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; Sixto there is a debate, but i think most are missing the point..In the OP he consented. His rights were not violated because he let ...
August 27th, 2011 11:53 AM
Sixto there is a debate, but i think most are missing the point..In the OP he consented. His rights were not violated because he let them search the vehicle.
I also see Hotguns points. NEVER say yes...Just using you two, you can see both sides of the same coin..
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......
August 27th, 2011 12:41 PM
Originally Posted by RevolvingMag
I don't recall RM saying that HE knew it to be a place known for using and dealing drugs, so I suspect it was the police officers who said it was....
in order to secure your consent to search.
If they have probable cause, or R.A.S. they don't NEED your permission.
August 27th, 2011 12:47 PM
I also believe you should not consent to a search. However I have always had a problem with those that claimed the person who gives consent to be searched had their rights violated.
Originally Posted by Harryball
That is until Hotguns pointed out, rightly so, that consenting to a person who has control or authority might not truly be consent. It could actually coercion and fear of reprisals.
August 27th, 2011 01:15 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
That is exactly correct. Its also why I stated that there is a difference of procedure and a difference in attitude among the various LEO entities.
Where I patrol, if I do a vehicle search for any reason, I'm going to have to write a report. That report goes to the Marshal, and he will question any and all of it. He is very,very thorough and very well versed on the law.He tends to look at every single thing as a potential liability in court if it ever comes to it, so he tends to not cross any lines at all. I guess thats a good thing for the CLEO to do and a good way to be, it keeps the city from paying lots of money because one of its officers violated someones rights.
On the other hand, the city police dept, which is a scant 7 miles away, tends to do things entirely different. Its standard procedure there to ask for a search. They do it with kids driving around, they do it with alot of people that they stop. Their mentality is that everyone is quilty of something, and they do things on a routine basis that would get me fired at my dept. Their dept. is constantly in the local news, they are always being sued, and they are always paying out judements simply because of the way they operate. I have worked with them on various occasions and some of them operate on the ragged edge of the law. Their Narc unit operates in and out of the law,like many do, and they have a rather impressive record of getting stuff thrown out in court.
Here's the thing. We sit here and read about all of this on the Internet, and we think that because it is one particular way where we live, it is that way everywhere and nothing couldbe further from the truth. We have 6 different Police Depts, in this county alone, and all of them do things in a completley different way. Its a discussion that comes up quite a bit actually, because of how things are intertwined. All of the small town PD's have county officers working for them part time. My own dept has 6 county officers working for it. One small dept here has 3 officers, and two of them are County Deputys. Another has 2 officers, and one of them works the county.
What one can do with one PD, may not be the mode of operation for another.
And yes...the views are distinctly different. SIXTO comes from the big city, I work in a town of 1260. My duties could involve putting cows that got out on the highway back in the pasture where they belong, kicking a dead dog out of the road, or even stopping by Mrs So and So's house to have a cup of coffee with her because she cant get out much and seeing if there is anything that she needs. I have taken people that were walking on the road home, stopped traffic so that a funeral procession could contine on without being interuppted and I get occasional calls to give various speechs at the local high school. I could be asked to put down a deer,dog,or a goat that got hit by a car.
What I see as the norm, someone in the big city may never have to deal with.
That sounds great and in a perfect world that is the way it would be.
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.
Just looking at this board though,and discussing guns like we all do, we can see how vastly different it is.A guy in New Jersey thinks that hollowpoints are illegal because they are in his state. Some living in the anti-guns states insist there is no reason for anything more than 10 rounds in a magazine. A citizen in one state that defends himself with a gun is arrested, and tried for murder when the same circumstances in another state would have the guy going home that night and being done with it.
Because things are different between states,citys,towns, and even Police Depts in the same county, the one bit of advice that spans ALL of them is to not consent to a search.
The bottom line is this...
If they are asking you, they dont have enough PC or evidence to do without your consent. If they can legally do a search, they dont have to ask you for anything.
If you refuse, and they do it anyway, it is an illegal search. Some officers will use any trick in the book to get you to say yes. Around here it's "we'll get the dog...and it may take 30 minutes". Its already been established here in the courts that more than a 15 minute wait will get it thrown out of court, but most people dont know that.
