians themselves." There's no "of course" about it. The first definition I posted was the same definition referenced (but not quoted) in the article.

And whether or not firefighters are included has nothing to do with whether it's proper for police officers to speak of civilians.

If you don't care about any cites that disagree with you, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this.
  #103  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:22 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
It's better for you, I fail to see how it's better for me.
Would you rather a field kit show a negative for the suspicious vegetable matter I found or would you rather be taken into custody on it and have to go through the rigamarole of waiting for our backed up crime lab to determine what it is?

It is better for you. I certainly don't want to hook you up for something that isn't illegal.

And no I can't just arrest you for having unknown substances. I have to articulate quite a bit before that. And no, if it turns out to be nothing you're not going to become a millionaire.

I've kicked loose a lot of people thanks to field kits. And I've been doing this a long time.
  #104  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:23 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
Not just "this dictionary". Multiple dictionaries, including Oxford University Press, publishers of the world's most authoritative English dictionary.
Most authoritative? Yet they didn't declare firefighters as not being civilians? How do you explain that?

You took one definition, in a dictionary, and declared that a poster's use of civilian was incorrect and specifically mentioned that firefighters aren't civilians based on that one definition. Why not just go to the most authoritative English dictionary first?


Quote:
If that defines civilian, then I'm not a civilian.
It defines a civilian agency:

Quote:
3.2. Civilian Law Enforcement Official. An officer

or employee of a civilian agency with responsibility

for enforcement of the laws within the jurisdiction
The officers within it are civilians as they are not military members. That's the word used for non-military members, including police forces outside of the military- civilian. I find it hard to believe that you are claiming members of agencies specifically called "civilian" agencies are non-civilians in earnest.

Quote:
That's not what I said. I said that it defines the term for the purpose of clarifying who Article 51 protects. And it does.
Of course it is what you said! I quoted you and repeated it:

You: but it doesn't dictate the use of the term outside the Geneva Conventions.

Me: Your rebuttal to the a official definition of a word in the Geneva Conventions, a legal Act binding in close to two hundred countries, is that it has no authority to define the word OUTSIDE of the Geneva Conventions? Love it!


Does your source "dictate" use of the term? Everywhere? In all militaries? In all civilian populations? In the Geneva Conventions? It was a laughable complaint!


Quote:
Not quite. The poster said "of course most police are civilians themselves." There's no "of course" about it. The first definition I posted was the same definition referenced (but not quoted) in the article.
Not quite? Oh, what I claimed happened is exactly what happened.

And you flatly called him "wrong" and flatly stated that police and firefighters are not civilians.

Had you said something like "I wouldn't say 'of course'; there are other ways to define who is and isn't a civilian, such as..." we wouldn't be having this conversation.
What you did was flatly declare him wrong based on a dictionary definition and said based on it that firefighters are not civilians. What I did do was ask you a question twice, and you are attempting to bypass by

Quote:
And whether or not firefighters are included has nothing to do with whether it's proper for police officers to speak of civilians.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never claimed it was improper for police officers to refer to others as civilians. Likewise, I don't make any such judgments when my comedian friends say "civilians" are going to be attending.

What I did do was ask you a question twice, and you are attempting to bypass by making the above straw man argument. I'll ask a third time:

BTW, two of your three dictionary definitions don't include firefighters- are one or two of them technically wrong?

And if the first definition you supplied carried any weight defining who is and isn't a civilian, note that it said that one not on active duty in the armed services is a civilian. That's news to me! Commissioned and enlisted members of the Reserve and National Guard are members of the military and as such aren't "civilians."

The VA specifically calls members of the Merchant Marine civilians here:

Quote:
Those who serve in the Merchant Marine are called Mariners (not Marines). They are civilians who are only considered military personnel during times of war; Mariners are given Veteran status if they served in a war.
https://www.va.gov/vetsinworkplace/d...vereserve.html

Notice they don't say that about National Guard or Reservists. I wonder why that is?

