Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What would be probable cause? (vanity)
DeLaine

Posted on 02/22/2008 7:23:44 PM PST by DeLaine

Son got his first ticket. Policeman said he didn't stop at a stop sign. It was dark, not even street lights in this area, but he saw this difficult-to-tell action in the dark, when Nathan says he had come to a stop. He didn't argue though.

But then he wanted to search the car. We've always told son not to agree to that, there is no reason. (actually, his former-cop dad told him don't agree to it) Dad is not in the picture, so I have to ask you all.

This was his first traffic stop and he was nervous. I was out of town, he'd never been pulled over before. He is 17. A conservative homeschooler. (now the LEO didn't know that, I understand that) But is mere nervousness of a 17 yo young man really probable cause? It wasn't late at night, it was after dinner, about 8:30 pm. A friend's mom had cooked him dinner and he was heading home. Son said there was 4 or 5 police cars, and a dog. That's the entire police force of this town, I think! I understand nervousness with other indicators, but what about only nervousness?? thanks


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: abuseofpower; arrest; cultureofcorruption; donutwatch; jackbootedthugs; papersplease; police; policestate; probablecause; profiling; revenuetickets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: DeLaine

This wan an illegal search if you have given the whole story. You should sue.


41 posted on 02/23/2008 2:38:38 AM PST by John Robie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Robie
This wan an illegal search if you have given the whole story. You should sue.

No. They had him legitmately detained on the stop sign violation, they got the dog to the car within the allowed time for a RAS based detention. The dog gave them PC for a search.

Sue them? What do think will happen to this boy the next time he is stopped in small town Georgia. They were willing to fake the drug dog alert this time. What do you think they fake next time?

42 posted on 02/23/2008 6:41:38 AM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine
A conservative homeschooler. (now the LEO didn't know that, I understand that)

Should that make a difference?

43 posted on 02/23/2008 6:43:43 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Unless they found something illegal during the search, a suit is going to be a fool’s errand.

Generally, the argument that an illegal search uncovered evidence is an argument worth making. You get the results of the search excluded as evidence.

What exactly are the damages for searching and finding nothing, especially if nothing was damaged during the search?


44 posted on 02/23/2008 6:57:06 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; CJ Wolf

I was just trying to let you know that this isn’t some drug addled slacker. You can’t see him.

And we don’t sue, that’s not an option outside of actual intentional damage. We have to live (near) here, as someone pointed out.

And thanks CJW, that’s the clearest post. Thanks to ALL of you, but this one, in layman’s language, was very helpful.
So many were helpful though. Thanks again, so much.


45 posted on 02/23/2008 6:57:36 AM PST by DeLaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Running a stop sign is not probable cause to search somebody. Nothing in this story indicates a search of the car was warranted. This sounds like a typical example of police violating the rights of a child who is unaware of the protections afforded by the Constitution.

I also would not be intimidated into inaction by the prospect of terroristic actions by the police.


46 posted on 02/23/2008 6:59:17 AM PST by John Robie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine

You asked what the probable cause for the search was. It was based on the dog alerting on the car. There was nothing illegal about the search.


47 posted on 02/23/2008 7:02:47 AM PST by Guns are GOOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guns are GOOD

So a search without probable cause is probable cause to do a search without probable cause?


48 posted on 02/23/2008 7:07:29 AM PST by John Robie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: John Robie
Running a stop sign is not probable cause to search somebody. Nothing in this story indicates a search of the car was warranted.

I've given you a detailed description of how reasonable articulable suspicion escalated to probable cause within the allowable duration of a detention based on RAS.

Sorry but America decided a long long time ago that the War on Drugs was far more important than the 4th Amendment. This stop and search were not only totally legitimate it was a textbook case of using a drug dog to gain PC with a suspect silly enough to believe he has meaningful 4th Amendment protection.

49 posted on 02/23/2008 7:08:09 AM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: John Robie
I also would not be intimidated into inaction

Have you ever lived in Georgia? The fake drug alert already indicates one of the cops is crooked and quite possibly planting drug residue. What do think will happen next time they see this kid?

50 posted on 02/23/2008 7:13:59 AM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

See post 48. You are using the results a search without probable cause as probable cause. The officer should have written the ticket and let the driver go unless they had a reasonable belief that the driver was under the influence of drugs.

I also hope you are being sarcastic in your statements about the US Constitution which trumps the motivations of public servants.


51 posted on 02/23/2008 7:16:27 AM PST by John Robie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine
Not going into the probable cause issue, but "It was dark, not even street lights in this area, but he saw this difficult-to-tell action in the dark," would imply he had his lights on and it would be obvious if he stopped or not.
52 posted on 02/23/2008 7:20:14 AM PST by SouthTexas (We are home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Robie

Having a dog smell a car isn’t a search. I didn’t make the law, I’m just telling people what it is, so don’t yell at me. Thanks.


