Run in with one of Rock Hill PDs Narcotics Teams.
This is a discussion on Run in with one of Rock Hill PDs Narcotics Teams. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mcp1810
I read of a right being waived, but not trampled. They asked permission and it was granted. That is hardly trampling ...
August 26th, 2011 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by mcp1810
Originally Posted by kb2wji
Originally Posted by cuckoo429
I HATE it when people get so hell bent on a way of thinking that they become blind to the fact that a simple question is not a "trampling" of rights - as a thinking, breathing adult, you can consent if you want to. Sure you can deny permission, but whenever I can I choose to lubricate society rather than agitate it. Approach me with respect and treat me courteously and I'm happy to reciprocate - The LEO's were just doing their job.
August 26th, 2011 09:16 AM
I usually asses the situation when involved with leo and make my decision of how to handle it at that time. I got pulled over once on my bike after a guy who went off the road and drove next to me in the shoulder trying to push me into on coming traffic because I went around him legally at a green light he decided to sit at instead of going. when we got to the next light I was turning and was planning on continueing till he stopped at that green light so I got off my bike and when I did he took off and called the cops on me ,well I had been drinking that day and was wearing motorcycle club colors when they pulled me over of course they search me for weapons (I had 3 knives) asked if I was drinking and asked to search my bike When the cop asked if I had drugs in my exaust I laughed at him and said go ahead search the bike hope you dont get burnt and dont scratch my bike. After all was said and done because I was complient I did not get a dui .If I hadnt been drinking I would have not let them search. So I dont feel he did anything wrong in his situation I probably would have done the same thing.
August 26th, 2011 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by TerriLi
Originally Posted by deadguy
The lot I was sitting in is somewhat secluded- turn off the road, and the pavement turns and stops between a couple trees; there are two large trees I park between, but along the side of the road, there are a lot of shrubs mostly blocking the view into the lot. Added to the fact that it's 'vacant' I've only seen the grass in it cut once in over a year, so, now the grass is well up past my chest in most places (mind you, I'm 6'2). So, I can see why people would use the lot for dealing/using drugs- unless you look in just the right direction, at just the right time as you drive by, you won't see anything there.
Originally Posted by glockrocker
I didn't see them as making it more difficult than it had to be- they were polite, and I admit I was in a questionable location (which happens to be one street over from where I work). It made the officers feel like they had done something, and it (hopefully) made them realize that I wasn't there for any 'bad' reasons. The only thing I didn't understand about it, is that they only searched the passenger compartment- they didn't even look at the back of the car. Which, is only separated by the back seat.
But, I have to agree with a few people here; the officers were polite, and ASKED 'do you mind if we search your vehicle'. Not 'we need to search your vehicle', or even 'we are searching your vehicle'. Had any of those been the case, I would have pushed back a little. I am all for cooperating with the police- but I will not be pushed. By anyone.
(It also helps a little that they all had loaded guns, and I didn't. )
"Gun control should mean hitting your target every time."
Please try to remember- I have a very dry sense of humor. It usually sounds mean, but isn't meant to be.
August 26th, 2011 10:02 AM
I would have to suggest that if this is a known haven for drug deals, & in your own words "secluded", it might not be the best place to get involved in reading a book & letting your SA down......just sayin.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.
Im a big fan of the .22LR for bear defense.
Just shoot the guy next to you in the knee and run like heck.
August 26th, 2011 10:20 AM
This whole thread is hilarious. Can we put the "consent to search" threads under the same category as caliber wars? Pretty please, mods?
I am a 4th amendment fan, but the armchair quarterbacking in this case is hilarious.
August 26th, 2011 10:22 AM
I'm all for the rule of law, and some of my best buds are fine, upstanding LEO's. But the last time I looked, the United States was a 'constitutional state', not a 'police state'. The OP states he is just sitting there eating a sandwich. If that is truly all he is doing, then I just don't see the need for him to be "surfed" and subsequently searched.
'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi
August 26th, 2011 11:29 AM
What some people are missing is the opportunity to explain why 'lubricating' the situation or 'I've got nothing to hide, so...' can be bad for you, regardless of your lack of unlawful pursuits.
What if, as you climbed into your car to drive off for a quiet lunch you stepped on, say, a marijuana roach, & this was unknowingly transported into your car with you? Do you think the fact that you always obey the law will help you if they find such an item in your car?
This is the point of all of the "don't let them search" responses here. It wouldn't even have to be a roach. It could be a funny looking seed, a piece of a small plastic bag, or a white powdery substance that got tracked into your car & your cooperation suddenly turns into a couple hour hassle, a detention, or worse.
Therefore, in this case, "I'm just saying" may actually follow some good advice.
"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)
August 26th, 2011 11:52 AM
This is just one example of how our rights are being systematically taken away.
I have a right to sit in my vehicle and eat my damn lunch without idiot cops treating me like a criminal.
August 26th, 2011 12:29 PM
August 26th, 2011 12:31 PM
+1000 This is always my concern. You never know what's going to bite you in the butt until it bites you in the butt. You have nothing to hide you say? ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCALLY SURE...ENOUGH TO BET YOUR LIFE ON IT?
Originally Posted by ArkhmAsylm
"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
-The Mist (2007)
August 26th, 2011 12:36 PM
So, what right was taken away here?
