Is this legal? Search/frisk question...

[Broken Parachute]

Okay, so my friends and I were basically pulled over for NO reason whatsoever tonight and were basically intimidated into doing whatever the cops wanted.

My friend and I were giving a tour of where we live to three of our roommates (two from Vermont, one from South Jersey), and the cops pulled us over. First the cops seemed okay, asked for our licenses, but then kept asking us to admit that we had weed or we had been drinking. We all denied it because none of us had, so one was like "come on, I'm not stupid, you guys are in college...you guys definitely have weed on you."

Then they made us all get out of the car and one by one they frisked us and went through our wallets and pockets and shoes. Then they searched the car for like ten minutes minutes. The entire time, the cop was verbally abusing us. He was like "five guys out together in one car? No girls, fellas? Don't have any ladies to hang out with?" So I facetiously said "we aren't gay, sir, if you're implying that" and he was being even more of a dick, asking us our intentions for being there, asking us if we were about to go smoke or pick up.

Then he was telling us to just admit we have weed to make his job easier. I asked him what his reason for pulling us over was and he said "doing our job" and I said "driving around Staten Isalnd is a crime?" He said "your windows were kinda foggy, looked suspicious." My friend said "wouldn't you smell the weed? We have nothing obviously, you don't have to do this to figure that out..." He goes, "maybe you have some odorless shit, I don't know what you kids smoke these days..." I said "we don't smoke, none of us, and we don't have anything on us." They just kept basically taunting us. Then he asked why we were on that block and I said "we were showing our friends where our other friend Dom lives, in that house" and pointed to it on the corner. He then made my friend who was driving get out of the car and asked him the same thing and got the same answer, then says "so you just repeated what he said? You heard him say that? Lying to me?" He saw a For Sale sign on the lawn, and asked "why are they selling their house?" I said "because his parents split up, what does that have to do with ANYTHING?" He ignored me and said "search the car" at which point his partner searched my friend's car for a solid ten minutes.

After giving us back our licenses and stuff, he let us go. Can I file a report for this at the precinct? My dad's friend is a Lieutenant in the NYPD and my dad called him tonight...he said it was inappropriate and illegal and the cops could get in serious trouble for it. We only got one of their names, but he said that will suffice.

I've never been a "fuck the police" person because frankly I've never been in trouble or anything, but this makes me just down right angry. Is what they did illegal or will this just get thrown away if I file a report? I really feel like shit about this. He lined the five of us up against the back of the car and just basically accosted us verbally and frisked us/went through our pockets/wallets for NO reason. He had NO reason to do so and said he's "just doing his job."

[zion the lion]

You could have said no. And yes, report it.

edit nevermind, saying no would have gotten you into more trouble.

[Broken Parachute]

I thought about saying no, because saying no is NOT an admission of guilt. However, we really didn't want to start trouble with a bunch of cops we collectively had deduced were trying to get to us. They didn't ask us, so we really couldn't say no...they just started frisking us after telling us to step out of the car.

[Neo Cassady]

They had no right to search you (ESPECIALLY since they didn't ask and had no probable cause). The one thing to absolutely do in this situation is to keep repeating out loud "I did not consent to this" and then file a report.

Take a look at:
http://flexyourrights.org/faq/keep_police_from_searching_car
http://flexyourrights.org/faq/refuse_police_search_anyway
http://flexyourrights.org/faq/what_if_police_frisk
http://flexyourrights.org/faq/how_to_deal_with_police_misconduct

And that site in general is helpful. I'm strongly against the "only people with something to hide should be worried" bullshit. It's an invasion of privacy and an infringement on your rights.

[heyguys123]

yeah that's an illegal search on a couple different levels, and definitely report it, but you don't have any real recourse here. best case is the cops get reprimanded or something.

[loveisdead]

Absolutely illegal.

[always10ftJay]

it is illegal it violates your 4th amendment to unlawful search and seizure also to search your car they need to have a warrant just because he says that he probable cause to pull you over he still needs a warrant to go through anything basically sue him

[vivatoto56]

Fucking assholes.

[Juan Jose]

sue those fucking twats

[AlkalineAvA]

sounds like my situation last year a tad, mine was just funny and ridiculous though, not bad.

basically, i was out and about with some friends last year on new years day i believe it was. i just got my license so i was still kinda new to the whole driving thing. i pull out of my friends driveway, go to a stop sign, stop, then my engine stalls. i kind of forgot what to do so we just kind of stood there and there wasa car coming from behind us. turns out it was a cop.....so i successfully restarted my car and was about to pull away, then the cop turns on his lights. he comes to the car and he's sketching out and asks us for a licenses/IDs. he goes back to his car...its like 20 minutes. so he returns and he's checking our eyes out and asking a bunch of stupid questions, so then hes like "may i search your car?"...i didnt relaly know what to do so i just let him (besides i didnt have anything in there). so we get out...HE PATS US DOWN ASKING IF WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT CAN HURT HIM....which is pretty redunk imo. then he searches the car.....in the meantime...2 other cop cars show up..i was expecting the swat team.( keep in mind this is a suburb and very quiet town). and then he's looking through everything...obviously doesnt find anything. then he just lets us go.....what a great first day of having my license hahahaha.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The cops were probably low on their arrest quotas for the month and were looking for any excuse to search you for narcotics.

[Manicapathy]

Shoulda just told him "Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back, and I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that"

[troubledbyinsects]

fuck them

[caveBEAR]

The cops were probably low on their arrest quotas for the month and were looking for any excuse to search you for narcotics.

Do they really have arrest quotas? I've never been able to get a straight answer on this...

[loveisdead]

it is illegal it violates your 4th amendment to unlawful search and seizure also to search your car they need to have a warrant just because he says that he probable cause to pull you over he still needs a warrant to go through anything basically sue him

They don't need a warrant.

[spiffa0]

Do they really have arrest quotas? I've never been able to get a straight answer on this...

No this is a myth

Edit: Just googled it and it seems some have a quota and some don't. But I had friends who had family that were police officers and denied the quota rumor.

[KidRobot]

Shoulda just told him "Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back, and I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that"

I laughed.

[Nevuk]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.

[Enolase]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.
Then what's the point of asking?

Also, this is why I hate the police.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Do they really have arrest quotas? I've never been able to get a straight answer on this...

I assume it factors in to determining their budget for the following year

[Nevuk]

Then what's the point of asking?

Also, this is why I hate the police.
To force you to tell them no.

[And Hours Pass]

Shoulda just told him "Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back, and I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that"
:appl:

[<*)))><]

"your windows were kinda foggy, looked suspicious."
That is his probable cause

[caveBEAR]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.

From the links above, it appears (unless they have REAL probable cause, like visible drugs or intoxication) that if you let them know prior to the search (and make it known repeatedly and loudly) that you don't consent to the search, then the judge can/could throw out the case as the evidence is no longer permissable.

Or, you know, the judge could be a prick and you're on your way to jail.

[caveBEAR]

That is his probable cause

Well, that's bullshit. Smoke in a car / foggy windows not only look entirely different, but also are entirely different, unrelated events.

[Broken Parachute]

That is his probable causeWindows were not even that foggy, and I'm not disagreeing with them pulling me over or anything. I'm just mad about making us all get out of the car and searching us without asking us.

[<*)))><]

Windows were not even that foggy, and I'm not disagreeing with them pulling me over or anything. I'm just mad about making us all get out of the car and searching us without asking us.
Look at the bright side they didn't give you a ticket or anything.

[Miketheunicycle]

this is why i hate cops, they abuse their power so much because OP's scenario is definitely an illegal search

[Binx]

was the cop being an asshole ? yes. Is there a law keep cops from being assholes? no. Problem is, since the Patriot Act, the definition of probable cause has been relaxed to say the least. pretty much in any situation an officer can claim probable cause and it holds up in court. File a claim if you want, but keep in mind every video site on the web has several videos of cops beating the shit outta kids and in almost all these cases the court has backed the cop, so good luck with your illegal stop man.

[jawstheme]

Look at the bright side they didn't give you a ticket or anything.

Ticket for what?

[jawstheme]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.

If this is true than that is awful. Isn't that a Catch 22?

[<*)))><]

Ticket for what?
I've seen cops make up something when they think that you are doing something wrong but they can't find it.

[SkateFirm21]

Fuck The Police!

