Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Detaining you for an unreasonably long period of time is also something you can use to get the case dismissed in court; if memory serves me.

[nenjin]

I believe the standard is 24 hours before they have to charge you, but I'm probably just pulling down BS tv law on that.

The difference in state laws is also a good reminder to not try a one-size fits all approach with cops. The cops in my town (with a couple noteable exceptions....) are generally polite and nice even if they do like to pull some dickery.

Down South it's another story entirely. Small town cops also really put the dick in Juris-dick-tion.

[fqllve]

Maybe the specifics vary state to state, but after doing several semesters of criminal justice and talking to several police officers (both during incidents and not during incidents) I believe you're wrong. Between good faith and a cop with a halfway decent imagination, evidence found will be admissible if the court believes the officers acted in good faith. And the burden to prove otherwise is on you.

As far as I'm aware good faith applies only to case law and not to legislation since case law is complex and ever-changing. Most vehicle searches though rely on legislation so I don't think it would apply. I'm no lawyer though so I could easily be wrong. If you've got anything showing good faith being applied to legislation I'd be interested to read it.

ed: it also applies to warrants, of course.

Technically, I think that applies to every point in the US where you're within a 100 miles of the border (which, again, technically includes anything within 100 mi of airports, beyond the obvious.). Came up in a thread a while back, actually. 4th amendment violations writ into law and all that.

Isn't that only applicable to border-control agents? And maybe other federal agents?

Anyway, yeah, everything varies by state, always be aware of your state laws.

[nenjin]

Without digging up some old and likely outdated college material, this seems like a decent article on the topic. Although it doesn't directly address the impact of the good faith exceptions on state legislation about search and seizure. But generally I believe state laws are usually more forgiving to the police.

In other words, a police officer need not be correct in believing the facts underlying probable cause – for example, that a suspect is carrying contraband in his car. Instead, she need only have a basis for that factual belief that is sufficient to satisfy the "probable cause" standard. To take another example, if a police officer believes the eyewitness account of an alleged robbery victim who identifies his assailant, then the officer has probable cause to arrest the alleged assailant (and has satisfied the Fourth Amendment) even if it is later discovered that the robbery victim invented the entire story.

And this is why good faith gets used as a weapon. All a cop has to do is convince a court they sincerely believed something and it tends to hold up. Only when it's inconceivable that anyone could believe such a thing does good faith fall apart. So cops will rely on stuff that's hard to substantiate (his eyes were bloodshot, I smelled reefer in the car, seemed disoriented, whatever) in court, so you basically have to assert the cop is flat out lying, implying malice. And proving malice against police officers is even harder.

And if you actually were guilty, and the cop used some bullshit excuse to discover it, it doesn't matter. Good faith will hold and their evidence will be upheld in your average case.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

...which hardly matters. Once it gets to court they actually have nothing against you (unless you really are guilty in which case I don't think I can help you), and even if case isn't dismissed you still look like the victim of police error to the jury.

And every time an incident like that within the OP happens; more and more people realize just how off-the-wall crazy cops in this country are, thus increasing your chances that such individuals will end up in your jury.

[fqllve]

Yeah, but that's just how probable cause works.

Let's make a few assumptions, first let's assume the officer is recording and the camera is capable of picking up both our voices (a big assumption). This officer pulls me over and suspects me of being high on pot, which I am not, but I do happen to trafficking a live fox I caught not knowing it's illegal. The fox is tranquilized and in the car's trunk. The officer asks to search my car, I refuse, he searches anyway because he, in good faith, believes I smell like pot (I have been accused of smelling like pot by police before for no apparent reason, so yes this could happen). He finds the fox and arrests me. Does good faith still hold up his probable cause?

Of course, it doesn't work if you're actually guilty of the crime they suspect you of, but my point is, how many people knew that it's illegal to move live foxes across state borders in some jurisdictions? You never know if you've broken a law or not.

[nenjin]

...which hardly matters. Once it gets to court they actually have nothing against you (unless you really are guilty in which case I don't think I can help you), and even if case isn't dismissed you still look like the victim of police error to the jury.

And every time an incident like that within the OP happens; more and more people realize just how off-the-wall crazy cops in this country are, thus increasing your chances that such individuals will end up in your jury.

They'll still be indemnified against a lot of stuff because of good faith though. So the net result is that you've spent time and money on a lawyer to defend yourself against bullshit, possibly spent some time in jail, and the cop will merely have spent a day in court instead of their car. If you want to sue for police harrassment or whatever, prepare to spend more time and money in court.

It's pretty much a losing proposition all around. Which is the whole goddamn point. Cops will make your life hell and pay a very low price for it unless they've SERIOUSLY violated your rights, and you've managed to survive. And that's what I mean about the reality of standing up for your rights.

[Starver]

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/nyregion/fatal-shooting-of-ex-marine-by-white-plains-police-raises-questions.html?_r=1

Have not yet read beyond the first page, of this thread, and I deplore any heavy-handedness by authority figures, but I'm afraid the very first question that came to mind was nothing to do with the incident itself, but instead to wonder whether this florid style of prose is typical of the NYTimes?

And because what I think about it is quite distracting and may be read as provocative (despite not meaning to be), I'm spoilering it.  Please read it only as a critique of the reporting, not as an assessment of the incident itself.

Spoiler: As I just said (click to show/hide)

It frankly reads like a short story, or an atmospheric and (intended to be) gripping prologue to a longer novel, not a serious bit of reportage.  Obviously reporters, editors and even papers as a collective and combined entity have personal opinions and slants about any particular piece of news that they are going to convey (some imfamously so), but I found the emotive language in use to be... off-putting...  Less an honest report (or honest attempt to report, or even an honest-looking report that might well not actually be so) and more a rabble-rousing piece so blatant as to almost pictorially depict the uowards-pointing pitchforks and brandished torches held aloft by the target rent-a-mob audience.

