Reasonable Suspicion/Reasonable Cause

[Guest gunslinger707]

I have been stopped several time' s during my driving career I have NEVER been asked to allow a vehicle search. Having said that i have a close friend who is a State Trooper and i have known several LEO's through the year's having been a member of a Vol.Rescue Squad.However i would not consent to a vehicle search if you want to search my veh. get your warrant for same JMHO!!!!

[The Rabbi]

"Or the cops no they screwed the pooch, so they drop a packet to find. Once again you and mon are in jail and the kids are with social services"

What a ridiculous statement.

You have some serious issues with authority, my friend. I'm pulling out of this thread, eject! eject!

Oh you mean those things never happen?

Wrong.

[Smith]

Oh you mean those things never happen?

Wrong.

Only to Orthodox Jewish men in convertibles!

[The Rabbi]

Not in my recollection. However it even happens in this state.

[Tennessee Police Officers Accused of Planting Drugs and Beating Suspect

A lawsuit was filed on Thursday accusing Cookeville, Tennessee police of “excessive use of force” and “planting contraband" during a domestic assault arrest last year.

One officer has been placed on leave because of the incident, and five others are named in the federal lawsuit.

Police car video from the Cookeville Police Department captured the incident that triggered the lawsuit.

On the night of June 4, 2007, Carlos Ferrell was stopped by police on a domestic assault warrant. According to the lawsuit, Ferrell's ex-wife, Tiffany, saw Ferrell, called police and was involved in the initial chase.

Once Ferrell came to a stop, he was ordered out of the car by Cookeville Police Officer Chris Melton.

“Put your hands up, and get out of the car,” Melton is heard telling Ferrell on the tape.

Ferrell, 28, exits the car with his arms raised while Officer Jeff Johnson is holding the department’s police dog.

The video shows the dog bite Ferrell several times. Attorney Blair Durham is representing Ferrell.

“The dog is released. The dog then chews into Mr. Ferrell's leg where, of course, he goes to the ground,” he said.

"Your dog just ate my leg off,” Ferrell said on the tape. Durham also accused Melton of planting drugs on Ferrell.

In the dash cam video, Melton is seen searching Ferrell's pockets a number of times.

Then, Durham said, another officer appears to give a signal with his hand, at which point Melton then reaches into his right pocket and looks into the camera.

It’s at that point on the tape that Durham said Melton appears to put drugs in Ferrell's pocket.

“Whoa, Carlos, weed? Now you got you another freaking charge, how about that?"

Melton told Ferrell in the video. Melton has been placed on administrative leave with pay. T

he night of the stop, Ferrell was charged with evading arrest and possession of marijuana.

“That’s a complete drug plant is what I'm alleging. It’s a complete unlawful search, first of all, and it’s a planting of paraphernalia,” Durham said.

Cookeville police said they are "completely cooperating with the TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation)."

A representative said the department is not trying to hide anything and doesn’t want to look like it is.

Police took Ferrell to an area hospital for treatment of his injuries.

Durham said Ferrell is no choir boy but that he's never been arrested on violent offenses.

According to his record, Ferrell has two DUIs and a previous drug possession charge.

Updated: February 22, 2008, 11:10 am

[Smith]

Rabbi, that was proved to be a good bust after the investigation.

[Guest tlondon]

Always believe the bad guy. Thats what we have come to now days

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, that was proved to be a good bust after the cover-up.

Fixed it for ya.

The point is that it happens a lot. As for "bad guys" the exact point is that bad guys, drug dealers, pimps, wife beaters, etc have rights. And if they don/t, we don't either.

[Smith]

Fixed it for ya.

The point is that it happens a lot. As for "bad guys" the exact point is that bad guys, drug dealers, pimps, wife beaters, etc have rights. And if they don/t, we don't either.

That may appeal as an emotional response, but realistically is statistically very low. To make assumptions on perceived "facts" is out of character for you.

How many times do bad guys get off on technicalities and loop holes when they are guilty as sin? In fact I would be willing to bet that a lot more follow the later assumption than the former.

While 2 wrongs don't make a right i understand the temptation to "secure" a good conviction that will stick. However, keep in mind the "seriousness of the charge" is not enough to make accusations.

[The Rabbi]

Whether bad guys get off on "technicalities" is irrelevant here. Of course it happens. I hate to see guilty people go free. But the reason they go free is often as not the stupidity and laziness of the officers on duty. How many criminals have gotten off from the "exclusionary rule"? I'll bet plenty. And every case was one where the cops did an improper search and seizure--exactly the kind they are likely to do on you and me.