They may use the statement that sounds something like this...do you have any knives, guns,alcohol or nuclear weapons to that I need to know about? That usually gets a chuckle from the driver that says no. " Then since you have nothing to hide do you mind if I do a search of your vehicle? " and you sort of feel like a jerk for saying NO.
See how it works?
I am only writing this so that the good people that frequent these forums can educate themselves as to what their rights are. As long as we still have them, we may as well use them.
If it goes to court, how the police obtained permission is not an issue. No one will care that they talked you into it. No one will care that you thought you were being a good guy or doing the right thing by cooperating.
You have the right to say NO.
hecks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
August 27th, 2011 01:16 PM
If I am in a situation where I know an LEO is going to search my vehicle or my person without probable cause OR a warrant, then the dumbest thing I can do is resist. However, I can and will repeat over and over that I do not consent to a search, and will simply start the legal process after it's over.
August 27th, 2011 01:35 PM
After reading the OP & the follow-up responses, I have one item to point out & for others to respond to. Upon reading & re-reading the OP, I wonder:
How doesn't this part of the interaction even minimally violate the 2nd & the 4th Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Unless I missed it in the OP's responses, I don't remember reading that he gave up his right to possess his firearm, or his right preventing him from seizure of property? Unsure of the laws in SC regarding running a firearm's serial through their database, I can't really speak to the issue of that search. Just because the OP indicated that this was "a good encounter overall" doesn't mean that he wasn't deprived of his rights, much less whether any such deprivation was lawful.
The older guy opened my car door, gently grabs my left wrist, and tells me to get out of the car, and just keep my hands visible. I, of course, comply eagerly. Once I'm out of the car, he removes the gun from my pocket, and hands it over to the woman who goes over to the Tahoe and calls in the serial number.
(It came back clean, of course) The older guy asks if he can search me, and the car. I kind of shrug and tell them I'm not hiding anything; and to go for it.
I understand that a LEO has to be extra cautious against attacks when working in the field, but unless the lot was posted 'no trespassing' or the lot's property owner gave the local LE agency permission to search their property, I'm still trying to work out the basis for any real reasonable suspicion that goes beyond merely trying to determine the intent of the OP.
Sure, many citizens don't know many of the laws of the land, but most do know their rights. Many LEO's don't know the minutiae of the laws of their jurisdictions, that's why we have courts & lawyers.
Last edited by ArkhmAsylm; August 27th, 2011 at 02:38 PM.
"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 27th, 2011 01:48 PM
If a cop is so scared that he/she deems it necessary to trample on the rights of a citizen who has committed no crime, nor even acting suspiciously, then he/she should find other work.
August 27th, 2011 01:51 PM
Some posters say that since the OP gave consent that everything is just fine and dandy.
I would like to know, after he held the OP by the wrist, however gently, just how "free" he was to refuse to consent at that point?
After the officer laid hands on him, was he "free to go"?
August 27th, 2011 01:52 PM
OK....Similar situation today..
I'm working to get my house ready to sell, I needed a skid-loader to do some driveway work, I jump (OK stagger) up bright and early to go to the rental yard to get it; forgetting today is Saturday and the yard doesn't open till 8:00. So I drive through Burger King for a biscuit sandwich and coffee and go back to an abandoned bowling ally across the street and half a block down, park slightly up hill, in the shade, close to the building and over grown bushes on my right to block approach from the right, where I can watch for the rental yard to open while I eat.
I see a city cop car go by, pull a "Uiey" in the rental yard entrance and come back, he pulls up driver side to driver side and we both roll down our windows...
Cop "Everything OK"?
Me "Yea, brain fart, the rental yard doesn't open till 8 on Saturday, so I'm having some breakfast, listening to a little Willie and waiting for them to open".
Cop laughing "I hate getting up earlier than I have too! Have a good day" and drives off.
Yea I know he was fishing, but that is how the approach should be made, not a full felony take down because someone is in an abandoned parking lot having a bite to eat.
August 27th, 2011 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by Bombsaway
Comical... Show me where I said anything adversarial here- I have not. Typical Cop mentality? Is that anything like the typical black guy mentality or Mexican mentality? Come on now... I pointed the fact the obvious errors in legal terminology illustrate that most people haven't a clue about what we are "debating", let alone real world experience in the matter. We've been through probably hundreds of these debates on DC over the years, and its always the same misused catch phrases and buzz words. As far as I know, I'm the only narcotics cop here, and attempt to give a view from the other side. That is all... and I'm attacked for it. So, who is creating the "us vs. them"?
