Authority of LEO - Page 4

Authority of LEO

This is a discussion on Authority of LEO within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; More people need to know there rights. I am prior LEO and I saw it everyday when fellow officers would violate peoples rights....

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 92
  1. #46
    New Member Array HammerheadFL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5
    More people need to know there rights. I am prior LEO and I saw it everyday when fellow officers would violate peoples rights.


  2. #47
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,921
    That is one of the things that my local cop says makes him suspious.
    Your local cop isnt too smart then is he?

    I would tell him NO and them laugh at his silly tail.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Your local cop isnt too smart then is he?

    I would tell him NO and them laugh at his silly tail.
    I'd think that would be a good way to find myself cuffed and waiting on a ride to county.

    Michael

  4. #49
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,921
    For what?

    I wonder how he could articulate that one to a judge.

    Ummmm, uhhhh... he LAUGHED at me your Honor!

    That stuff would'nt fly around here. You ask for a search,you had better have a dang good reason.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #50
    bae
    bae is offline
    Member Array bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Juan Islands
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    That stuff would'nt fly around here.
    Isn't going to fly in the state of Washington either.

  6. #51
    Member Array Texian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    68

    Case law and legal opinion

    Maybe some of you should go back and read post no. 26 by m41.

    Ohio v. Robinette - Further Readings

    Ohio v. Robinette
    Petitioner
    State of Ohio
    Respondent
    Robert D. Robinette

    Petitioner's Claim

    Provisions of the Fourth Amendment do not require police officers to warn motorists that they are "free to go" at the end of traffic stop.

    Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
    Carley J. Ingram

    Chief Lawyer for Respondent
    James D. Ruppert

    Justices for the Court
    Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor,William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas

    Justices Dissenting
    John Paul Stevens

    Place
    Washington, D.C.

    Date of Decision
    18 November 1996

    Decision

    The respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when, after being lawfully stopped, the motorist consented to search even though the police officer failed to advise that motorist had the right to refuse consent, since initial detention was finished. The U.S. Constitution did not specifically stipulate that such searches and seizures were unreasonable.




    What Are My Rights When a Police Officer Wants to Search My Vehicle?


    What Are My Rights When a Police Officer Wants to Search My Vehicle?
    By Dax Garvin


    To answer this question and a series of others that I will address over the coming days, let's begin with a quote of the United States Constitution - 4th Amendment:

    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.

    Now, that language is quite heavy and is definitely not written in the plain language with which each of us speaks on a daily basis, so let me rephrase it in a way that is more readable and understandable:

    An individual, his or her house, documentation, and personal property shall not be searched through or possessed for an unreasonable purpose (by the Government). Further, a warrant is required and may only be issued if probable cause that is supported by someone swearing to the truthfulness of his or her statement is presented to a Judge, and the sworn statement must specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be taken.

    So, to address this question, I use my experience as a former police officer and a Criminal Defense Attorney. Let me begin by describing a scenario that each of us witnesses on an almost daily basis. You are driving down the highway and see a car pulled onto the shoulder of a roadway and behind it is a black and white car with flashing red and blue lights. An officer is standing at the window of the vehicle, talking with the Driver, who is the only occupant. The officer tells the Driver that he wants to search the vehicle. What happens from here?

    The general rule: An officer may stop and automobile if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. Once the vehicle has pulled to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to search the vehicle's interior by looking through the windows; This is the "plain view" or "plain sight" rule that has developed in case law and is part of the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.

    However, the trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instrumentality's of criminal activity, and similarly, the officer does not get to look into locked containers or a locked glove compartment unless the same type of probable cause is present. When the vehicle is impounded, its contents may be inventoried without a warrant, including the contents of the trunk and any containers inside it.

    The rationale for permitting warrantless searches of cars is that the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape with incriminating evidence in the time it would take police to secure a search warrant. The Court has held that a person expects less privacy in an automobile than at home and when you think about it, this is reasonable-you are driving down the road in a vehicle that anyone, not just an officer, may look through the windows and see what is inside.

    As the Driver of the vehicle, you may do a couple of things:

    1) Consent to the search, if you have absolutely nothing to hide or conceal in the vehicle and want to speed the process along; or

    2) Refuse to allow the officer to search the vehicle.

    If you elect to refuse the officer's request to search, you should ask the officer if you are under arrest, and if you are not, why he or she wants to search your vehicle. However, the officer may not give you a complete answer as to why he or she is asking to search the space. Denying an officer's request to search is not an admission of guilt, although, the officer may tell you that if you have nothing to hide you should permit the search.

    The officer may insist on searching your car. Clearly state, "I am not giving consent to this search" but do as the officer instructed. Repeatedly, but politely and firmly repeat that you are not consenting to the search, as the likelihood of the statement being recorded is great, at least under most department policies. This recording will be invaluable in a later court proceeding, should one arise. But, no matter what you do, do not interfere with the search and do not touch the officer, as either of these actions is likely to get you arrested.