I understand that the temptation to put a real scum-bucket behind bars is great. But scum buckets have rights in this country. And violating them to achieve that is to secure short term gain at long term loss.

[Punisher84]

Whether bad guys get off on "technicalities" is irrelevant here. Of course it happens. I hate to see guilty people go free. But the reason they go free is often as not the stupidity and laziness of the officers on duty. How many criminals have gotten off from the "exclusionary rule"? I'll bet plenty. And every case was one where the cops did an improper search and seizure--exactly the kind they are likely to do on you and me.

I understand that the temptation to put a real scum-bucket behind bars is great. But scum buckets have rights in this country. And violating them to achieve that is to secure short term gain at long term loss.

We were having a discussion at work the other about our mutual hatred for rapists/child molesters and my friend, who is retired LEO, said that while the temptation to beat the living crap out of those guys was great, he said he was always extremely careful in everything he did with them to ensure all the ducks were in a row for court to ensure a conviction.

I think while the temptation to send someone "on a ride" is there, it's in an officers best interest to follow the laws and procedures set forth. At least then you know you did everything in your power to get them off the street, it is not worth jeopardizing your career or life.

[The Rabbi]

We were having a discussion at work the other about our mutual hatred for rapists/child molesters and my friend, who is retired LEO, said that while the temptation to beat the living crap out of those guys was great, he said he was always extremely careful in everything he did with them to ensure all the ducks were in a row for court to ensure a conviction.

I think while the temptation to send someone "on a ride" is there, it's in an officers best interest to follow the laws and procedures set forth. At least then you know you did everything in your power to get them off the street, it is not worth jeopardizing your career or life.

Bingo.

Unfortunately some officers can't resist the temptation.

I will say that dash cams have changed the whole equation.

[Punisher84]

Bingo.

Unfortunately some officers can't resist the temptation.

I will say that dash cams have changed the whole equation.

Yea the dash cam, while there have been a few times what was shown wasn't the full story, 95% of the time they are the best friend an officer has.

[Smith]

Whether bad guys get off on "technicalities" is irrelevant here. Of course it happens. I hate to see guilty people go free. But the reason they go free is often as not the stupidity and laziness of the officers on duty. How many criminals have gotten off from the "exclusionary rule"? I'll bet plenty. And every case was one where the cops did an improper search and seizure--exactly the kind they are likely to do on you and me.

I understand that the temptation to put a real scum-bucket behind bars is great. But scum buckets have rights in this country. And violating them to achieve that is to secure short term gain at long term loss.

I know what you're saying and I agree in principal. I just think it is a sad state of affairs when our society is more concerned with what is "legal" than right and wrong. Practically, I don't see any correction except for society to revive absolutes, but too many people like the margins and will argue what exactly those are. I think the gap will continue to grow as laws become increasingly marginal to encompass the "new" boundaries.

Where's Andy when you need him?

[The Rabbi]

True.

Because 95% of the time the officer is doing the right thing. So the dash cam confirms his story that no, the suspect was not cooperating.

The other 5% of the time is different....

[The Rabbi]

I know what you're saying and I agree in principal. I just think it is a sad state of affairs when our society is more concerned with what is "legal" than right and wrong. Practically, I don't see any correction except for society to revive absolutes, but too many people like the margins and will argue what exactly those are. I think the gap will continue to grow as laws become increasingly marginal to encompass the "new" boundaries.

Where's Andy when you need him?

Right and wrong are murky.

It is certainly wrong to abuse a spouse or child. It is equally wrong to plant evidence. Do you want to weigh which wrong is worse and make the decision? Not me.

Who was it who said better 100 criminals go free than 1 honest man suffer punishment?

[Punisher84]

Right and wrong are murky.

It is certainly wrong to abuse a spouse or child. It is equally wrong to plant evidence. Do you want to weigh which wrong is worse and make the decision? Not me.

Who was it who said better 100 criminals go free than 1 honest man suffer punishment?

Rabbi, have you ever seen a movie called Gone Baby Gone? There is a part where Ed Harris and Casey Affleck are having a discussion about killing/planting evidence, wrong and right. I think you'd really appreciate that conversation. Here it is...

