Illegal arrest or searches

[designer]

I am asking the question, putting it up for discussion, not answering. I have a feeling how this should go, but would like to hear what others have to say.

A person I know was recently arrested for heroin possession. That is a felony. Any amount is a felony.

So my friend has a suspended license. His girl friend was driving the car and they passed a cop head on. We have license plates in the front where I live and apparently his car must have been scanned by one of those computers that can tell if the registered owner has a suspended license. The cops did a u-tern and pulled them over. The cop said that one of the license plate lights were out. A bogus excuse to pull someone over, but it is legal if the light is out.

So the cop says he smelled weed and asked to search. These people had smoked beforehand, but there was no weed in the car at the time. They consented to the search and no weed was found. However, the person I know had small amount of heroin. He was cited for felony possession and booked into jail.

So a couple issues are at stake here and primary is that this person should have never consented to the search.

1. If you consent to a search you give up your rights. The police do not have to follow the rules to get a warrant and either mess up doing that or not get the warrant at all. Once you agree to a search you cannot force those things to possibly happen.

2. Was it a legal arrest (the pulling over part). If the license plate lights were in place and working then None of the evidence collected after that matters. The legal arrest has to proceed any other charges.

3. The Cop said he smelled weed. Probable cause would be warranted (although I have seen this is not always true) for the weed smell. Probable cause is to basically stop a crime in commission like possessing marijuana. If the cop searched the car for probable cause of weed smell that would be the only thing he could legally use for evidence. If you denied letting the cop searching you car because of a weed smell and he didn't find any weed then the heroin he found could not stick. Consenting to search allows the charges did stick. He surrendered his rights.

So if the arrest was not legal (lights in working order), probable cause for weed smell when there was no weed, forcing a search warrant that he could have failed to obtain, or made some mistake getting, you could probably win the case. He consented to search and none of those other things matter.

Now in this story the man cannot afford to fight this case. He is likely to plead guilty to the charges and serve ten days in jail and pay a fine. He also has a felony record now and has lost some of his constitutional rights. Subsequent felonies in the future will be dealt with more harshly as well. This will also impact future job possibilities. This person experimented with heroin use and feels that after this experience he is done with it. That could be the only positive outcome of this story.

Don't let cops push you around. Make them get a warrant is what I say, but I am sure other people may something different and I welcome their views.

 

[oldhaole]

I don't think you will get many that disagree with you.

From the point of consent it was game over. The place you have the least rights is driving. All the more reason to never consent to a search.

When a cop asks if you have been drinking, and you reply "I had one beer" you just gave the cop probable cause.

Many cops will lie, to get probable cause. I have no problem lying to them in return.

No I did not smoke that joint. No I didn't have a beer. No you can't search the car. Say nothing and make the cop work for an arrest.

If it's any consolation, If your friend had not given permision, chances are they would have been detained, until a drug dog could be called. So probably either way he would have gotten busted.

 

[designer]

Oldhaole, thanks for contributing.

I am not sure of the course of actions or possible outcomes if he refused to be searched and they detained to get a K9. Now the cop would be detaining him because he smelled pot. No pot was ever found. Detaining him to get a dog because he smelled pot but didn't find anything falls back on the validity of the probable cause. Who says the cop actually smelled pot? (My question is always what kind of pot. It don't all smell the same). It makes me mad that any cop can say he smells pot and can call that probable cause. Or enough to just detain someone long enough for the K9. And on the k9 issue, that is a form of search without consent as well. So would finding heroin with a K9 be legal evidence if the reason they conducted the search was because of the smell of weed.

I guess what I am saying is that the law is Not following the law. What makes them better than us? You have one person that uses drugs, a victimless crime. On the other hand you have the police, bullies with a badge, violating someone's constitutional rights. A crime and one with an actual victim. In the whole scheme of things, which is worse? And the police and the whole establishment are supposed to be the good guys. Their violating the law should be regarded as more serious than if a citizen breaks the law.

 

[rogerw]

I do not think it will work but your only chance I think would be to ask to see the video from the popo's car to see if you can see a light out or if they were all working. His own video might be you chance. Good luck!

 

[FistedSister]

couldn't his girlfriend and the cop work out a special arrangement?

 

[designer]

I do not think it will work but your only chance I think would be to ask to see the video from the popo's car to see if you can see a light out or if they were all working. His own video might be you chance. Good luck!

If he had not consented to search that would have been a possibility. The fact that a license plate has two lights and you can still read it with one should be addressed by someone. When cops pull people over for something like this they are proving they are just sharks trying to shake people down. And when they always say they smell pot (when there was no pot in the car) it proves it further. People need to unite against the cops for hunting us down like sharks and bullying their way past our rights under the 4th amendment.

The thing I have to reiterate is that we cannot consent to search clean or dirty. Force the cops to do their work every time whether you are clean or dirty. If you are dirty you are fucked. If you are clean you are taking a cop out for that length of time that he could be abusing someone else. And there is a good chance he can mess up doing his work and ruin his case and impact his reputation.

 

[libby]

Pot smell sticks to clothes, car furniture upholstry, assuming the the car get's smoked in.

In Britain, can't really comment on the rest of the shit you have to put up with, sorry.

Still, id'e check that cops vid out, got to prove him an unreliable witness if he's wrong!!!

 

[designer]

Pot smell sticks to clothes, car furniture upholstry, assuming the the car get's smoked in.

In Britain, can't really comment on the rest of the shit you have to put up with, sorry.