[*crying stars*]

Shoulda just told him "Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back, and I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that"

Nah, I ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit, enough that you won't illegally search my shit

[Hagysaurus Rex]

My experience with cops is that it's all in the cop you get. Some are going to be power-hungry assholes, and some are the "just doing my job" type. I got pulled over for something similar, and the guy straight up told me that "we're looking for anything illegal like drugs or weapons. You have anything like that in your car?" After I said no he asked to search my car. I had nothing to hide. If he had been a dick about it I would have probably pulled the "I don't consent to this" card, but as it was I told him it'd be cool. He searched me and my car and found nothing and let me go.

I'm not a legal expert, but it sounds like they had somewhat of a probable cause with your foggy windows (at least to pull you over and try to smell for weed.) But what was worse for you is that you got a couple of douchenozzle cops.

[Hagysaurus Rex]

Ticket for what?

A ticket for being awesome

[roche]

A friend of mine was pulled over for speeding, but got away scott free because the officer liked Tegan & Sara which was playing in the car.

[roche]

Y8qjdUXBexA

Sorry for the double post, but I thought this was worthy.

[Hagysaurus Rex]

I've seen cops make up something when they think that you are doing something wrong but they can't find it.

I've seen this. In Virginia where I used to live, there's a law that says that you cant have anything on the inside of your windshield obstructing your view. Years ago, I was riding around with two friends (not driving) when cops pulled us over. It turns out, they saw my friend up front in the passenger seat and they wanted to bust him for something (he used to be pretty bad into drugs and stuff) even though he didn't have a warrant against him currently. So they got us out, searched us, searched the car, were general dicks, etc. The driver started to get pissed off, and after they couldn't find anything he asked them why they pulled us over. The cop said "having anything obstructing your field of vision is a crime, and you have a parking pass hanging from your rear view mirror." A FUCKING PARKING PASS TO A COMMUNITY COLLEGE! It was bullshit, but they couldn't find anything else/didn't actually have any real probable cause. Those bastards had us beside the road for a good hour before letting us go....

[tkamB]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.

That is not true, at all. Always say no if they ask to search your car.

[ellie117]

Do they really have arrest quotas? I've never been able to get a straight answer on this...

Yes. I have a few friends in the field/parents in the field and they do have to issue a certain amount of tickets. Not sure if it's the number of tickets or the monetary amount of the tickets total, but yes, they do.

[x togepi x]

That is his probable cause

Yeah, maybe in July but it's fucking november you fascist troll

[Dog_Sized_Bird]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.


That is extremely untrue and a dangerous thing to spread/tell people.

OP could have avoided all searches minus a pat down for weapons by saying "I do not consent to ANY searches at this time".
Also if you're in a situation where a cop is harassing you, the only questions you have to answer are your name and address of residency. If you can tell that a cop is simply being a dick because that's how they get their rocks off, then do not provide them with any further information besides those two things. You NEVER FOR ANY REASON are obligated to tell a cop where you're going or where you're coming from.

If you're not breaking any laws, you can be as facetious/uncooperative as possible as long as your not in a hurry, because they will try to waste your time, and there's nothing they can do. Always ask if you are being detained the second a cop speaks a word to you, and if they say no then ask permission to leave the situation.

[Nevuk]

That is extremely untrue and a dangerous thing to spread/tell people.

OP could have avoided all searches minus a pat down for weapons by saying "I do not consent to ANY searches at this time".
Also if you're in a situation where a cop is harassing you, the only questions you have to answer are your name and address of residency. If you can tell that a cop is simply being a dick because that's how they get their rocks off, then do not provide them with any further information besides those two things. You NEVER FOR ANY REASON are obligated to tell a cop where you're going or where you're coming from.
Well, a cop once told that to me. So I guess cops in KY are just fucked up. I mean if they're going to search your car they can just lie about whether or not you consented usually, especially if you aren't white. Like all that shit people tell you to do with cops the only rational thing is just to say as little as possible.

[Dog_Sized_Bird]

Well, a cop once told that to me. So I guess cops in KY are just fucked up. I mean if they're going to search your car they can just lie about whether or not you consented usually, especially if you aren't white. Like all that shit people tell you to do with cops the only rational thing is just to say as little as possible.

