One of those days...

[USP45usp]

Frank,

They would have to bust the window open, I have keyless entry. If they bust the window, granted, I can't stop them but I have proof to show in court when I sue their asses.

You know Frank, you quite honestly, scare me. I thought that LEO's were suppose to help people, not tramp on their Rights when they feel the need to bully others. Now you know (or should) why the People are distrustful of LEO's and other government agents. I'm getting the feeling that any means and any actions are okay as long as you get at least one bad guy even if you have to harm 5 good guys to do it.

I, personally, am sickened by that attitude. I can't understand why you and others feel that you can harm the People at anytime, tramp on their Rights at any time, and then whine about when these People show distrust, even anger, towards these agents.

As for the house, the entire neighborhood will know that they came in. I have 200db speakers hooked up to an alarm system that runs off electric, a car battery and a generator backup. No, not paranoid, got the generator when the power was off for 7 days in the winter. The alarm system was one that I put together because of the neighbors across the street, and more importantly, because of what I have so it has a panic button that I carry on me if I can't get to a phone (health reasons).

But, I will say this again, you and others like you, scare me. Just my opinion and not a personal attack, just my thoughts.

Wayne

 

[FrankDrebin]

You know Frank, you quite honestly, scare me. I thought that LEO's were suppose to help people, not tramp on their Rights when they feel the need to bully others.

Well Wayne, I'm sorry you feel that way, but if I ever entered your car or house, with or without a search or arrest warrant, I'd be doing it because I had an obligation or duty to do so, and the authority to do so as established by the 4th amendment and over 200 years of case law. The fact that you don't know what your rights are in that context is not my problem, or frankly, any concern to me in my capacity as a police officer, or even my capacity as private citizen. It would have nothing to do with any imagined need to bully you. It's not my job to educate you as to your rights. I DO feel sorry, in advance, for your lawyer though!!

I, personally, am sickened by that attitude. I can't understand why you and others feel that you can harm the People at anytime, tramp on their Rights at any time, and then whine about when these People show distrust, even anger, towards these agents.

When have I whined about that?

As for the house, the entire neighborhood will know that they came in. I have 200db speakers hooked up to an alarm system that runs off electric, a car battery and a generator backup. No, not paranoid, got the generator when the power was off for 7 days in the winter. The alarm system was one that I put together because of the neighbors across the street, and more importantly, because of what I have so it has a panic button that I carry on me if I can't get to a phone (health reasons).

So what? Usually they WANT the whole neighborhood to know it's the police entering your house so they don't have to waste any time fielding unnecessary calls about burglaries.

But, I will say this again, you and others like you, scare me. Just my opinion and not a personal attack, just my thoughts.

If I scare you, Wayne, that's a fact, not an opinion.

 

[jburtonpdx]

The police don't need a warrant to search a car under most circumstances if they have probable cause. How would you stop them from searching your car Wayne? Same thing goes for your house under several circumstances. You'd shoot it out with the police because you don't agree with the way the Supreme Court intereprets "reasonable search"?

Oh great and all knowing Frank - then why did the Ft Worth police bother getting him to sign a consent to search form?

8 words - I do not give consent to any search. Do what you want after I say that, at that point it is up to interpretation by a judge and you will have the burden not me. Excuse me actually the PA is going to have the burden and he/she will be discussing that with my attorney.

However since there is never anything illegal in my truck or on my person, I guess it will by my attorney discussing a civil suit with your city/county/state whoever it is you work for regarding the unreasonable search you performed on me and/or my property. Funny how cops always scream, sue all you want we are protected, but then the governing authority always settles those cases... Would not want any precedents to come out of those now would we...

I would never interfere, but I will not help you either, any more.

Honestly, Frank if you are an example of the attitude of cops now this countries police force is down the toilet. I will be considering what you have said at every election now. Next time anybody screams POST 911 I will not vote for them. If what you say is true, the police have far to much power and need to be knocked down a few notches.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Oh great and all knowing Frank - then why did the Ft Worth police bother getting him to sign a consent to search form?

