LEOs "trained" to ignore 4th amendment!!

Rob, I think that's exactly what Jeff was talking about when he suggested "let them go!" If you don't have backup, don't have cause to arrest somebody, don't have his consent (or, frankly, even if you DO!), and backup can't get there in a reasonable time, forget the vehicle search. As a non-LEO, I agree with that on several different levels.

First, the described situation sounds like asking for trouble for no reason, if there is no cause to make an arrest. It sounds like subjecting yourself to excessive and unjustified risk. And more than that, if an LEO attempts to handcuff me in the middle of the night after a traffic stop or whatever, so that he can search my car without a warrant, he'd damn well better have backup, 'cuz he's gonna need it. And he better have a damn fine personal lawyer, too.
 
The state supreme court (CA) of my former jurisdiction upheld the principle of a 'reinforced detention': if you had reasonable cause to detain and could articulate facts indicating an escape or safety risk then we were permitted to 'cuff them and stand them, or seat them uncuffed, after a 'pat' search, in the screen section of the radio car. This became SOP in districts where crimes of violence were frequent, and this frequency IME of 25+ years was directly related to drug trafficking and use.

Therefore the logic chain, and part of the reasonable suspicion articulation at work at 0145 or 0715 or 1420 or 1925 in my district when initiating a stop on a car full of suspected dealers/users or a ped stop of suspected dealers/users hangin' on the corner, or a suspected dealer/user riding a bicycle was drugs = money = weapons.

Consequently, _everyone_ got patted. I could have been lucky, or had a decent ADA but I never lost a 1538.5 hearing (evidence suppression) for that logic chain coupled with articulation of reasonable suspicion.

LarryP: I do _not_ mean to be antagonistic or offensive but the vast majority of people I encountered who expressed your reluctance to cooperate, I was able to smooth talk. In the final analysis though, there was always an easy way and a hard way to get things done, no debate and no effective resistance. Though I much preferred the former, I was never paid to end up on the short end of the stick.


[This message has been edited by SKN (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
I disagree that you can ignore searches that you would otherwise carry out because it might not be convenient. The Job we do is not a job of convenience...


Again, I want to caution everyone (esp LEOs) not to turn this into a debate on when we have and don't have PC to search outside of holding an actual warrant. The point here is that the ADA specifically said it was okay from her point of view if we searched in cases where we WERE NOT authorized by ANY law/amendment/ruling/etc.....
 
It's obvious I suppose, but unfortunately this kind of behavior (as described by Rob) does nothing to enhance the credibility of LEO's, or the 'system'.
 
Rob; The entire point of this discussion is that my rights are NOT sacrificed for your convenience.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I think that most LEO's have forgotten that Law Enforcement is here for society's benefit, NOT that society is here for Law Enforcement's benefit. While Officer Safety is important, it should not be the excuse for the destruction of our civil rights.
 
Ed,

My comment was in response to the idea that we should just forego searches THAT ARE RIGTHEOUS when it is inconvenient or dangerous (at night alone, etc...)
 
Rob: Maybe I am being too simplistic, but if you have cause to arrest someone then arrest them, but dont expect them to willingly give up their rights while you decide. Is that reasonable?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
In light of the number of searches that have occurred where personal property has been seized (such as cash), what happens to this "evidence" that is not addmissible? would it then be returned to it's rightful owner? Or was this the ADA's method of encouraging that type of behavior?

Frankly, I find it just a bit appalling that some one would encourage violating the rights of another without cause, probable or otherwise.
 
if officer safty trumps the 4th amedment then why are any LEO's allowed on the street with out a partner and a vest, I mean really if it is improtant enough to shread the constitution is it not improtant to spend a few bucks?

[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
Nestor, Your question was probably rhetorical, but in case it wasn't :: $$$

TR,

The issue of Asset Seizure (and subsequent forfieture) would relate to the discovery of a crime, not the discovery of the money. SO, no, her motivation did not come from encouraging the seizure of money to be later forfieted. Her motivation, IMO, came solely from wanted to seem like the friendly DA to the rook cops, she was trying to be our buddy by putting our percieved safety (I saw perceived becasue we open ourselves up to federal criminal charges and civil liability) ahead of her prosecution record.
 
Rob, thanks for sticking up for citizens' rights. It almost seems that the DA was agreeing with a guy I once worked with. His philosophy was that "We should shoot all the [minority group members] because if they didn't do anything, they might be going to do something." I am not a member of that group, but is there still a place in LE for that kind of an attitude? And does it apply to a minority group called gun owners?

It's easy to be a bad cop; it's tough being a good one.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top