- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It's getting tough to defend police. Threatning to take kid at traffic stop
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:25 pm to KosmoCramer
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:25 pm to KosmoCramer
A vehicle can be frisked too. The scope is limited. Stand by for an edit.
ETA:
United States v. McCraney,
674 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2012)
The rules for “frisking” a motor vehicle are as follows:
Michigan v. Long, authorizes a protective search of the passenger compartment where the officer “possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Id. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)). Id. at 620
A search based on such reasonable suspicion is permissible even if the suspect is detained outside the vehicle because ‘if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside.’ Id. at 1052.
Suspicious movements made in response to police presence may properly contribute to an officer's suspicions. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 466 (6th Cir. 2006); Graham, 483 F.3d at 439. Id.
ETA:
United States v. McCraney,
674 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2012)
The rules for “frisking” a motor vehicle are as follows:
Michigan v. Long, authorizes a protective search of the passenger compartment where the officer “possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Id. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)). Id. at 620
A search based on such reasonable suspicion is permissible even if the suspect is detained outside the vehicle because ‘if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside.’ Id. at 1052.
Suspicious movements made in response to police presence may properly contribute to an officer's suspicions. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 466 (6th Cir. 2006); Graham, 483 F.3d at 439. Id.
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 12:27 pm
1
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:28 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
It's my understanding that getting out of the car is complied consent to a search unless you are ordered out and state you don't consent to a search.
Like look in the windows or just hop in and start digging? frick that, he needs to ask me nicely if he wants to root through my center console.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:28 pm to LT
quote:
Instead of replying to this you get all angry and start with the name calling..is that you conceding?
Don't confuse exasperation with anger.
-------------
The first guy stated that a passenger does not have to SHOW his or her ID.
You said you didn't believe that.
I told you, with the simplest logic possible, why it is not a requirement of the passenger to show ID--i.e, it is not a law that one even possess an ID to move freely about the United States.
You then kept the argument going based on something you have seen in his thread so I said you're not all that bright.
Nobody said anything about it being illegal for the police to ask for an ID.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:28 pm to Five0
Again, more bullshite and constitutional infringement in my humble opinion.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:28 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
You don't get it. You never will, unless something similar happens to you.
Something similar has happened to me, like i said, three separate times.
In those instances i complied to his stupid arse requests and kept my mouth shut. I don't see the point in challenging police officers over simple things.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:29 pm to KosmoCramer
Do a ride along and ask. You may see some things differently. Just saying.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:29 pm to TeddyPadillac
I'm talking about if they ignore your rights and throw you into jail for no wrongdoing of your own.
Then you'll get it.
Then you'll get it.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:30 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
throw you into jail for no wrongdoing of your own.
Ah unlawful imprisonment. Cha ching!
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:31 pm to Five0
quote:
Do a ride along and ask. You may see some things differently. Just saying.
You seem like a straight shooter to be honest. And you're extremely informed which I respect more than you know assuming you're an LEO.
I understand the dangerous job police have on a traffic stop at 2am in the pitch black on a two lane road in a rain storm. That's scary as hell.
But in my opinion, that doesn't justify infringement of constitutional rights.
I wish you were an LEO in Ohio, we need more good police everywhere.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:32 pm to Five0
quote:
Ah unlawful imprisonment. Cha ching!
What if there's no video? He said, she said. Police win.
Cha-ching!
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:35 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
e was the passenger, and he was well within his rights to not show ID.
I thought all the law required was that you identify yourself? Verbally. You don't have to go produce some documentation.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:35 pm to KosmoCramer
I would have told him "I don't have an ID".....then what?
I love the way the cop said something about headlights but the sun behind the cop is shining right into the camera...fricking classic and that statement alone will sink this cop and his job...it goes to the cops intent and credibility.
Trust me on this....a letter of public apology will be read, the cop is GONE, chagnes in policy will be made.....and for sure, cops jobs in that community just gor harder and more dangerous because they now have a reputation for being lying pieces of shite because of this one little turd who got OWNED...and 2 other dumb fricks went along with his stupidity.
I love the way the cop said something about headlights but the sun behind the cop is shining right into the camera...fricking classic and that statement alone will sink this cop and his job...it goes to the cops intent and credibility.
Trust me on this....a letter of public apology will be read, the cop is GONE, chagnes in policy will be made.....and for sure, cops jobs in that community just gor harder and more dangerous because they now have a reputation for being lying pieces of shite because of this one little turd who got OWNED...and 2 other dumb fricks went along with his stupidity.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:36 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
I'm talking about if they ignore your rights and throw you into jail for no wrongdoing of your own.
ignore what rights? to show my id?
I don't need a law to tell me i should or shoudlnt' show my id. I don't understand what's the big deal showing your id. I understand its your right not to show it. I understand he illegally asked for it and he didn't have to show him.
This guy proved a point for no reason other than to put his g/f and kid through drama and potential danger.
Sometimes you come across cops with agendas that aren't professional. Acting an arse back at them will get you no where.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:36 pm to The Third Leg
So your response is I'm rubber you're glue?
I said it doesn't make sense from my line of thinking and you say it does by yours. I put it out there that I didn't know for sure... While your assumptions are to be taken as gospel.
This dude five0 is dropping a lot of actual information clarifying things. You should pay attention and try to learn something.
I said it doesn't make sense from my line of thinking and you say it does by yours. I put it out there that I didn't know for sure... While your assumptions are to be taken as gospel.
This dude five0 is dropping a lot of actual information clarifying things. You should pay attention and try to learn something.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:37 pm to GeeOH
quote:
I would have told him "I don't have an ID".....then what?
Then when you get arrested they can actually charge you with lying to a police officer (assuming you have an ID on you).
Never lie to police, say you wish to exercise your rights or just don't say anything at all.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:38 pm to KosmoCramer
Solid advice there.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:39 pm to GeeOH
second point...
What about the piece of shite dog handler!
A. the dog is worthless because it "hit" on narcotics.
B. the dog was "coerced" into making a false positive which means the dog, the cop handler, and the original officer should NOT be on this force any longer.
Every case in the state using this dog will now be appealed because it is on tape that the dog is incapable of determining if a search of the vehicle is constitutionally upheld.
What about the piece of shite dog handler!
A. the dog is worthless because it "hit" on narcotics.
B. the dog was "coerced" into making a false positive which means the dog, the cop handler, and the original officer should NOT be on this force any longer.
Every case in the state using this dog will now be appealed because it is on tape that the dog is incapable of determining if a search of the vehicle is constitutionally upheld.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:40 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Then when you get arrested
Why would he get arrested? For not having an ID? They can't search him! For a traffic stop in which he wasn't driving!
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:40 pm to LT
I think I clarified it well, and what I said is indeed fact, and Five-O agreed saying that showing ID is not the same as identifying yourself.
You should pay attention, the words have meanings.
You should pay attention, the words have meanings.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:40 pm to Five0
quote:
Five0
I saw this down the page:
quote:
I understand its your right not to show it. I understand he illegally asked for it and he didn't have to show him.
Is it true you do not have to show id if you don't want to? I thought that wasn't the case.
Page 15 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News