Well thanks for the flattery, but I don't know EVERYTHING!! Why just the other day, I had to look up a recipe online because I didn't know where to get Flavorglo to make the sauce for my Filet Mignon!! I found it though, so don't worry!

In answer to your question, we often piggyback exceptions to the search warrant rule when we can. Why rely on just one when you can get several for the same search? Does that answer your question?

Honestly, Frank if you are an example of the attitude of cops now this countries police force is down the toilet.

I wasn't aware this country had a national police force per se, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

However since there is never anything illegal in my truck or on my person, I guess it will by my attorney discussing a civil suit with your city/county/state whoever it is you work for regarding the unreasonable search you performed on me and/or my property. Funny how cops always scream, sue all you want we are protected, but then the governing authority always settles those cases... Would not want any precedents to come out of those now would we...

What the HECK are you talking about and why are you assuming you're going to be the object of an unlawful search?? And, in the event that you ARE stopped, for instance, because you fit the description of someone wanted in a hold-up that just occurred, and the police have reasonable suspicion to stop you and search you and your car for weapons until they can verify that you're not the guy, what exactly is your laywer going to want to discuss when the police search your car anyway after you tell them "no" if they ask for your consent? Just curious. If you're talking about some kind of hypothetical search, please provide some specfics so I can address your rant.

Say you're a white guy, 35-45 years old wearing a black baseball hat, driving a 2003 Blue Ford F-150 Eastbound on 5th Avenue 2 minutes after a 35 year-old white guy with a black hat flees the scene of a liquor store robbery in a 2002 Blue Ford F-150, Eastbound on 5th Avenue.

Now suppose the police stop you, pull their guns on you, and get you out of the car. You're pissing and moaning about being harrassed and they ask if they can search your car. You give them your 8 words and they search anyway. First of all, no lawyer in the world would take your case on a contingecy basis, so you're going to have to come up with a retainer and an hourly amount. So, after you do that, what is your lawyer going to ask me at my deposition?

I would never interfere, but I will not help you either, any more.

Judging by your uninformed notion of what constitutes a lawful search and/or seizure, I doubt you've ever been any help to me to begin with.

 

[USP45usp]

Frank

I must say goodbye to you. You've just proven that a police state, hell country, exists. That you would gladly step all over the Rights of the People, by case law (not the Bill of Rights as you try to use the 4th against us), and won't even let it bother you.

You've, in another post, blame the person being victimized even though she did something against Bibical law (of which I believe in) and that it was all her fault. As I said, cast the first stone.

Your contempt and hatered for us is showing more and more each day. This is pure opinion on me, my opinion.

I'm sure that off duty or even as a normal "joe" you are probably a great person to be around, be friends with, etc.. But as an active duty officer, and the way that you would just walk over Rights due to laws that the Constitution would, and have pointed out, are null and void, scares me.

I think that you have done your job more harm than good by your actions. All I've gotten from reading the conversations is "so what, we had a job to do and anything goes. If you don't let it, tough ****".

I'm sorry, that is what I've gathered from the conversations. Thank you (sarcastic) for me being even more afraid of the cops. Like the feds didn't do a good enough job of it.

Signing off from Frank, may he always be well.

Wayne

 

[jburtonpdx]

Judging by your uninformed notion of what constitutes a lawful search and/or seizure, I doubt you've ever been any help to me to begin with.

I did not use the word lawful, I said reasonable. You are not qualified to state what is lawful. You are not a judge. You have done research and have been instructed on what you can get away with. I will give you that much, but what is lawful is up to the judge not you.

As I said earlier Frank, I would simply never give consent. I did not ever say it was unlawful. I would leave that up to somebody that is qualified- a judge.

Nope never been any help to you Frank and grateful for that, I don't believe that the way you describe doing your job is the way it was intended to be done or what it was intended for.

I would call 911 if you were hurt, give first aid, pull you out if you were stuck, search for you if you were lost, I believe all people are worth that much... But I would never help somebody like you do what you have described in these forums lately. Its like you think its ok just because you can get away with it.

