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; 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 ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 116
Like Tree85Likes

Thread: Run in with one of Rock Hill PDs Narcotics Teams.

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,331
    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?
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Distinguished Member Array RevolvingMag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC- Across Town From Where All the Homicides Happen
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by rolyat63 View Post
    I'm curious why you carry a brick in your pocket. You even commented to the affect you may have to draw but it wasn't "PO'd" dealers. Just curious.
    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.
    "Rock and load, lock and roll... what's it matter? FIRE!!"

    "Gun control means hitting your target every time."

    Please take everything I say with at least one grain of salt- I am a very sarcastic person with a very dry sense of humor.

  4. #63
    Ex Member Array Bombsaway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    113
    It's amazing to me that some people so willingly consent to police abuse. The Constitution be damned.

  5. #64
    Ex Member Array apvbguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NE FL
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by rolyat63 View Post
    Don't talk to cops part one

    Don't talk to cops part 2

    Reinforcing Hotguns is a Law School Prof (part 1) and a former police officer now in law school (part 2)
    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 infractions

  6. #65
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,841
    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.
    Hopyard, TN_Mike and ksholder like this.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,636
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Homes and cars are two very different things.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Eagleks; August 26th, 2011 at 09:28 PM.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  8. #67
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,633
    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.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

  9. #68
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bombsaway View Post
    It's amazing to me that some people so willingly consent to police abuse. The Constitution be damned.
    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 custody
    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
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  10. #69
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by luvmy40 View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,636
    Quote Originally Posted by 64zebra View Post
    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
    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".

    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.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    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'."
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,111
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolvingMag View Post
    That was it- I was in an abandoned parking lot, just sitting. Just wrong place, wrong time. I didn't mind- I had nothing to hide. It wasn't a HUGE inconvenience and they were nice.
    -----------------------------------
    Sorry for putting this in the wrong forum- I overlooked/forgot about it.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.

    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.
    ^^^^THIS is an excellent post!^^^^^
    Bombsaway likes this.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,331
    Why would you eat lunch at a place you know is used for dealing and using drugs? I try to avoid places like that.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  15. #74
    Distinguished Member Array RevolvingMag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC- Across Town From Where All the Homicides Happen
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
    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.
    "Rock and load, lock and roll... what's it matter? FIRE!!"

    "Gun control means hitting your target every time."

    Please take everything I say with at least one grain of salt- I am a very sarcastic person with a very dry sense of humor.

  16. #75
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolvingMag View Post
    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.
    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 a
    "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.
    TravisABQ likes this.
    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.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

alcohol enforcement team rock hill

,
concealed carry in park rock hill sc
,
eaa windicator
,
hiding firearm in 2004 tahoe
,
is there any way to speed up processing time for sccwp
,
legal forum california person of intrest
,
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.