|
On the "cops" tv show tonight two Pittsburgh cops were caught being dirty on
video
Two plain clothes officers, working in an area known for drug dealing,
pulled over a vehicle for a chat. Probable cause? "The car looks typical of
drug dealers and she looks like...."
Strike one. No legitimate probable cause.
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
Passengers were a woman and a man. Both were questioned by both officers.
"i don't do drugs officers. I sure as hell don't do heroin. You want me
checked? Go for it."
They left the woman alone and concentrated on the guy.
First officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes."
Which he did, and the first officer was clearly shown touching the sock
covered feet and finding nothing.
Second officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes remove your socks."
Suddenly out of nowhere appears a small bag of something which I wasn't
clear on it's content.
Denial of the item's presence didn't bother the cops one bit. The guy was
busted.
Strike three.
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of narcotics?
Just because the passengers fit a profile?
I don't think so.
Have the courts allowed officers to carry evidence with them so they can
plant it on their victims on a whim? I don't think so.
Bogus bust in every way.
I hope these two so called police officers get their justice and get busted
for their illegal actions.
|
| |
| |
In article <ektjhj01n1g@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:
On the "cops" tv show tonight two Pittsburgh cops were caught being dirty on
video
Two plain clothes officers, working in an area known for drug dealing,
pulled over a vehicle for a chat. Probable cause? "The car looks typical of
drug dealers and she looks like...."
Strike one. No legitimate probable cause.
Why is this strike one? You left something out after the "..."
There was a Supreme Court case - I don't recall the name - where in
Minnesota (IIRC) a caucasian was seen driving around the same block a
few times in a mostly Black, highly drug-prone area of the city. In
that state, license plates had the county of registration on them, and
the person wasn't from that county.
That was held enough to stop the car. Race alone would not have been
proper, obviously, but the other indications were that he was looking to
buy drugs.
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
Nope. Absolutely irrelevant. Why does this matter?
Passengers were a woman and a man. Both were questioned by both officers.
"i don't do drugs officers. I sure as hell don't do heroin. You want me
checked? Go for it."
They left the woman alone and concentrated on the guy.
First officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes."
Which he did, and the first officer was clearly shown touching the sock
covered feet and finding nothing.
Second officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes remove your socks."
Suddenly out of nowhere appears a small bag of something which I wasn't
clear on it's content.
Denial of the item's presence didn't bother the cops one bit. The guy was
busted.
Strike three.
Why is denial of the item's presence a strike. Do you think they can
only arrest someone for possessing drugs if they admit to it?
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of narcotics?
It's irrelevant from a search and seizure perspective.. Some states may
have laws or regulations about it, but it is not constitutionally
relevant at all.
Just because the passengers fit a profile?
I don't think so.
I think not. Actually, I know NOT. Profiling is not only legal, its a
useful tool. The profiling is only improper if it's based on a
discriminatory basis, such as race.
You can't stop someone from getting on an airplane because they're
mid-Eastern. You can stop them because they're mid-Eastern, paid for
their ticket in cash, and didn't check a bag.
Have the courts allowed officers to carry evidence with them so they can
plant it on their victims on a whim? I don't think so.
Bogus bust in every way.
Gosh, Richard, you really do believe everything you see on TV! *You*
didn't see where it came from, and the person denied having drugs on
him, so he must be innocent!
Don't you think if the TV network had evidence of this, they'd switch it
from COPS to the news and turn it into an explosive news story? Or do
you think you're the only Sherlock Holmes out there who "solved" this?
I hope these two so called police officers get their justice and get busted
for their illegal actions.
I hope you start learning more about the topics of your posts.
|
| |
| |
I have it on good authority that on Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:19:52 -0700,
"richard" <don@john.son> wrote:
On the "cops" tv show tonight two Pittsburgh cops were caught being dirty on
video
Two plain clothes officers, working in an area known for drug dealing,
pulled over a vehicle for a chat. Probable cause? "The car looks typical of
drug dealers and she looks like...."
Looks like what?
Strike one. No legitimate probable cause.
I didn't see tonight's episode, so I have to use what you've
written.
As you've written it, there was probable cause. The standard
for pulling someone over and questioning them is insanely low.
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
I'm going to presume they mentioned they were police officers.
They most probably showed the occupants of the car (the driver at the
very least) their badges.
Passengers were a woman and a man. Both were questioned by both officers.
"i don't do drugs officers. I sure as hell don't do heroin. You want me
checked? Go for it."
They can't claim an illegal search. When you suggest the
officer(s) search you, the search becomes 100% legal.
They left the woman alone and concentrated on the guy.
I'm guessing the officers were male. Odds are they wanted a
female officer to search the woman. When a female officer came on the
scene, she was likely searched.
First officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes."
Which he did, and the first officer was clearly shown touching the sock
covered feet and finding nothing.
Second officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes remove your socks."
Suddenly out of nowhere appears a small bag of something which I wasn't
clear on it's content.
The guy may have kept the bag in his sock. So?
Denial of the item's presence didn't bother the cops one bit.
DUH! Few people are going to admit to owning the bag.
Especially if it contains something illegal.
The guy was
busted.
Strike three.
How so?
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of narcotics?
Just because the passengers fit a profile?
I'm guessing the area was a known high drug sale area. This,
in addition to other factors you've probably not related, gave reason
to suspect something wasn't right.
I don't think so.
Have the courts allowed officers to carry evidence with them so they can
plant it on their victims on a whim? I don't think so.
You've offered NOTHING to support the idea the bag was
planted. That the first officer failed to find it doesn't mean it was
planted. It only means the first officer failed to find it.
Was it planted? Possible. However, there is nothing
presented by you to make it clear that it was.
Bogus bust in every way.
I hope these two so called police officers get their justice and get busted
for their illegal actions.
You've not presented anything illegal.
It's *possible* the stop will be ruled as illegal, but I don't
expect it will be. Stopping a car and questioning its occupants has
such a low threshold that police can *almost* pull someone over for no
reason at all.
Since the search was not only legal, but done at the
suggestion of the suspect, it was 100% legal. The bag, and its
contents were found during this legal search. I don't see the
evidence being thrown out.
--
Kent
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
| |
| |
In article <l335n29mi6kjbak3hmtqtlmgr490nrc120@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
I have it on good authority that on Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:19:52 -0700,
"richard" <don@john.son> wrote:
Looks like what?
I imagine Richard left it out because it would have provided additional
support of the car stop.
Strike one. No legitimate probable cause.
I didn't see tonight's episode, so I have to use what you've
written.
As you've written it, there was probable cause. The standard
for pulling someone over and questioning them is insanely low.
It's so low it's not even probable cause, Kent. It's reasonable
suspicion. Probable cause is needed to arrest the occupants, but that
can arise from information learned after the car stop.
I'm going to presume they mentioned they were police officers.
They most probably showed the occupants of the car (the driver at the
very least) their badges.
They can't claim an illegal search. When you suggest the
officer(s) search you, the search becomes 100% legal.
Arguably, if the initial car stop was illegal (which it wasn't), this
search was a fruit of that illegality. But since there was consent,
there's no need to prove the appropriate standard was met to conduct the
search.
They left the woman alone and concentrated on the guy.
I'm guessing the officers were male. Odds are they wanted a
female officer to search the woman. When a female officer came on the
scene, she was likely searched.
The guy may have kept the bag in his sock. So?
So Richard saw it magically appear on TV, so to him it magically
appeared in life.
Denial of the item's presence didn't bother the cops one bit.
DUH! Few people are going to admit to owning the bag.
Especially if it contains something illegal.
How so?
I'm guessing the area was a known high drug sale area. This,
in addition to other factors you've probably not related, gave reason
to suspect something wasn't right.
You've offered NOTHING to support the idea the bag was
planted. That the first officer failed to find it doesn't mean it was
planted. It only means the first officer failed to find it.
Was it planted? Possible. However, there is nothing
presented by you to make it clear that it was.
You've not presented anything illegal.
He hasn't even presented anything remotely questionable or close to
illegal.
It's *possible* the stop will be ruled as illegal, but I don't
expect it will be. Stopping a car and questioning its occupants has
such a low threshold that police can *almost* pull someone over for no
reason at all.