Tell me Frank have you ever used the line - "You don't have anything illegal in there so you wont mind me taking a look will you?" Have you ever convinced somebody that if they go along with you you will go easy on them? Funny how since people don't know that the officer is not the person making the decision they believe every word they say. People don't understand that you are taught to say things like that at the academy or by your department in order to coerce consent or get a confession.

 

[jburtonpdx]

Quote:
Honestly, Frank if you are an example of the attitude of cops now this countries police force is down the toilet.



I wasn't aware this country had a national police force per se, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

I guess I should have been more specific. If this is the average attitude of the cops that serve their specific regional government, be it state, county, city, or township, then on average the state commissioned officers in this country are going down the toilet.

 

[Long Path]

This thread makes me very sad.

Wynterbourne has obviously had a crash course in TX firearms laws, so I won't bring that up. My personal experience and training and inclination as a TX LEO apparently are different from Ft Worth PD's, if I understand the situation correctly. Let me ask you this:

The weapon is stored in one location. The ammunition is stored in another location, in a blue bag in the back of my SUV. Before I started doing this, I spoke to a representative of the Department of Public Safety who advised me that it was legal, provided the weapon is unloaded and the ammunition is stored in another location.

Well, on Monday, I come out for break to find the Head of Security for Uniden standing next to my truck, with a police car parked behind it. According to the officer, I was being removed from the property for having a weapon in my vehical. The officer asked me, flat out, if I had a weapon. I advised him that I did, the make and caliber of the weapon, and it's location. I advised him of the location of the ammunition, the types of ammunition, and the remaining contents of my gun bag.

Where was the pistol located in your vehicle? Precisely? This is the real issue: was it within your scope of reach? I'm noting that you haven't mentioned where the gun was. If it was in the back with the ammo, I'm betting that we wouldn't have this situation. Am I right in guessing that the pistol was up by the driver's seat?

You of course by now realize that Texas Penal Code makes no reference anywhere to whether or not the gun was loaded.

You of course by now realize that you did not have to tell the officer of the weapon in your vehicle, nor give consent to search. (But, had it been against the law to possess the firearm there, admitting its presense surely gave the cop P.C. to search.)

Interestingly, there was no evidence that you had actually carried or been within reach of the gun. A cute ploy would have been simply to have called a wrecker on your own dime and towed your car home without getting in. Even the cop might have been okay with this. He surely wasn't about to let you get in without doing a wingspan search, though.

I actually disagree with tyme on one issue, though-- just because this is TX and the company is Japanese, I don't see that the company should withhold its cultural ideals. If *I* own a company, I want to be able to run it as I damn well please. Such is their right, to excercise with as much intelligence or stupidity as they desire.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I did not use the word lawful, I said reasonable. You are not qualified to state what is lawful. You are not a judge. You have done research and have been instructed on what you can get away with. I will give you that much, but what is lawful is up to the judge not you.

Reasonable IS lawful, and I can't think of any examples I've given as lawful searches that were lawful but unreasonable. Maybe you can copy and paste a few that I posted?

Tell me Frank have you ever used the line - "You don't have anything illegal in there so you wont mind me taking a look will you?" Have you ever convinced somebody that if they go along with you you will go easy on them?

Nope. If I want to go for a consent search, it's usually on a traffic stop, and it's after I've returned their license and papers and after the rest of the business of the traffic stop is over with. I then will say. "Can I search your car for guns or drugs?" Nothing coy or misleading about that is there?

Implying that you'll go easy on them if they cooperate is coercion and that's not reasonable.

People don't understand that you are taught to say things like that at the academy or by your department in order to coerce consent or get a confession.

Items seized a a result of a coerced consent and coerced confessions are not admissible. Police are not trained to gain coerced consent or confessions.

How is saying "You don't have anything illegal in there so you wont mind me taking a look will you?" coercion? All they have to say is "yes I do mind". There was no threat implied unless you're reading something that I'm not. It's not the police' fault that people don't understand what their rights are, and it's not the police' duty to educate them at the side of the road.

As I said earlier Frank, I would simply never give consent. I did not ever say it was unlawful. I would leave that up to somebody that is qualified- a judge.

You never said WHAT was unlawful? You rambled on about some kind of hypothetical search that I conducted, or would conduct of you or your car in the future but gave no specifics at all.....You said:

However since there is never anything illegal in my truck or on my person, I guess it will by my attorney discussing a civil suit with your city/county/state whoever it is you work for regarding the unreasonable search you performed on me and/or my property. Funny how cops always scream, sue all you want we are protected, but then the governing authority always settles those cases... Would not want any precedents to come out of those now would we...

Seems to me that you're implying that because there is nothing illegal in your truck, any search that the police do with reasonable suspicion or probable cause is unreasonable. This is total nonsense because if the police KNEW that you had something illegal in there, they could just arrest you and make a search incident to arrest. The point is that they don't HAVE to know you have something in there. They need only reasonable suspicion for weapons or probable cause for evidence of a crime or other contraband.

And incidentally, I've never, ever heard of the city attorney settling a case because they were afraid of setting some kind of precedent. The only reasons I know of that they settled were because they had an indefensible case and didn't want to go to trial, or because they thought the cost of going to trial or a potential jury award would be significantly more than if they settled. Potential precedents have nothing to do with the equation.

 

[tyme]

I actually disagree with tyme on one issue, though-- just because this is TX and the company is Japanese, I don't see that the company should withhold its cultural ideals. If *I* own a company, I want to be able to run it as I damn well please. Such is their right, to excercise with as much intelligence or stupidity as they desire.

Compare the dynamics of a domestic company with management that has severe gun-phobia with an identical Japanese company.

In the first case, the relevant economic forces will cause the company to sink or float, and the company should be left regulation-free to suffer the fortunes or sandstorms of those economic forces.

In the latter case, the company is propped up economically by cash from other cultures, probably much of socialist europe in addition to its home country, Japan. The economic punishment resulting from rabid U.S. RKBA supporters refusing to do business with the company may not be enough to cause the company to go belly-up. It may not even be enough to get the company to change its anti-gun policy local to this country. Regardless of whether the economic forces in this case change the company's policy, they will be less effective than in the case of a domestic company.

This is similar to the situation where a company uses child/slave-wage labor in other countries, or uses factories in other countries to avoid U.S. environmental regulations. The difference is that international companies disrespecting the RKBA here are worse, because their violations of U.S. notions of rights occur on U.S. soil, rather than in e.g. China or Mexico.

 

[BillCA]

Jumping in with both feet.

Winterbourne: As you've learned, you don't have to talk to the PD since you have a right to keep yer gab shut and not suffer hoof-in-mouth disease. I'm glad things turned out as well as they did for you and perhaps you can get most of this behind you.

And I agree with some others here. Consult with civil attorneys regarding the innaccurate information to Addecco. I work for a Fortune 500 company and we use them too. Whomever released that information to Addecco needs their hide nailed to a wall. Deposition the Addecco folks -- that kind of information is something they should remember at least from an "ohMyGoshOneOfThosePeople!" realization -- and determine if they got it wrong or Uniden passed out false info. In the course of that discovery, you may find grounds for suing Addecco for defamation & slander too (releasing unverified facts).

FrankDerbin/jburtonpdx/USP45usp:
You guys are getting off topic and (IMO) onto thin ice with regards to the "No Personal Attacks" prohibition. But let me provide an different view.

I don't really support anyone's views -- at least that I've read here -- based on some of the descriptions.

LEOs do have the right to stop a person that they reasonably believe is involved in a crime or a wanted person. If that person is wanted for a violent crime (armed robbery, rape, murder, etc.) it's likely a "felony car stop" technique will be used. If you're mistaken for the BG, expect to be handcuffed and sitting in a patrol car while they seach your vehicle - legally. Once they realize you're not their suspect, cops usually apologize after explaining the situation. IF this puts a wild-hair somewhere and you perform your due diligence you should find: (1)report of the crime exists (2)Description of the suspect(s) and/or vehicle involved, (3)Description can be said to reasonably match you/your vehicle. Other factors such as the difference in time/location from crime to your stop play here too. If you're driving within 2 miles of said crime within 10 minutes of the report, a "reasonable man" may have come to the same conclusion as the cops -- this might be our guy.

Note too that some details will be dismissed in the overall look at the situation. For instance the BG was reported as a 6'4" bald black male leaving in a Chevy TrailBlazer truck and you're a bald black man driving a GMC Envoy -similar vehicles sharing body styles are 'fair game'. Likewise if the color is described as "dark-green" and you're driving a navy-blue or blue car - especially at night - this will make little difference. (Witnesses are often wrong about make/model and color but seldom about (dark/light) shades.)

These are just some of the rules of the games of policing. There's tons more details but space & time don't permit (yeah, since when has that bothered me right? ).

Where things fall apart and people start disrespecting the law is when officers pull you over based on the above armed-robbery BOL broadcast and there's no relationship except maybe proximity - e.g. you're a 5'8" white male with long salt & pepper hair driving a Mazda Miata not a TrailBlazer. Since you won't know this at the time, even if it seems prudent, refuse to sign anything or to even cooperate by turning over the keys to the PD. Let them do all the work and take all the risks. Likewise, when your lawyer investigate and cannot find the "source" information that describes you or your vehicle for a potential stop you have a legal case for violating the 4th & 5th Amendments.

In RE: Head of Security peering into vehicle.
Permissible. Even without probable cause or suspicion. Most security folks are private citizens and the admonishments against unreasonable searches and seizures typically don't apply to them. Typically that is. As HoS I could ask you to exit your vehicle and search it - no warrant or reason - as long as I was working on private property that you had entered. Often properties have signs indicating vehicles may be subject to search and permission to pass revoked. However, if the company policy prohibits firearms on its property by employees this alone does not rise to a criminal offense.

Depending on your employment contract and the rules in your employee handbook, employers do not, generally, have the right to "search" or "inspect" the interior of your vehicle on demand (exceptions may exist for posted warning signs). Even if someone thinks you've brought an live AGM-65 "Maverick" missle in your trunk, they don't have the legal right to force you to waive your rights -- but they can call the cops.

I've thought of this scenario with my own employer wanting to "inspect" or "search" my private vehicle. The answer will be a definitive No! Even if they threaten termination I'll refuse. Of course my response would be "I doubt the CEO or CFO would invite me to come upstairs to rummage through his personal belongings which is what you're asking to do to me." They're welcome to look into the vehicle from outside but that's legal.

By the way -- I've purchased my last Uniden product for at least the next 10 years.

We now return to our regularly scheduled argument...

 

[alan]

Frank Drebin:

Not wishing to involve myself in that proverbial "pissing match", I noted the following in one of your posts. "They need only reasonable suspicion for weapons or probable cause for evidence of a crime or other contraband."

Is "reasonable suspicion" the same as "probable cause", I wonder. That aside, what might it be that gives rise to the "reasonable suspicion" that you have several times mentioned, particularly absent a recently reported violent crime, armed robbery for instance nearby, and a similarity in appearance between the actor and the citizen, possibly myself or anyone else.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Is "reasonable suspicion" the same as "probable cause", I wonder.

No, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than "probable cause" which is a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

It's easier to give example of what "reasonable suspicion" is than to define it, but a reading of Terry V. Ohio might help. An officer has reasonable suspicion to do a Terry search for weapons, for example, if, based on his training, experience, and observations, he believes that there may be a weapon either on the person of some he has lawfully detained, or within that person's immediate grasp. The officer is allowed to rely on information he receives from other officers to develop reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also the minimum standard for investigative "stops" or "Terry stops", classically, the one in Terry V. Ohio. "Probable Cause" is the minimum strandard needed to arrest someone. There is a ton of case law that I don't have time to get into that defines what an "arrest" is, vs. an "investigatory stop" vs a police/citizen encounter that is neither, and therefore does not trigger 4th amendment protection.