Detective Remy Bressant: I planted evidence on a guy once, back in '95. We were paying $100 an eight-ball to snitches. We got a call from our pal, Ray Likanski. He couldn't find enough guys to rat out. Anyway, he tells us there's a guy pumping up in an apartment up in Columbia Point. We go in, me and Nicky. Fifteen years ago, when Nicky went in, it was no joke. So it's a... it's a stash house, right? The old lady's beat to sh*t, the husband's mean, cracked out, trying to give us trouble, Nicky lays him down. We're doing an inventory, but it looks like we messed up because there's no dope in the house, and I go in the back room. Now, this place was a sh*thole, mind you? Rats, roaches, all over the place. But the kid's room, in the back, was spotless. No, I mean, he swept it, mopped it; it was immaculate. The little boy's sitting on the bed, holding onto his playstation for dear life. There's no expression on his face, tears streaming down. He wants to tell me he just learned his multiplication tables.

Patrick Kenzie: Christ.

Detective Remy Bressant: I mean, the father's got him in this crack den, subsisting on twinkies and ass-whippings, and this little boy just wants someone to tell him that he's doing a good job. You're worried what's Catholic? I mean, kids forgive. Kids don't judge. Kids turn the other cheek. What do they get for it? So I went back out there, I put an ounce of heroin on the living room floor, and I sent the father on a ride, seven to life.

Patrick Kenzie: That's was the right thing?

Detective Remy Bressant: [yelling] F**king A! You gotta take a side. You molest a child, you beat a child, you're not on my side. If you see me coming, you better run, because I am gonna lay you the f**k down! Easy.

Patrick Kenzie: Don't feel easy.

Detective Remy Bressant: Is the kid better off without his father? Yeah. But okay, I mean, could be out there right now pumping with a gun in his waistband. It's a war, man. Are we winning? No.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Punisher84

[The Rabbi]

I'm hoping that was just fiction.....

[DaveTN]

Is it me or is cop bashing a common theme on TGO?

It’s pretty common on many forums. Some people do not understand or do not agree with the way the laws and their rights are interpreted and see the cops as the cause. Many cops or former cops are more than willing to discuss these situations on an open forum; while your legislators and Judges are not.

Now back the original question.

Having a HCP gives you no special protection from the Officer making the scene safe. You are an armed citizen. We have absolutely no information on why the Officer wanted to secure the weapon so I will just say that he has that authority at any time, whether it is on a traffic stop, stopping you on the street, or when he is called to your home. If the cop found something illegal while getting the gun out of the car; that would be a call for a Judge to make.

Most Officers will explain why they are doing what they are doing, but as I have said before if I were to suspect that an HCP holder or anyone else is a danger no discussion would take place until he was disarmed; by force if he took it to that level.

Legally PC need only be discussed in a court room in front of a Judge should you decide to challenge it.

Here are some things that run rampant on the internet that are just some bad information.

A cop has to explain why he has probable cause to search, a cop must show you the radar/laser gun on a traffic stop, a cop must read you your Miranda rights. And my latest favorite… get out of your vehicle and lock the doors. The idiot attorney that made that video should be disbarred.

If you think the Officer is doing something wrong, you have recourse; but not on the street.

Edited June 8, 2008 by DaveTN

[Guest bob-e]

Objection. Heresay. I haven't heard any personal accounts, just friend of a friend, internet tale, "I saw this on the interstate" stuff and everyone is screaming that their rights are being violated. When your rights are actually violated, let us know your personal account.

I was pulled over twice in the last 2 weeks and received nothing but respect (and only one ticket). They just asked if I had my handgun and said stay away from it if you have it.

I think portions of these tales are left out and/or fabricated to create a better story for someone who is pissed off for getting a ticket. I'm not saying un-ehtical police do not exist, I just don't think we are victims of the Gestapo that is potrayed in this thread.

[dralarms]

Heck, I was in Johnson City last week, got into an accident (woman shot up on my right side while I was trying to change lanes), cop never even asked if I was armed, I guess he assumed when he ran my license that since I have a HCP I was indead armed and saw no reason to bring it up. Now he did cite me for improper lane change even though looking at the place I was trying to change lanes I should NOT have been the one ticketed.

But he was professional and polite.

[Punisher84]

I'm hoping that was just fiction.....

Yea it's from a movie based on a book by Dennis Lehane.

[Guest shadow12]

Okay so let me get this straight, First we shouldn't pull people over for traffic violations. We shouldn't ask to search cars or homes. We plant evidence, we use excessive force before we plant the drugs. We sneak up on people when we do traffic stops, we steal and lie, did I forget anything? When Voldemort first got started on here, everyone thought he was a whack job that just tried to start problems with people, but now it looks like that has become a theme on here.

Kwik, I apologize for anything that I have ever thought of you that may have been hurtful. I never posted anything and ain't sure if I thought of any, but feel like I should apologize.