Since the search was not only legal, but done at the
suggestion of the suspect, it was 100% legal. The bag, and its
contents were found during this legal search. I don't see the
evidence being thrown out.
|
| |
| |
In article <ektjhj01n1g@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:
Why is this strike one? You left something out after the "..."
There was a Supreme Court case - I don't recall the name - where in
Minnesota (IIRC) a caucasian was seen driving around the same block a
few times in a mostly Black, highly drug-prone area of the city. In
that state, license plates had the county of registration on them, and
the person wasn't from that county.
That was held enough to stop the car. Race alone would not have been
proper, obviously, but the other indications were that he was looking to
buy drugs.
Since when is it illegal to drive in a county not shown on your license
plate?
That in itself is not probable cause. I don't give a damn if the plate is
from another state.
I have the legal right to drive to drive on any public roadway anywhere in
the country at any time. If it were a Supreme Court case, then there must
have been other mitigating circumstances that would have made it get that
far.
Hell, are you stopped in new jersey because you have new york plates? I
don't think so.
I've driven in 49 states and canada and have yet to be stopped simply
because my plate was not from that area.
Nope. Absolutely irrelevant. Why does this matter?
From a law back in the '30's era which still holds true. Unmarked police
vehicles do not have the authority to stop other vehicles. Personally, I
don't stop for unmarked police cars and I sure as hell wouldn't do it when I
see no uniforms.
In Indiana years ago there was a case where a woman was being stopped by an
unmarked car. Even though the officer was in uniform. She refused to pull
over. When she did stop, she pulled right up to the fuel island of a truck
stop,got out, and challenged the guy. Even in Maryland, they run ads, "If
you don't believe who we are, you have the right to continue to a safer
place.".
Even 2 years ago in St Louis, two idiots were running around dressed in cop
uniforms and stopping truckers. As a trucker, I refuse to stop for any
unmarked vehicle.
Why is denial of the item's presence a strike. Do you think they can
only arrest someone for possessing drugs if they admit to it?
Did you not pay attention? 2 officers checked. The 1st found nothing? All of
a sudden this bag appears out of nowhere? What? You've never had a case of
officers planting evidence?
That was strike three. Not the denial.
Why was the woman not searched? Only to easy to call in for a female officer
to do the pat down.
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of
narcotics?
It's irrelevant from a search and seizure perspective.. Some states may
have laws or regulations about it, but it is not constitutionally
relevant at all.
The stop was bogus to begin with. No legal probable cause.
I just happen to be passing through an area known for drug dealing and get
busted simply because the cops don't know me and my car is similar to ones
used by drug dealers? That is not probable cause.
I think not. Actually, I know NOT. Profiling is not only legal, its a
useful tool. The profiling is only improper if it's based on a
discriminatory basis, such as race.
Profiling may be legal to a point, but not as a tool for probable cause for
a traffic stop.
You can't stop someone from getting on an airplane because they're
mid-Eastern. You can stop them because they're mid-Eastern, paid for
their ticket in cash, and didn't check a bag.
Bull#@($. That sir, is illegal detention.
Gosh, Richard, you really do believe everything you see on TV! *You*
didn't see where it came from, and the person denied having drugs on
him, so he must be innocent!
You never see the show? Filmed live as it happened.
All persons arrested are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Don't you think if the TV network had evidence of this, they'd switch it
from COPS to the news and turn it into an explosive news story? Or do
you think you're the only Sherlock Holmes out there who "solved" this?
How do you know they don't? I'm sure that in cases where a film crew is with
the cops, that the film crew is subponead to testify and produce the tapes.
After all, they are witnesses.
I sure as hell would.
I hope these two so called police officers get their justice and get
busted
for their illegal actions.
I hope you start learning more about the topics of your posts.
I was only relating my disgust at how the police today conduct themselves
and nobody seems to give a damn.
|
| |
| |
have it on good authority that on Sun, 3 Dec 2006 05:28:28 -0700,
"richard" <don@john.son> wrote:
Since when is it illegal to drive in a county not shown on your license
plate?
That in itself is not probable cause. I don't give a damn if the plate is
from another state.