53 posted on 02/23/2008 7:22:26 AM PST by Guns are GOOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Guns are GOOD

It is in my book, and I would not yell at you. Many police officers like to find creative ways to trample the Constitution by pretending certain types of searches are not searches, and that is not your fault. I understand why you have that impression, but I must disagree.


54 posted on 02/23/2008 7:26:16 AM PST by John Robie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
The fake drug alert already indicates one of the cops is crooked and quite possibly planting drug residue.

What would be the point of planting drug residue? It's not as if the dog is going to get on the stand and testify that it alerted or not.

If the cop is going to testify that the dog alerted, who is going to contradict him? Nobody is going to believe the testimony of the suspect who is untrained in handling sniffer dogs.

55 posted on 02/23/2008 7:26:57 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John Robie
You are using the results a search without probable cause as probable cause. The officer should have written the ticket and let the driver go unless they had a reasonable belief that the driver was under the influence of drugs.

No its pretty well established that a drug dog can sniff a car and person being detained with RAS for just the stop sign if they get the dog there in a reasonable time frame say 45 minutes. This exact scenario is covered in the book I linked to above. This is a very very common technique for voiding the 4th amendment.

If I was going to hammer on anything in court, I would hammer on the fake drug alert, how it occurred and how it will be avoided in the future. Will the dog be retired, retrained? How will the false alert be prevented in the future? (it wont, it was the entire point of the exercise)

I'll bet you dollars to donuts the dog alerted out of view of the camera. If you are really lucky maybe the camera actually captured the officier smearing drug residue on the back bumper to trigger the alert.

However, there is NO WAY IN HELL, the courts would let you set this precedent because the drug dog end run around the 4th is such an important tool for the police these days. You would be lookin at years and years in court to set such a precedent. If you really want to, I would try the ACLU or Institute for Justice for such a case.

I also hope you are being sarcastic in your statements about the US Constitution which trumps the motivations of public servants

The Constitution is a sick joke. It only kept around in Modern America for the same reason the USSR had a Bill of Rights which guarded against searches and seizures as well.

56 posted on 02/23/2008 7:30:34 AM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
What would be the point of planting drug residue? It's not as if the dog is going to get on the stand and testify that it alerted or not. If the cop is going to testify that the dog alerted, who is going to contradict him?

Perhaps the dog handler or the dashboard camera.

The fact is the dog alerted or was said to have alerted when there were no drugs.

So either.

A. The dog smelled drug residue.

B. The dog made an error.

C. The dog alert was faked.

If A. it came from the previous owner, a previous occupant of the vehicle or my hunch is the police themselves smeared something on the back bumper. In fact, I knew the dog indicated on the back bumper before the poster even added that fact to the story.

If B. the dog is defective and needs to retrained at great expense to the department.

If C. (and parts of A.) the cops are crooked and pursuing the matter will probably get the ever living crap beaten out of the kid when he "lunges" for an officer during his next police stop.

57 posted on 02/23/2008 7:42:34 AM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine
Pay the fine and move on. You'll both live and learn (about life not being fair).

However, it it were me, I'd write a letter-to-the-editor of your local trumpet, and let the police chief and mayor have it. Don't attack the cop or the force, it's counter-productive.

The chief, the cops and low-level hayseed politicians hate newspaper publicity worse than the Blue Plate Cafe being closed down for remodeling.

Leni

58 posted on 02/23/2008 7:46:55 AM PST by MinuteGal (Mitt and Fred are Still My Guys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine
The dog didn’t alert on the mints, the police pulled them out of the console and asked what they were and smelled them.

He had no authority to search that vehicle unless the dog alerted on something.

Is it really an issue that they didn’t receive my permission when they also didn’t receive his permission?

Depending on the jurisdiction, I believe your attorney could argue at the ticket appearance that the officer searched your property without your consent. If you are going to contest the ticket, I would consult an attorney.

59 posted on 02/23/2008 8:03:20 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine

But in the complete dark? Give me a break.
+++++++++++++++++
In the dark taillights would be an easy tipoff of a car not stopping.
Where was the son driving? Was it in the heart of the drug area far from the beaten path. Did the son stop and chat with a drug pusher well known to the police? Was the son far off a normal path to transit the area towards home (where did he come from and where was he headed and is this block far off the intended route)? When questioned was the son nervous and were his answers consistent? Are the residents of that neighborhood fed up with drug dealing in their area and have they demanded that police do something about the crime in their neighborhood? Is the block the son was on one of the worst crime blocks in the patrol area? We don’t know the whole story. Since we don’t I’d give the benefit of any doubt to the police who just might be trying to do their job. The fact that the police didn’t find anything doesn’t mean they should stop doing their jobs and not stop anyone who might be out of place in their target area. Hopefully the police were courteous and explained their suspicions.


60 posted on 02/23/2008 11:09:18 AM PST by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson