Rev. Anderson & the Border Patrol

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Agreed. As is search of a vehicle without reasonable cause. It should not be "go along to get along" for one thing, and "come back with a warrant" for the other.

If they want to search your vehicle, they are going to search your vehicle. In that position, I would make it clear that any search would be executed without my permission, but the place to fight the officers' actions is in court, not on the side of the road. There is no need to make a stop more stressful to officers than it need be (nor is doing so in anyone's best interest).

One can be polite and reasonably cooperative with officers while still exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The framers established a judicial branch separate from the executive branch for a reason.

Yep. Arguing and screaming will not win you points with the cops. It usually gets you cuffed and stuffed. I got to watch that last week. The cops showed up with an arrest warrant for a neighbor, and when his brother refused to let them in, refused to show an ID, and got loud and obnoxious - well, he got the tacky bracelets and a "time out" in the back seat of the car. He was released (after I told the cops he wasn't the one they were looking for), but he didn't change the outcome one bit.

And everyone has to realize the "expectation of privacy" for a motor vehicle is a lot lower than that for a residence. The cops are required to do a lot less work to look through your car.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[masterrig 1]

Interesting. So going back to our theoretical unwarranted search of your house. If the cops roughed you up because you didn't submit to the search, would those injuries be self-inflicted?

.jim

[n23x 0]

Quote

Arguing and screaming will not win you points with the cops.

I don't think anyone is advocating screaming or arguing with an officer.

I think people want to be afforded certain rights, and some who've interacted with officers have been treated poorly because the officers themselves didn't understand the law, or chose not to perform within that law. I don't also doubt that many of the officers have been responded to poorly in kind, although that doesn't provide an excuse.

Quote

And everyone has to realize the "expectation of privacy" for a motor vehicle is a lot lower than that for a residence

Sure, that's why if they walk up and you have a an open beer and a joint on you, they can inspect the car. One can, indeed, see through windows.

They cannot say, "this guy didn't answer my questions", or, "he asked what the relevence of those questions was, and that pissed me off!", and then ignore the law.

Here's a similar case on an airline.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

They cannot say, "this guy didn't answer my questions", or, "he asked what the relevence of those questions was, and that pissed me off!", and then ignore the law.

I'm not sure that a person can legally refuse to get out of their car when ordered by a police officer (with appropriate jurisdiction) to do so. I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any guaranteed rights under which such a refusal is allowed.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

They cannot say, "this guy didn't answer my questions", or, "he asked what the relevence of those questions was, and that pissed me off!", and then ignore the law.

I'm not sure that a person can legally refuse to get out of their car when ordered by a police officer (with appropriate jurisdiction) to do so. I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any guaranteed rights under which such a refusal is allowed.

I think the old addage applies... "you better be tough if you are going to be stupid"

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They cannot say, "this guy didn't answer my questions", or, "he asked what the relevence of those questions was, and that pissed me off!", and then ignore the law.

I'm not sure that a person can legally refuse to get out of their car when ordered by a police officer (with appropriate jurisdiction) to do so. I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any guaranteed rights under which such a refusal is allowed.

I think the old addage applies... "you better be tough if you are going to be stupid"

Chuck

[n23x 0]

Hee Haw!

Let's advance this a little further, as I also disagree with the gentleman refusing to get out of his vehicle.

They ask him to step out of the vehicle, and he complies, but locks his car doors before coming out.

Now what?

Edit: I should rephrase. Is the driver now being non-compliant and deserving of being "roughed up" if he refuses to unlock his vehicle for the officer to search without due cause?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Coreece 190]

Quote

They ask him to step out of the vehicle, and he complies, but locks his car doors before coming out.

Now what?

Edit: I should rephrase. Is the driver now being non-compliant and deserving of being "roughed up" if he refuses to unlock his vehicle for the officer to search without due cause?

.jim

I'd tell em' "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday."

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Hee Haw!

Let's advance this a little further, as I also disagree with the gentleman refusing to get out of his vehicle.

They ask him to step out of the vehicle, and he complies, but locks his car doors before coming out.

Now what?

Edit: I should rephrase. Is the driver now being non-compliant and deserving of being "roughed up" if he refuses to unlock his vehicle for the officer to search without due cause?

.jim

I was thinking about your previous question. I really don't have a clue. I guess, we'd have to see what I do, should such a thing might by some freak of nature, happen.

On your most recent question, he's still not in a position for a 'beating'.


Chuck

[n23x 0]

Quote

I'm not sure that a person can legally refuse to get out of their car when ordered by a police officer (with appropriate jurisdiction) to do so.

I'm not aware of the law, but suspect compliance on that front would save a person far more than they'd gain from non-compliance (as seen in this case).

