# Legal question about detainment by law enforcement **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 26, 2018, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300 "2018-08-26T14:03:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/81 "2018-08-28T22:38:52Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > OK, so Jesse Pinkman, as coached by Walter White, tells Officer Schrader from inside his crack-manufacturing van: > > **Pinkman** : Go get a warrant. > **Shrader** (_peels back tattered duct tape barely covering bullet holes_): Yeah, fat chance. I got probable cause right here, and I’m coming in. > **Pinkman** : You didn’t see those holes when you got here. Illegal. Go get a warrant. > > Exit Schrader. > > Hollywood got it right, for once? > > > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > > [DSpace](https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/75405/OSJCL_V13N1_191.pdf) For the record in plain view here, this killer cite is **Got a Warrant?: Breaking Bad and the Fourth Amendment** by Alafair S. Burk, Professor of Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. At the risk of repeating the type of request above and the subsequent skirmish on who’s being peevish, can you tell me the answer now? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/82 "2018-08-28T22:44:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The entire Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and indeed our freedom would be in jeopardy if police officers would simply lie with impunity. In my experience, there are very, very few officers that do this. The ones I work with (against) are honest almost to a fault. If they screwed up, they will tell me that and then tell the prosecutor to dismiss the case. I agree. And in my experience, the few officers that are willing to lie . . . everyone knows them. Judges cut them no slack; other officers don’t back them up (although admittedly they don’t call them out directly, either). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/83 "2018-08-28T22:51:41Z")
I’ve lost track of the back-and-forth discussion. Is there an issue still on the table? (A) Illegal stop, dead body plainly visible when officer approaches car: suppressed, because the seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and the plain view doctrine does not apply. (B) Legal stop, dead body plainly visible when officer approaches car: admitted, because the seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion and the plain view doctrine applies. © Illegal stop, officer discovers warrant. Officer’s conduct was mistaken but not flagrant. Arrest permitted, because the warrant gives independent cause for arrest that is attenuated from any information derived from the stop. Search incident to arrest yields admissible evidence Questions? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/84 "2018-08-28T23:23:17Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > In your hypothetical, the officer did not take an illegal action “to” bring an item into view. > > 1. The officer may not have even realized it was an unlawful stop. > > 2. The purpose was of getting into the view of the backseat was not to find anything incriminating. > > See again the three conditions which I copied and pasted that must be satisfied for the plain view doctrine to be used to convict one of a crime. 1. That is not the standard. Do you think an officer could get away with saying, “Gee, Judge, I didn’t know I couldn’t beat a confession out of a suspect”? The standard is not the subjective knowledge of the officer, but what a reasonably trained officer would know in light of case law. 2. It does not matter what the purpose was to be in the illegal position to view items. The officer must be in a place where he legally has the right to be. If an officer illegally pulls someone over, he has no right to be standing outside of the car he just forced to stop. You can’t game that by saying he has a right to stand on the side of the roadway. That part is true, but the fact that in front of his eyes on the side of the roadway is a car he forced to be there makes his observation illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/85 "2018-08-28T23:24:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (C) Illegal stop, officer discovers warrant. Officer’s conduct was mistaken but not flagrant. Arrest permitted, because the warrant gives independent cause for arrest that is attenuated from any information derived from the stop. Search incident to arrest yields admissible evidence > > Questions? Does “discovers warrant” mean when the cop ran the guy’s license? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/86 "2018-08-28T23:34:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. That is not the standard. Do you think an officer could get away with saying, “Gee, Judge, I didn’t know I couldn’t beat a confession out of a suspect”? The standard is not the subjective knowledge of the officer, but what a reasonably trained officer would know in light of case law. I didn’t say it was a standard of anything. I’m responding to your phrasing "“to bring an item into view.” That wasn’t part of your hypothetical, so it seemed to be a goal post move. It may make a difference. I’m not sure. > [@](#): > > 1. It does not matter what the purpose was to be in the illegal position to view items. The officer must be in a place where he legally has the right to be. If an officer illegally pulls someone over, he has no right to be standing outside of the car he just forced to stop. You can’t game that by saying he has a right to stand on the side of the roadway. That part is true, but the fact that in front of his eyes on the side of the roadway is a car he forced to be there makes his observation illegal. You said that already. This is past monotonous. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/87 "2018-08-28T23:50:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. That is not the standard. Do you think an officer could get away with saying, “Gee, Judge, I didn’t know I couldn’t beat a confession out of a suspect”? The standard is not the subjective knowledge of the officer, but what a reasonably trained officer would know in light of case law. A reasonably trained officer may think that since his superior started a program instructing officers to pull over drivers for good driving, he’s acting in good faith doing so. I’m not sure that will fly, and my earlier cites do not rely on that, but it may have an impact. ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2018, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/88 "2018-08-30T20:12:10Z")