I have the legal right to drive to drive on any public roadway anywhere in
the country at any time. If it were a Supreme Court case, then there must
have been other mitigating circumstances that would have made it get that
far.
Hell, are you stopped in new jersey because you have new york plates? I
don't think so.
I've driven in 49 states and canada and have yet to be stopped simply
because my plate was not from that area.
Living up to his name, RtS ignores everything else Larry wrote
and focuses on ONE item.
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
Nope. Absolutely irrelevant. Why does this matter?
From a law back in the '30's era which still holds true. Unmarked police
vehicles do not have the authority to stop other vehicles.
Yes they do, Richard.
Personally, I
don't stop for unmarked police cars and I sure as hell wouldn't do it when I
see no uniforms.
Suddenly I understand why you have trouble obtaining and
keeping employment in the trucking industry.
In Indiana years ago there was a case where a woman was being stopped by an
unmarked car. Even though the officer was in uniform. She refused to pull
over. When she did stop, she pulled right up to the fuel island of a truck
stop,got out, and challenged the guy.
Pulling into a gas station wasn't a bad move. And few
officers would have a problem with a woman, driving without anyone
else in the car, pulling into a public place.
Even in Maryland, they run ads, "If
you don't believe who we are, you have the right to continue to a safer
place.".
Which isn't the same as NOT pulling over.
Even 2 years ago in St Louis, two idiots were running around dressed in cop
uniforms and stopping truckers. As a trucker, I refuse to stop for any
unmarked vehicle.
Again, I now understand why you keep finding yourself
unemployed.
Did you not pay attention? 2 officers checked. The 1st found nothing?
Which means the first officer failed to find it. This doesn't
mean it wasn't there.
All of
a sudden this bag appears out of nowhere? What? You've never had a case of
officers planting evidence?
That was strike three. Not the denial.
Would you be so kind as to offer credible evidence that the
second officer planted it? Didn't think so.
Why was the woman not searched? Only to easy to call in for a female officer
to do the pat down.
As I wrote in my reply, my guess is they did. Just because
that search didn't get aired doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of
narcotics?
The stop was bogus to begin with. No legal probable cause.
How can you say that with such certainty?
I just happen to be passing through an area known for drug dealing and get
busted simply because the cops don't know me and my car is similar to ones
used by drug dealers? That is not probable cause.
It's enough to stop the car. The burden is *very* low for
pulling someone over.
Profiling may be legal to a point, but not as a tool for probable cause for
a traffic stop.
Yes it is.
Bull#@($. That sir, is illegal detention.
Please cite where in the US Code this is illegal, Richard.
You never see the show? Filmed live as it happened.
And edited before being aired.
All persons arrested are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Has anyone claimed the guy is guilty?
How do you know they don't? I'm sure that in cases where a film crew is with
the cops, that the film crew is subponead to testify and produce the tapes.
After all, they are witnesses.
I sure as hell would.
I'm ce
|
| |
| |
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:03:36 GMT,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <l335n29mi6kjbak3hmtqtlmgr490nrc120@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
I imagine Richard left it out because it would have provided additional
support of the car stop.
I can only guess that they mentioned how it's a known drug
area.
[...]
Passengers were a woman and a man. Both were questioned by both officers.
"i don't do drugs officers. I sure as hell don't do heroin. You want me
checked? Go for it."
They can't claim an illegal search. When you suggest the
officer(s) search you, the search becomes 100% legal.
Arguably, if the initial car stop was illegal (which it wasn't), this
search was a fruit of that illegality. But since there was consent,
there's no need to prove the appropriate standard was met to conduct the
search.
That was my point. They suggested the search. The officers
didn't even need to ask for consent.
[...]
First officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes."
Which he did, and the first officer was clearly shown touching the sock
covered feet and finding nothing.
Second officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes remove your socks."
Suddenly out of nowhere appears a small bag of something which I wasn't
clear on it's content.
The guy may have kept the bag in his sock. So?
So Richard saw it magically appear on TV, so to him it magically
appeared in life.
I guess the idea that the first officer could have missed it
just never occured to RtS. The suspect may have had the bag wrapped
around his toes. The first officer couldn't feel it beneath the sock.
There are any number of plausible reasons why the first officer failed
to find the bag.