Quote:
If you don't care about any cites that disagree with you, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this.
Interesting comment, Pot.
  #105  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:14 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply echoreply is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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.
38% of exonerations for minors involve false confessions, and 11% in adults. The majority of convictions for which there was later exoneration (usually due to DNA evidence) involved false witness testimony, but the number of false and coerced confessions is non-trivial.
  #106  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:32 PM
Doug K. Doug K. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 3,851
This is the only thing I'm going to respond to now, because it illustrates how pointless this has become:
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
Of course it is what you said! I quoted you and repeated it:

You: but it doesn't dictate the use of the term outside the Geneva Conventions.

Me: Your rebuttal to the a official definition of a word in the Geneva Conventions, a legal Act binding in close to two hundred countries, is that it has no authority to define the word OUTSIDE of the Geneva Conventions? Love it!

No, you did not repeat it. You quoted me, but then you said that I said "it has no authority to define the word OUTSIDE of the Geneva Convention." I did not say that. Not in what you quoted, not anywhere else.
  #107  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:39 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
This is the only thing I'm going to respond to now, because it illustrates how pointless this has become:
I made many good points and asked very relevant questions. Ignoring them is your choice.

Quote:
No, you did not repeat it. You quoted me, but then you said that I said "it has no authority to define the word OUTSIDE of the Geneva Convention." I did not say that. Not in what you quoted, not anywhere else.
I see no meaningful distinction between "it doesn't dictate the use of the term outside the Geneva Conventions" and "it has no authority to define the word outside of the Geneva Conventions."

It's common courtesy to tell someone what the distinction is between two things when someone claims they don't see any during a debate rather than just repeating "didn't say that, neener, neener, neener."
  #108  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:17 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum God View Post
True story: Last week, I was stopped for speeding. I pulled over very soon after the lights went on. I was alone in my own car. The car is properly licensed and registered. I also have a valid driver's license and proof of financial responsibility. I was wearing my seatbelt and had no contraband in the vehicle. I stopped the car in an empty parking lot adjacent to the road. I placed the transmission in park, set the parking brake, and turned on the interior cabin light (it was night). I placed my hands in my lap and waited for the officer to approach. When he arrived, I lowered the driver's window so that we could speak. He shined his light at me and asked me to lower the rear window. The window is tinted, but complies with the law. I lowered the window as requested and he shined his light in the back seat. The rest of the encounter went as expected and the officer gave me a printed warning (no fine) to better control my speed.
I think you have the right idea when getting pulled over. I do the same thing you do but I take the keys out and throw them on the dash and I drop the rear window. I also put my hands on the steering wheel with fingers open. I have a CCW license and want the officer to feel comfortable.

I've run into a couple of rogue cops before. I humor them within their scope of power and I'm on my way. I would refuse a car search on principal but I'd be nice about it and give that as my reason.
  #109  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:58 AM
MarvinKitFox MarvinKitFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Is this really how cops behave in America? It sounds more like a third-world country.
NoNo.
In a third-world country the cop pulls you over, and asks "how thick is your wallet?"

Literal, direct, verbatim quote from when I was stopped.
  #110  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:45 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by echoreply View Post
38% of exonerations for minors involve false confessions, and 11% in adults. The majority of convictions for which there was later exoneration (usually due to DNA evidence) involved false witness testimony, but the number of false and coerced confessions is non-trivial.
WADR, that's 11% of false convictions, not 11% of interrogations. Maybe it is non-trivial, depending on your definition (and we have had more quibbling about definitions in this thread than I care for) but it is not the case that the police automatically force or trick a confession out of whoever they think is the most likely suspect. And, again, I didn't do it, and I want the police to catch whoever did do it. Maybe I have, even without knowing it, some significant information that will assist the police in finding whoever did it.

It hardly counts as a cite, but we watch Homicide Hunter, where Lt. Joe Kenda talks about the hundreds of murder cases he has worked on, and he is really good at getting confessions. But his modus operandi is not just to pick out the first guy he suspects and get him to confess.

Sure, false confessions happen. And no doubt if I were being interrogated for my wife's murder (which God forbid) there would come a point where I said "I've told you everything I know, four times. Now I need to go care for my family - call me if you want anything more" and they said "You aren't going anywhere" then I say "Am I free to go?" and any answer other than No means Yes, and Yes means I lawyer up. If I have said something that convinces them that I did it rather than someone else, I will take my chances.

Regards,
Shodan
  #111  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:53 AM
Turble Turble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 2,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...