I know how it goes. I was once detained for asking if I was being detained in a respectful manner while being questioned. They asked me where I worked and how long I worked there I told them that it was irrelevant and that I would not answer such questions, and so they just wasted my time for as long as possible and made me 20 minutes late to work but they eventually had to let me go because they had no reason to believe I was doing anything illegal. Another time, same cops: I was sitting on the side of the road and they pulled over to question me for no reason. They asked to look inside my bag, and I told them I did not consent to any searches, and they were basically like "okay", because there's nothing they could do. I had pot/paraphernalia in my bag, which would have been legal for me anyway because I have my medical card and can carry/possess in public, but I felt like exercising my rights of privacy anyway. Two times the same cops (I live in a small town) tried to bust me without any evidence, and without me doing anything illegal, and twice I was let go without penalty because I know what to say. The first time I didn't have anything on me, but the second time I did and even if I didn't have my medical card it wouldn't have mattered because I didn't consent to a search and incriminate myself.

[Dog_Sized_Bird]

I've seen this. In Virginia where I used to live, there's a law that says that you cant have anything on the inside of your windshield obstructing your view. Years ago, I was riding around with two friends (not driving) when cops pulled us over. It turns out, they saw my friend up front in the passenger seat and they wanted to bust him for something (he used to be pretty bad into drugs and stuff) even though he didn't have a warrant against him currently. So they got us out, searched us, searched the car, were general dicks, etc. The driver started to get pissed off, and after they couldn't find anything he asked them why they pulled us over. The cop said "having anything obstructing your field of vision is a crime, and you have a parking pass hanging from your rear view mirror." A FUCKING PARKING PASS TO A COMMUNITY COLLEGE! It was bullshit, but they couldn't find anything else/didn't actually have any real probable cause. Those bastards had us beside the road for a good hour before letting us go....

Your avatar is amazing, I've seen it before where is it from?

[x togepi x]

Not consenting to a search is probable cause to get a warrant but it's not probable cause to search your car without one.

[Binx]

saw alot of "no one is searching me illegaly" , "you have the right to...". "if you say..." seems to me people are forgetting the bottom line is, cops are above the law. Infront of a Judge its your word agains theirs, you lose. /thread

[Nevuk]

Not consenting to a search is probable cause to get a warrant but it's not probable cause to search your car without one.
Ah, there we go. Basically it just delays the search until they can find some judge willing to do it at whatever hour.

[DeviateRogue]

Ah, there we go. Basically it just delays the search until they can find some judge willing to do it at whatever hour.
Then you can just get rid of/move whatever they wanted to search!

[anamericangod]

If they searched the car without your permission, it is completely illegal. If you gave them permission, it's not.

[Hagysaurus Rex]

Your avatar is amazing, I've seen it before where is it from?

Thanks. It's from Seven Reasons to Keep Your Tyrannosaur Off Crack: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tyrannosaur_crack The oatmeal cracks me up.

[Nevuk]

Then you can just get rid of/move whatever they wanted to search!
In some places they can call the courthouse at whatever hour and keep you in your car while getting a warrant. It's not likely, but it is feasible.

[caveBEAR]

Then you can just get rid of/move whatever they wanted to search!

I believe that's the point... :-)

[RedWineSheets]

SO many people in this thread talking out of their ass with no legal education or knowledge of the law. haha. There is no bright line rule for probable cause its analyzed under a "totality of the circumstances." Any evidence seized as the result of an unlawful search is excluded in court under whats called the "exclusionary rule"(look up Mapp v. Ohio). I know they didn't find anything in this search but it is helpful to know. I'm not going to give out any advice out on civil remedies or any other course of action.

[Broken Parachute]

If they searched the car without your permission, it is completely illegal. If you gave them permission, it's not.Is searching a car and a person the same thing though? The driver said "look in the car, I don't care." Then he took us out of the car one by one and started going through our pockets and stuff without asking us. We never consented to searches of our persons.

[RedWineSheets]

Is searching a car and a person the same thing though? The driver said "look in the car, I don't care." Then he took us out of the car one by one and started going through our pockets and stuff without asking us. We never consented to searches of our persons.

haha, this is important piece of info. search of the car was fine( you consented) as was the search of your person. Police are allowed to do what is called a "Terry frisk" to look for weapons when they have reasonable suspicion. (see terry v. ohio).

This is not legal advice.

[anamericangod]

Is searching a car and a person the same thing though? The driver said "look in the car, I don't care." Then he took us out of the car one by one and started going through our pockets and stuff without asking us. We never consented to searches of our persons.

