Why we chase

[Soup DeVille]

I would also assume that this officer's "impropriety" could be exposed, and if the validity of the search can be called into question, it might be. However, if I voluntarily consent, that pretty much seals that deal.

[bing_oh]

I would also assume that this officer's "impropriety" could be exposed, and if the validity of the search can be called into question, it might be. However, if I voluntarily consent, that pretty much seals that deal.

I'm going to give this one last shot and then I'm done with it. I can only bang my head into the wall for so long.

I'll give you two scenarios involving your corrupt police officer manipulating search and seizure and I'll let everybody else voice their opinion on which one would look better to a jury in a court of law. Assume that both scenarios spring from a valid traffic stop...

1. Officer approaches the car and, during contact with the driver, requests a consent to search. Driver consents. Off. Corrupt plants a bag of marijuana that he "finds" and charges the driver for. In court, the driver says, "That's not my pot. Why would I give the cop permission to search if I had pot in the car?"

2. Officer approaches the car, pulls out the driver, and charges him for a nonexistant bag of pot. In court, the officer says that he approached the car, smelled the distinct smell of burning marijuana and observed a clear plastic bag of leavy green material that later tested positive as marijuana. Driver testifies "That's not my pot! He planted it!"

[Soup DeVille]

I'm going to give this one last shot and then I'm done with it. I can only bang my head into the wall for so long.

I'll give you two scenarios involving your corrupt police officer manipulating search and seizure and I'll let everybody else voice their opinion on which one would look better to a jury in a court of law. Assume that both scenarios spring from a valid traffic stop...

1. Officer approaches the car and, during contact with the driver, requests a consent to search. Driver consents. Off. Corrupt plants a bag of marijuana that he "finds" and charges the driver for. In court, the driver says, "That's not my pot. Why would I give the cop permission to search if I had pot in the car?"

2. Officer approaches the car, pulls out the driver, and charges him for a nonexistant bag of pot. In court, the officer says that he approached the car, smelled the distinct smell of burning marijuana and observed a clear plastic bag of leavy green material that later tested positive as marijuana. Driver testifies "That's not my pot! He planted it!"

Well, all i can say about that is, I'm not worried about pot.

[bing_oh]

Well, all i can say about that is, I'm not worried about pot.

They're hyoptheticals and the contraband seized doesn't matter, but you already understand that. Now you're just intentionally avoiding the question because I've got ya backed into a corner.

[Soup DeVille]

Now you're just intentionally avoiding the question because I've got ya backed into a corner.

No, I'm admitting you're right.







Schmuck.

[sparkplug]

What wrong with pot. Everybody uses pots for cooking on the stove. Of course they could be a hazard in a vehicle.

[Laconian]

What wrong with pot. Everybody uses pots for cooking on the stove. Of course they could be a hazard in a vehicle.

You're going to make your future teenage kids roll their eyes out of their heads.

[TurboDan]

The entire legal/justice system is contingent on "the law" being followed.  While you should be aware of your rights, you shouldn't assume any particular officer is out to get you during a traffic stop to the point where they'd plant evidence and put their career - if not their freedom - in jeopardy.

What would your average officer even gain from planting pot in your car during an average stop for speeding or some other mundane traffic infraction?

[Minpin]

The entire legal/justice system is contingent on "the law" being followed.  While you should be aware of your rights, you shouldn't assume any particular officer is out to get you during a traffic stop to the point where they'd plant evidence and put their career - if not their freedom - in jeopardy.

What would your average officer even gain from planting pot in your car during an average stop for speeding or some other mundane traffic infraction?

The same thing every dictator has had since the beginning of time.


Power.

[bing_oh]

The same thing every dictator has had since the beginning of time.


Power.

[TurboDan]

The same thing every dictator has had since the beginning of time.


Power.

The power to do what?  Arrest you?  There are plenty of people out there committing crimes who are rightfully arrested every day, so I doubt many officers have any shortage of arrest experience.  Like I said, I just don't understand what a police officer would gain by risking his career and a possible criminal charge by randomly planting evidence during a traffic stop.

If you go around assuming every police officer is out to get you and is intent on planting evidence and putting you in jail, that's a terrible way to live. 

[Soup DeVille]

The entire legal/justice system is contingent on "the law" being followed.  While you should be aware of your rights, you shouldn't assume any particular officer is out to get you during a traffic stop to the point where they'd plant evidence and put their career - if not their freedom - in jeopardy.

