As far as many police are concerned, a “major drug highway” means “Any part of the American interstate highway system”.
Which was a LIE!
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%.
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.
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. 
How did you get to the station in the first place?
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.
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.
Ftr, I never was at the station. But in Dr Cube’s 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 didn’t know or didn’t care, apparently, that he can’t or shouldn’t 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".
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
I don’t see any wells being poisoned around here. Just people expressing a different perspective from yours—justifiably 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.
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.
Yes, that is 72 hours after being arrested before charges must be filed. The time can be cut by a writ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”