Originally Posted by Bombsaway
Idiots will be idiots that will never change. But the problem is, idiots usually don't play well together.
Also, I know I'll be talking to a brick wall here, but the courts have ruled over and over again that a vehicle exhibiting suspicious behavior in an area known for drug transactions or abuse does constitute RAS for a stop. The search part has already been covered, consent was given, so its a non issue. I know some will want to argue that, and I understand some don't like that. But facts are facts, and to borrow from the annoying phrase thread, it is what it is.
Have fun, and toodles to all.
August 26th, 2011 12:59 PM
Hot Guns post number 7 and Sixto's various posts are amazingly different world views, both out of the thoughts of experienced LEOs. Maybe there is a big city v country aspect to this. Maybe it is individual persona. Either way, when we have such a divergence of viewpoint from within the LE community there is a problem.
And that problem is a complete lack of clarity in the law and an often cavalier attitude by some officers about boundaries.
Given this situation, how very difficult it actually is for ordinary citizens to know what to do in situations like this. I do not for one second believe that simply refusing the request would have caused the officers to leave with nothing more than a "have a good day." Nor, do I believe that asking if you are free to leave would get you anywhere. These folks intended to search the car. They would have found an excuse; they would have escalated something to give them the excuse. And therein lies the problem both with Hot Guns well intentioned advice as it crashes against real world situations. HE, HG, being a good guy no doubt would act as he suggested and adhere to the strictest legal requirements for a search. But that isn't how it often works.
Around here, we have daily headlines in which someone was stopped for the most minor of offenses, and then searched, and then stuff is found. No one has any way to know if stuff is being planted by BG-LEOs or not.
And, Texas has had a few scandalous incidents in which many were falsely accused, many convicted, and then it turned out that the LEO was no good and all the convictions had to be overturned.
Because you never know the motives of those asking to do the search, my gut says it is best to go with HG's advice; but, in our crazy world that may turn out to be a wrong move as well. There is incentive to make a plant if an improper search is done.
As I wrote earlier, our legislators and our judges need to give this business a great deal more attention. Very clear boundaries need to be put down, and both LEOs and the public need to be receiving thorough education on the matter--even with public service announcements and newspaper ads. When everyone is on the same page life will go better both for the LEOs and the ordinary citizen.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
August 26th, 2011 01:14 PM
No they are not different views at all. Hotguns is giving personal level advice, I'm stating some basic facts of criminal and narcotic investigation 101. No advice on how to handle situations were given by me. I have not disagreed with Hotguns advice at all. I only point out flaws in assumptions on what LEO can and cannot do based on peoples television law degrees.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Some people are more compelled to hunker down and take the long route, while others feel they have nothing to hide, and will consent to a search. Its a personal decision people have every right to make, however, most have no idea in what is all involved by the posts seen in threads like this over and over again.
August 26th, 2011 01:31 PM
Sixto and other LEOs.
You are correct, no rights were violated.
I would not have consented to the search. I too, have nothing to hide.
Drug deals happen on the public streets every day. A person has to park their car, or at least stop it near a curb, in order to conduct a transaction.
But, using the notion that parking a car anywhere, or stopping near the curb anywhere constitutes "Reasonable, Articulable, Suspicion" (RAS for the acronym impaired) is quite a stretch, IMO.
Fine, you want to roll up on every parked car on the street? Okay, so it has to have someone in it... or not, maybe they just went inside to make a drug deal.
I would inform, as the OP did.
I guess if LEO is opening my door, and physically leading me out of it... I'd hope I had the keys in hand already, and lock it as I got out.
I would not consent to a search of myself or the vehicle.
Saying: "The other officer is running my gun, my permit and my license, she has found or will find that I am not a criminal, and in fact that I have complied with all laws regarding the possession and carriage of my weapon (to include informing her immediately of my possession of it), and that I have no outstanding warrants against me."
"I feel that your only Reasonable, Articulable, Suspicion is that we are all in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I doubt that a warrant would issue on that basis. I need to get back to work from my lunch break. Am I free to go now?"
Failing that, I would use "the Force" and say "I am not the guy you are looking for, I can go about my business, move along."
One of those ought to work...
I understand that the OP was not mistreated in anyway... that he was treated with apparent respect. I feel that responding in kind while refusing to grant permission to search, should be afforded the same continued respectful treatment, and release, or a warrant.
It could be worse!
August 26th, 2011 03:37 PM
So sitting in your car is reasonable suspicion?
Originally Posted by SIXTO
Oh, I see this has been hashed already. I guess anything is "reasonable suspicion."
I don't know if I'd give permission that easily.
So tomorrow a cop comes to your front door and asks to look around inside. You have nothing to hide. and you want it to "end well."
Originally Posted by NC Bullseye
Do you let him in?
I know you are thinking, "That would never happen here." Are you sure?
Search tags for this page
alcohol enforcement team rock hill
concealed carry in park rock hill sc
hiding firearm in 2004 tahoe
is there any way to speed up processing time for sccwp
legal forum california person of intrest
narcotic team in rock hill,sc
probable cause car search wait for k9
tahoe secret compartment
wait time for sc cwp
what are my rights if a narcotics team wants to search me
why were the police so visible in rock hill sc today
Click on a term to search for related topics.