Printable View
If it is a known drug dealing place, then why aren't they there arresting the drug dealers? If they've had the place under surveilence, then they probably already know who the drug dealers are.
I've often wondered why in small rural towns it seems that everyone BUT the police know who the drug dealers are. I suspect they know who they are too, so why are they still out there doing their thing?
It WAS loaded. But, when they took it from me to run the serial number, they unloaded it. Besides, it's a .357- just squeeze and it goes bang whether it's on a loaded chamber or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rolyat63
It's amazing to me that some people so willingly consent to police abuse. The Constitution be damned.
This guy is great and should be a must view for everyone, especially our naive children who are going off to college and will be living unsupervised, and are prone to encounters with the law for minor infractionsQuote:
Originally Posted by rolyat63
Reading through this thread, I keep asking myself, "What if the OP did NOT consent to the search? How would things have gone down?"
While I am not an LEO, which makes my opinions irrelevant in the immediate sense (except for the fact that I vote and complain to my representatives), I for one am NOT of the opinion that the situation as described warranted RAS of a narcotics deal. My problem with this discussion is that consenting to the search is NOT a case of no harm, no foul. In fact, I think that consent was irrelevant in that had it not been given then the search would have been done by force. I am sorry, but this country is not yet a police state and I for one hope it never becomes one. This type of action is well on the slippery slope of "show me your papers comrade." Too much money, effort, and resources are spent on these so called up drug offenses and it is time for it to stop.
Not necessarily, not here anyway. Many of the laws here have been modified to include a person's vehicle. Even in the castle doctrine, your car is considered the same as your home.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIXTO
To the "hard asses" ... "they were doing their job" ...... etc...... sorry, but I will disagree.
I have in the past refused requests to search my vehicle, which turned into some rather aggressive and irrational comments from LEO's, to which I can only say... go get your warrant. The second, when I get out of a car I hit the "lock" button automatically on the way out of it. It's a "locked vehicle" ....
They can go get a warrant, they can break the glass, and they can force me to hand them the key, but that won't be the end of the discussion. Any of which requires them to jusify their reason for their actions, and because I locked my car is not one of them. I'm not required to roll over and play dead ..... we are not living in a Police State yet.
I've seen "because they wouldn't let me search" used as reason "to search" to often. Refusing a search is no admission of guilt, or suspected guilt of anything. How about , I have nothing illegal there and don't want you wasting my time with this BS.
For the OP.... he made his choice, and that's entirely up to him. I'm not critizing him for that... not at all, only saying it's not what I would have done in the same circumstances.
Wow. Wow! WOW!
Lets have a "What if" discussion. This is probably not a likely scenario for the OP considering his age but it certainly could be a possibility (though not a likely one) for me. I have two children of driving age. I am confident as I can be(nothing is certain) that neither of them are using drugs. I am not so confident that all of their friends don't use any drugs. I know that they have had friends in my vehicle when I was not present. This not against the rules as I trust my kids.
Now imagine that one of the "friends" was holding a bag of something(?) and knew that they were going to be searched when they got home. What if they deposited their stash in my car on the ride home from school or the movies or whatever unbeknownst to my kid. Then I take my car to work or to the store or whatever and I have the misfortune to stop in the wrong place and receive the attention of an LEO Ala the OP and since I am a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, consent to a search. Do you think that my story/circumstances would have any hope of being believed at any level?
Now lets throw 2 words into play here Daniel Harless. Any one remember this guy? He happens to have been on duty not too far from me until recently. I wonder how he would have acted in this hypothetical situation?
Never give up your rights. It will always go bad for you when you least expect it.
I do realize that this scenario is out there but it is possible.
the OP's situation was in no way police abuse, your comment comes from the same area/mindset as people claiming police brutality when they are resisting and force has to be used to get them into custodyQuote:
Originally Posted by Bombsaway
again....there was no police abuse here
the officers were working an area that was known for drugs and other crimes trying to find and arrest dirtbags, they made contact with a person that was in that area, the person GAVE CONSENT to search his person and vehicle, he was not a dirtbag, he was a good guy..........no rights were trampled, no abuse took place, he didn't give up his rights no matter how bad some people want to twist around the situation
if you want to give consent go for it....its your right
if you don't want to give consent go for it....its your right
either way its not abuse and its not trampling on someone's rights as stated by several people in this post
yes I'm a cop, yes I want to do my absolute best to protect the innocent and arrest dirtbags
there is no way I'll violate someone's right so I can lose my job, get sued, go to federal prison, etc
if someone refused consent of them or the car then I'll do what I can legally and go on....there are plenty of dirtbags to get ahold of out there and if this a dirtbag that won't give consent...fine.....I'll move on.......if its a good guy that won't give consent......fine....I'll move on
are there bad cops out there.....yes.....but they are WAY outnumbered by the good ones (I wish you could meet and know my squad on a personal level, it would blow a lot of minds to know what kind of good folks I have working with me...and I mean that in a good way)
and a lot of times people think the cops are bad because they ask to search a vehicle, etc....wrong, we are constantly accused of illegal this and that, excessive use of force, etc etc etc...and its from people that have no idea what is going on at all
know the laws for your own protection and good
know the laws before you spew falsehoods about cops, case law, and procedures
I've got to go now, have to get ready for work, kiss my wife and son good night and hope I come home in one piece in the morning and see all your lovely faces on DC again this weekend
I think one of the reasons a thread on this topic gains momentum and lots of posts is that at some level we all know that saying "no" is not going to be the end of it. There is no such thing (except in legal fiction) of preserving your rights. If the desire or intent is there, a way will be found to make the search or make your life very unpleasant--- and only if you are lucky will a judge exclude the evidence from such a search.Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy40
In all such requests for permission to search, no matter how politely and respectfully uttered, ultimately there is an inbuilt coercion to consent. People don't consent because they think it is a good idea. They consent because they know that saying no is unlikely to be sufficient to get all but the most idealistic (or inexperienced) to back off the request.
