this is just insane, what happened to the oath ‘to serve and protect’
Whatever.
,
The rest of the article can be found at
http://www.videovigilante.com/news.htm
Y’know, I’ll wait to see something from a cite more reputable than… ::ahem:: “pot-TV” or “video vigilantes”.
Me too SPOOFEasabe.
What was in his mouth?
Isn’t searching somebody’s mouth illegal search and siezure or something? Fourth ammendment and all that? (Obviously I’m no legal scholar).
Obviously.
No. The officer has to make sure the suspect has no weapons, and no contraband, on his person.
Crack dealers will hide rocks and pipe fragments in their mouths. Cops wouldn’t want the suspect to swallow those, both from an evidence standpoint and a safety standpoint. Someone could also easily hide a single edge razor, or a pin that could be used to try to pick the cuffs lock.
honestly… cops can do whatever they want… don’t trust those cards they pass out at phish concerts and such…
If you actually try one of those, you are an idiot…
If you give a cop cause to search you, like having something in your mouth and refusing to open it, that is cause enough.
even if they don’t have cause… all they have to do is say that they smell pot…
So there you go… don’t F with cops… seriously…If they catch you, you are caught… be friendly to them… it can only help you…
If you are innocent and have nothing on you… be as rude as you want…
The video speaks for itself, regardless of the source, so claiming a spurious cite is kind of a bogus argument.
The cop had a (legal) right to search the dude’s mouth, but why was it necessary to kick and punch him? He wasn’t making any threatening moves towards the officer so there was no justification for force.
Having said that, though, I don’t think this is the worst case of police brutality I’ve ever seen. The office in question may have technically violated some use of force procedures but it is nowhere near as blatant as some other recent examples (punching the deaf, retarded kid in the face).
If anything, I think maybe the video represents the casual and routine use of force which is used every day by police. I don’t like it but it’s too pervasive to really get worked up about every instance of it. It’s kind of like holding in football. You can call it on every play if you want to, but the game would be unplayable.
Plus the guy did have drugs in his mouth. As far as public opinion is concerned this makes him an animal who deserves whatever he gets. Most police brutality (i.e actual, physical violence as opposed to simple harassment or non-violent assholery) is, in fact, committed against criminals. That makes it hard to arouse public sympathy. People see this kind of thing on Cops and they’re rooting for the officer.
I personally think we need to legalize drugs (and prostitution) and stop wasting so much of our law enforcement resources trying to battle victimless crimes and pursue a “war on drugs” which is impossible to win and actually creates far more problems than it eliminates.
Ooh, I’m Bricker and I’m a fancypants lawyer, and I can slam other posters for their lack of knowledge of habeas corpus or whatever the fuck it is…
I actually have great respect for the legal profession.
Why yes, my trousers are quite fancy. Thanks for noticing.
You’re just saying that so you won’t get sued.
SCSimmons: lol.
No, really. The law is there, somebody has to argue it, interpret it, etc. And it probably isn’t going to be me, since I don’t even know that it’s legal for a cop to search somebody’s mouth.
With apologies for my earlier snarkiness, the answer is that yes, it’s legal to search someone’s mouth under the proper circumstances.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Any search of someone’s mouth must be reasonable.
Over the years, we’ve come to a fairly well-settled understanding of what constitutes reasonable. A person being legitimately arrested is subject to a personal search.
Even without a pending arrest, the doctrine of exigent circumstances comes into play. If a person that has been detained suddenly conceals comething in his mouth, it’s not an unreasonable assumption that he wishes to destroy evidence, and that he is placing himself in physical danger. Either one of these reasons is sufficient for an officer to search the mouth.
Of course, individual jurisdictions may have different rules. But from a federal constitutional perspective, there is no blanket prohibition against an officer searching a suspect’s mouth.
- Rick
Aside from the legality of the search, itself, Bricker, what is the legality of punching and kicking a suspect who may be uncooperative but who is not acting aggresively towards law enforcement?
sigh…
stupid pigs (Police Brutality) =
stupid kikes (Israeli Atrocities) =
stupid chinks (Chinese Human Rights Violations) =
stupid niggers (Black Crime) =
stupid faggots (ACT-UP)
etc., etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Officers may use a reasonable amount of force consistent with accomplishing their goals.
Even if a suspect is not acting with direct aggression towards officers, reasonable force may be used to subdue, handcuff, and search a suspect.
Lawyers make a substantial portion of their profession arguing that a particular set of facts was, or was not, reasonable.
- Rick