What would your average officer even gain from planting pot in your car during an average stop for speeding or some other mundane traffic infraction?

If an officer asks to search your car, or does a frisk for weapons, at that time, its well beyond an average traffic stop.

An officer who searches a car intending to use the claim that he "saw it in plain sight," but cannot actually produce anything that he found in a car might expose himself to disciplinary action.

I'm not saying its likely, I'm saying that its happened.

[Minpin]

The power to do what?  Arrest you?  There are plenty of people out there committing crimes who are rightfully arrested every day, so I doubt many officers have any shortage of arrest experience.  Like I said, I just don't understand what a police officer would gain by risking his career and a possible criminal charge by randomly planting evidence during a traffic stop.

If you go around assuming every police officer is out to get you and is intent on planting evidence and putting you in jail, that's a terrible way to live. 

The power to know they can control the fate of other people. Look im not saying every cop is bad, but there is a reason why a majority of people don't trust the police.

[Catman]

The power to know they can control the fate of other people. Look im not saying every cop is bad, but there is a reason why a majority of people don't trust the police.

You watch too much television.  The power to affect someones life isn't the ecstatic rush you seem to think it is.  It is very stressful and at times depressing.   

[Minpin]

You watch too much television.  The power to affect someones life isn't the ecstatic rush you seem to think it is.  It is very stressful and at times depressing.   

I don't have time for TV.


I do go to class too often though. If only I could get some real life experience...

[Catman]

I don't have time for TV.


I do go to class too often though. If only I could get some real life experience...

Eventually you will. 

[Minpin]

I hope so.

Then I can come in here, post about something and it will be worth more than the single ply toilet paper the university gives me to wipe my chapped ass with.

[Catman]

I hope so.

Then I can come in here, post about something and it will be worth more than the single ply toilet paper the university gives me to wipe my chapped ass with.

LOL good one.

[dazzleman]

The power to know they can control the fate of other people. Look im not saying every cop is bad, but there is a reason why a majority of people don't trust the police.

I don't think it's true that a majority of people don't trust the police.

In all cases, trust is situational, and conditional.  It's not an either-or thing.  You must trust people in certain situations, or under certain conditions, but not others.

And I think that's how most law abiding people feel.  They trust the police for the most part, but believe that there need to be controls on any people who have the power of life and death over others.

"Trust" in the police no doubt varies widely among communities, and depends upon situations.  When you're speeding, you don't want to encounter the police; at that point in time, they're the enemy.  But for most law abiding people, the vast majority of the time, the police are their ally, and they see them that way.  At least I do, and that's the case with just about everybody that I know.  Nobody I know, that I can think of right now, is hostile to the police in general, even if they've had encounters in the past (generally traffic stops).

And if the police do step over the line with people who are actually part of the criminal element, how much do you think the average law-abiding person cares?  Not much.

[TurboDan]

I agree, Dave.  I also don't think individual police officers are "out to get" anyone on anything aside from a speeding ticket.  I don't see the reasoning and/or the benefit behind going to the lengths of planting evidence, tearing up peoples' upholstery, etc. for the mere "payoff" of arresting someone for "power."  Like I was saying before, there are plenty of people committing crimes that warrant arrests anyway, and plenty of people who actually are carrying drugs with them.

The most popular reason for people not "liking" police, I believe, isn't even the fact that they give out tickets.  It's the fact that police officers, themselves, exempt each other from the same limitations the public endures.  The PBA cards, shields in the window, etc. creates far more ill-will towards the police than any traffic stop ever would.

[dazzleman]

I agree, Dave.  I also don't think individual police officers are "out to get" anyone on anything aside from a speeding ticket.  I don't see the reasoning and/or the benefit behind going to the lengths of planting evidence, tearing up peoples' upholstery, etc. for the mere "payoff" of arresting someone for "power."  Like I was saying before, there are plenty of people committing crimes that warrant arrests anyway, and plenty of people who actually are carrying drugs with them.

The most popular reason for people not "liking" police, I believe, isn't even the fact that they give out tickets.  It's the fact that police officers, themselves, exempt each other from the same limitations the public endures.  The PBA cards, shields in the window, etc. creates far more ill-will towards the police than any traffic stop ever would.

Yes, it's the idea of being a chump.  Many people wouldn't mind taking their lumps for traffic violations if they didn't think that others doing the same thing were getting away scot-free because of the PBA cards, shields, etc.

[rohan]

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

No- you only get to see PART of the newscast-  the officer that started this chase did so because a random guy gave him an odd look- he followed and tries to stop him for a minor traffic violation- something good officers do dozens of times a day - try to detect criminal activity..  After the chase has already started he gives dispatch the plate and they run it- it comes back stolen----- they thought he was a escapee they didn't even know from what county.  But then again you know everything so0oooooo......

[rohan]

 

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.

You do realize that everyone is required to follow the law- right? 

[rohan]

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.

When we get funny looks sometimes that's all we need depending on the whole picture- time of day- area- type of vehicle and occupants (scumbags in million dollar home area) etc.  Reasonable Suspicion that crime is afoot is all we sometimes need- if the officer can't articulate that we have to come up with a legal reason to stop a car- and I have a book call the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code that is over 500 pages on why and how to operate a car in Michigan.  Pretty sure I can think of one legal reason even if it is just to check your VIN or do a tire inspection- it's call pre-text stop and it's perfectly legal.

[rohan]

I would make him get a warrant every time.

We don't need a warrant a good many times when someone refuses for a car.  You might want to find out what you're talking about before you just type whatever comes to your mind.

[rohan]

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

Not entirely accurate bing- they've said "reasonable time" and used 20-30 minutes as reasonable.  If the dog happens to be 35 minutes away and is enroute "due dilligence" applies to the case is becomes the measure of reasonable.
Otherwise good post.

[rohan]

Comeon, Soup. We were having a civil discussion, here. If you want to debate Coug's opinion, then do it. Don't just make smartass one-liners.

Besides, Coug's opinion holds merit. Maybe other officers are different, but I don't just ask for permission to search at random. I always have a reason for asking.

I almost always asked to search on every stop- I've only ever had very few guys refuse and we always got a hit with the dog.  It's pretty easy to explain that practice in court-

"Officer how many people do you ask to search their cars?"
"Almost everyone I stop." 
"Why?"
"Because the law allows me to ask."

[dazzleman]

I almost always asked to search on every stop- I've only ever had very few guys refuse and we always got a hit with the dog.  It's pretty easy to explain that practice in court-

"Officer how many people do you ask to search their cars?"
"Almost everyone I stop." 
"Why?"
"Because the law allows me to ask."

You must be one of those scary cops, Randy.....   I probably wouldn't really mind getting my car searched, since I don't have anything to hide.  I subscribed strongly to the 'one illegal thing at a time' rule, so if I plan on speeding, I make sure everything else is in order.....

But I've never had an officer ask to search my car.  Probably because I appear so innocent.  Officers are pretty good at profiling people, and I don't think I fit the profile of somebody who is engaged in criminal activity other than minor traffic violations.  I never did.

I imagine there are differences in how extensively you search cars.  Do you do just perfunctory searches on some, and more extensive ones on others, where you have more suspicions?

[rohan]

In all honesty dazzle if someone said yes I usually just kinda looked a little here and there- it was mostly to see what they'ld say and how they acted.  And yes I guess I was probably a pretty intense street cop compared to what most of you guys are used to but look where I learned to be one- if you weren't doing you job for real you were just a KIA waiting to happen.  I guess the difference is that quite alot ot othe time when we just looked around in the cars we found the drugs and guns- sometimes I forget the rest of the country isn't like my world.

[dazzleman]

In all honesty dazzle if someone said yes I usually just kinda looked a little here and there- it was mostly to see what they'ld say and how they acted.  And yes I guess I was probably a pretty intense street cop compared to what most of you guys are used to but look where I learned to be one- if you weren't doing you job for real you were just a KIA waiting to happen.  I guess the difference is that quite alot ot othe time when we just looked around in the cars we found the drugs and guns- sometimes I forget the rest of the country isn't like my world.

You were a cop in Detroit, right?  That definitely explains the difference.  You have to be a lot more aggressive there.

I've never been pulled over in a place like that.  My main "crime" is speeding, and crowded urban hellholes don't lend themselves to that.  I also tend to avoid those areas more and more as the years go by.  I could be 'profiled' in an area like that as a drug buyer if a cop spotted me, but it just never happened (and I'm not a drug buyer).

I've been pulled over in the placid suburban areas where I have always lived.  Cops there tend to be more laid back, even friendly, especially with people who live in the area.  Even if they give you a ticket, they're nice about it usually.  When I was younger and got pulled over, the cop who ticketed me called me by my first name, and generally treated me like a younger brother who needed a gentle correction.

And even if a tough street cop from a place like Detroit were to pull me over, they'd see right away that I'm not anything like their typical 'clientele.'