I've kicked loose a lot of people thanks to field kits. And I've been doing this a long time.
Please donít think I am jerking you around here; this is not personal and not an attack. I have some questions about which I am very curious and I think some of us will find interesting.

Can we assume you have also taken people to jail for false positives? Do you have any feelings about that?

Can you estimate how many or what percentage?

How many of those had consented to a search you wouldnít have done unless they consented?

How often do you request to search a car when you donít really feel you have RAS?
  #112  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:34 AM
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
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.
And you won't buy it until your bewildered ass is warming a prison cot. Your blind trust in the system is empowering.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #113  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:13 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
In the meantime, I will observe that being amazed by the number of drunk and high drivers on a cop show is like being amazed at the number of flying people in a superhero movie.
I can accept this without proof if you're talking about *fictional* cop shows, as implied by superhero movies which are always fictional. If you're talking about 'reality' cop shows I wonder if that's actually true.

Seems to me the implication, if applied to the reality shows, is that eg. the original 'Cops' and shows like it take all kinds of footage of people stopped (even for a legit reason, illegal turn or something) who turn out obviously otherwise acting legally and responsibly, and/or the cops ask to search, the person agrees, and they don't find anything. But, since this would not be very interesting TV, they don't show that large amount of footage, but rather they show the minority of cases where the people are acting hilariously (if it wasn't dangerous) illegally (taking drugs or drinking, no valid license, no insurance, car is stolen, etc. some or all very common in the cases shown) and/or agree to a search (almost every case on those shows where the cops ask the person agrees) and the cops easily find illegal stuff.

The hypothesis that they don't show a lot or even a great majority of less interesting cases where the people were completely legit besides whatever small infraction led to the stop...it's not obviously untrue. But is it actually true?

My strong suspicion would be that the cars (junkers especially) and various types of people (it isn't any single type race wise as those shows illustrate) they target are ones where they've learned, institutional knowledge, there's a higher likelihood of being able to make a legitimate arrest for something more serious than the initial stop.

And so if I had to guess I'd guess the segments shown on 'Cops' etc are not wildly unrepresentative. Probably not a scientific sample either, but I guess not grossly skewed from true reality.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-08-2019 at 01:15 PM.
  #114  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:47 PM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 293
USA vs USSR

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Well, yeah but with more violence. Also you have the highest probability of going to prison in the USA versus any other developed country.

But, on a day to day basis, if your vehicle is in good condition and your papers are in order you won't be treated badly.

Kinda wonder if the police in the Soviet Union were all that bad on a day to day basis...
From what I have heard, no, they weren't. These days they try to shake people down for bribes with manufactured claims such as speeding or some other traffic violation. I'm told it's best to leave the driving to a local in parts of eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria.
  #115  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:15 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 Turble View Post
Can we assume you have also taken people to jail for false positives?
I have never gotten a lab notice that the evidence tested to be otherwise what the field kit said it was. I have confiscated pills/capsules that tested to be legal substances, but there was no field test for them and the people they were taken from were not in custody. Had they tested positive in the lab they would have been sought out and arrested.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Turble View Post
How often do you request to search a car when you donít really feel you have RAS?
I don't have a number for that. It's whenever my spidey senses are tingling. Or if my mobile data unit lists a bunch of convictions for serious offenses. But then it's after they are told they are free to go. They're no longer being detained and can leave or tell me FO if they wish.

BTW, that's the way SCOTUS said it can be done. If you don't like it, bitch at them.
  #116  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:57 PM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,540
I'll let pkbites answer for himself but I'll chime in here. I spent almost the entirety of my career in narcotics, violent crimes and homicide units. As a very wild guess, I'd say I participated in over 2000 narcotics arrests, probably a lot more. In virtually every case, a field test kit was employed. I never once heard of a false positive field test. I'm sure it can happen but I have no personal experience with that. As such, I never had bad feelings for taking someone to jail after a false positive. I've felt bad for other reasons but not that one.

"How many of those consented to a search you wouldn't have done unless they consented?"- Hopefully, all of them. If you have probable cause to search, you don't need consent. If you don't have consent or probable cause (or public safety and other very limited exceptions), you don't search.