Given I tend to lapse into the lyrical, myself, and was never quite satisfied about my ability to obey deadlines, I had long since decided against attempting a reporter's career.  I now know that no such bar need ever have existed, at least so long as I could have presented myself at the headquarters of a certain state-side broadsheet (yes?) and presented myself as ready to serve.  (Although, much apart from the geographic improbability, I'd still have to deal with the deadlines issue. )


If nothing else, the reporter has clearly concentrated upon the aggrieved relative's account, thrown off the sole (reported) piece of information from the police involved as "a standard get-out excuse", laid down some heavy-handed implications off the basis of very little.  It's very much conceivable that the official statements (only ever noticed for what they are when either unduly rushed or over-cautiously reticent and delayed, regardless of whether the eventual and final analysis can clearly blame the authorities) are slower to arrive than this reporter cares for...  Or are just being ignored, for the sake of an agenda.

All that said, nobody should be killed in such a manner, but I just cannot get over the way it was reported.  Can you tell?  And it may easily end up being exactly as inexcusable a situation as portrayed, but on the other hand I still wouldn't rule out something heading in the direction of "Suicide by cop".  But most likely (I say, before reading any further down the thread, and finding other versions of the story that may well disprove this theory) it was 'just' a cumulation of at least partially understandable, but unfortunate, misunderstandings by both sides involved.  And that story-telling style still rankles, so I may not be thinking straight while saying this.


(Please also bear in mind that I'm probably also 'in a pedantic mood', given that just today I sent off a message to a local newspaper to inform them that they'd mis-stated the type of highway upon which a reported-on fatal road accident had occurred.  (An awkward sentence that, sorry, but I've just re-written it from the version that ended "..had occurred on", which I felt 'dangled' too much.))


/braces self for flames from other forumites.  Earned or otherwise.

[Neonivek]

Detaining you for an unreasonably long period of time is also something you can use to get the case dismissed in court; if memory serves me.

True but I wouldn't bank on it. While the law often favors you... they have passed laws to allow police to retain evidence that would normally be thrown out.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

-critical fox smuggling-

I'm not sure. The Supreme Court has ruled that search warrants are of limited scope, so if they came into your house with a warrant looking for pot and found your fox they wouldn't be able to bring it into court because they were looking for pot, not foxes. Unsure if that applies to warrentless searches for specific things as well.

More likely, however, is that the cop will have no idea that you are even trying to traffic the fox or that it's illegal to do so. That is some damn obscure law you have going there.

[nenjin]

Evocative Reporting Raeg

I'm in complete agreement. It's writing like this that drove me off of being a reporter. There are times and places for writing in that style, but this is not one of them. Not every story needs to get a "sexy" treatment. Sometimes most stories just need to be reported straight, even though that's not infotainment to owners and publishers.

The Supreme Court has ruled that search warrants are of limited scope, so if they came into your house with a warrant looking for pot and found your fox they wouldn't be able to bring it into court because they were looking for pot, not foxes. Unsure if that applies to warrentless searches for specific things as well.

Evidence of a crime legally discovered in the pursuit of another crime is often admissible. This gets into "in plain sight" rules and other stuff. Also applies to a visual scan of your car.

So if a cop is coming to your house with a search warrant for child porn, and you have a pound of weed sitting on the dinner table, you're double fucked. If they jimmied open a locked cabinet and found pot instead of child porn, I *believe* that is inadmissible.

[fqllve]

Oh trust me, the cop will know it's illegal. Those laws were written, generally, because people were penning foxes and coyotes and then loosing packs of dogs in there with them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's pretty much a losing proposition all around. Which is the whole goddamn point. Cops will make your life hell and pay a very low price for it unless they've SERIOUSLY violated your rights, and you've managed to survive. And that's what I mean about the reality of standing up for your rights.

Then you and I just plain do not see things in the same way. Appeasement of this corruption is how it became so widespread. We have to be willing to assert ourselves, all of us, if it is ever going to end. There will be much individual turmoil. People will probably be murdered by cops because of it. But I think that our rights are the most important thing we have, and that everyone should be willing to stand up for theirs. It's what makes us citizens of a democratic republic instead of slaves to a dictator.

[nenjin]

Your chances of survival against a lunatic cop do not change if you follow your suggestions to allow your rights to be violated or mine to not allow your rights to be violated even if they are anyway. But if you do survive my path looks better in court.

Say that when you've got a gun stuck in your face. It's an enlightening moment about the power of civil rights and personal courage.

...Is that a rebuttal or...?

Yes, you can consider that a rebuttal. I think we've come full circle. People like to talk an awful lot about dying for their rights in the academic sense. Reality is another story.

Survive first. Persevere later. Unless you've got some burning desire to be a martyr.

Then you and I just plain do not see things in the same way.

I think you and I have just had utterly different life experiences.

[fqllve]

I'd hope that anyone knows that if a cop performs a felony stop on you then you do whatever that guy says, period. If a cop draws his weapon on you, you do whatever that guy says, period. Let his dashboard cam take care of the rest.

Of course, there was a case here in NC about felony stops and vehicle searches. Some guy got stopped, got out, closed his car door and then laid down. Then the police searched his car which was at the time legal but the law was later changed making the search illegal. They found a bunch of cocaine and he tried, and failed, to get it ruled inadmissible due to the change in law.