Why we chase

[rohan]

This chase started with a guy giving a police officer a funny look- nothing more. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I7UKMgWWNc&feature=related

[sportyaccordy]

So cops should get to pull over anyone they want cause they give them funny looks

????

I'm no legal beagle but the logic there sounds flawed

I mean u could make any # of implications from that vid...

[rohan]

It all started with a funny look- didn't say antything about that being the only reason for the chase. 

[Tave]

It says right in the video that this is an attempted escape from the Warren County (wherever that is) jail.

[565]

You guys need hi def camcorders on your patrol cars.

[TurboDan]

The problem with the "funny look" thing is that an officer who pursues someone will probably have a lot of the resulting charges dropped due to lack of probable cause.  Giving a cop a "funny look" is not grounds for pursuit or a traffic stop, legally.

[dazzleman]

The problem with the "funny look" thing is that an officer who pursues someone will probably have a lot of the resulting charges dropped due to lack of probable cause.  Giving a cop a "funny look" is not grounds for pursuit or a traffic stop, legally.

Honestly, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason for probable cause to pull somebody over, whether it was true or not.  If the person doesn't comply with an LEO's request to pull over, for whatever reason, the very act of fleeing becomes a probable cause.  I think that the danger of having charges thrown out for lack of probable cause is more connected to a search of the vehicle than the act of pulling somebody over.  I've never had an officer search my car, or ask to search my car, any of the times I've been pulled over, probably because there was no probable cause to ask for such a search.

[Soup DeVille]

Honestly, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason for probable cause to pull somebody over, whether it was true or not.  If the person doesn't comply with an LEO's request to pull over, for whatever reason, the very act of fleeing becomes a probable cause.  I think that the danger of having charges thrown out for lack of probable cause is more connected to a search of the vehicle than the act of pulling somebody over.  I've never had an officer search my car, or ask to search my car, any of the times I've been pulled over, probably because there was no probable cause to ask for such a search.

I've had officers ask to search my car. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have refused.

I'm not sure about the validity of the "fleeing itself is probable cause" argument. Not that I can say, I just don't know. It seems an awful lot like saying that refusing to allow a search is probable cause to go ahead with the search. (and by search, I mean outside the allowances a Terry frisk would give). There's also the legal axiom about "the fruits of a poisonous tree."

[dazzleman]

I've had officers ask to search my car. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have refused.

I'm not sure about the validity of the "fleeing itself is probable cause" argument. Not that I can say, I just don't know. It seems an awful lot like saying that refusing to allow a search is probable cause to go ahead with the search. (and by search, I mean outside the allowances a Terry frisk would give). There's also the legal axiom about "the fruits of a poisonous tree."

I don't think that refusing a search is the same thing as refusing to comply with a request to pull over.  Refusing a search certainly doesn't give probable cause to make one.  But if an officer signals to you to pull over and you refuse, that act in itself is illegal (unlike declining to allow a voluntary search).  At least that's my understanding.

[Tave]

This chase started with a guy giving a police officer a funny look

It sounds like it started when the con broke out of jail.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't think that refusing a search is the same thing as refusing to comply with a request to pull over.  Refusing a search certainly doesn't give probable cause to make one.  But if an officer signals to you to pull over and you refuse, that act in itself is illegal (unlike declining to allow a voluntary search).  At least that's my understanding.

Its my understanding that an officer needs probable cause to pull you over in the first place (sobriety checkpoints in the Democratic republic of Kalifornia, and other sub-legal exceptions notwithstanding). Therefore, if an officer attempts to do so, they are the ones that broke the law first.

[dazzleman]

Its my understanding that an officer needs probable cause to pull you over in the first place (sobriety checkpoints in the Democratic republic of Kalifornia, and other sub-legal exceptions notwithstanding). Therefore, if an officer attempts to do so, they are the ones that broke the law first.

Let's be realistic.  There can always be a probable cause to pull someone over.  The threshold is very low.  The officer only has to say he saw you swerve, or pass a red light, or say you were speeding.  If you flee, cause a whole big ruckus over that, and then claim you fled because the officer had no cause to pull you over, who is going to believe you?

[Soup DeVille]

Let's be realistic.  There can always be a probable cause to pull someone over.  The threshold is very low.  The officer only has to say he saw you swerve, or pass a red light, or say you were speeding.  If you flee, cause a whole big ruckus over that, and then claim you fled because the officer had no cause to pull you over, who is going to believe you?

Nobody at all, especially if an officer is willing to perjure himself.

[dazzleman]

Nobody at all, especially if an officer is willing to perjure himself.

Exactly my point.  If you're directed to pull over by an LEO, it's better to just do it.  If you've really done nothing wrong, you've got a lot less to lose, and you're on much stronger ground to challenge whatever comes from the stop, than you do if you flee, whether you're right about the probable cause issue or not.  Once you flee, nobody is going to believe your assertions of innocence.