I have enjoyed this forum for a long time, but it seems like everytime I come online, it's all about how bad cops are. Those of you who have said all the BULL S&!T should suit up and do the damn job or shut up.

It's our butts on the line when we stop cars and try to keep the bad guys off the street, maybe we should just all quit, then you could deal with the thugs on your porch.

So far i've heard how the first cop through the door on a no knock warrant is getting shot, Rabbi has posted that some cops beat a man who has drug dealing on his record then planted drugs, then covered it up so they would look like they were okay. If you don't trust cops, don't call when your daughter gets raped, or maybe when your gunshop gets burgalized. You people make me sick, you want us there when you are wronged, but the rest of the time, we should go away because we are all evil cops trying to violate your rights. The cop that stops you, doesn't have a clue who you are, so everyone gets treated with a little suspicion.

The people on this forum that know me personally, know what kind of person I am, and they know what kind of cop I am. I can only hope that they don't feel that way about me. I seem to get angry every time I log on, so like another member here, I will leave now before I say something to get thrown off here.

Shadow12 out

[Guest Phantom6]

The last time I was asked permission by an officer to search my vehicle I was being stopped for a headlight violation by an ACSO deputy on Clinton Highway just after passing the Knox Co./Anderson Co. line, headed for home at 1:00 am after working late. I was in a relatively new, very clean, high-top conversion van (Ford F-350) wearing a sport coat, casual slacks and a button down shirt with a tie (loosened). My headlight winked out just before the deputy saw me. After taking care of business he asked if he could search my vehicle and I declined his request though I had nothing to hide. I do have a thing about unreasonable search and seizure however. This deputy told me that he could call and get a warrant issued however he did just what he should have done and he called his supervisor who came out and explained to him that since there was no actual probable cause he would have hell to pay if they woke a judge up at that hour to get a warrant based on a bad headlight and they didn't find a van load of fugitives or drugs. The K-9 officer showed up, walked the dog around outside of the vehicle and when the dog didn't indicate they dropped the whole interior search thing.

Did I expect that the officer would plant something in my vehicle? Hardly. Was I just yanking his chain? Not at all.

Undoubtedly I could have gotten on with my life 30-45 minutes sooner if I had let them search my van but it was the principal of the thing that I was standing on- that principal being my Constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. I felt the request was unreasonable and apparantly without further cause, so did the supervisor on scene.

Edit: As someone said earlier, if you feel that you have been wronged, you certainly have recourse.

Painting all cops with a broad brush as dangerous is childish. Every vocation has it's bad apples. They shouldnt ruin the entire barrel. I agree with Shadow12. The next time you have your business broken into or your family attacked, call a yellow dog liberal. They'll make sure that they talk to those bad men and that they will never do something like that again.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Phantom6

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Undoubtedly I could have gotten on with my life 30-45 minutes sooner if I had let them search my van but it was the principal of the thing that I was standing on- that principal being my Constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. I felt the request was unreasonable and apparantly without further cause, so did the supervisor on scene.

You were still subjected to an unreasonable seizure. The case law is clear. You can be detained no longer than necessary to issue the citation or warning. Holding you further is not in accordance with controlling court decisions.

You should've began asking if you were free to go. "Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" He may have really been ignorant of the law and told you that you were still being detained. But, you've set the ball rolling for a good claim of an unreasonable search and seizure. BTW, a dog sniff is not considered a search. Apparently, SCOTUS has determined that the dog isn't looking for anything, so it's not a search.

Also, it would be good to note the "I'll just get a warrant" threat. As stated, warrants require PC. Our government, in its desire to erode the Fourth Amendment as much as possible, has decided that vehicles create an exigency which disposes of the warrant requirement. If an officer has PC in relation to a vehicle, he doesn't have to get a warrant. This cop lied to you. He tried to perpetrate a ruse against you and your liberty.

[saintsfanbrian]

Shadow - again, unfortunately, the most of the time people deal with police officers face to face is when they are getting the rest of the information comes from the newspapers and the television.

Again, unfortunately, one bad apple does spoil the public opinion of the bunch. If officers want a better reputation (and if my wife would let me I would suit up) they should ensure that when they do that traffic stop they don't go out of their way to alienate themselves from the community. Asking a man in a suit and tie in a nice van to search the vehicle - not necessary. If you think there might be guns or drugs or illegals in the car, call out the dogs. I would imagine that when the drivers license was run it came back with no wants, no warrants. If that is the case what is the reason for wanting to search other than to break the guys balls?