Why we chase

[rohan]

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

Yes for 11 years.  Tony did it for 15 I think.  We both left within a year of eachother.  And it's not hard to speed in those areas- in fact speeding is as common there as anywhere except in downtown areas and still pretty common there to. 

When we were trained - my training officer was Tony- we were taught
1) Expect to kill someone today.
2) A good cop never gets cold wet or hungry.

well that was what he told me a good cop should know but these are the rules he taught me about being a cop
a) protect your partner
b) protect yourself
c) a lazy cop is a dead cop just waiting to get dead
d) assume everyone wants to kill you. 

[dazzleman]

Yes for 11 years.  Tony did it for 15 I think.  We both left within a year of eachother.  And it's not hard to speed in those areas- in fact speeding is as common there as anywhere except in downtown areas and still pretty common there to. 

When we were trained - my training officer was Tony- we were taught
1) Expect to kill someone today.
2) A good cop never gets cold wet or hungry.

well that was what he told me a good cop should know but these are the rules he taught me about being a cop
a) protect your partner
b) protect yourself
c) a lazy cop is a dead cop just waiting to get dead
d) assume everyone wants to kill you. 

Now that's a tough environment.

My uncle was a prison guard for his whole career, and I guess that could be even worse.  Even in Detroit, there's a least a small chance that you'll encounter a decent person.  In prison, there's no chance.

I'm glad you got out of that hellhole.  I would imagine that after a number of years of that, you could develop a form of traumatic stress syndrome.  It has to be a lot like being in war all the time.

Suburban cops have it much easier, by comparison.

[rohan]

Now that's a tough environment.

My uncle was a prison guard for his whole career, and I guess that could be even worse.  Even in Detroit, there's a least a small chance that you'll encounter a decent person.  In prison, there's no chance.

I'm glad you got out of that hellhole.  I would imagine that after a number of years of that, you could develop a form of traumatic stress syndrome.  It has to be a lot like being in war all the time.

Suburban cops have it much easier, by comparison.

Even in Detroit's worst areas most of the people are good people- just poor.  but they're not the one's you really deal with most of the time unless they're victims.  Tony used to say that only in Detroit do the good guys really stand out- but I think that's probably true of anywhere that's like Detroit- Philly LA NY Atlanta and so on.  It's a hellhole- for sure - but it's also home so you know you get used to it.  I can't believe now the things I think about us actually getting involved in and we just thought it was normal- the fights - being shot at most nights- the trash- the crime- and the worst was the corruption.  It all just seemed so normal back then.  And yah there's lots of good cops there who're just emotional walking wounded- it's sad to because no-one in the city administration cares about anything other than what they can get for themselves. 

[Tave]

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.

Jesus you're pissy today.


If the officer doesn't need a warrant to search my car, what I will or will not allow doesn't make a fucking difference.


I will make him get a warrant every time he needs one. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious.




You don't need a warrant if they refuse? No, you said yourself you use a canine to get a hit if they refuse. Which leads me to believe if the canine doesn't hit, you'll still need a warrant or something else.

[rohan]

You don't need a warrant if they refuse? No, you said yourself you use a canine to get a hit if they refuse. Which leads me to believe if the canine doesn't hit, you'll still need a warrant or something else.

I may be pissy- but your wrong. 

Warrantless search exceptions- get educated.

[Tave]

Warrantless search exceptions- get educated.

Can you read?

If the officer doesn't need a warrant to search my car, what I will or will not allow doesn't make a fucking difference.


I will make him get a warrant every time he needs one.

[rohan]

Can you read?

Yes tave- cut and paste the part of your response you chose instead of answering the part I actually quoted.  Good for you!   

[Tave]

Yes tave- cut and paste your response instead of answering the part I actually quoted.  Good for you!   

I'm confused what you thought I meant by "something else:"

Which leads me to believe if the canine doesn't hit, you'll still need a warrant or something else.

i.e., an exception


That part of my post was in response to this:

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."

and this:

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.

If you don't need a warrant, you need SOMETHING. If you already have that something, then you don't need the warrant.



For the record, my car has been searched twice and I agreed to both of them, because I knew the officers had cause to search it. If they have that, THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO TO STOP THEM.





So, I must assume that you thought I originally said,


"I would make them get a warrant every time, even if they don't need a warrant."

[rohan]

I'm confused what you thought I meant by "something else:"


i.e., an exception

I'm guessing if you'lda meant that- you'lda written that. But whatever. 

[Tave]

I'm guessing if you'lda meant that- you'lda written that. But whatever. 

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman.


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

[dazzleman]

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman.


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

You'll probably know after you take the relevant class in law school.

A lot of these "Driving and the Law" threads seem to descend into nitpicking, and it isn't just the LEOs who bring things to that level. 

I wish somebody would get a ticket so we can joke about that in this section of the board, rather than have all the nitpicking about law and physics, etc. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman.


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

Nitpicking on details is all they got.
Good luck trying to discuss broader philosohical issues with them.

[Tave]

A lot of these "Driving and the Law" threads seem to descend into nitpicking, and it isn't just the LEOs who bring things to that level. 

That's probably true too.

[GoCougs]

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman.


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

What do you expect? The vast majority of people have it wrong on their "rights" and general things LE - just look at this thread.

[rohan]

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman.

Well it's not jargon- it's legal language used by the Supreme Court.  Jargon would be like me telling you I'm filling out a "UD-10" filling out a 53-10 or picking up my kellight.  Proper legal wording isn't something you guys would let us slip on- so maybe I took it a little personally.

You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

Being a police officer is all about the details.  The details can change both the flow of the incident (in court or on scene) and can completely change the meaning of a law or interpretation by police - prosecutors and juries.  We HAVE to nitpick as part of what we do and who we are- and our jobs become who we are to a point.  Not always a good point but just the way it is.  By the same token you guys come down on us for all kinds of things you see because you're nitpicking us- that road runs both ways- 

Sorry for the misunderstanding - but you were wrong.   

[dazzleman]

What do you expect? The vast majority of people have it wrong on their "rights" and general things LE - just look at this thread.

These discussions always seem to turn into a dialogue of the deaf, especially when James Young gets involved.  At that point, I just stop reading.

It's good that you point out the technicalities of what rights people really have, versus what they think they have.  If they listen, it may actually help them when they get into a situation where that knowledge is required.

I've actually never been totally clear on the repercussions of declining to allow a voluntary search.  I know about the whole 'in plain sight' ruling that if something suspicious is in plain sight, it gives the officer probable cause to do a larger search (and forgive me if I'm using the wrong technical terms here).  But if an officer is simply suspicious about something, based on instinct, and asks to do a search and I say no, what actually happens?

[rohan]

No you got the terms right dazzle. 

And sometimes I do get upset but it's like you pointed out most of the guys here are exactly like the rest of the public- they think they know their rights and very few of them really do.  Sometimes that's because some rights change from state to state.

If the officer doesn't have any exceptions to fall back on the best he can do without probable cause is to get a k-9.  But if he has a valid reason- permission or not- he can search.  Most of us will ask first even if we have an exception (except for search incident to arrest and then we don't care what you want) or other probable cause just because it makes it easier- if they say no we just tell them to get out anyway and explain it when we're done. 

The one thing I can't say strongly enough- the public thinks they know their rights the police know what those rights are.  If you want to know what your rights are take a class or read a book!  And that's not meant as mean either.

[Soup DeVille]

The one thing I can't say strongly enough- the public thinks they know their rights the police know what those rights are.  If you want to know what your rights are take a class or read a book!  And that's not meant as mean either.

The depends on what your definition of a right is...

[Catman]

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."

Not in MA

[bing_oh]

The depends on what your definition of a right is...

Your rights are those protections afforded to you within the US Constitution and how they are interpeted by the judicial system. Pretty sure that definition is the same for everybody.

As for knowledge of individual rights, I can say confidently that some people could recite the Bill of Rights for me. A few of them could tell me what the courts have ruled on them. An extreme minority could tell me how those court ruling apply to your rights in the real world. A good cop can tell you all of those things, because we have to apply them every day and doing it wrong will get you fired and sued.

[Lebowski]

Many of you guys should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231875321&sr=8-1

[GoCougs]

Many of you guys should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231875321&sr=8-1

Ah, yes, with such sage advice as, "Keep your dope at home," it's a winner.

[Lebowski]

Ah, yes, with such sage advice as, "Keep your dope at home," it's a winner.

I never said reading it was tantamount to getting a law degree, but it does explain the basics pertaining to a legal search of a home or vehicle, and from the comments in this thread many here apparently don't know the facts.  I imagine it varies somewhat from state to state, but I live in the same state as the author.

As for keeping your weed in the car, there are thousands upon thousands of people in this country too stupid to figure out as much on their own. 

[GoCougs]

How about simply, "Don't do dope?"

[Lebowski]

How about simply, "Don't do dope?"

You should try that one - I bet you'll sell a lot of books.


Perhaps you can follow it up with an even more lucrative sequel, entitled "Don't speed".

[hotrodalex]

I wish somebody would get a ticket so we can joke about that in this section of the board, rather than have all the nitpicking about law and physics, etc. 

I'm willing to get one if you're willing to pay for it.

[dazzleman]

I'm willing to get one if you're willing to pay for it.

As long as it's under $200, it's not a problem....

[sparkplug]

I couldn't let police search my car. I've might have donuts which they'll confiscate as contraband.

[Rupert]

As long as it's under $200, it's not a problem....

Seriously? I'll be back in a hour.

[bing_oh]

Many of you guys should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231875321&sr=8-1

Written by a former FBI agent and criminal defense lawyer. I'd recommend taking a class in criminal law at your local community college.