Still it's not the officers opinion that the charges were based on.
Refuse to be searched?
- Thread starter Love2shoot
- Start date
- Replies 118
- Views 4,534
My wife's experience with NCSHP leads me to believe they take complaints very seriously. She got multiple calls from the officers CO about the incident. She was hit by a guy running a red light and the officer was less than objective about how he handled things. He basically found no fault in the accident and let they guy go. Pretty much believed everything he said and nothing my wife said. So it was not a huge issue. But they were thorough about dealing with it.
All Departments keep records of all complaints and at least do a cursory investigation. You will not likely be privy to the findings unless it's a major issue. But the supervisors and command does take note on who is getting the complaints and whether or not they have merit.
Eventually the ones who create enough headaches for the department are likely to be weeded out.
Remember most Officers have less than 5 years on the job and this is at least partially due to Department's running off the loose cannons.
b
That is easy to believe. The locals in the area are known cowboys.
Remember...we're not talking about actually being charged with anything, if we stick with the theme of this thread. We're talking about searches...which, absent consent, require probable cause.
And I didn't choose drywall powder as an example on a lark. Take a gander at this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...964a7d55207_story.html?utm_term=.dbee2b163cf3
Man sits in jail when drywall powder is mistaken for cocaine
By Associated Press By Associated Press
National
June 27
OVIEDO, Fla. — A Florida man spent 90 days in jail after police officers who stopped him for driving without headlights said white powder found in his car was cocaine.
But Karlos Cashe walked out of jail last week after lab results determined the powder in the handyman’s car was actually drywall.
Cashe tells WFTV he repeatedly told officers in Oviedo the substance was drywall. But after running a check they found he was on probation for marijuana and cocaine charges in 2015. Cashe says a K-9 alerted on his vehicle and an officer’s field test was positive for cocaine.
Court records show he was denied bond because he was accused of violating probation.
It took nearly three months for lab test results, which were negative for cocaine.
This man spent 90 days in jail over this before it was "cleared up". NINETY. DAYS.
Now, I'm not a chemistry major...but I took the usual chemistry courses in high school and college on my way to my EET degree, and I've spent more than three decades in the nuclear power field, both as an operator and an engineer. So I'm not buying that a chemical field test would give a false positive for cocaine on a pile of drywall gypsum. Chemistry doesn't work that way. So what does that say about the whole issue with probable cause (and arrest) in this instance?
Here's one where a man was taken aside and questioned by immigration officials on a United Airlines flight because traveling with his 3 year old daughter, who had a "different skin tone" from the man. Why? Child trafficking concerns based solely on the difference in skin tones. (Reported by another passenger on the flight.) Arrest? No. Probable cause? Yes.
http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/04/19/inenglish/1492600802_662531.html
These examples I gave weren't meant to incite a "fear of search/arrest", nor were they meant to say "this is EXACTLY what WILL happen". They were simply examples that COULD possibly lead to probable cause for a search, IF THE OFFICER SO CHOOSES.
The bottom line is that we can all be paranoid about this issue if we wish and assume that all police officers are "out to get us". The reality is that the vast majority are simply honest, hard working people who want to do their job, raise their families, etc. But they ARE representatives of the State, duly empowered by the same for the purpose of law enforcement.
If they are ASKING for consent, then the answer should be "no, thank you" because giving consent relinquishes a good chunk of your rights to someone whose JOB is to FIND evidence of legal violations.
If police officers want to find something, it's my opinion that they should have to WORK for that and we should not give up our rights to enable them to legally ream us with no legal protections for ourselves.
It is a plain fact that the job of a police officer is much easier legally speaking if one gives up their rights. That's why, for instance, an NCIS agent will oh-so-politely read you a legal document prior to questioning, with no attorney there representing you, wherein your signature on said document waives your right to legal representation prior to questioning. Why? Because then you have none and anything you say at all WILL be admissible as evidence (unless you stop the session and reassert your rights). I've never been in front of civilian law enforcement for questioning, so I don't know if they do this as well. But I suspect ANY questioning after you've been read your rights and without an attorney present would require something similar. Perhaps someone here could clarify that.
There ARE good cops. And, unfortunately, there are bad cops, too. But our rights are the same under both...the one will understand this and carry on smartly, because he's a good cop. The other won't care...and this is when your rights REALLY count.
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
The easiest way is to avoid LE interaction altogether. Make sure your vehicle has working light bulbs, blinkers and brake lights. Take those stupid dealership advertisement license plate frames off. Stay close to the speed limit. Come to a full stop at stop signs, don't try to beat the light, don't drive through the hood slowly with your window down waving strangers over to your car. You know, simple stuff.
@RetiredUSNChief said,
Now, I'm not a chemistry major...but I took the usual chemistry courses in high school and college on my way to my EET degree, and I've spent more than three decades in the nuclear power field, both as an operator and an engineer. So I'm not buying that a chemical field test would give a false positive for cocaine on a pile of drywall gypsum. Chemistry doesn't work that way. So what does that say about the whole issue with probable cause (and arrest) in this instance?