For an example of reasonable suspicion that does not rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest: You're sitting across the street from a liquor store and it's 10 minutes until closing time. You see a car drive by 5 times, the occupants of which keep looking at the store. When the last customer leaves the store, the car pulls up and one of the two occupants of the car gets out and goes into the store. The other occupant stays in the car with the motor running. 30 seconds later, the guy who went into the store runs out, gets into the car, and the car leaves. You have reasonable suspicion to stop that car, detain the occupants and have your dispatcher call the liquor store to determine if it was just held up. That is, if your experience and training as a police officer makes you think that those guys just exibited the behavior consistent with a couple of hold-up men. That's not enough for an arrest, but you wouldn't be much of a police officer if you didn't stop someone under those circumstances and investigate. You are not under an obligation to follow them, and have your dispatcher call to find out if they were robbed. If it were me, I'd assume they were armed, call for back-up, stop them, do a Terry search for weapons and then either call or have another officer go to the store to make sure everything was OK....or not...

 

[alan]

Frank Drebin:

Thanks for your response, in which the following appeared, perhaps taken out of context. "The officer is allowed to rely on information he receives from other officers to develop reasonable suspicion."

I find myself rather curious as to this, as with the following circumstances. A lone officer makes an entirely legitimate traffic stop, legitimate in that the driver of a vehicle did in fact, go through a stop sign, let's say. Nothing else was involved, no accidents or injuries to anyone or anything. The driver, when asked, produced a proper drivers license and vehicle registration/ownwership and insurance documents. All is well, and the officer might or might not issue a ticket. That is a judgement call.

Regarding the development of "reasonable suspicion" under the above outlined circumstances, the officer had no contact with anyone else, the driver was not "antsy", what basis might there be for the development of "reasonable suspicion", except possibly as an example of power used because it was there. Strikes me that it is this sort of circumstance that irks or might properly irk some who have commented here.

Speaking personally, I've been involved in any number of traffic stops, where I was the "stopee". In only one case, was a stop less than legitimate, in-so-far as I can recall. Sometimes I got a ticket, sometimes I didn't, however in no case did the police officer ever ask for anything other than license and vehicle registration or owners card please. Had permission for vehicle search been made, I would have declined, on general principle. Had any other questions been posed, exception being made for things like, "didn't you see that stop sign or one way sign", questions that have been asked, I would have politely declined to answer. The officer could then do whatever he thought he had to do, including getting a warrant.

 

[FrankDrebin]

A lone officer makes an entirely legitimate traffic stop, legitimate in that the driver of a vehicle did in fact, go through a stop sign, let's say. Nothing else was involved, no accidents or injuries to anyone or anything. The driver, when asked, produced a proper drivers license and vehicle registration/ownwership and insurance documents. All is well, and the officer might or might not issue a ticket. That is a judgement call.

Regarding the development of "reasonable suspicion" under the above outlined circumstances, the officer had no contact with anyone else, the driver was not "antsy", what basis might there be for the development of "reasonable suspicion", except possibly as an example of power used because it was there. Strikes me that it is this sort of circumstance that irks or might properly irk some who have commented here.

Reasonable suspicion to do what? I'm assuming you mean reasonable suspicion to search the car or occupant? I can't think of any reason he would have to compel the driver to submit to a search with just the facts you presented. But he can always ask for a consent search withough having reasonable suspicion of anything.

However in the real world, there are going to be times when the police do a Terry search of a person or his car when they may or may not have "reasonable suspicion". When you read the report, some cops may be able to articulate reasonable suspicion from the same incident where another cop can't (maybe he's not bright enough!) but be that as it may, if a cop has a "hunch", which legally is not enough for a Terry search, that you're a threat to him and/or his partner at 3:00am in an alley outside a dope house, he'd be stupid not to search you. You can then sue him for the momentary intrusion into your 4th amendment zone. That's just the way it is.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

, if a cop has a "hunch", which legally is not enough for a Terry search, that you're a threat to him and/or his partner at 3:00am in an alley outside a dope house, he'd be stupid not to search you.