The cop could search the car then.

As for the frisk, it sounds like the cop crossed the line. After you have been stopped, he is allowed to do a light pat down of the outer clothing to make sure there are no weapons or anything that feels like a weapon. If not, he cannot make the search more invasive. Reaching into or pulling out your pockets or anything like that is crossing the line if there was no reason to take it further.

haha, this is important piece of info. search of the car was fine( you consented) as was the search of your person. Police are allowed to do what is called a "Terry frisk" to look for weapons when they have reasonable suspicion. (see terry v. ohio).

This is not legal advice.

The cop went beyond a normal frisk.

[Broken Parachute]

haha, this is important piece of info. search of the car was fine( you consented) as was the search of your person. Police are allowed to do what is called a "Terry frisk" to look for weapons when they have reasonable suspicion. (see terry v. ohio).

This is not legal advice.Makes sense. We were very polite, but to be honest both cops were treating all of us like douche bags. The verbal accosting was what really pissed me off so much. I didn't know they could frisk like that though. They're allowed to go through my wallet? I can't hide a weapon in my wallet.

The cop could search the car then.

As for the frisk, it sounds like the cop crossed the line. After you have been stopped, he is allowed to do a light pat down of the outer clothing to make sure there are no weapons or anything that feels like a weapon. If not, he cannot make the search more invasive. Reaching into or pulling out your pockets or anything like that is crossing the line if there was no reason to take it further.I just didn't like the manner in which they did things. If they had been more polite about it, I don't think my friends and I would have cared at all.

And going through my wallet and not asking me before frisking me was something that bugged me. Then after the frisking, standing there, as we are all lined up in back of the car, and just verbally abusing us and trying to make us admit to something we didn't do. That made me angry.

[anamericangod]

Makes sense. We were very polite, but to be honest both cops were treating all of us like douche bags. The verbal accosting was what really pissed me off so much. I didn't know they could frisk like that though. They're allowed to go through my wallet? I can't hide a weapon in my wallet.

I just didn't like the manner in which they did things. If they had been more polite about it, I don't think my friends and I would have cared at all.

And going through my wallet and not asking me before frisking me was something that bugged me. Then after the frisking, standing there, as we are all lined up in back of the car, and just verbally abusing us and trying to make us admit to something we didn't do. That made me angry.

From what you say here, he definitely took things too far and is a shitty cop, seems to be the type that gets off on harassing random people when he should be doing something that matters. A polite cop isn't going to be fucking with you in the first place.

If you know the name of the officer, it might be worth filing a complaint, even if nothing comes out of it. It will get under his skin, and maybe he has a superior who isn't a tool like him and they will take it seriously. Maybe it would make him reconsider doing it to somebody else if he knows he's being checked up on. Or you can just let it go. You basically already wrote a report on here though, so it seems to be bothering you enough.

[The Indigo]

A big part of it is also knowing your community. I'm a black, lower-class male living in a white upper-class neighborhood. When I'm harassed by the cops (happens at least once a semester), I typically just consent to everything rather than making a fuss and then file a complaint afterward. Since the probably cause line is so ill-defined, I'd rather not fall victim to getting fucked over since the cop will more than likely have the support of the precinct, judge, and community.

[RedWineSheets]

Makes sense. We were very polite, but to be honest both cops were treating all of us like douche bags. The verbal accosting was what really pissed me off so much. I didn't know they could frisk like that though. They're allowed to go through my wallet? I can't hide a weapon in my wallet.

I just didn't like the manner in which they did things. If they had been more polite about it, I don't think my friends and I would have cared at all.

And going through my wallet and not asking me before frisking me was something that bugged me. Then after the frisking, standing there, as we are all lined up in back of the car, and just verbally abusing us and trying to make us admit to something we didn't do. That made me angry.

i agree with americangod. sounds like a cop on a power trip.

[Dog_Sized_Bird]

Thanks. It's from Seven Reasons to Keep Your Tyrannosaur Off Crack: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tyrannosaur_crack The oatmeal cracks me up.

Hahaha this is what I was looking for. Thank you.

[x togepi x]

Ah, there we go. Basically it just delays the search until they can find some judge willing to do it at whatever hour.

You still have to make them get the warrant. Some cops will be lazy and not do it.