What you are saying here is that an officer tested the substance and knowingly lied and said to a Magistrate that it was positive.
If that's the case that officer is a traitor to his oath and should be removed from anything above manual labor. He surely does not represent the rank and file of most LEO's
Now, I'm not a chemistry major...but I took the usual chemistry courses in high school and college on my way to my EET degree, and I've spent more than three decades in the nuclear power field, both as an operator and an engineer. So I'm not buying that a chemical field test would give a false positive for cocaine on a pile of drywall gypsum. Chemistry doesn't work that way. So what does that say about the whole issue with probable cause (and arrest) in this instance?
What you are saying here is that an officer tested the substance and knowingly lied and said to a Magistrate that it was positive.
If that's the case that officer is a traitor to his oath and should be removed from anything above manual labor. He surely does not represent the rank and file of most LEO's
@RetiredUSNChief
Here's one where a man was taken aside and questioned by immigration officials on a United Airlines flight because traveling with his 3 year old daughter, who had a "different skin tone" from the man. Why? Child trafficking concerns based solely on the difference in skin tones. (Reported by another passenger on the flight.) Arrest? No. Probable cause? Yes.
http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/04/19/inenglish/1492600802_662531.html
The guy was questioned, no more. This wasn't probable cause it was reasonable suspicion only. And considering what was at stake I can't fault the police here either.
Here's one where a man was taken aside and questioned by immigration officials on a United Airlines flight because traveling with his 3 year old daughter, who had a "different skin tone" from the man. Why? Child trafficking concerns based solely on the difference in skin tones. (Reported by another passenger on the flight.) Arrest? No. Probable cause? Yes.
http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/04/19/inenglish/1492600802_662531.html
The guy was questioned, no more. This wasn't probable cause it was reasonable suspicion only. And considering what was at stake I can't fault the police here either.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA, there buddy!
Next thing you know you'll be advocating only driving in the left lane when you're passing! You're getting out of control here!
Yes, indeed, you are correct. And I believe you mentioned earlier that there is a reason why "most officers have less than 5 years on the job". This type of behavior may very well be part of that.
Ummm...not quite. While I agree such reports obligate officials to investigate, this was not a simple questioning.
When the plane landed, several officers from Port Authority and Customs and Border Patrol boarded the plane, INSTRUCTED the man to get his carry-ons and follow them. This happened in full view of everybody and BEFORE anybody else was allowed to deplane. He was surrounded and then questioned, and the methodology was not described as friendly. And the child reacted predictably to a sense of danger/fearful situation: she was crying. He was interrogated.
He had to produce all kinds of documents, too. Which, even though they were perfectly in order, still resulted in them contacting the mother and questioning her to verify things. And, make no mistake here...this was a search.
So he was NOT, in fact, simply questioned and no more...he was removed from the plane and detained.
As was pointed out in another article, a simple check of passports and flight records would have answered all the questions that needed to be asked.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...king-our-daughter_us_58f4adade4b01566972250cf
I have children, too. And they have passports, so that if we make plans to travel outside the country we'll have them ready. Children under a certain age (I don't remember what off hand) have different shorter expiration dates on theirs, presumably because children grow and change so much below a certain age. These documents should d*mn well suffice for any such purposes because my wife and I were REQUIRED to provide birth certificates and such when we got them in the first place. They should have sufficed here, as well.
Child trafficking is serious, I think we can all agree. But so is how these cases are handled.
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
How often do human traffickers fly commercial with those they are trafficking sitting right next to them?
Kind of off topic but sounds like the nosey passenger needs to mind her own business and stop watching Law and Order.
Kind of off topic but sounds like the nosey passenger needs to mind her own business and stop watching Law and Order.
Even for LEOs, innocent until proven guilty applies. I would double check, then triple check the reliability and validity of the field tests.
I like poppy seed bagels, but would cringe at the thought of a blood test. And yes, I would cringe only because of that.
A lab technician in the Massachusetts State Police crime lab won glowing praise for her productivity. Her peers grew suspicious. She was able to knock out 200 hours of testing each week. Eventually, they determined she was faking it all.
Over 2,000 felony drug convictions were overturned. Thousands of lawsuits, millions in reparations, but those wrongfully convicted won't get those years back.
thrillhill
Assistant TO The Regional Manager
Staff member
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Sponsor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
You are joking right? You don't listen to the news at all?
You know that the field tests pop hot on at least 80 other substances besides the narcotics right? Common household cleaning items. Acne medications. And many others.
The field tests are laughably inaccurate.
How about the guy charged for meth when it was Krispy Kreme glaze. That's my favorite! LOL! Chemistry my big ole butt! LOL! SUGAR! LOL!