There is the technical side of the law, and then there is the way in which the law is actually applied in practice.  It's a lot better to base your actions on the latter than the former.

[Soup DeVille]

If it needs to be said, I was simply talking about the technical legalities.

In practice, if a guy bolts, he probably had a reason to.

[dazzleman]

If it needs to be said, I was simply talking about the technical legalities.

In practice, if a guy bolts, he probably had a reason to.

I agree.

[bing_oh]

Its my understanding that an officer needs probable cause to pull you over in the first place (sobriety checkpoints in the Democratic republic of Kalifornia, and other sub-legal exceptions notwithstanding). Therefore, if an officer attempts to do so, they are the ones that broke the law first.

Actually, I need reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, not probable cause. I need probable cause to make an arrest.

Quite frankly, I can get reasonable suspicion to make a stop very easily. Like I explain to new officers when I'm training, the law is very extensive and you're probably in violation of some statute whenever you're driving. Recognizing reasonable suspicion is all about knowledge of the law and how the law is interpeted by the courts.

[Raza]

Actually, I need reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, not probable cause. I need probable cause to make an arrest.

Quite frankly, I can get reasonable suspicion to make a stop very easily. Like I explain to new officers when I'm training, the law is very extensive and you're probably in violation of some statute whenever you're driving. Recognizing reasonable suspicion is all about knowledge of the law and how the law is interpeted by the courts.

Sounds like we need to redo some laws. 

[2o6]

I don't care about the chase, but the much excessive force to apprehend the suspect after he clearly gave up.

[hotrodalex]

Dude that's my local news channel. That happened about 20 miles north of me on I-71.

[hotrodalex]

I don't care about the chase, but the much excessive force to apprehend the suspect after he clearly gave up.

He just escaped from jail. What do you expect?

It says right in the video that this is an attempted escape from the Warren County (wherever that is) jail.

One of the local county jails in Cincinnati.

[Tave]

No one expects an officer to give up on a chase when the guy is making a break from jail. C'mon...

[TurboDan]

Regarding searches:  I've never had my vehicle searched, personally.  And like Dave, I've never had an officer ask.  I've always just sat there and waited while my tax bill was prepared in the cruiser behind me.  I suppose I don't look like the type to be transporting drugs and/or weapons in my vehicle.

If an officer did ask to search my vehicle, I don't know if I would want to comply at first.  It would make me feel like a criminal, and I wouldn't take that lightly.  I would ask why and what he was looking for.  If it was reasonable, I might go for it, but if the guy was sarcastic or gave a "because I said so' type answer, no way.  Now, of course, the thing is that if he wanted to pursue it, you'd probably be sitting there forever while they wait to get a warrant, so you're essentially stuck unless you comply - whether they eventually can get a warrant or not.

For our officers - what makes you want to search a vehicle?  I suppose just suspicion, someone fitting the profile, you can tell a mile away usually I'm sure.  But what are the specifics?

[TurboDan]

Honestly, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason for probable cause to pull somebody over, whether it was true or not.  If the person doesn't comply with an LEO's request to pull over, for whatever reason, the very act of fleeing becomes a probable cause. 

Definitely.  I was talking about a run-of-the-mill traffic stop though, not a pursuit.

[bing_oh]

For our officers - what makes you want to search a vehicle?  I suppose just suspicion, someone fitting the profile, you can tell a mile away usually I'm sure.  But what are the specifics?

It's tough to give specifics on why we ask for voluntary searches. It's very case-specific and rarely just one thing. Most of the time, it's a combination of small signals...driver and passenger behavior, things that are visible in the vehicle, high crime areas and people who don't seem to fit the population, recent specific problems in the area, etc, etc, ad nauseum. To put it simply, alot of it is just a "click" for an officer when the small signals trip something in our training and experience.

And, on the off topic search issue, I encourage you guys to understand the basics of search and seizure. There's alot of misinformation and misunderstanding, even in this very thread, about search and seizure rights and limitations. It's a citizens' duty to know his or her rights...if you don't, then you won't  know then the government takes them away.

[bing_oh]

So is that why you stop little old ladies and write them tickets. Because they're easy to catch, huh? We know now!!!!

On occasion you just need the adrenaline rush of a good police chase, right? You big squealer. What do you have to say for yourself and don't tell me Oink.

Oink.

[sportyaccordy]

bing your sig is very relevant to this thread hahahah

[James Young]

Cops chase for the same reason that a dog licks his balls . . .

[Tave]

Rohan just made up the part about the "funny look," and "why we chase" to flamebait. This wasn't a random traffic stop--it was an attempted jailbreak.


This is a horrible, horrible example to use to talk about search procedure and citizen rights.

[GoCougs]

Notwithstanding James Young's penchant for auto fellatio, WRT searches, I've had the pleasure, but meh - LEO wants to search your car I have to imagine it WILL get searched it if you don't voluntarily acquiesce - it'll just mean you'll be waiting on the roadside for a dog or a warrant.