In New Jersey you must have RAS before asking for consent to search a car. (Oddly, you do not need RAS to ask for consent to search a house. I'm certain that requirement for vehicles resulted from abuses on the highways and byways of the Garden State.) Your RAS will be articulated in your reports and, with the prevalence of video recording by officers and citizens alike, you'd better actually have it if you don't want to find yourself out of a job (or worse).

I'm sure that I've mentioned it before but any search without a warrant is presumed bad in court and the burden is on the officer/prosecution to prove that it met one of the exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
  #117  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:10 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 MikeF View Post
In New Jersey you must have RAS before asking for consent to search a car. (Oddly, you do not need RAS to ask for consent to search a house. I'm certain that requirement for vehicles resulted from abuses on the highways and byways of the Garden State.) Your RAS will be articulated in your reports and, with the prevalence of video recording by officers and citizens alike, you'd better actually have it if you don't want to find yourself out of a job (or worse).

I'm sure that I've mentioned it before but any search without a warrant is presumed bad in court and the burden is on the officer/prosecution to prove that it met one of the exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
I may be wrong but isn't Loach from Jersey too? I know they have mentioned such rules, as well as different rules regarding Miranda.

I just want to point out to others here that those rules are state specific. They don't apply to the rest of the country and aren't dictated from SCOTUS.
  #118  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:17 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
I can accept this without proof if you're talking about *fictional* cop shows, as implied by superhero movies which are always fictional. If you're talking about 'reality' cop shows I wonder if that's actually true.

Seems to me the implication, if applied to the reality shows, is that eg. the original 'Cops' and shows like it take all kinds of footage of people stopped (even for a legit reason, illegal turn or something) who turn out obviously otherwise acting legally and responsibly, and/or the cops ask to search, the person agrees, and they don't find anything. But, since this would not be very interesting TV, they don't show that large amount of footage, but rather they show the minority of cases where the people are acting hilariously (if it wasn't dangerous) illegally (taking drugs or drinking, no valid license, no insurance, car is stolen, etc. some or all very common in the cases shown) and/or agree to a search (almost every case on those shows where the cops ask the person agrees) and the cops easily find illegal stuff.

The hypothesis that they don't show a lot or even a great majority of less interesting cases where the people were completely legit besides whatever small infraction led to the stop...it's not obviously untrue. But is it actually true?
...

And so if I had to guess I'd guess the segments shown on 'Cops' etc are not wildly unrepresentative. Probably not a scientific sample either, but I guess not grossly skewed from true reality.
I knew a cop who was on such a show, they filmed like 4 hours of his stops, didnt use any, he was on for like 3 minutes for another cops stop. So, yeah, they shoot a lot they dont use.
  #119  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:27 PM
DrCube DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
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.
I have at least two experiences that I can remember where an LEO asked for permission to search, once my car and once my fenced in back yard. In both cases I said "my lawyer has advised me not to permit searches without a warrant" and in both cases the cop said "sure, you have the right to refuse the search, but I have the right to take you down to the station for an open-ended period of time for 'questioning', so do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?". In both cases I relented and permitted the search.
  #120  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:46 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I have at least two experiences that I can remember where an LEO asked for permission to search, once my car and once my fenced in back yard. In both cases I said "my lawyer has advised me not to permit searches without a warrant" and in both cases the cop said "sure, you have the right to refuse the search, but I have the right to take you down to the station for an open-ended period of time for 'questioning', so do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?". In both cases I relented and permitted the search.
And- actually he didn't have such a right. At your house, he'd have to have a warrant for your arrest in most cases, which he certainly didn't have and couldn't get. In your car? Very doubtful- but he certainly could have made up something to give you a ticket.

When you are in your "castle", unless they have paper, say no in all cases. Call your lawyer.
  #121  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:15 PM
zamboniracer zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Maybe you are on a major drug highway or in a neighborhood known for drug sales.
As far as many police are concerned, a "major drug highway" means "Any part of the American interstate highway system".
  #122  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:08 PM
LTU2 LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
[snip] "sure, you have the right to refuse the search, but I have the right to take you down to the station for an open-ended period of time for 'questioning'
Which was a LIE!
  #123  
Old 02-09-2019, 09:45 AM
Turble Turble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 2,252
Thanks to our resident LEOs for taking the time to respond to my questions about searches and drug field tests.

