Jailed for Bulge in His Pocket. Interesting WA State Supreme Court Ruling.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Until then, this is an easy enough ruling to work around.
If you understand the ruling state that if consent is necessary it should be genuine, why would you want to work around it?
Click to expand...

For the same reason cops over use the term "Person of Interest".

If they are a labeled a suspect, they have protections, rights that the cops must adhere to. If your a "person of interest", your NOT a suspect. So it's easier without that messy constitution in the way. Just google "person of interest". It will make you see red.

So a work around is our cops finding a loophole around what the constitution and the courts say. Is that simple. The cops know what they legally need/have to do, but want something easier so there are no hurdles, what we call protections, in their way.
 
And if you or a loved one were the victim of a crime, how many hurdles should be in the way?
Click to expand...

Only the Constitutions of the US and states and those statutes which enact the protections of rights enumerated in those Constitutions.
 
The Constitution and said law that is deemed constitutional. No cute work arounds that violate the spirit if not the letter of the law.

The ends don't justify the means.
 
And if you or a loved one were the victim of a crime, how many hurdles should be in the way?
Click to expand...

I'll admit, it disturbs me when Law Inforcement try to use emotion to justify bending, and possibly breaking the rules.

I've always felt that the only way the laws will ever work effectively is if they're applied equally to everyone. Special privilidges only work to undermine society, not keep it just.
 
Thats my point right there. Follow the rules, and if the rules say you can't do x,y,and z, then use a,b,and c to continue to do police work. Not saying bend or break the rules, I take the oath that I took a lot of years ago very seriously, but you use anything legally available to you that helps you help the victims. Thats the point.

Cops are soft on crime, until they pinch your kid. There are lots of crazies on the road, why dont the cops write tickets, unless you are the one speeding. Everyone should be free from any police attention, until your house gets broken into. Nothing new here.
 
Thats my point right there. Follow the rules, and if the rules say you can't do x,y,and z, then use a,b,and c to continue to do police work. Not saying bend or break the rules, I take the oath that I took a lot of years ago very seriously, but you use anything legally available to you that helps you help the victims. Thats the point.
Click to expand...

I think that is spot on. However, if the law requires that a person give real consent, it isn't legal to "coerce" consent and courts are just fulfilling their role when they refuse to allow in evidence the product of state misbehavior.

There is a tension in the central issue of this thread that cannot be resolved, imo. One the one hand, we all want policing to be effective and ideally to prevent and deter harm from bad behavior by bad people. However, as a practical matter that involves someone somewhere with state authority making some sort of judgment call. As I wrote earlier, my village police do this, and I am thankful for it.

On the other hand we would like to have clear laws that are easy to predict in their application so that people have a fair opportunity to know and observe them. But trying to codify the proper limits of human judgment is not possible, so we are left with an array of tests that are more nebulous than bright line.

And if you or a loved one were the victim of a crime, how many hurdles should be in the way?
Click to expand...

There might be no hurdles in that case, only retribution. That is why I am not a law unto myself.
 
Zukiphile, well said. Consent does need to be given freely and not forced. No doubt. In this case it sounds to me, from what I read, this guy was a moron and the consent was freely given. Depending on how the cops present themselves consent can seem coerced or given freely, depending on the nature of the interaction. I don't believe that the mere presence of a second officer automatically makes the consent coerced. Depends how it was presented.
 
I don't believe that the mere presence of a second officer automatically makes the consent coerced. Depends how it was presented.
Click to expand...

Unless we're talking about a female officer in a private setting, "May I frisk you" is not what I expect from a social interaction.
 
Except the frisk came after the person gave a suspicious story and continually touched the bulge in his pocket, which is a mannerism associated with someone concealing contraband. Thats when the frisk was requested.
 
Except the frisk came after the person gave a suspicious story and continually touched the bulge in his pocket, which is a mannerism associated with someone concealing contraband. Thats when the frisk was requested.
Click to expand...

However, the frisk was requested under the guise of "officer safety". If the officer had wanted to frisk for the purposes of evidence gathering, the officer should have said, "You are under arrest for the suspicion of possessing drug paraphanalia" and then conducted the "consensual" search.
 