[tkamB]

Not consenting to a search is probable cause to get a warrant but it's not probable cause to search your car without one.

Again this is false, never consent to a search.

[PTVsnewO]

Maybe the officer was a closet homosexual looking to get some action.

[caveBEAR]

Maybe the officer was a closet homosexual looking to get some action.

Oh, you'll just be a lovely fucking edition to this forum.

[vicrattlehead56]

If you tell them no when they ask to search your car it's probable cause, I believe.

this is true. i refused to let the police search my car, and that gave them probable casue.. for some dumb reason that shit stands in VA.

[x togepi x]

Again this is false, never consent to a search.

It's not false at all. I'm not telling people to consent to a search. I'm telling you what happens when you don't consent. I know this because it's happened to me a few times. You have an insanely idealistic view of the justice system in this regard.

"probable cause" is purposely vague and the law tends to side with the police on this view. What will happen is the police will come up with something weak (which would not be probable cause in itself) and then use the fact that you didn't consent as their probable cause by calling the right judge. If you think the cops/prosecutors aren't savvy enough to know what judges are going to be open to this type of argument, you're wrong. Probable Cause can be a combination of factors which, each by themselves are not enough, but together are.

For example: in this case they would say "college kids driving around late at night with foggy windows who were not cooperative and acted drunk/high." None of those factors by themselves would count as probable cause but the combination of them all would be enough for the right judge to give a warrant. I'm not saying it's right but it's what happens.

You always point out that you're not consenting to make them jump through those hoops. if they don't jump through them, you get an illegal search that's going to get thrown out in court.

[tkamB]

It's not false at all. I'm not telling people to consent to a search. I'm telling you what happens when you don't consent. I know this because it's happened to me a few times. You have an insanely idealistic view of the justice system in this regard.

"probable cause" is purposely vague and the law tends to side with the police on this view. What will happen is the police will come up with something weak (which would not be probable cause in itself) and then use the fact that you didn't consent as their probable cause by calling the right judge. If you think the cops/prosecutors aren't savvy enough to know what judges are going to be open to this type of argument, you're wrong. Probable Cause can be a combination of factors which, each by themselves are not enough, but together are.

For example: in this case they would say "college kids driving around late at night with foggy windows who were not cooperative and acted drunk/high." None of those factors by themselves would count as probable cause but the combination of them all would be enough for the right judge to give a warrant. I'm not saying it's right but it's what happens.

You always point out that you're not consenting to make them jump through those hoops. if they don't jump through them, you get an illegal search that's going to get thrown out in court.

It is false, I don't care how you want to spin it and manipulate the circumstances to make you seem more correct but it just isn't true that not consenting to a search is enough probable cause for a warrant.

[x togepi x]

It is false, I don't care how you want to spin it and manipulate the circumstances to make you seem more correct but it just isn't true that not consenting to a search is enough probable cause for a warrant.

used to work for a lawyer dude, trust me.

I never said that "not consenting to a search is enough probable cause" I said that multiple things can add up to probable cause because that is a fact. Sometimes not consenting won't be enough, but if you're a young person or a minority, they'll find other circumstances to get a more conservative judge in that area to let them get a warrant.

[tkamB]

used to work for a lawyer dude, trust me.

I never said that "not consenting to a search is enough probable cause" I said that multiple things can add up to probable cause because that is a fact. Sometimes not consenting won't be enough, but if you're a young person or a minority, they'll find other circumstances to get a more conservative judge in that area to let them get a warrant.

I'm not disagreeing with that but the not consenting to a search can not be used to determine probable cause. I'm sure it happens sometimes with bad cops/judges but a good lawyer should be able to get that thrown out in court.

[x togepi x]

I'm not disagreeing with that but the not consenting to a search can not be used to determine probable cause. I'm sure it happens sometimes with bad cops/judges but a good lawyer should be able to get that thrown out in court.

It's not "not consenting to a search", it's a myriad of factors. that's what i'm trying to tell you, probable cause isn't one thing, it can be a cluster of things where the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. you're forgetting that you don't have a right to challenge a warrant until after its been issued. you don't get to defend yourself. the cops can and often do lie to a judge but the fact that you didn't consent is often the straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot of judges.


it doesn't really matter if probable cause gets thrown out in court later down the when the cops are already searching your car. you don't consent. you wait it out and hope the police fuck up their own case or are lazy.

