2

5/15/2012 7:04:29 PM

Quote :

"another cop that doesn't understand a lawyer's job"

Oh I understand, but a lot of them argue misinformation out of ignorance not as an attempt to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Quote :

"but almost every lawyer I know claims cops follow "procedures" that 1) aren't entirely legal, and 2) they won't really share with the public, court, or anyone external to the police station."

Which is the perception I fucking hate. You can do everything by the book and to the letter of the law and still have results.

5/15/2012 7:05:17 PM

Quote :

"Oh I understand, but a lot of them argue misinformation out of ignorance not as an attempt to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about. "

I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but I will say that you cannot just detain someone at a checkpoint for no reason, which is what I've argued all along. Do you disagree that the majority of searches performed are consent searches? Do you disagree that you don't have to wait for the drug dogs if there's no reason to detain you?

Quote :

"Which is the perception I fucking hate. You can do everything by the book and to the letter of the law and still have results."

Even if you do things by the book, you are still a human being, and your "tests" are still subjective. Even breathalyzers aren't perfectly calibrated all the time.

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2012 7:06:55 PM

Quote :

"but field sobriety tests are inconclusive at times. I've had people blow 0.00 and fail some of the tests"

Are you certified in Standardized Field Sobriety Test (the NHTSA course)? Because I have never once it "fail."

5/15/2012 7:08:23 PM

I didn't read this thread at all, but if you aren't doing anything illegal then checkpoints shouldn't bother you. Shit, police set one up at my exit at least once a week. At this point they see my face and don't even make me get my license out.

5/15/2012 7:09:32 PM

I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "results" - DWI results? I mean, ok. My point was these "procedures" that police follow vs. what attorneys (who studied law for a number of years) claim is actually legal.

Anyhow, I don't really have anything else to add here that hasn't already been said. And it's not really my intent to argue about DWI checkpoints either.

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM. Reason : v]

5/15/2012 7:09:35 PM

Quote :

"I didn't read this thread at all, but if you aren't doing anything illegal then checkpoints shouldn't bother you. Shit, police set one up at my exit at least once a week. At this point they see my face and don't even make me get my license out."

I hate this argument. It's the same argument that says, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with random searches of my house/person/car."

I have no problem with truly random checkpoints, but it's a dangerous line to toe if your reasoning is "only the criminals should have a problem with intrusion into my personal space and freedoms."

5/15/2012 7:11:10 PM

Quote :

"Do you disagree that the majority of searches performed are consent searches? Do you disagree that you don't have to wait for the drug dogs if there's no reason to detain you?"

I can't really make a blanket statement about that because I don't have any statistics. However, the majority of my consent searches are based on articulate facts. A majority example would be a) vehicle is from out of town and/or the driver is a stranger b) outside a know drug house or drug neighbor hood c) prior drug arrest(s) d) flight at the sight of LE (not like run, but try to leave the neighborhood. Those would be the majority of my consent searches.

However, I probably perform more probable cause searches based on plain sight or plain smell.

Quote :

"Even if you do things by the book, you are still a human being, and your "tests" are still subjective. Even breathalyzers aren't perfectly calibrated all the time."

But they are. The breathalyzers we use in NC (EC/IR II) won't work if its out of "calibration." It has fail safe after fail safe to ensure that the evidence it collects is true.

5/15/2012 7:14:58 PM

I am not civilian police....but I wish I could pull over Beethoven or have her come through one of my inspection checkpoints

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM. Reason : yea]

5/15/2012 7:15:08 PM

Quote :

"However, the majority of my consent searches are based on articulate facts. A majority example would be a) vehicle is from out of town and/or the driver is a stranger b) outside a know drug house or drug neighbor hood c) prior drug arrest(s) d) flight at the sight of LE (not like run, but try to leave the neighborhood. Those would be the majority of my consent searches. "

I don't think you're understanding what a consent search is. If it's a consent search, you don't need articulate facts. You just need consent.

^I don't know if that's an innuendo, or an insult.

5/15/2012 7:17:08 PM

Side note: There is a pretty big debacle up here in the DC area right now, regarding breathalyzers. Apparently, they were all functioning improperly for quite some time, yet were being used anyway... even while police had knowledge of this. Now? A lot of these cases are making their way through court now, there's hell to pay by the way of the prosecutors. They haven't been able to use the portable breathalyzers for like a year now.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/05/d-c-breathalyzers-district-settles-with-four-75699.html

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM. Reason : d]

5/15/2012 7:19:13 PM

We live in a police state, every rural police department has a SWAT team ready to break down some doors, looking for action. Increase of "DWI Checkpoints" are just the beginning.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

5/15/2012 7:20:14 PM

There were good number of cases last year in Wake County where they were just thrown out because the cops didn't calibrate the test first, and the levels were drastically different in the field vs. at the magistrate's office.

5/15/2012 7:20:37 PM

^^^neither, just less bs on government installations.

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ya]

5/15/2012 7:20:51 PM

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/05/d-c-breathalyzers-district-settles-with-four-75699.html

making sure everyone sees this discussion point.