[...]
Bogus bust in every way.
I hope these two so called police officers get their justice and get busted
for their illegal actions.
You've not presented anything illegal.
He hasn't even presented anything remotely questionable or close to
illegal.
Richard probably thinks the law works exactly like he sees it
on TV.
Stuff like "The suspect wasn't read his rights, so we have to
let him go." makes for good TV, but it's not the real world.
--
Kent
Bald Guys never have a bad hair day.
|
| |
| |
n article <ekug6002os6@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:
Since when is it illegal to drive in a county not shown on your license
plate?
That in itself is not probable cause. I don't give a damn if the plate is
from another state.
That's not what I said. Are you being dumb, or wilfully obstinate?
The person was caucasian, driving in a mostly black neighborhood, in a
city that was very segregated. He was not a resident of that
neighborhood. He was circling the block repeatedly, which is a known
pattern of drug buyers looking to see who's "out" (that is, who is
selling drugs).
That's more than enough to stop the car, the Supreme Court held.
I have the legal right to drive to drive on any public roadway anywhere in
the country at any time. If it were a Supreme Court case, then there must
have been other mitigating circumstances that would have made it get that
far.
"Mitigating"? Do you know what that word means?
Hell, are you stopped in new jersey because you have new york plates? I
don't think so.
That can be one basis for a stop.
Lots of people take I-95 over the GW Bridge into NYC to buy drugs for
cheap in that neighborhood, then drive them back down south to sell. A
car from a southern state driving around aimlessly in that neighborhood
certainly will, and does, arouse police suspicion. And if the car is
stopped under those circumstances, it's entirely legal.
I've driven in 49 states and canada and have yet to be stopped simply
because my plate was not from that area.
Good for you. You want a cookie or something?
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
Nope. Absolutely irrelevant. Why does this matter?
From a law back in the '30's era which still holds true. Unmarked police
vehicles do not have the authority to stop other vehicles. Personally, I
don't stop for unmarked police cars and I sure as hell wouldn't do it when I
see no uniforms.
Cite this law for me.
I can assure you, there is no such law in effect, in New York at least.
In Indiana years ago there was a case where a woman was being stopped by an
unmarked car. Even though the officer was in uniform. She refused to pull
over. When she did stop, she pulled right up to the fuel island of a truck
stop,got out, and challenged the guy. Even in Maryland, they run ads, "If
you don't believe who we are, you have the right to continue to a safer
place.".
That's different than saying that the police cannot pull you over in an
unmarked vehicle. You're undermining your own argument.
Even 2 years ago in St Louis, two idiots were running around dressed in cop
uniforms and stopping truckers. As a trucker, I refuse to stop for any
unmarked vehicle.
Did you not pay attention? 2 officers checked. The 1st found nothing? All of
a sudden this bag appears out of nowhere? What? You've never had a case of
officers planting evidence?
No, I haven't.
What I have had, and what I suspect happened here, is that the first
officer did a pat-down - a quick brush over the person's clothing for
guns, knives, etc. Then, a second, more comprehensive search was done.
As you said, the first officer "touched" the sock. Didn't pull it down,
just "touched" it. It's entirely possible he just missed the bag, which
you even describe as "small."
That was strike three. Not the denial.
Why was the woman not searched? Only to easy to call in for a female officer
to do the pat down.
That's a perfectly valid reason.
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of
narcotics?
It's irrelevant from a search and seizure perspective.. Some states may
have laws or regulations about it, but it is not constitutionally
relevant at all.
The stop was bogus to begin with. No legal probable cause.
You don't need probable cause to stop a car.
I just happen to be passing through an area known for drug dealing and get
busted simply because the cops don't know me and my car is similar to ones
used by drug dealers? That is not probable cause.
It may be. Depends on how you're driving and other factors. You may
not like it, but that's the law.
Just because the passengers fit a profile?
I don't think so.
I think not. Actually, I know NOT. Profiling is not only legal, its a
useful tool. The profiling is only improper if it's based on a
discriminatory basis, such as race.
Profiling may be legal to a point, but not as a tool for probable cause for
a traffic stop.