Your experience of zero false positives with the drug field tests over the course of many years and thousands of uses has me casting a very skeptical eye at the many media reports of false positive rates as high as 30%.
  #124  
Old 02-09-2019, 11:53 AM
Isosleepy Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,363
Since it was touched upon above: how long can I be questioned at the station before they have to arrest me or let me go? Is it even any time if I make it clear I wish to leave?

By the way, the few times I have been asked if they could look in my car, I’ve said “no”, with exactly zero repercussions.
  #125  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:16 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I knew a cop who was on such a show, they filmed like 4 hours of his stops, didnt use any, he was on for like 3 minutes for another cops stop. So, yeah, they shoot a lot they dont use.
There's no doubt they shoot a lot of footage they don't use. The question as I see it is whether what they use is that wildly unrepresentative of cases relevant to the question here, police asking for searches of stopped vehicles. The impression given by 'Cops' is that a lot of them are easy cases where the people are obviously violating other laws besides the traffic ordinance they were pulled over for, that the people almost always consent to the search, but the search nonetheless usually finds drugs. I'm wondering if that's really so unrepresentative, I doubt it it's wildly unrepresentative v there being all kinds of cases where the police ask for a search for no apparent good reason and find nothing but those never get shown. That must happen sometimes, I'm doubting if it's really common. Noting that something not being that common doesn't make it OK when it happens if there's malicious intent.

I know police in lots of places don't have a lot happen in any given shift, and lots of pullovers are routine and no reason to ask to search the car, or anything else interesting enough to show on TV. In fact I remember the one episode of 'Cops' filmed in my small city in NJ, I don't what they expected to find when they chose it, but among the highlights were a guy walking out of a liquor store without paying for his six pack, and a stolen air compressor found by the police.
  #126  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:36 PM
K2500 K2500 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Since it was touched upon above: how long can I be questioned at the station before they have to arrest me or let me go? Is it even any time if I make it clear I wish to leave?

By the way, the few times I have been asked if they could look in my car, Iíve said ďnoĒ, with exactly zero repercussions.
How did you get to the station in the first place?
  #127  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:09 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Since it was touched upon above: how long can I be questioned at the station before they have to arrest me or let me go? Is it even any time if I make it clear I wish to leave?
Yes, why are you at the station in the first place? You dont have to go, you know, not unless arrested. if you go down voluntarily, bring your lawyer, let him do the talking.

More or less- and IANAL and there are exceptions- yes, once you say "AmI free to go?", they have to let you go or arrest you. Terry stops of course are a exception.
  #128  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:12 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
There's no doubt they shoot a lot of footage they don't use. The question as I see it is whether what they use is that wildly unrepresentative of cases relevant to the question here, police asking for searches of stopped vehicles. The impression given by 'Cops' is that a lot of them are easy cases where the people are obviously violating other laws besides the traffic ordinance they were pulled over for, that the people almost always consent to the search, but the search nonetheless usually finds drugs. ...
I was on the Civil Grand Jury, so I did two 4 hour ride alongs, and he only asked once and they said yes, and they had drugs, and they acted and looked liked it. But San Jose is not other cities, so I am not sure.

Oh, and he wasnt into writing tickets either, so he'd kinda sigh whenever someone did something sooooo stupid in front of him, he'd have to pull them over. Mostly checking out homeless guys doing weird shit, a domestic disturbance, noise complaints, some kid shoplifting, a burglary, nothing really exciting.