5/15/2012 7:22:57 PM

Quote :

"if you aren't doing anything illegal then checkpoints shouldn't bother you."

it cannot be said enough... this is a dangerous line of reasoning

5/15/2012 7:23:17 PM

Quote :

"if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with random searches of my house/person/car."

This is a true statement as far as I am concerned.

5/15/2012 7:28:32 PM

blood test or go home

Relying on a fucking police officer to determine your guilt is le turrible

5/15/2012 7:29:32 PM

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ^^it's pretty cut and dry]

5/15/2012 7:32:52 PM

and sad

5/15/2012 7:35:37 PM

Oh, I have a question for Restricted

This may not apply to you, but you may have an answer...why do a lot of cops flip shit if they realize they're being filmed

5/15/2012 7:37:37 PM

Sorry, I'm going to be nice to the cops in this thread.

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2012 7:43:40 PM

Beethoven apparently breaks a lot of laws

I am running the IP search now

5/15/2012 7:50:25 PM

it's particularly strange that there's a cop that doesn't understand what consent means

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 7:54 PM. Reason : dje in full constitutional troll mode]

5/15/2012 7:52:48 PM

Why do you find that strange?

There are cops who actively disregard laws and their own department policies because they know there are minimal repercussions for doing so. Go take a picture of a cop and see what happens. It's legal, they know it's legal, many departments have sent out memos to their entire force to let them know it's legal and they should not interfere with a citizen photographing them... but dollars to donuts you'll get harassed if you do it.

5/15/2012 7:55:13 PM

Quote :

"Beethoven apparently breaks a lot of laws I am running the IP search now"

Gotta protect my guns and my freedom.

5/15/2012 7:58:02 PM

lulz

I legally possess both, thus I welcome any officer of the law into my home to take a look

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 8:00 PM. Reason : a]

5/15/2012 7:59:21 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you're understanding what a consent search is. If it's a consent search, you don't need articulate facts. You just need consent."

I know what a consent search is - what I was trying to convey is that I don't ask for consent unless there facts like those I stated above (which do not constitute probable cause) because unless you have some sort of articulate suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, 10/10 you will find nothing. There is absolutely no point to stop someone for speeding and then arbitrarily asking to search their car.

Quote :

"This may not apply to you, but you may have an answer...why do a lot of cops flip shit if they realize they're being filmed"

Never understood it; I love being filmed because a) its a record of what actually happened and b) I don't do shady ass shit.

There have been times where I would have given my arm to have a camera present whether surveillance, cell phone, etc.

5/15/2012 8:00:22 PM

in regards to the OP, i always assume half the DWLR people originally lost their licenses from DWI

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 8:08 PM. Reason : half]

5/15/2012 8:08:21 PM

When I was a teenager, I must have had my car searched 10 times by cops pulling me over for random issues. It was always fronted by mentioning a speeding ticket / not stopping at stopsign but they'll overlook that if I let them search my car. Having nothing to hide, I went for the car search method. Cary cops

5/15/2012 8:09:17 PM

I can't believe I forgot to mention this before:

fuck the police

5/15/2012 8:14:15 PM

Quote :

"I didn't read this thread at all, but if you aren't doing anything illegal then checkpoints shouldn't bother you."

What do you mean shouldn't bother you? That shit takes forever.

5/15/2012 8:22:01 PM

Restricted

Quote :

"Never understood it; I love being filmed because a) its a record of what actually happened and b) I don't do shady ass shit. There have been times where I would have given my arm to have a camera present whether surveillance, cell phone, etc."

I fucking love you.

On another note, when I was 16 a cop pulled up while I was pumping gas and asked me why I wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He proceeded to follow me into the store and wouldn't leave the fuck alone until I got in the car and showed him you can't see the fucking seatbelt from the window.

/random bitching

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 8:26 PM. Reason : dick suckers]

5/15/2012 8:22:44 PM

There is absolutely no point to stop someone for speeding and then arbitrarily asking to search their car.
[/quote]

Jersey cops do this shit all the time. I had an officer get verbally abusive with me because I would not consent to a search and asked for his badge number and name. He eventually let me go without even a ticket because he had nothing on me. I know many other people with similar experiences in NJ. It's great if you don't pull stunts like that but you can't claim it just doesn't happen. I swear Jersey cops have to meet monthly quotas on car searches or something.

5/15/2012 9:18:02 PM

^ heh, I asked for a cops badge number once - he responded, "fuck you" and left me alone. His fellow officers laughed at how pissed he was getting. lulz. (to be fair, I was making it hard on him since he was being a completely douche nozzle to begin with)

I have way too many cop stories...and I don't even do shady shit

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2012 9:19:17 PM

^^ side note... on the subject of quotas....