Perhaps. But it's these exact types of "understandable" breaches of privacy rights that are continually put forth. They really do serve to "dumb down" the American public to the issue of all the unreasonable breaches that accompany bad law.
Rich

 

[Long Path]

tyme, flip it around. Suppose that you owned a company in which you actively encouraged your employees to excercise their right to be armed on private property. Suppose that the neighbors around your business and even one irritating employee complained because they saw all guns as evil? You'd feel well within your rights telling them to buzz off, wouldn't you? They don't get to tell you how to run your company. If the complaining employee wants to violate your company's written policy that prohibits interference with personal civil liberties like the RKBA, then he can consider himself terminated.

I'm obviously not on the side of the company's Gestapo tactics against their employees, here. I consider the manner that they treated Winterbourne before, during, and after his termination to be reprehensible and in the end probably actionable as well. But I'm all for the rights of a business owner to run their business in the manner that they wish, within the limits of the law.

Rich, I misread this at first, and started to take issue. Woops. I fall completely on your side of the line on this one. Frank, there are times when cops have to back the hell off, because the law doesn't allow them to do any more. Trust me, guy-- I've been there, and it's frustrating as hell. But if it's 3:30AM and the guy is in front of a "known drug house" (which we know is kind of a sketchy term. "Known" apparently not the same as PC, because you're not inside making an arrest, correct? Yes, I've certainly marked some "Known Drug House" on my beat before, but the best I could tell the court was that they were locations where drug activity had been observed in the past.) and you have a "feeling" about him but nothing that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that a crime was occuring, had occured, or was about to occur, then you have to back off. It's worse to violate people's rights then to allow a dimebag holder to get away for the night. We'll get him next time.

 

[tyme]

A pro-rkba company that's propped up by U.S. sales, and which has pro-rkba corporate policies in rkba hell-holes like Japan, perhaps Britain and France, etc.? Corporate policy couldn't allow people in those places to have guns in their cars. Most corporations have a blanket policy that allows firing people who break the law, so it's irrelevant whether the corp allows guns in employee vehicles.

I would also tend to err on the side of non-interference; a company that doesn't prohibit employees having a, b, or c in their cars doesn't need to be regulated. What needs to be regulated is the company that prohibits legal things from being in employees' vehicles.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Frank, there are times when cops have to back the hell off, because the law doesn't allow them to do any more.

What would you do under the following circumstances. This is all the information you have. There is no back-up available because everyone else is already tied up on priority runs. It's just you and your partner. You get a run: "One Adam-12, make 43232 Martin Luther King on a report of a robbery shooting just happened. Unknown caller states he went to the liquor store and observed 3 black males rob the clerk, then shoot him in the head with a pistol and drag him in the cooler. Caller made the call from the payphone across the street and then ran, as he was afraid the suspects saw him. Suspect #1 is described as a B/M 18-25, wearing Red Chicago Bulls jersey and blue jeans. #2 B/M blue red jacket and sweat pants. #3 is a B/M with a red baseball cap and blue jeans."

You're right around the corner and see 3 men fitting that exact description exit the store, walk across the parking lot and begin getting into a van with blacked-out windows. What do you do?

 

[Long Path]

Frank, that one's easy enough. You've got a complaint of a felony in progress. You've got suspects that meet the description given, at the location given. Certainly you've got RS to make an investigative detention. Frankly, if you've got a partner, you're ahead of me most of the time. So you roll up and attempt to get the guys out of the van. Better if you can catch 'em and talk to them before they get in.

You will effect an "investigative detention," consistent with the lack of probable cause but the sufficiency of reasonable suspicion that you have to do so. Possibly the least-intrusive method of doing this is to simply hold the van up while your partner checks in the store on the double. In such an instance, you have not so much as even identified the van occupants while establishing whether further investigation is merited. The intrusiveness of such a stop would be on par with that of a traffic light.