Originally Posted by apvbguy
For the you disagree, therfore you are wrong thing... fact is fact and truth is absolute. There is nothing you or I can do about that. So, I don't give a hoot if you agree or not, I don't take it personal. There is a whole lot more out there that I don't agree with, but it doesn't change fact and truth.
August 27th, 2011 02:24 PM
maybe your poor attitude towards citizens rights runs so deep you can't see where you've gone wrong. this isn't about knowledge of cop lingo, this is about violations of people's basic rights.
Originally Posted by SIXTO
cops like you think you have it down to a science and think that by using the proper buzz words you can wiggle out of any legal issues.
If you worked for me and exhibited that type of attitude there would be a need for some kind of action to be taken, maybe a little retraining is in order
August 27th, 2011 02:32 PM
LOL, based on what? What poor attitude? Show me the post where I said its OK for rights to be trampled. Do you expect me to kiss your ass? I won't do that here or on the street. And if you want to know, I've never had a single substantiated complaint about me treating anyone poorly in 15 years. None. And yes, I do have these matters down to a science, as its my profession. And it isn't "cop lingo" its correct legal terminology directly related to the subject matter we are talking about here- hardly "lingo". Correct terminology usage directly illustrates a persons knowledge level. Sorry if that gets your goat- I can't help it.
I've seized hundreds of pounds of dope, cash and guns and of course made arrests I can't even count anymore. (I also have a 100% conviction rating on dope cases, in a notorious liberal court no less) No, I don't help cows cross the road. I go after dope boys. I can proudly say that everything I've done in my career has been done by the book and within guidelines created by hundreds of years of court decisions and laws. To suggest I need retraining by some internet lawyer whom doesn't know the difference between something so basic as RAS and PC ticks me off a little.
August 27th, 2011 02:32 PM
I think the real hidden issue here is that saying no is going to get most folks nowhere. With truly upstanding LEOs and in locals such as the one HG works in, perhaps that would be that. In most instances, saying no is going to be an invite for additional inquiry, as human nature dictates that the "no" will be interpreted as suggesting further investigation is in order.
Originally Posted by HotGuns
That is why there is no such thing as a consent to search. It is fiction. Remember that when you serve on a jury.
ALL such consent is basically coerced. You don't stand on the side of the road and argue with a man with a gun, especially if he has a badge. It just isn't going to go well for you that day.
The bottom line here is that the Supreme Court has made some horrifically bad decisions on this entire subject matter. They got off on the wrong foot when (can't recall the case) cops boarded a bus and searched passengers just because. They foolishly ruled that just because the passenger didn't know they could say no, was no excuse for not saying no.... and ignored the reality that the search would have proceeded somehow; and I personally believe on a lie if need be.
HG talks about the 15 minute window to get the dogs there. O.K. So the dog comes and wags its tail or whatever. Are we to suppose that is credible? How would someone standing on the side of the road know (or would a judge know after the fact) if the hit was truthful, real, or just made up because it is a nice way to get into the car for a look-see?
And it isn't just criminal issues that are involved. Civil forfeiture is real and a real hazard. It really is no one's business if you choose to keep a lot of cash in your car, as did some Vietnamese fishermen in LA, who had their car seized because funds they intended to use to purchase a boat were assumed to be drug money. And of course this runs to yet another thread we have recently had-the one about secret compartments.
I know I'm bringing together several only partially related matters but they flow from the same difficult issue-- the search of a car on nothing more than something as nebulous as reasonable suspicion.
BTW, hats off to HG for telling it straight-- and I rather suspect for actually being a straight arrow on the job.
Last edited by Hopyard; August 27th, 2011 at 05:07 PM.
Reason: removed comma
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 27th, 2011 02:39 PM
From Terry v Ohio
Originally Posted by ArkhmAsylm
If I tell an officer I have a CHL and I have "it" on me (as the OP did) I would say they are justified in believing me to be armed. Not knowing the officer's personal experience or anything about that area I can not say if it would be reasonable or not for them to believe me to be dangerous. There is not enough information to say either way.
In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is, in fact, carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
August 27th, 2011 02:48 PM
hecks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
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.