Last edited by DrDeth; 02-09-2019 at 01:14 PM.
  #129  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:26 PM
Isosleepy Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, why are you at the station in the first place?
Ftr, I never was at the station. But in Dr Cubeís situation, I would again have refused permission to search and the officer he dealt with might have taken me to the station for questioning - given that the officer didnít know or didnít care, apparently, that he canít or shouldnít do that. Assuming that 1 bad cop is not an entirely uncommon encounter, but that a whole bad station is much rarer: once there, and I say I wanna go home, can they in fact prevent me, and if yes, for how long?
  #130  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Ftr, I never was at the station. But in Dr Cubeís situation, I would again have refused permission to search and the officer he dealt with might have taken me to the station for questioning - given that the officer didnít know or didnít care, apparently, that he canít or shouldnít do that. Assuming that 1 bad cop is not an entirely uncommon encounter, but that a whole bad station is much rarer: once there, and I say I wanna go home, can they in fact prevent me, and if yes, for how long?
They'd have to arrest you for something. Of course a bad cop can simply claim you were 'resisting".
  #131  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:33 PM
aruvqan aruvqan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I have at least two experiences that I can remember where an LEO asked for permission to search, once my car and once my fenced in back yard. In both cases I said "my lawyer has advised me not to permit searches without a warrant" and in both cases the cop said "sure, you have the right to refuse the search, but I have the right to take you down to the station for an open-ended period of time for 'questioning', so do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?". In both cases I relented and permitted the search.
72 hours ... depending on the state, and that doesn't include ICE or Homeland Security in the case of possible terrorism.



While it sounds great to say if you are innocent you don't have to worry - there are more than enough cases where it turns out the person was being railroaded.


I have said on this board back at least 8 or 10 years ago that in certain areas I would hesitate to give a cheek swab for DNA to check against some sort of blood evidence for one main reason. Being a woman, I spent some 40 odd years bleeding once a month. Have you ever tried changing a seriously overflowing tampon? You can get some serious blood splatter going ... not to mention cooking at SCA events all over the eastern half of the US and I have gotten mor than my share of cuts over the years, and I have handed out medieval clothing that I have worn to dozens of people, stayed in dozens of people's homes gaily scattering skin cells, hairs and random blood splatter. I can think of at least 3 apartments in Boston that I could be linked to in not so great neighborhoods where someone could end up dead at any time [I had previously visited a murder victim's apartment building in Norfolk Va in the Ocean View neighborhood barely weeks before she was murdered ... so if you want a DNA sample from me, you better come back with a warrant
__________________
"Rammstein might not be the most sophisticated band there is, but who doesn't like the smell of napalm in the evening air"
  #132  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:12 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna Johanna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
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. Thatís neither passive aggressive nor a snit.
I don't see any wells being poisoned around here. Just people expressing a different perspective from yoursójustifiably different. Your colleague pkbites is holding his own here just fine. If you don't want to participate that's fine, but your post was just threadsnitting.

I just made up a new word. Maybe it'll catch on.
  #133  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:36 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,695
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.
As a criminal defense attorney, some may think that we would be opposed to each other on this issue, and before I became an attorney, I'll admit that I had some prejudices against the honesty of police officers.

Since I have been practicing, however, I am very impressed with the scrupulous honestly of 98%- plus of law enforcement officers. The judges and the prosecutors know who the remaining 2% minus are and give their word the credit it is worth. Even though we battle in court, I can call most police officers up about a case and they will give me honest answers. If they messed up and committed an illegal search, they will fess up and ask the prosecutor to dismiss the charges.

I have never seen an instance of planting of evidence. Police do not want an innocent person to be convicted anymore than anyone else does.

My only side comment to the above is that police, by the very nature of their work, can sometimes get tunnel vision when they focus on a suspect too early. But defense lawyers are the same way if we initially believe our client is innocent. The system works because there are two sides to slug it out in court.
  #134  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:26 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
72 hours ... depending on the state, and that doesn't include ICE or Homeland Security in the case of possible terrorism.
Yes, that is 72 hours after being arrested before charges must be filed. The time can be cut by a writ.
  #135  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:49 PM
LTU2 LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
72 hours ..depending on the state.
If you are taken to the station INvoluntarily, that is still an arrest and that requires probable cause, there is no such thing as taking someone into custody for questioning only.

If arrested without a warrant a probable cause hearing/arraignment must take place within 48 hours, in every state. If arrested with a warrant, the individual state sets the time, 24 to X hours, but no more than 72 hours for a formal charge to be made.

Last edited by LTU2; 02-09-2019 at 07:50 PM.
  #136  
Old 02-10-2019, 07:12 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Oh, and he wasnt into writing tickets either, so he'd kinda sigh whenever someone did something sooooo stupid in front of him, he'd have to pull them over. Mostly checking out homeless guys doing weird shit, a domestic disturbance, noise complaints, some kid shoplifting, a burglary, nothing really exciting.
Some decades ago when Adam 12 was still in its original broadcast, I read an article where an LAPD sergeant was asked how authentic the show was. He replied as much as can be reasonably expected, except they pack about eight years' worth of interesting incidents into an eight hour shift.
  #137  
Old 02-10-2019, 07:25 AM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I'll let pkbites answer for himself but I'll chime in here. I spent almost the entirety of my career in narcotics, violent crimes and homicide units. As a very wild guess, I'd say I participated in over 2000 narcotics arrests, probably a lot more. In virtually every case, a field test kit was employed. I never once heard of a false positive field test.
I'll bet the people who sent witches to be punished never heard of false positive confessions obtained under torture, either.

It's easy to trust a test if you never do anything which would falsify it.
  #138  
Old 02-10-2019, 08:26 AM
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 Derleth View Post
It’s easy to trust a test if you never do anything which would falsify it.

The substances still get sent to the state crime lab to confirm what the field test said.

I’m certain there have been false positives, but I’ve never had one. The crime lab always issues a results report to the officer who submitted the evidence.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix

Last edited by pkbites; 02-10-2019 at 08:27 AM.
  #139  
Old 02-10-2019, 08:34 AM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,540
Derleth, allow me to fight your ignorance. The field test, assuming it indicates the presence of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, gives probable cause to arrest. The correct wording when writing a report is "The substance tested presumptive for the presence of xxx". (In legal jargon, a presumption may be rebutted.)The substance is then sent to a lab for testing by a chemist using more advanced testing. No one would be convicted based on a field test. So, unlike your witch example, there is always something done to verify the field test. You're welcome.


Edit -Ninja'd by pk while typing.

Last edited by MikeF; 02-10-2019 at 08:36 AM.
  #140  
Old 02-10-2019, 09:17 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
No one would be convicted based on a field test.
Maybe not at a trial, but it's just as much of a conviction if you're conned into pleading guilty based on the field test alone:

"In Houston over the past decade, the crime lab found that the alleged drugs in more than 300 convictions were not drugs at all. Police had used inexpensive test kits to identify the substances as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, MDMA, or marijuana, and prosecutors had used those allegedly positive tests to gain guilty pleas."

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-10-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  #141  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:30 AM
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 Lord Feldon View Post
Maybe not at a trial, but it's just as much of a conviction if you're conned into pleading guilty based on the field test alone:

"In Houston over the past decade, the crime lab found that the alleged drugs in more than 300 convictions were not drugs at all. Police had used inexpensive test kits to identify the substances as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, MDMA, or marijuana, and prosecutors had used those allegedly positive tests to gain guilty pleas."
YTF would anyone plead guilty before the substance was confirmed by the state laboratory? What kind of lousy attorney/public defender did they have? And how did the state ever get the court to accept just the field test without lab verification? I can’t get a DUI conviction just on a PBT test.

I’m guessing those people got fake shit from their dealer and thought they had real drugs. Still stupid on their part.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix

Last edited by pkbites; 02-10-2019 at 10:32 AM.
  #142  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:26 PM
K2500 K2500 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Maybe not at a trial, but it's just as much of a conviction if you're conned into pleading guilty based on the field test alone:

"In Houston over the past decade, the crime lab found that the alleged drugs in more than 300 convictions were not drugs at all. Police had used inexpensive test kits to identify the substances as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, MDMA, or marijuana, and prosecutors had used those allegedly positive tests to gain guilty pleas."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
YTF would anyone plead guilty before the substance was confirmed by the state laboratory? What kind of lousy attorney/public defender did they have? And how did the state ever get the court to accept just the field test without lab verification? I canít get a DUI conviction just on a PBT test.

Iím guessing those people got fake shit from their dealer and thought they had real drugs. Still stupid on their part.
Fake drugs in Texas are called "Simulated Controlled Substances" 482.001(4)

Actual controlled substances no matter how diluted are still controlled substances as well.

The fact that the drugs weren't real in the Houston cases doesn't mean anything all by itself.
  #143  
Old 02-10-2019, 01:51 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I don't have a number for that. It's whenever my spidey senses are tingling. Or if my mobile data unit lists a bunch of convictions for serious offenses. But then it's after they are told they are free to go. They're no longer being detained and can leave or tell me FO if they wish.