Again, you don't need probable cause for a traffic stop. But profiling
CAN be a factor in developing the reasonable cause you do need for a
traffic stop. Again, you might not like it, but that's the law.
You can't stop someone from getting on an airplane because they're
mid-Eastern. You can stop them because they're mid-Eastern, paid for
their ticket in cash, and didn't check a bag.
Bull#@($. That sir, is illegal detention.
It's not even close. It's good security and completely legal.
Richard, we've been through this before. You're not a lawyer. You have
no legal training whatsoever. You're certainly free to express your
opinions on what should be legal or illegal, but you should not make
definitive statements like that. You're usually wrong.
Have the courts allowed officers to carry evidence with them so they can
plant it on their victims on a whim? I don't think so.
Bogus bust in every
|
| |
| |
In article <ekug6002os6@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:
That's not what I said. Are you being dumb, or wilfully obstinate?
The person was caucasian, driving in a mostly black neighborhood, in a
city that was very segregated. He was not a resident of that
neighborhood. He was circling the block repeatedly, which is a known
pattern of drug buyers looking to see who's "out" (that is, who is
selling drugs).
That's more than enough to stop the car, the Supreme Court held.
That may be, but this vehicle was not aimlessy meandering the neighborhood.
It was just passing through.
Regardless of the racial profiling of the nieghhborhood, I still have the
legal right to drive on that road, as many times as I damn well desire. If I
get stopped, no officer can cite me or even suggest, legally, that I leave
the area.
"Mitigating"? Do you know what that word means?
That can be one basis for a stop.
Wrong! The US Constitution says I have the legal right to travel between the
various states without being questioned as to why or however it's stated. I
have driven in 49 states with various state tags on my vehicles and have not
once been stopped simply because I was from out of state.
Do you know why that is mister prosecutor? Try looking up the IRP.
International Reciprocity Pact.
The IRP basically is the body of law which says I don't need 50 different
driver's licenses and license plates.
Lots of people take I-95 over the GW Bridge into NYC to buy drugs for
cheap in that neighborhood, then drive them back down south to sell. A
car from a southern state driving around aimlessly in that neighborhood
certainly will, and does, arouse police suspicion. And if the car is
stopped under those circumstances, it's entirely legal.
Good for you. You want a cookie or something?
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
Nope. Absolutely irrelevant. Why does this matter?
Cite this law for me.
Wish I could be that precise. I believe it's from the original 1934 STAA.
I can assure you, there is no such law in effect, in New York at least.
Wouldn't matter. Federal law over rides state laws.
In Indiana years ago there was a case where a woman was being stopped by
an
unmarked car. Even though the officer was in uniform. She refused to pull
over. When she did stop, she pulled right up to the fuel island of a
truck
stop,got out, and challenged the guy. Even in Maryland, they run ads, "If
you don't believe who we are, you have the right to continue to a safer
place.".
That's different than saying that the police cannot pull you over in an
unmarked vehicle. You're undermining your own argument.
I'm not saying the practice is 100% legal. Just pointing that it is
happening.
No, I haven't.
Bull#@($! In NYC? You ain't no frickin attorney.
What I have had, and what I suspect happened here, is that the first
officer did a pat-down - a quick brush over the person's clothing for
guns, knives, etc. Then, a second, more comprehensive search was done.
As you said, the first officer "touched" the sock. Didn't pull it down,
just "touched" it. It's entirely possible he just missed the bag, which
you even describe as "small."
From the video angle of the camera, it was clearly visible that the sock
contained no such item as the first officer had also examined that area with
his hand.
That's a perfectly valid reason.
Have the courts changed it's stance on unmarked, unidentifiable police
officers as being allowed to pull over vehicles for suspicion of
narcotics?
It's irrelevant from a search and seizure perspective.. Some states
may
have laws or regulations about it, but it is not constitutionally
relevant at all.
You don't need probable cause to stop a car.
Since when?
|
| |
| |
n article <el5rrs02h54@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:
That may be, but this vehicle was not aimlessy meandering the neighborhood.
It was just passing through.
Regardless of the racial profiling of the nieghhborhood, I still have the
legal right to drive on that road, as many times as I damn well desire. If I
get stopped, no officer can cite me or even suggest, legally, that I leave
the area.