My point is the officer shouldn't have been there in the first place. Had no reason to stop and fish. Had the officer had a reason to stop the man, not under the guise of a social contact, a real RS reason he could have Terryed his little hands away, without asking for consent.

IMO. The court is saying that absent RS or PC, you can't stop someone using the "social contact" as bait for you fishing trip.
 
Last edited:
Cops don't need a reason to talk to someone. They can approach and talk to anyone, same as everybody else. My point is that the initial approach was a consenual encounter. Once the suspicious story was presented and the continued touching of the object by the person, I would have conducted a Terry Stop and gone from there. Officer safety, yes, Terry Stop, also yes. IMO.

Consent does need to be given freely, but there was plenty for a Terry Stop after the bs story and touching of the bulge.
 
So. If I'm in an elevator, with a cop and have a bulge in or around my pocket, the officer can instruct or order me to remove my hands Or keep my hands out of my pocket. During a " social contact ". Why? And don't scream officer safety BS. That's getting as old an worn out as "it's for the children".

You make it sound like a cop can pick someone out at random an order them to take their hands out of their pockets. No reason. " You there. Just walking down the street in the blue jacket. Yea you. Take you hands out if your pockets. Have a nice day while I continue my patrol and ordering People to keep their hands out of their pockets, especially when I am around."
 
Dust Monkey

I know you are very serious about this \/

" You there. Just walking down the street in the blue jacket. Yea you. Take you hands out if your pockets. Have a nice day while I continue my patrol and ordering People to keep their hands out of their pockets, especially when I am around."

but I have that scenario playing out in my mind and it just tickles the s--- out of me.
Kinda like on Southpark when Cartman was a cop.

That cop in your scenario... he'd probably waste me. I'm so bad to be puttin' my hands in my pockets.

I think a situation would have to be extra ordinary for a cop to 'command' me to take my hands out of my pockets.
 
Dust Monkey, read what I wrote. There was no elevator anywhere to be found, its not broad daylight and you are waling down the street to read to the blind before you go give blood. Get real.

If you are walking down the street at 11 p.m., give a bs story and continually touch an object in your pocket ( which is a known mannerism of someone concealing contraband), then yes I would tell you to take your hands out of your pockets and there is not a court in the land that would fault me. This story is a whole lot more than just a bulge in pants.
 
Why was he stopped for just walking down the street at 11pm? Is that a magic hour? Hence the court stating you can't use a "social contact" to fish.

What was the reason the cop decided to pull a u turn and start the chain of events?
 
My point is the officer shouldn't have been there in the first place. Had no reason to stop and fish. Had the officer had a reason to stop the man, not under the guise of a social contact, a real RS reason he could have Terryed his little hands away, without asking for consent.

IMO. The court is saying that absent RS or PC, you can't stop someone using the "social contact" as bait for you fishing trip.
Click to expand...

Yup, spot on.

Cops don't need a reason to talk to someone. They can approach and talk to anyone
Click to expand...

OK, Given that is true then; If you approach me at 2300 on a sidewalk and I do not wish to have a "social interaction" are you simply going to let me walk away?

If so, then why the "interaction" if not, then why does it not qualify as a fishing expedition ? I am either free to leave, or not. Without some RS, or PC, then your gun and badge are useless, and I can tell you to go pound sand, correct?

If not then please elaborate.

Consent does need to be given freely, but there was plenty for a Terry Stop after the bs story and touching of the bulge
Click to expand...

OK, lets suppose that you asked me where I was going/coming from, and I told you that I did not think that was any concern of yours? what then ?

Again, please elaborate.

If you are walking down the street at 11 p.m., give a bs story and continually touch an object in your pocket ( which is a known mannerism of someone concealing contraband), then yes I would tell you to take your hands out of your pockets and there is not a court in the land that would fault me.
Click to expand...

Um, there is at least one court that would. The point you don't seem to grasp is that unless you have RS or PC to legally detain me, I can tell you "I am going to grandmas house with a basket of goodies", or "to the moon" for that matter, as it is none of your business at that point. That pesky constitution is a pain isn't it ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top