I think this is the real reason people get upset--- in their hearts they know there really is no such thing as saying no, and our rights in the matter don't really count.
I doubt that any of the numerous LEOs here would be able to honestly say that having issued a request to search, they backed down and quietly left after permission was denied; or similarly walked away from a person they wished to interview simply because that person asked if they were free to go.
Bottom line, our rights have been usurped by judges who--with good intent-- want to give police the power they need to enforce our laws.
And this doesn't even get to the fact that all manner of possession laws, whether drugs, weapons, large sums of money, pervert ordinary justice. Going for example to the scenario above in post 67, there are plenty of less sinister ways your kid could end up with a possession charge. Ever drop a pill on the floor and been unable to find it? What if that pill is a controlled substance and properly prescribed? Your kid takes the car, gets searched, and ooppps, headline the next day-- as so often happens here--- "17 year old arrested for possession of prescription drugs." The story then goes on and in the body we find out there was a single pill or I have even seen stories of arrests made for 1/2 of a pill.
Broken tail lights, rolling stops, blah blah, do not reasonable suspicion make. And, by the very nature of who is requesting permission to search, consent is never free and always coerced. TO think otherwise is to be naive.
I don't see where the OP ever states that that this was a known drug area, etc. I think that was "assumed" by many since they were "Narcotics officers".Quote:
Originally Posted by 64zebra
I would not disagree with anything else you said, except..... in my experience I have seen and dealt with a very "bad" dept in a city near our town. So, it's all a matter of where you are and the dept you are dealing with it. So, that's part of MY reason for what I say.
Now, away from that dept's officers, I would probably be quite agreeable to any LEO's... and they can search all day long if they want. IF it's one of the LEO's in that dept or of the dept of the town in which I live, car's locked and they better determine how far they want to go to do a search. In the town I live in, the Police Dept has a very bad case of "I AM THE LAW" and they are quite willing to make up laws that don't even exist..... even though 1/2 of the occupants living here work in Law Enforcment, are Judges, work Fedl Depts such as the FBI, DEA, CIA, etc. or are attorneys.
Heck, they even still have a law on the books that NO-ONE can carry a gun (kind of funny considering the occupations of the residents) , let alone concealed, and although the State law on CC intentionally pre-empted the laws of any municipalities.... they still try to enforce it and challenge the state.
This is what the OP stated in his post #10.
"I was just in a parking lot that 'people use for dealing/using various drugs'."
See, here's my problem with his, You were NOT in the WRONG place nor at the WRONG time. You were sitting in a parking lot, not breaking the law in any way. You were in your car, on your lunch break reading a book. I don't care if it was the NARC team, the gang team or whatever team. You weren't doing one damn thing wrong so there was no reason at all for them to drive quickly up to you, pile out of the car and make any contact with you at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RevolvingMag
Sorry to all the LEO's on here but it's crap like this that really bugs me about cops. If I am not breaking the law, LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. PERIOD! This isn't a police state.
To the OP, if it were me that this had happened to, I would not consider this a good interaction with the police.
^^^^THIS is an excellent post!^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Why would you eat lunch at a place you know is used for dealing and using drugs? I try to avoid places like that.
Truthfully? Because I hadn't put any thought into it. All I was thinking was that it was a quiet, shaded place away from the shop. Not a good plan, not very smart. I know. Like I've already said- I made a mistake, and I am willing to admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BugDude
Well, you didn't make a mistake, at least not in the sense that you are thinking. You made the mistake of exposing yourself to risk of criminal attack. You did nothing which should have caused you to be exposed to aQuote:
Originally Posted by RevolvingMag
"coerced" search of your car. And I use the word coerced because the truth of the matter is, you really didn't have the option to say no. You only think you freely gave your consent. They came to you with the intent of looking in that car, and nothing you would have done would have stopped that. You may have delayed it at great inconvenience to yourself, possibly at risk of arrest or of assault, but you wouldn't have stopped it.