Still, id'e check that cops vid out, got to prove him an unreliable witness if he's wrong!!!

So that means that we are all subject to probable cause at any time?

Someone somewhere said in the US that smell is not probable cause. Any thoughts on this?

 

[TruthOrLie]

The worst is when they pull you over and ask you stupid question, you say "no"

then they ask you another stupid question, you say "no"

then they ask you another stupid question, followed by "are you on parole/probation"

and you answer "no"

THEN they ask you "do you have anything dangerous or illegal in your car?"

and you answer "no"

FINALLY they hit you with "Do you mind if I search your car?"

which registers in your brain as "Can I search your car?"

and you answer "no"

You just consented to a search. He didn't ask to search, he asked if you minded if he searched.

So use to answering "no" that you say "no"

I'm pretty sure they're trained to ask the questions in such a manner to get you into saying "no no no no" or "yes yes yes yes"

gotta stay on your toes!

 

[TruthOrLie]

Even WORSE is when you're with someone consenting to a search knowing damn well they don't need to consent!

After you get cited they tell you "Well how was I supposed to know? I didn't know we were doing anything wrong"

 

[designer]

The problem with our kind of police encounters is that the police are fully aware, sober and we are not. It is easier to outsmart or claim to be the winner of a misunderstanding when we are high. Hell I had a girl friend that would act like I was too loony to understand a situation with her because I had smoked some hash that day. I got rid of her, but the point is that people think we are easy to outsmart and use that against us.

 

[Papulz]

truth or lie, i was just thinking about the psychology of getting a yes or no out of someone with what is known in the trade as high probability request sequence.

i just had the po at my place looking for the former resident earlier this week, and the fckers were peepin through a window in my sideyard as i was doing a bit of pre-police interaction cleaning.

classic good cop bad cop routine, however they thankfully did not seem to know of the probability request sequence.

after i provided proof that i wasn't who they were looking for - they then asked to search my residence, which i declined. They insinuated that my hesitation on the search may have had something to do with my cleaning before answering the door.

 

[Hydrosun]

Well your buddy had the H. and said YES, so maybe his best / only hope is to get "Treatment" instead of the charge. Some states have this.

 

[designer]

I have met a few H users lately. It is new to me. If they catch it soon enough they can get away from it. My friend is just copping a plea for a light sentence and moving on. H is really big around here now for some reason. It is absolute shit too, from Mexico. I preach to them about it but you know.

 

[chuckyoufarley]

you gotta stop hanging out with the wrong crowd .you might end up being guilty by association next time

 

[Sam the Caveman]

The worst is when they pull you over and ask you stupid question, you say "no"

then they ask you another stupid question, you say "no"

then they ask you another stupid question, followed by "are you on parole/probation"

and you answer "no"

THEN they ask you "do you have anything dangerous or illegal in your car?"

and you answer "no"

FINALLY they hit you with "Do you mind if I search your car?"

which registers in your brain as "Can I search your car?"

and you answer "no"

You just consented to a search. He didn't ask to search, he asked if you minded if he searched.

So use to answering "no" that you say "no"

I'm pretty sure they're trained to ask the questions in such a manner to get you into saying "no no no no" or "yes yes yes yes"

gotta stay on your toes!

This is why you don't answer any questions from cops, period. If they try to start, just respond with a question like "why did you stop me officer?" "are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" "are you arresting me?"

They try to get you to admit guilt and most people will, say your speeding along and get pulled over. Piggy walks up and says "do you know how fast you were going?" I respond "how fast do you think I was going?"

As for the op, sorry your friend got busted, but he did not know he what his rights were and therefore had none under the pressure of police oppression.

 

[wiseone]

The worst is when they pull you over and ask you stupid question, you say "no"

then they ask you another stupid question, you say "no"

then they ask you another stupid question, followed by "are you on parole/probation"

and you answer "no"

THEN they ask you "do you have anything dangerous or illegal in your car?"

and you answer "no"

FINALLY they hit you with "Do you mind if I search your car?"

which registers in your brain as "Can I search your car?"

and you answer "no"

You just consented to a search. He didn't ask to search, he asked if you minded if he searched.

So use to answering "no" that you say "no"

I'm pretty sure they're trained to ask the questions in such a manner to get you into saying "no no no no" or "yes yes yes yes"

gotta stay on your toes!

Very Good point and example.
A majority of police work is psychological. Their trained to watch for certain body cues, etc. when questioning/detaining someone.

As for your friend, best thing is to check the statutes in your jurisdiction. If I remember correctly, last year or the year before, the Supreme Court 'abolished' a lot of rights concerning those being detained/searched. I do remember that certain parts of ones Miranda rights were revoked during that decision.

 

[designer]

you gotta stop hanging out with the wrong crowd .you might end up being guilty by association next time

I am not hanging with these people per se, I am being exposed to them through counseling and some in jail that are going through these problem. I befriended this guy, the most mellow and giving person you will ever meet, that followed his dark side into dangerous drugs. We agree that H is not the future for this guy and ponder the steps that lead to his charges. He has never had anything like that in counseling with him, he would be foolish to do so. And I really think he has learned his lesson. We were never out partying together with him doing H. I can see us possibly smoking a joint one day, but that is it. This fellow was just starting to get into it and was chasing the dragon, smoking it. Apparently he shares a problem that I also have against needles and would never cross that line.

I do kmow what you saying and blame myself for not being more cleaer.