> [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > Oh, this is silly. > > Do you think a speeder could claim the ticket was illegal, because ‘_I was going way over the limit, but the cop caught up to me, so he was speeding even faster_’? Or ‘_this bank robbery charge is illegal, because as I was running away with the loot, that cop assaulted me with his Taser_’? > > We, as a society, have chosen to authorize certain people (law enforcement officers) with a limited allowance to violate certain laws in order to prevent crime or capture people committing crimes. Even to violating our most serious law, the taking of a life, when necessary. > > As to the limits, every officer has supervisors who set the guidelines, based on their judgement comparing the law the officer is violating vs. the crime being committed. For example, there are lots of online videos of officers being instructed by a supervisor to break off pursuit when they feel it is becoming too dangerous to other drivers/pedestrians in the area. And after every time an officer fires his taser or gun, there is a review by his supervisor (and sometimes even by a DA or grand jury). > > In the specific case you mention: > > 1. parking against traffic is a minor issue (it’s even allowed in much of the world, like the UK, Australia, parts of Europe). > 2. parking too close to the corner is also minor. > Presumably, the supervisor has evaluated this and decided the risk of a crash from someone running a stop sign is more dangerous than these minor parking issues. In fact, there have probably already been some accidents at that intersection. That’s what it takes around here to get the police to devote resources to a specific intersection. No, it’s not silly; nor is there any evidence that a supervisor knows what the individual patrol officer is doing when it comes to specific minor details while on patrol. In the first instance, he’s endangering township property by parking in the wrong place. He sits facing east to catch southbound traffic. A driver turning west might not see him, either because of the bushes he’s hiding behind, or perhaps an eastbound van/box truck sitting at the red light. In the second case, he’s creating a life/safety hazard to other users of the road, all to enforce one of the most menial, BS laws there is\* that would only cause harm to the person violating that law _if_ they are in a bad accident. - I wear my seatbelt all the time, but that’s because I don’t want to be injured if I’m in a crash, not because some state/municipality tells me I need to. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/89 "2018-09-03T15:14:52Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > A reasonably trained officer may think that since his superior started a program instructing officers to pull over drivers for good driving, he’s acting in good faith doing so. I’m not sure that will fly, and my earlier cites do not rely on that, but it may have an impact. The good faith thing only protects you just so far. An officer still needs to recognize an illegal order. If one of my supes came out with a program of stopping cars on public roads to hand out gift cards or what not, I’d be having a long conversation with him. I’d want to know with who did the idea originate from and I’d advise that I was going directly to that person (going over your supes rank is a big no-no. Gotta have a very good reason). If the crafter of that stupid plan was not the Chief I would go directly to the Chief and see what he thinks about it. If he was all for it I would put out a memorandum as to why I did not agree with the program. I would also run it past the city attorney who I am certain would shit bricks over the idea of stopping cars with no violation. All of that is risky stuff. Going over heads, publicly denouncing a program, getting a legal review. All that can get you up to your neck in shit and has to be done very delicately. If they insisted we participate I’d file a grievance with the union. I’m just wondering if there is something about these programs that they’re not telling us on the news blips. Like, did the people stopped sign up for something to allow this? When I was a Deputy Sheriff we could volunteer unpaid hours to work a program that raised money for charity. At a mall there was a fake jail set up and a telephone. People had previously sent in their names on cards and we would go to their house and ask them if they still wanted to participate. If they said yes we would take them to the fake jail where they would call people on the phone looking for “bail” money which went to the charity. It raised a lot of money and was a lot of fun for the participants. People in the mall would watch and they too would participate and/or give money. But that was nothing like pulling cars over on a public roadway with no RS or PC. Knocking on someones door asking them if they’d like to participate in a charity drive is not an illegal seizure, especially since they signed up by turning in those cards. ---
**Author:** ![LTU2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/22d042/32.png) [@LTU2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LTU2)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/90 "2018-12-01T15:00:09Z")
The Exclusionary Rule made applicable to the states by MAPP, is not absolute in nature, Michigan v. Hudson is a good example. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300.md?page=4)