Posted on 03/10/2017 11:02:23 AM PST by heartwood
WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — An attorney is speaking out after he says two law enforcement officers told him it was illegal to film them during a traffic stop.
Jesse Bright said he was pulled over on February 26 by the Wilmington Police Department and a deputy from the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office.
Bright is an attorney, but he said he is also an Uber driver. Bright said he was taking a fare on a round trip when he was pulled over near Dawson and 16th streets.
“I explained that I was an Uber driver and that, you know, my passenger, I don’t even know him,” Bright said.
Bright said the Wilmington Police Officer told Bright he had just taken his passenger to a known drug house.
(Excerpt) Read more at wwaytv3.com ...
The deputy in question has been counselled.
I am a little surprised that the police didn’t handcuff him and confiscate his phone. Good for him for continuing to record after they told him to stop.
I am surprised they didn’t start forfeiture proceedings on his car.
Bad car.
A police K9 handler does not need a warrant to search immediately around a vehicle.If a dog detects the odor of narcotics coming out of that vehicle the officer can then legally search the interior of the vehicle for the illegal narcotics.
The dogs sense of smell is so good that it’s very hard to hide anything from them that they’re trained to detect.
Did the cop "take him to jail" as he threatened? If not, why not?
Did anything happen to the cop? Did the "attorney" get anything out of this beside the opportunity to write a story?
Something isn't right here.
ML/NJ
My belief is when the K9 handler and dog show up, if he is wearing anything more than speedos and flip flops, anything the dog finds is probably scented planted by the officer. You have no idea what is in his pockets, his hands touch the car, the dog jumps, then smells “something” and signals. Like just about every action done without a warrant, it is suspect.
Just a thought on my part.
And dogs are so attuned to their handlers that they’ll hit on what the handler hits on with or without the handler knowing it.
Something like a fifty-fifty chance of finding drugs when a narcotics dog alerts. Mine-sniffing dogs are a good deal more accurate because the handler doesn’t particularly want to find a mine.
Since no drugs were found in Mr. Bright’s car during the interior search, the dog’s alert was a false positive. And yeah, the cops really wanted a hit, because Mr. Bright was being a jerk, i.e., asserting his rights.
Business must be really bad
Attorney uber driver?
Must be all bad
an aside: he can’t be much of an attorney if he is driving for Uber!!
Attorney uber driver?
Must be all bad
Being an ambulance chaser is a lot like being a realty agent. Just a few of them make a lot of money at it. A few lucky ones can get on the government payroll by getting themselves elected to public office, or being appointed or elected as a judge. The rest have to make ends meat by working as Uber drivers, etc...
Get back to us when K9 searches are 100% reliable and not subject to abuses by their handlers who 'cue' them.
From: Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs
In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.
The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and explosives.
But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives.
In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and detect nothing.
But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for a failure rate of 85 percent.
Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own, the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their handlers, and that's what led to such a high failure rate.
The reliability of drug dogs and their handlers is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in state district court by two Nevada Highway Patrol K-9 troopers and a consultant, who claim that the Metropolitan Police Department's police dogs, and eventually NHP's own dogs, were "trick ponies" that responded to their handlers' cues, and therefore routinely violated citizens' rights to lawful search under the Fourth Amendment.
bkmk
Many people who do this will also live stream the video to their YouTube channel, and the police know that. Usually an officer who doesn’t want to be recorded will try to cover themselves by saying “I would like you to turn that off”, which technically is not a demand.
And while this officer did go too far not only by making the demand but also by falsely claiming it was illegal, I think he knew there would be real trouble if we went much further than that (handcuffs/arrest like you mentioned) and got caught.
The dog can be used outside of the car. Usually if there is a hit, the officers will explain that they will be searching the car—either now, or after they get a warrant.
A dog’s nose is probable cause.
I am willing to bet they got verbal permission.
That is an interesting test, but it would more accurate if it consisted of more than 18 teams.
18 Teams does not make a valid statistical representation.
Police and federal agents can lie to civilians, but civilians cannot lie to police or federal agents.
Right. Man I tell ya, all the news from wiki-leaks, Snowden, Guccifer, FOIA lawsuits by Judicial Watch and others regarding the conduct of our government...folks should be scared 54!7less.
Constant monitoring by Uncle Sugar of it's citizens w/o probable cause warrants.
Appears the noose is slowly tightening around the necks of Americans in the name of security.
“anything the dog finds is probably scented planted by the officer.”
Of course it is. No one buys drugs in Wilmington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.