That being said, if one were to establish a case of search without reasonable cause, should they lock the doors, exit the vehicle, and if asked, maintain that they do not give the LEOs permission to search their vehicle?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[masterrig 1]

That being said, if one were to establish a case of search without reasonable cause, should they lock the doors, exit the vehicle, and if asked, maintain that they do not give the LEOs permission to search their vehicle?

.jim

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure that a person can legally refuse to get out of their car when ordered by a police officer (with appropriate jurisdiction) to do so.

I'm not aware of the law, but suspect compliance on that front would save a person far more than they'd gain from non-compliance (as seen in this case).

That being said, if one were to establish a case of search without reasonable cause, should they lock the doors, exit the vehicle, and if asked, maintain that they do not give the LEOs permission to search their vehicle?

.jim

That would clearly establish non-consent. Probable cause would be determined later by the court (when your lawyer tries to get the search suppressed or during the lawsuit for violating your civil rights).

If they place you under arrest, they can search incident to arrest (if the arrest took place because of something that happened while you were in the car)

If the dog "signals", that establishes probable cause.

There are other things that establish P/C but search law was a long time ago and I can't remember any of them.

If they want to be jerks, they will put you up against the car, pull the keys out of your pocket.
If you have keyless and locked the keys in the car, they usually know how to pop the locks. Cops are pretty good at B+E.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[n23x 0]

Quote

The more he refuses, put him in the back seat of the patrol car and have the vehicle towed to the police station where it could be searched and hand the jerk a bill for the tow truck along with any charges they find. That's reasonable and noone gets hurt.

So, to be clear: You are advocating zero search restrictions for officers on the road?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

The more he refuses, put him in the back seat of the patrol car and have the vehicle towed to the police station where it could be searched and hand the jerk a bill for the tow truck along with any charges they find. That's reasonable and noone gets hurt.

So, to be clear: You are advocating zero search restrictions for officers on the road?

.jim

No, that's not what I am saying. I am referring to those who chose to be 'stupid' and and place themselves in a 'suspicious' position. In situations as you, yourself referred to, when a police officer 'sees' something in the stopped vehicle that would call for a search of the vehicle or if, a police dog snaps on something. I am not advocating 'zero' search restrictions. Besides, Police officers DO have restrictions in regard to searches. Clear?


Chuck

[n23x 0]

Quote

I am referring to those who chose to be 'stupid' and and place themselves in a 'suspicious' position.

I think this is likely the issue on which we disagree. I perceive you as saying that asking the relevence of questions an officer might ask, or refusing consent to search your vehicle as being 'stupid' or 'suspicious'.

While I agree that it might not be what the officer wants to hear, I would argue that it is well within the rights of that citizen, and further, doesn't make them 'suspicious'.

Quote

In situations as you, yourself referred to, when a police officer 'sees' something in the stopped vehicle that would call for a search of the vehicle or if, a police dog snaps on something.

My understanding of the OP's video was that the only 'suspicious' activity that the officer encountered was the driver's refusal to answer certain questions, and that the police dog did not indicate on the car. However, I certainly acknowledge that the actual interaction may have been the complete opposite.

I suppose my ultimate point would be that people have the right to question the actions of LEOs and should not become suspect solely due to that fact. However, I agree with jcd that the place to fight them is in court, because then you have the unfair advantage because you know how to read.

I see there is much more info going on in the BIG 4th thread

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I am referring to those who chose to be 'stupid' and and place themselves in a 'suspicious' position.

I think this is likely the issue on which we disagree. I perceive you as saying that asking the relevence of questions an officer might ask, or refusing consent to search your vehicle as being 'stupid' or 'suspicious'.

While I agree that it might not be what the officer wants to hear, I would argue that it is well within the rights of that citizen, and further, doesn't make them 'suspicious'.

Quote

In situations as you, yourself referred to, when a police officer 'sees' something in the stopped vehicle that would call for a search of the vehicle or if, a police dog snaps on something.

My understanding of the OP's video was that the only 'suspicious' activity that the officer encountered was the driver's refusal to answer certain questions, and that the police dog did not indicate on the car. However, I certainly acknowledge that the actual interaction may have been the complete opposite.

I suppose my ultimate point would be that people have the right to question the actions of LEOs and should not become suspect solely due to that fact. However, I agree with jcd that the place to fight them is in court, because then you have the unfair advantage because you know how to read.

I see there is much more info going on in the BIG 4th thread

.jim

I'm sure, there are better ways of asking 'why' in a vehicle search situation but, screaming that you have your constitutional rights and acting like a jerk isn't one of them. Acting like an adult and not like some spoiled 3rd. grader would probably go farther with police.


Chuck