Come back with a warrant
Arizona Cardinals Darnell Dockett live tweets his run in with the police.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 29th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I’m not sure if this is profiling, or crazy rich person imagining things. It could really go either way. Some people are so geared up to be “profiled” that when they get stopped for a legitimate infraction they act like their whole life was leading to that moment.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:17 am
My wife won’t let me buy the Come Back with a Warrant welcome mat for our front door.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:18 am
He’s lucky they didn’t open up with a machine gun…
June 29th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Police do not need a warrant to search a car but they do need to be able to cite the “probable cause” to support the search. If they got backup, and didn’t even write him a ticket, then someone’s supervisor told them to straighten out and fly right before an affluent athlete got his lawyer to straighten the officer out.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:43 am
What was the Problem? The Pima County Sheriff’s SWAT Team was Unavailable to Back up 3 cops which had a vehicle surrounded? Sloppy work by the Po-Po if you ask me. A REAL Police Dept. would have pulled out their Tax Payer Funded Assault Rifles and laid them on the trunk of their cruisers to Intimidate that “Uppity Negro” into Compliance, just like the Seattle PD does.
June 29th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The answer is always NO when it comes to consenting to a search or talking to the police. The average citizen has nothing to gain with either…
June 29th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
SPQR is right as I understand it; either probable cause or permission to search. Trouble is, lots of cops are big on “You know I can make you sit here until I find a drug dog to sniff around your car? Wouldn’t it be faster and easier to let me search?” Some get downright pushy and aggressive about it.
June 29th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I should add, absent either permission or pc, they WOULD have to have a warrant, I believe; which means actually giving a real reason for the warrant request.
Good chance you’re right, some supervisor asked “You’ve got three units sitting around WHY? Finish off the stop before he gets pissed and calls a lawyer. Or something happens and somebody gets hurt because you’re fucking round with this instead of being on patrol.”
June 29th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
aeronathan is also right – you gain nothing by giving permission to search, and you risk criminal charges if they find evidence of something you didn’t realize was illegal.
Remember,
for citizens,not knowing something violated a law is no excuse, and you will be punished.June 29th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Also, while many cops will see refusal to let them search your property as evidence of a crime (the old “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” fallacy), remember that they are not allowed to use your refusal as Probable Cause. (IANAL, etc.)
June 29th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Probable cause is all that is needed. That being said, it is always wise to say, “Sorry officer, I am simply too busy to let you take a look. Yes, I will wait for canine.” Be polite.
I also ran canine for a while so I laugh inside when the officers say they want to run a dog around the car. Any dog handler can give the hand pump, “Sook!”, and give his dog the look that says, “Sit(or bark), even though you smell nothing and the yellow ball will appear.” Instant probable cause.
June 29th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Chris:
My “Come Back With a Warrant” doormat is outside my homes BACK door. Same reason.
June 29th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Wouldn’t an hour wait be excessive and therefore be unlawful detention? He could still sue them if that’s the case.
June 29th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“You call the canine, I’ll call my lawyer. Let’s see who gets here first.”
June 29th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
@jim: there was actually a double blind study done that demonstrated that drug canines are less than 40% accurate at detecting drugs because the respond to even unconscious cues by the handler. That is, if you the handler expect to find drugs, the dog will alert more often.
IIRC the test involved placing drug samples around a building and telling the handler that some would be marked and others not. They then proceeded to place markers both in places where there were samples and place where there were no drug samples. The dogs hit on marked samples at a significantly higher rate than unmarked samples. Even more troubling was they dogs hit on marked non-samples at a higher rate than unmarked samples.
But yet a dog sniff is considered probable cause to search a vehicle….
June 29th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
No ticket and no search? Sounds like a fishing expedition. Good for him for standing up for his rights.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
He’s a patriot. Period. good for him.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Interesting… to say the least.
June 29th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Folks that have read my posts in the past know I do not support the abuse of power behind a badge, and this is the perfect place to post this link. This is how officers should act, and I give much respect to officer Lions as he is truly a hero and protector of not only the people, but the constitution he swore to protect! This is the first video that has not put a police encounter in a bad light. I cannot stress enough my personal appreciation in the conduct of this officer!
June 29th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
That pretty much sums it up. Not sure about the twittering, though. Maybe he had the down-time while officers were sitting around wondering what to do. Messing with a device is a great way to find yourself in contempt of cop.
June 30th, 2011 at 7:24 am
aeronathan: I’ve heard this study quoted from time to time. Do you happen to have a link to the actual study that you can share please?
June 30th, 2011 at 11:05 am
I agree with 45er, twittering on the phone with a cop at his window could have gotten him in trouble if they thought he was filming or audio recording the traffic stop. The po-po says recording is a no-no.
That being said, he did the same thing I would have done, and I’m a middle class guy who probably can’t afford to sue the local PD.
June 30th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
@deadcenter
Here’s a link to a good summary
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour
My memory of the test was a bit fuzzy it seems. There were NO drug/explosive target scents so ALL the alerts given were false positives…
June 30th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Ohio, I’ve got to disagree. The “supreme” Court has already ruled that you are allowed to record police activity in public. They have no “expectation of privacy”, which is the rule they apply to ordinary citizens (police being “extraordinary” by their own rules). The only reason for not wanting something recorded is to protect the rights of the accused – and if you are the accused, that just doesn’t fly. Why should police fear being recorded when (1) their in-car cameras are supposed to be working, and retained for evidence and available to the accused under discovery rules, and (2) if they haven’t / aren’t doing anything wrong . . .?
June 30th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
CarlS, that hasn’t stopped a bunch of cops across the country from seizing cameras and arresting people. It’s wrong, it’s either bad training or arrogance, but they do it anyway.
I once tried to pin down a department lawyer on “Just how long CAN they legitimately make you sit there while they wait for a dog?” and all I could get was “It depends.” Pissed me off, because he was so fuzzy on the lines.