BTW, that's the way SCOTUS said it can be done. If you don't like it, bitch at them.
These statements of your bother me. Specifically, what you are saying is that many times - some percentage of your 2000 arrests for narcotics - a person who has an illegal substance consented to the search. That 'it's ok if you ask' and "guilty people say yes all the time".

I just don't quite...understand...how it could work this way. I mean, I understand, lots of people are really stupid. But seriously. I feel like one of a couple things must be true:

a. A certain class of people who are in fact guilty of possessing narcotics don't believe they can say no to a search. Possibly they feel threatened by you or actually believe things will go better for them if they "fess up" and let themselves get caught.

b. Unbelievably stupid people are extremely common and pkbites bumps into them all the time. But not so stupid they can't earn or steal the money to buy drugs and successfully obtain them and would be going somewhere to have a good time if it weren't for pkbites getting on their case.

I'm sure whatever you do is aboveboard, please don't think I'm insinuating anything, I just am trying to understand how reality fits with your observations.
  #144  
Old 02-10-2019, 01:57 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
YTF would anyone plead guilty before the substance was confirmed by the state laboratory? What kind of lousy attorney/public defender did they have? And how did the state ever get the court to accept just the field test without lab verification?
I can think of one possibility. The DA could offer an extremely favorable plea - a "blue light special". And a competent public defender could say,

"Ok, maybe you did it or maybe you didn't. But in this county, the state wins at trial 95% of the time. Jurors tend to just vote guilty down here in Houston. (this is true). So if you go to that point, you'll get <2 years in prison>. Or you can wait for the state lab results to come back. DA tends to offer about <2-6 months> for people who plead then. Or you can fess up now and get out <by next weekend>. This is the best deal you can get..."

The problem of course, is that any conviction screws someone out of gainful employment in a job that's not at the very bottom of the ladder. But it gets someone out of jail right away, and with the kangaroo courts of Houston, since the person was going to be convicted anyway, they might as well take the best deal.

Last edited by SamuelA; 02-10-2019 at 01:58 PM.
  #145  
Old 02-10-2019, 02:12 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,423
I don't think there is a lot of distinction between group a and group b. Criminals are stupid.

That's why it works like it does.

Regards,
Shodan
  #146  
Old 02-10-2019, 02:43 PM
K2500 K2500 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 491
I'm not convinced it works. Not very well anyways.
  #147  
Old 02-10-2019, 03:07 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
And you won't buy it until your bewildered ass is warming a prison cot. Your blind trust in the system is empowering.
My trust in the system isn't blind.

Regards,
Shodan
  #148  
Old 02-10-2019, 03:14 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
My trust in the system isn't blind.

Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, do you think the justice system in America is a good one and one we should be proud of?

Or are you saying that you believe that due to probably your age, race, and economic status you aren't concerned you will be a victim of it even though you concede it's suboptimal? (since you probably dress well, keep your car in good shape and have all the right papers, and can afford an excellent attorney if you need to. Also I think you're an older white male, one of the least likely subgroups to be harassed by the police. (an older white female is probably the safest))

Also, you probably don't commit any significant crimes. Probably the worst crime you normally ever commit is you probably fib slightly on your taxes for deductions or you might pirate a book or movie. You probably also speed like nearly every driver. So if the justice system nails you it would be for a crime you did not commit.

If you believe our justice system is excellent, why does America need to lock so many people up for so much longer compared to comparable European countries? Why do we have higher crime rates even though they "coddle" their prisoners with better treatment and rehabilitation?

Last edited by SamuelA; 02-10-2019 at 03:19 PM.
  #149  
Old 02-10-2019, 03:39 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Some decades ago when Adam 12 was still in its original broadcast, I read an article where an LAPD sergeant was asked how authentic the show was. He replied as much as can be reasonably expected, except they pack about eight years' worth of interesting incidents into an eight hour shift.
Yeah, back in the day, my cop buddies said that Barney Miller was about the most realistic police show on TV.
  #150  
Old 02-10-2019, 04:03 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,365
[Moderating]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
And you won't buy it until your bewildered ass is warming a prison cot. Your blind trust in the system is empowering.
That will be an official Warning for personal insults. You should know better than that.
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 05:23 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