    Also, the officer may place you in the patrol car or even handcuff you and have you sit on the curb while conducting the search. Again, this does not mean you are under arrest but will likely be labeled as an "officer safety" tactic. This usually occurs if there is only one officer and multiple occupants to a vehicle or if the officer knows that backup is not nearby. If the officer does handcuff you, DO NOT RESIST and provide a reason to arrest you.

    Another situation that may arise is that an officer instructs the occupants out of a vehicle because he is going to search it. This type of search is one based on probable cause. For example, if the officer approaches a vehicle and smells what "training and experience" tells him or her is marijuana or another illegal substance, he does not have to obtain consent to search the vehicle. But, the officer may ask for consent because then there is little room to contest the search later, except for a claim that the search was not voluntary or freely given...i.e. that the search was coerced. Under this situation, even if you refuse consent, the officer may search the vehicle anyway. Again, if this happens, do not resist and do not create problems. You may always challenge the search in court and the more cooperative you were (in following instructions) the better result you may later obtain.

    The information contained in this article is not specific to any state and if you find that you or your vehicle or property has been searched or seized, you should contact a criminal defense lawyer without delay if you believe that your rights may have been violated. An good defense attorney will be able to answer your questions about what happened and determine whether you have a valid claim or case. And, it is very important that you advise your attorney of what happened as quickly as possible, especially if you are facing criminal charges as a result of the search since the evidence found as a result of an illegal search will probably be excluded from any proceedings against you.

    Dax Garvin, Attorney and Counselor At law is an experienced Austin Texas DWI Attorney.

    I graduated from Texas Tech University School of Law in May, 2002, and was licensed to practice law in Texas that November, following the July, 2002, Texas Bar Exam. Prior to that, I obtained my Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the University of Texas at Tyler and my first years of undergraduate work were spent at Austin College in Sherman, Texas, where I learned the true passion of humanity-recognizing we are all part of one great society.

    I worked in the Travis County Attorney's Office from August, 2002, until October, 2003, when I entered into private practice with a mid-size Austin civil litigation firm, where I enhanced my skills for legal research, writing, motion practice, and working with insurance companies from the defense perspective.

    DWI, Austin DWI Attorney, Austin dwi defense lawyer, Austin divorce lawyer, Austin criminal lawyer - dax legal

    Article Source: Dax Garvin - EzineArticles.com Expert Author

    Dax Garvin - EzineArticles Expert Author
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesterton

  7. #52
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    Ok, so the US Constitution says no unreasonable searches and seizures. Who defines unreasonable? The cop on the scene? A judge? Corrupt politicians? Certainly not me. Cops are just as prone to corruption as anyone else, and judges are probably more so than most. Power corrupts, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. The power to order others around is no different.

    And yes, if the search is unreasonable my civil rights are absolutely, positively being violated, even if in a minor way. I am being forcibly detained (even if just for a few minutes), just for the heinous crime of exercising the rights "guaranteed" to me by the Constitution.

    So, according to the previous post, I should allow a LEO to cuff me for reasons he feels are adequate, yet I would and should employ any and every force at my disposal to prevent being captured by anyone else. I agree that the LEO is much less likely to take my wallet or try to kill me, but the violation is a matter of degree only. The hugely disproportionate power of the police compared to the general public prevents this from happening very often, which many would say is a good thing, but the more we roll over for any tyranny, no matter how small, the more we'll get.

    Many of us are glad that Thomas Paine never wrote: "if you are detained by a British soldier and he requests to search your cart, if you have nothing to hide you should consent or request that he not, but in no case should you resist. Resistance leads to liberty, which most men are too stupid or irresponsible to exercise."

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  8. #53
    Member Array Texian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    68

    A problem well stated is a problem half solved

    agentmel said:

    (1)Who defines unreasonable? The cop on the scene? A judge? Corrupt politicians? Certainly not me.
    So what are you saying? That there is someone who can rightfully define unreasonable? If you are, then don't keep us in suspense any longer. Who or what is it? If not, then it cannot be known and number (3) below has no context.


    (2)Power corrupts, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. The power to order others around is no different.

    If you are referring to the most notable quote attributed to Lord Acton, it is "power tends to corrupt . . ." The second part of your comments are a classic expression in favor of an Utopian society--anarchy without chaos.


    (3)if the search is unreasonable . . .
    Back to number (2) above.


    (4)the more we roll over for any tyranny, no matter how small, the more we'll get.

    You need to define where order stops and oppression (tyranny) begins. Are you sure you are up to the task? Please don't make broad generalizations about other individuals or groups of people without documenting your assertions.


    I am in sympathy with your wishes for a well ordered society that respects the natural rights of all men. The "American Experiment" that we have inherited has become battered and twisted into something else [see your number (2)] and we must persevere to return it to the limited constitutional government that the nation was founded upon, but in the process we must exercise care that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesterton

  9. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Texian View Post
    I am in sympathy with your wishes for a well ordered society that respects the natural rights of all men. The "American Experiment" that we have inherited has become battered and twisted into something else [see your number (2)] and we must persevere to return it to the limited constitutional government that the nation was founded upon, but in the process we must exercise care that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    Very well stated, sir. A profound conclusion to an excellent post. Libertarians seem to think they are the judges of rights and they can personally determine if harm has occurred to an indiviual or society. Their utopian anarchy is as unattainable as a communist utopia and the zealots on both sides have a lot in common.

    The truth is that police are authority figures and their commands cannot be ignored without severe consequences, whether you agree or not. The people have provided police with their powers and no single indivdual has right (or sympathy) to resist lawful authority. And yes, that is the man, not the specific command.

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    SD wrote: "Very well stated, sir. A profound conclusion to an excellent post. Libertarians seem to think they are the judges of rights and they can personally determine if harm has occurred to an indiviual or society. Their utopian anarchy is as unattainable as a communist utopia and the zealots on both sides have a lot in common."

    Utopian societies won't work, but adhering to the spirit of The Constitution should. Unfortunately, too many have strayed.

    I might yet vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, though I entirely disagree with the Libertarian economic positions; instead, my focus is on strong advocacy for Civil Rights. And for this reason, I'm not one to knock the ACLU.

    And believe me, I will need to hold my nose while using the voting machine--this is no way to pick the most important person in the world.

    (Anyone for bringing back an appointed electoral college?)

  11. #56
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    (Anyone for bringing back an appointed electoral college?)
    Yes, indeed. We were never a democracy and most people are too ignorant of the issues and candidates to make an informed decision. The states can determine their electors however they choose. There is no 'right' tovote for the President.

    Similarly, the Founders never intended for the people to elect Senators. They were to have been appointed by the states.

    We have certainly strayed far from our Constitutional roots. But wasting a vote is no way to further or cause.

    (By the way, the ACLU is an anti-American organization.)

  12. #57
    Senior Member Array BruceGibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Northwest Florida
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by Texian View Post
    You should know that an officer does not need a warrant to search your vehicle. What he/she does need is probable cause. If the officer had it at the beginning of the contact, they would not be asking, they would be searching. Depending on what you say and what you do, you may provide that PC for them before the stop is over.
    Wrong. You're citing from the wrong country.

  13. #58
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,903
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceGibson View Post
    Wrong. You're citing from the wrong country.
    Your both wrong. Reasonable suspicion is whats needed to search a vehicle; probable cause is needed for arrest.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    I completely agree that we would benefit from returning to our roots. I also was not implying that all LEOs or judges or politicians are corrupt. Ok, maybe the politicians.

    But to a large extent, society is capable of ordering itself. The overwhelming majority of American interact every day without police presence and without erupting into chaos. As we well know, the more people who arm themselves and look after their own safety, the better. If every citizen were armed, we'd have a much reduced need for the police.

    As for disagreeing with libertarian economic principles... We have a word already for libertarian economic principles. They're just called "economics" and they are precisely what founded this country. They simply say that people should be as free as possible to make their own decisions as long as they don't hurt anyone and should be as free as possible from the coercion and taxation of government. Exactly what the framers believed. No matter how smart the president is, he can't make the decisions the market makes.

    The point about defining unreasonable was merely to point out that the system has a fatal flaw. Someone has to make that decision and the tendency has been to move away from freedom. My personal belief is that if it is my car, the only person who can possibly define unreasonable is me. We don't worry about defining unreasonable breaking and entering, because we clearly own our property when it comes to bad guys, but the line is much more ambiguous when it comes to the government.

    I should own my property and you should own your property and as long as we don't take from or hurt someone else, we should be left alone by everyone, everywhere, all the time.

    We were never meant to be a democracy. Democracy is dangerous, as we have learned. This country was founded as an aristocratic republic and should be restored to such as soon as can be achieved.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  15. #60
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,921
    Your both wrong. Reasonable suspicion is whats needed to search a vehicle; probable cause is needed for arrest.
    And both must be able to stand on their own in a court of law.

    If a cop searchs your vehicle just for a fishing expedition and your lawyer brings it to the attention of the court, it will cease.

    If you arrest someone for "probably cause" the cause you had must also be able to stand up in court.

    If there is a cop in your hometown, that says that saying "NO" to a voluntary search is cause for suspicion, and he uses that to do an illegal search, then your lawyer needs to use the court to change his way of buisness because it is wrong.

    Most cops know this. Although some may continue to try to slick talk you in giving them consent to search, most will cease when they are told no. Those that are using any reason or making stuff up need to be fired.

    Whenever I search a vehicle with voluntary consent, we log it on the radio just for the record. This practice has been very beneficial for us if it ever does go to court and people claim things that just arent so.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Sports Authority(Huntsville) has ammo!
    By bigo5552000 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 14th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  2. Mayor nickels admitted he lacks ban authority
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 16th, 2008, 03:57 PM
  3. port authority question
    By flip_floppin in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 28th, 2008, 07:42 PM
  4. Questions for LEO on police/civil authority
    By bigiceman in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 09:55 PM
  5. The Perverse Need For Authority?
    By Euclidean in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 21st, 2005, 01:40 PM

Search tags for this page

do i need to bar my windows for ffl

,

leo with most authority in texas

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors