Reasonable Suspicion/Reasonable Cause

[G27]

I have always been a by the book kinda guy and I suppose once I get my shield and run the streets for a few years we'll see how that holds up and where I stand.

*glances nervously at Punisher...*

[Punisher84]

(well, not really, as that would be both silly and pointless, and my family would think me crazier than they already do, but you get the point...)

You would also be arrested! See my other thread for clarification. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8816

[Guest canynracer]

You said you'd punitively use your discretion to punish someone for daring to refuse a search. You'd "teach them a lesson" about exercising a Constitutional right. Whenever you, as an agent of the government, act to disparage or discourage the exercising of a Constitutional right, you are infringing upon that right.

Actually...

actually he said this under the context that he already found a small amount of weed...the being a dick thing is this, Dave finds weed on me, and asks to search for more (not because he has to ask, but because he wants to see if I am going to lie, or be a dick) If I am a dick, he searches anyway, and charges me....if I am honest and being polite, he has the discretion to tell me to quit smoking weed, and let me go....

[G27]

You would also be arrested! See my other thread for clarification. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8816

Hahaha, didn't even think about that...

Nicely played.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

actually he said this under the context that he already found a small amount of weed...the being a dick thing is this, Dave finds weed on me, and asks to search for more (not because he has to ask, but because he wants to see if I am going to lie, or be a dick) If I am a dick, he searches anyway, and charges me....if I am honest and being polite, he has the discretion to tell me to quit smoking weed, and let me go....

So, exercising your Fourth Amendment rights is being dishonest and impolite?

*edit*: And let's not get started on drug law and "smoking weed". lol

[G27]

ACHTUNG

I made a massive mistake here. I scanned the post where Dave said he would 'teach someone a lesson' (paraphrased) and missed the key point - that he had already found some weed. My bad. In that case, I feel he already has every right to search without asking a thing, regardless of my attitude or answer, should he even be nice enough to ask me about searching my auto.

Apologies to Dave and my bad.

That being said, the 'teach someone a lesson' (again, paraphrased) part burns me up, but if I'm already caught with weed, I should think my claim on my 4th amendment rights have already been vacated...

/ACHTUNG

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

In that case, I feel he already has every right to search without asking a thing, regardless of my attitude or answer, should he even be nice enough to ask me about searching my auto.

He does have the right to search you without consent at that point. What he said was that if you further refuse the search, he'll teach you a lesson.

[Fallguy]

I have to say I don't see why a LEO would ask to search if he has already seen a bag of weed or an open container. The only reason to ask is to try and confuse the issue or trick the citizen.

One of the things I like about the agency that my brother and sister-in-law work for is they have a specific policy against preaching to or trying to teach a lesson to a person they are dealing with.

[Guest canynracer]

So, exercising your Fourth Amendment rights is being dishonest and impolite?

Read the whole post where Dave stated that...there were circumstanses he set around it. "My daddy is a lawyer and you cant blah blah blah" (sorry dave couldnt remember it all...)

Under the circumstances where I choose to give an attitude READ "GIVE AN ATTITUDE" I would understand them searching anyway and charging me.

there are ways to say no without giving attitude if you so chose.

I THINK Daves point is that we cannot sit here and type "I would be johnny bad ass and tell the cop off" because every single circumstance is different.

to attempt to be stand-offish about your rights before even getting to the discussion/question with an actual officer during a traffic stop, brings pre-meditated stand offish attitude that may actually provoke the roadside debate.

[Guest slothful1]

There’s the key. You might consent to a search if you think the Officer isn’t being a dick.

That works both ways… If the Officer has you for a minor infraction (traffic, bag of pot, open liquor) and he is asking for permission to search when he already has probable cause; he may be trying to decide if you are going to be a dick.

Moral to this story? Don’t be a dick.

I don't drink or smoke pot, so he's not going to have that, and a minor traffic violation does NOT provide probable cause for a vehicle search.

However, if you want to create an equivalence here between my assessment of the LEO and his assessment of me, then let's make it really equal. He can search my vehicle while I simultaneously search his patrol car (he can even remove the riot gun first). I may not have strong evidence that there's anything amiss in there, but hey, fair is fair, and he'd be a "dick" to refuse, right?

[Guest canynracer]

He does have the right to search you without consent at that point. What he said was that if you further refuse the search, he'll teach you a lesson.

This is what he said....

If it’s someone that I think just learned a lesson and really isn’t a bad person, I can (and have) let them go.

If I am presented with “do you have a warrant?” “Am I free to go?” “My Dads an attorney and he told me never to allow a cop to search my car.” I might decide that you need to learn something about both life and the law, and I hook both you and your car up and haul you off.

.

He said this because

A: the comments from the "citizen" automatically has the "I dont have to do anything, screw you cop" and the lesson is from the officer "Your dad is WRONG kid, and now you will learn that"

B: he already HAS probable cause...so If the dude was like " I am sorry, it was stupid, it is all I had, you can search" without making it the Officers fault YOU broke the law, then he can use the discretion....

In OTHER words.....If you are a dick, they will return the favor

Edited June 12, 2008 by canynracer

[G27]

He does have the right to search you without consent at that point. What he said was that if you further refuse the search, he'll teach you a lesson.

Oh, I agree - I was just back-tracking as I had missed the part where he said he had already found some pot. With me, this isn't an issue - he won't find anything illegal on me, so quite frankly, he's not going to search my vehicle.

And FWIW, I've always been incredibly respectful to LEO's when I've been in traffic stops, but don't expect me to surrender my rights - I'm doing NOTHING wrong outside for the minor traffic violation you've pulled me over for.

Also, it rather pains me to say this, but even with my overtly respectful behavior, I've had the unfortunate experience of dealing with the most power-tripping unforgiving officers ever in many of my stops. Even had one give me a ticket for going 54 in a 45 @ 3AM when the ONLY car I saw was his after I was hurrying home from buying medication and a humidifier (it was al in the seat beside me) for my 5 month old sick baby. Hard to expect them to be looking out for my welfare when I've run into so many that seemed to be 5 year old kids with a badge...

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Read the whole post where Dave stated that...there were circumstanses he set around it. "My daddy is a lawyer and you cant blah blah blah" (sorry dave couldnt remember it all...)

Under the circumstances where I choose to give an attitude READ "GIVE AN ATTITUDE" I would understand them searching anyway and charging me.

there are ways to say no without giving attitude if you so chose.

I THINK Daves point is that we cannot sit here and type "I would be johnny bad ass and tell the cop off" because every single circumstance is different.

to attempt to be stand-offish about your rights before even getting to the discussion/question with an actual officer during a traffic stop, brings pre-meditated stand offish attitude that may actually provoke the roadside debate.

My point is that I know my rights fairly well simply because I take them seriously and wish to enjoy them. They're blood-bought, and I hold them in high regard. There is no compromise. No cynical pragmatism.

Whatever the particulars in dealing with the government and its agents, I am calm and polite. I wish I could say the same of my adversary.

However, if you want to create an equivalence here between my assessment of the LEO and his assessment of me, then let's make it really equal. He can search my vehicle while I simultaneously search his patrol car (he can even remove the riot gun first). I may not have strong evidence that there's anything amiss in there, but hey, fair is fair, and he'd be a "dick" to refuse, right?

I'll eventually ask the following question one day: "Well, officer, you don't have anything to hide, do you?"

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

This is what he said....

He said this because

A: the comments from the "citizen" automatically has the "I dont have to do anything, screw you cop" and the lesson is from the officer "Your dad is WRONG kid, and now you will learn that"

B: he already HAS probable cause...so If the dude was like " I am sorry, it was stupid, it is all I had, you can search" without making it the Officers fault YOU broke the law, then he can use the discretion....

In OTHER words.....If you are a dick, they will return the favor

I disagree. I fail to see how simply refusing a search is "being a dick".

[The Rabbi]

You said you'd punitively use your discretion to punish someone for daring to refuse a search. You'd "teach them a lesson" about exercising a Constitutional right. Whenever you, as an agent of the government, act to disparage or discourage the exercising of a Constitutional right, you are infringing upon that right.

Dave, I don't ever agree with Abominable Hillbilly and here he is seeing the same thing I do. Other posters have seen the same thing. We are all reacting to your statements, which are incontrovertible at this point, that you would plan on "teaching a lesson" to someone for exercising his constitutional rights. And I know our perception is correct because I have seen the same attitude expressed by dozens of other cops.

So whatever you thought you were conveying that was different, you failed to communicate it.

[DaveTN]

So whatever you thought you were conveying that was different, you failed to communicate it.

And I apologize for that. Some understood my point; some didn’t.

You are right Rabbi. Get out of the car, lock the doors, and refuse any request to search.

A bag of pot or a DUI can be a career ender for a young person before their career even gets started. When they get the word that they are ineligible for the big job they wanted maybe they will thank you for all the good advice.

[Guest canynracer]

I disagree. I fail to see how simply refusing a search is "being a dick".

The simple act of refusing is not.....

If you aksed me a question, and I politely said "No sir" well then, party on...

but if you asked me a question, and I went on a tyrade that you are violating my 4th amendment, and ramble about how I am here to strip you...well, now you provoke an argument...

see what I mean?

I am not saying you are wrong, I am just seeing both sides...judging by the cop bashing that goes on here, I can see that some of the "Attitude" brought on by the officer is in response to the attitude given....before EITHER side had a chance to be polite...thats all...

Edited June 12, 2008 by canynracer

[The Rabbi]

And I apologize for that. Some understood my point; some didn’t.

You are right Rabbi. Get out of the car, lock the doors, and refuse any request to search.

A bag of pot or a DUI can be a career ender for a young person before their career even gets started. When they get the word that they are ineligible for the big job they wanted maybe they will thank you for all the good advice.

So your advice is to go ahead and let the officer search and maybe, just maybe, he'll let them off?

I'm not going to argue over whether a DUI or minor possession charge is a "career ender." If it were, half the politicians would be sweeping floors.

But I guess you've taught me.

[The Rabbi]

The simple act of refusing is not.....

If you aksed me a question, and I politely said "No sir" well then, party on...

but if you asked me a question, and I went on a tyrade that you are violating my 4th amendment, and ramble about how I am here to strip you...well, now you provoke an argument...

see what I mean?

I am not saying you are wrong, I am just seeing both sides...judgeing by the cop bashing that goes on here, I can see that some of the "Attitude" brought on by the officer is in response to the attitude given....before WEITHER side had a chance to be polite...thats all...

DaveTN made no such distinction. According to his post ANY refusal to search, ANY exercise of constitutional rights is ipso facto an act of disrespect that needs to be punished by hauling off to jail.

Ergo the police officer is now judge jury and executioner.

[G27]

Ergo the police officer is now judge jury and executioner.

Which is exactly why the 4th is there.

It might be 216 years old, but it's the finest piece of political literature ever written...

[The Rabbi]

Which is exactly why the 4th is there.

It might be 216 years old, but it's the finest piece of political literature ever written...

The Founding Fathers had experience with excessive and corrupt law enforcement. Therefore they crafted the BoR to restrain law enforcement,knowing that it can rapidly turn into a tool of individual abuse as well as government tyranny. As we see here.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Which is exactly why the 4th is there.

It might be 216 years old, but it's the finest piece of political literature ever written...

It's been smeared pretty badly in the last forty years. Shredded, actually. We have the "war on drugs" and "officer safety" to thank for it.

[Punisher84]

*glances nervously at Punisher...*

Nah, don't worry. I'll be good. I'm pretty middle of the road. If I have probable cause I'm just gonna search, if I don't I probably won't even ask. Unless I pull Rabbi over Love ya!!

[DaveTN]

So your advice is to go ahead and let the officer search and maybe, just maybe, he'll let them off?

I'm not going to argue over whether a DUI or minor possession charge is a "career ender." If it were, half the politicians would be sweeping floors.

But I guess you've taught me.

DaveTN made no such distinction. According to his post ANY refusal to search, ANY exercise of constitutional rights is ipso facto an act of disrespect that needs to be punished by hauling off to jail.

Ergo the police officer is now judge jury and executioner.

Rabbi, that is BS and now you are just trying to disrespect me because of your hatred for cops.

You have read my comments before about a request to search. I have never said to ALWAYS allow or ALWAYS refuse a request to search. I said it is dependent on the circumstances and there is no pat answer.

You don’t know me from Adam. You can twist my words around and make all the hate filled dumb ass attacks you like; if that makes you feel better.

knowing that it can rapidly turn into a tool of individual abuse as well as government tyranny. As we see here.

Unbelievable..

[strickj]

Sooo....Have we decided on something yet?

I really need to know,I have not left the house from fear of being pulled over,and not knowing what to do...