A few months back, in Arlington a document mistakenly got out. The document was a memo from the police department calling for a specific number of stops, citations, etc... to be made in a certain period of time. When it was mistakenly released, the PD had to do some serious dick trickery and back peddling to try to 'explain' how calling for a certain number of stops, citations, etc... WASN'T a quota system.



http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/arlington-county-police-quotas-memo-retracted-73982.html

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM. Reason : retracted, but the damage has been done]

5/15/2012 9:22:44 PM

LOL!

5/15/2012 9:23:41 PM

Quote :

"oh yeah- if you've been busted for certain things, they can search you just for walking down the street... i think like probation, it expires eventually, but it is a thing"

Not exactly. If you are on probation and the offense date it within the last few years, you will have warrantless search conditions. However, there are different rules for this depending on if it is conducted with a probation officer present or not. If a police officer wishes to conduct a search based on your probation conditions with no probation officer present, they are limited to searching your person and vehicle if they have reason to believe you are committing a criminal offense or in possession of a deadly weapon.

A probation officer (or a police officer working with a probation officer at the scene) is allowed to execute a warrantless search for any reason they choose. This includes your person, vehicle, and residence while you are present.

Once you complete probation or have your probation revoked and complete your active sentence, these searches go away. At that point you should be treated like any average joe on the street with regard to RS/PC/searches.

5/16/2012 12:14:10 AM

^^^ Nope, no quota system here!

5/16/2012 8:56:29 AM

I can't believe the courts fucked this one up. They're completely wrong.

Stopping everyone driving down a road doesn't make suspending constitutional rights proper. It's unconstitutional, no matter what idiot judges said. Our courts are a major problem - as a whole it's a bunch of politically biased government tyrants who are hardly accountable to the people.

If cops decide to stop everyone walking down a sidewalk and ask for papers and "search" them, would this be held up in court? Why is it that cops can now just stop you and ask for your papers and do a visual search of you/your vehicle (and don't think this isn't happening at every stop)? If you can't be pulled for no reason, then you shouldn't be stopped for no reason.

5/16/2012 9:02:47 AM

Quote :

"Jersey cops do this shit all the time."

Funny, b/c I lived in NJ for 15 years and nobody in my family had any problems with the cops

I've been told by almost every lawyer I've ever known to always refuse to allow a police officer to search your vehicle.

5/16/2012 9:44:54 AM

Maybe it's just the ones around Newark and Hoboken then

And yes, anyone that consents to a search of their car is a moron imo. A cop won't find anything interesting in my car but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'll let them search it without a warrant.

5/16/2012 9:47:11 AM

Quote :

"However, the majority of my consent searches are based on articulate facts. A majority example would be a) vehicle is from out of town and/or the driver is a stranger b) outside a know drug house or drug neighbor hood c) prior drug arrest(s) d) flight at the sight of LE (not like run, but try to leave the neighborhood. Those would be the majority of my consent searches."

this has always been a load of shit to me

5/16/2012 10:10:48 AM

I had a cop try to claim a leaf from a tree laying on the floor of my car was probable cause to search when I refused to hand it to him (after being stopped because my tow ball was "blocking" my license plate). "plain sight" or "plain smell" is basically a free pass to search whenever. As indicated by...

Quote :

"However, I probably perform more probable cause searches based on plain sight or plain smell."

he ordered me out and got the leaf (which was very obviously a leaf), but went no further after i said "sir, i do not consent to this search" (and had nothing in the car to be worried about btw). No citation ever given.


From what i've seen a 'let the court' decide attude prevails when it comes to motor vehicle search matters, which is why it's always very important not to talk too much or consent to a search...Alot of cases are thrown out because officers think/say they did everything legally, but a judge disagrees.

and

Quote :

"I wish I could pull over Beethoven or have her come through one of my inspection checkpoints"

way to perpetuate the stigma everyone loves to whine about

[Edited on May 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM. Reason : c]

5/16/2012 10:24:05 AM

they should have hid the goods inside chipmunk and chipette dolls and transferred them by hot air balloon.

5/16/2012 10:52:49 AM

I think the drug cartels will soon build some stealth drones that can deliver undetected without having to worry about being pulled over.

5/16/2012 10:55:13 AM

Quote :

"sets up checkpoint for the purpose of stopping DWI"

The premise of this thread is wrong. Those checkpoints are set up to stop DWIs. Hell they aren't even set up to catch DWIs. They're set up to make money for the state, county, or municipality. They are set up jut to issue tickets, that's it. There is no noble intention in them.

5/16/2012 11:01:42 AM

I was pulled over in Astoria, Qns once because my car's aftermarket exhaust was "illegal". Thing is, it's a perfectly 50 state legal exhaust. The officer said he wasn't going to give me a ticket, was just warning me, so I just agreed with everything he said.

5/16/2012 11:03:32 AM

I have to wonder though, how much money is actually made off of your average DWI checkpoint? It can't be terribly cheap to execute a checkpoint (overtime for manpower, costs of preparations, etc) and theoretically court costs go toward very specific things.

5/16/2012 11:05:32 AM

If you don't spend your whole budget you can't justify a budget increase next year.

5/16/2012 11:07:13 AM