[tkamB]

It's not "not consenting to a search", it's a myriad of factors. that's what i'm trying to tell you, probable cause isn't one thing, it can be a cluster of things where the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. you're forgetting that you don't have a right to challenge a warrant until after its been issued. you don't get to defend yourself. the cops can and often do lie to a judge but the fact that you didn't consent is often the straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot of judges.


it doesn't really matter if probable cause gets thrown out in court later down the when the cops are already searching your car. you don't consent. you wait it out and hope the police fuck up their own case or are lazy.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that probable cause is the sum of different things, I'm just saying not consenting to a search is not enough to get a warrant and it legally shouldn't even be used in the evaluation of probable cause and if it is it can the evidence found will likely get thrown out in court. Again the most important thing I'm trying to get across is that you should never consent to a search.

[Binx]

You have an insanely idealistic view of the justice system in this regard.
This.

[PTVsnewO]

Oh, you'll just be a lovely fucking edition to this forum.

And here I was, thinking my hilarity would be unrecognized!

[caveBEAR]

And here I was, thinking my stupid gently-homophobic post would go unrecognized!

Fixed.

[PTVsnewO]

Fixed.

Well played, my friend. Well played.

[saturday_snow_squall]

well this is ridiculous. im not surprised though, i see much of this ridiculous cop behavior going on everywhere. ive heard from many people the staten island area is pretty nutshit when it comes to the police.

[TKC]

Look, you were not doing anything wrong, and the cops should not have searched you and it was ENTIRELY inappropriate for them to talk to you that way. If the cop wouldve just searched, left you alone, and let you on your way I dont think you would have much of a case, but due to the conduct that they engaged in with you and your friends, this time they were in the wrong.

BUT I'm just gonna play devils advocate here.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not you were doing anything wrong, the fact of the matter is that there are large amounts of people your age who conduct in "illegal" activity. That alone is a probable cause for their suspicions of you and your friends, therefore giving them a right to their discretion to ask you about paraphenelia, and frisk and search. Their logic is that, if you arent doing anything wrong, there shouldnt be a problem with that and they wont find anything. But if you want to resist getting searched, even if youre being very calm about it, they are going to suspect something is up. It has nothing to do with you and your friends personally, it has to do with the fact that a bunch of dumbasses have really screwed shit up for you and your demographic in the past.
I think the search was appropriate, but the conduct was not.

[Scrandon]

Look, you were not doing anything wrong, and the cops should not have searched you and it was ENTIRELY inappropriate for them to talk to you that way. If the cop wouldve just searched, left you alone, and let you on your way I dont think you would have much of a case, but due to the conduct that they engaged in with you and your friends, this time they were in the wrong.

BUT I'm just gonna play devils advocate here.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not you were doing anything wrong, the fact of the matter is that there are large amounts of people your age who conduct in "illegal" activity. That alone is a probable cause for their suspicions of you and your friends, therefore giving them a right to their discretion to ask you about paraphenelia, and frisk and search. Their logic is that, if you arent doing anything wrong, there shouldnt be a problem with that and they wont find anything. But if you want to resist getting searched, even if youre being very calm about it, they are going to suspect something is up. It has nothing to do with you and your friends personally, it has to do with the fact that a bunch of dumbasses have really screwed shit up for you and your demographic in the past.
I think the search was appropriate, but the conduct was not.
What you call "probable cause", the rest of the world calls profiling.

[TKC]

What you call "probable cause", the rest of the world calls profiling.

Unfortunately, profiling is a large portion of law enforcement that is both very important and very inconvenient. It really depends when used.
For instance, If there is a bank robbery and the suspect is described by the victim as a black male with an afro and a white t shirt, why in the hell would a police officer question a white male with spiky hair and a black t shirt? But if they do question a black male, all of a sudden they are racial profiling pigs who have nothing better to do in the world than just be raciscsts and oppress other cultures and what not, right?
At some points, profiling is not appropriate; for instance, pulling over a black person, and assuming that just because that person is black and from a bad part of town that they have guns and other paraphenelia on them.
What the officers did in the context of the situation described in this post was not appropriate, however, profiling is not neccesarily a bad thing, given the right situations, and lot of times officers have to use these types of judgements to make the right choices.