You don't have to be doing something illegal for it to be suspicious,
Richard.
I have the legal right to drive to drive on any public roadway anywhere
in
the country at any time. If it were a Supreme Court case, then there must
have been other mitigating circumstances that would have made it get that
far.
"Mitigating"? Do you know what that word means?
Hell, are you stopped in new jersey because you have new york plates? I
don't think so.
That can be one basis for a stop.
Wrong! The US Constitution says I have the legal right to travel between the
various states without being questioned as to why or however it's stated. I
have driven in 49 states with various state tags on my vehicles and have not
once been stopped simply because I was from out of state.
You don't have to be doing something illegal for it to be suspicious,
Richard.
Like I said, it can be one factor in determining if your actions are
suspicious, but it cannot be the only one.
Do you know why that is mister prosecutor? Try looking up the IRP.
International Reciprocity Pact.
The IRP basically is the body of law which says I don't need 50 different
driver's licenses and license plates.
Which is completely irrelevant. Like I said, you don't need to be doing
something illegal for it to be suspicious. The law doesn't prohibit
wearing ski masks, but if you do so and walk into a bank, its
suspicious, isn't it?
Lots of people take I-95 over the GW Bridge into NYC to buy drugs for
cheap in that neighborhood, then drive them back down south to sell. A
car from a southern state driving around aimlessly in that neighborhood
certainly will, and does, arouse police suspicion. And if the car is
stopped under those circumstances, it's entirely legal.
I've driven in 49 states and canada and have yet to be stopped simply
because my plate was not from that area.
Good for you. You want a cookie or something?
They step out of the unmarked cruiser and both are wearing absolutely
nothing that identifies them as police officers.
Strike two.
Nope. Absolutely irrelevant. Why does this matter?
From a law back in the '30's era which still holds true. Unmarked police
vehicles do not have the authority to stop other vehicles. Personally, I
don't stop for unmarked police cars and I sure as hell wouldn't do it
when I
see no uniforms.
Cite this law for me.
Wish I could be that precise. I believe it's from the original 1934 STAA.
Well I can tell you it is not valid today.
I can assure you, there is no such law in effect, in New York at least.
Wouldn't matter. Federal law over rides state laws.
Not this again. Your lack of understanding of federalism and the
supremacy clause is legendary.
Many of the cases I have that arise from car stops were stops made by
unmarked vehicles. And they've never been held illegal.
In Indiana years ago there was a case where a woman was being stopped by
an
unmarked car. Even though the officer was in uniform. She refused to pull
over. When she did stop, she pulled right up to the fuel island of a
truck
stop,got out, and challenged the guy. Even in Maryland, they run ads, "If
you don't believe who we are, you have the right to continue to a safer
place.".
That's different than saying that the police cannot pull you over in an
unmarked vehicle. You're undermining your own argument.
I'm not saying the practice is 100% legal. Just pointing that it is
happening.
Well, I am saying it is 100% legal.
Even 2 years ago in St Louis, two idiots were running around dressed in
cop
uniforms and stopping truckers. As a trucker, I refuse to stop for any
unmarked vehicle.
Passengers were a woman and a man. Both were questioned by both
officers.
"i don't do drugs officers. I sure as hell don't do heroin. You want
me
checked? Go for it."
They left the woman alone and concentrated on the guy.
First officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes."
Which he did, and the first officer was clearly shown touching the
sock
covered feet and finding nothing.
Second officer does a pat down.
"Step out of your shoes remove your socks."
Suddenly out of nowhere appears a small bag of something which I
wasn't
clear on it's content.
Denial of the item's presence didn't bother the cops one bit. The guy
was
busted.
Strike three.
Why is denial of the item's presence a strike. Do you think they can
only arrest someone for possessing drugs if they admit to it?
Did you not pay attention? 2 officers checked. The 1st found nothing? All
of
a sudden this bag appears out of nowhere? What? You've never had a case
of
officers planting evidence?
No, I haven't.
Bull#@($! In NYC? You ain't no frickin attorney.
Oh, please. You watch too much TV. I've never even had a case where
the defendant *claim
|
| |
| |
|