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...k-doughnut-glaze-for-meth-20160727-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-donut-glaze-for-meth/?utm_term=.57ebe9d9354f
I can snow you under with stories of false positives that are then cleared by the lab. What's even worse, we don't know the amount of folks who take the plea deal and it never even makes it all the way through lab testing since they no longer need it.
"A federal survey in 2013 found that about 62 percent of crime labs do not test drug evidence when the defendant pleads guilty."
And read, really read some of these articles. Even law enforcement standards agencies have been talking about the inaccuracies since the 1970s!
"In a 1974 study, however, the National Bureau of Standards warned that the kits “should not be used as sole evidence for the identification of a narcotic or drug of abuse.” Police officers were not chemists, and chemists themselves had long ago stopped relying on color tests, preferring more reliable mass spectrographs. By 1978, the Department of Justice had determined that field tests “should not be used for evidential purposes,” and the field tests in use today remain inadmissible at trial in nearly every jurisdiction; instead, prosecutors must present a secondary lab test using more reliable methods."
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
"Field tests provide quick answers. But if those answers and confessions cannot be trusted, Charles McClelland, the former Houston police chief, says, officers should not be using them. During an interview in March, McClelland said that if he had known of the false positives Houston’s officers were generating, he would have ordered a halt to all field testing departmentwide. Police officers are not chemists, McClelland said. “Officers shouldn’t collect and test their own evidence, period. I don’t care whether that’s cocaine, blood, hair.”
"The Harris County district attorney’s office is responsible for half of all exonerations by conviction-integrity units nationwide in the past three years — not because law enforcement is different there but because the Houston lab committed to testing evidence after defendants had already pleaded guilty, a position that is increasingly unpopular in forensic science."
"Based in part on the information gathered by Marie Munier, the former prosecutor Anderson hired to examine the drug convictions, we determined that 301 of the 416 variants began as arrests by the Houston Police Department, with the rest coming from surrounding municipalities, and that 212 of those 301 arrests were based on evidence that lab analysis determined was not a controlled substance, or N.C.S."
"74 percent of the convicted didn’t possess any drugs at the time of their arrest"
https://www.forensicmag.com/article...ests-confuse-candy-meth-cause-serious-concern
The videotaped tests showed that mundane items found in supermarkets, including coffee, aspirin, chocolate and oregano, can come up positive for narcotics using the most common tests available to law enforcement. Even Mucinex DM, an over-the-counter cough medication, came up positive for heroin and morphine, they said.
How about 2 month in jail because vitamins showed up as amphetamines?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ntified-as-contraband/?utm_term=.bd021f44ad74
"It isn’t the first time one of these field tests has caused a wrongful arrest. Or the second. Or the third. In fact, I’ve been compiling a running list of all the materials that one or more of these field tests has mistaken for drugs. It includes . . .
- Sage
- Chocolate chip cookies
- Motor oil
- Spearmint
- Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap
- Tortilla dough
- Deodorant
- Billiards chalk
- Patchouli
- Flour
- Eucalyptus
- Breath mints
- Loose-leaf tea
- Jolly Ranchers
How many more you want? I can do this all day long.
Chemistry! '
LOLOLOLOLOL!
Chemistry that puts innocent people in jail for months, changing their lives forever, losing jobs, losing houses, and applying for jobs with a felony on their record!
Chemistry did it! Hahahahaha! Chemistry searched your car! Chemistry locked you up!
If chemistry ever asks to search my car, I think I'm gonna say NO! Hahahahaha!
Cops too for that matter.
But remember folks, if you ain't done nothin wrong you ain't got nothin to hide! LOLOLOLLOL!
Oh man, that's rich. Chemistry.
thrillhill
Assistant TO The Regional Manager
Staff member
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Sponsor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
"In the past three years, people arrested based on false-positive field tests have filed civil lawsuits in Sullivan County, Tenn.; Lehigh County, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; and San Diego, Calif. Three of the four cases also named the manufacturers Safariland Group or Sirchie as defendants. Three of the cases have already been settled. In one of them, the Sullivan County case, Safariland secured a gag order on the plaintiff, explicitly to prevent media coverage, before entering settlement negotiations."
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
L
Lawless
Guest
I have been asked a few times if I mind if they look in the car. I just smile and say "I'm sorry, I never consent to searches". They always smile and wish me a fond farewell. Fishers gonna fish.
Blocking the state name or other official information is considered illegal
Any operator of a motor vehicle who covers any registration plate with any frame or transparent, clear, or color-tinted cover that makes a number or letter included in the vehicle's registration, the State name on the plate, or a number or month on the registration renewal sticker on the plate illegible commits an infraction and shall be penalized under G.S. 14-3.1.
How about this travesty of justice?
Annie Dookhan, chemist at Mass. crime lab, arrested for allegedly mishandling over 60,000 samples.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-d...for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/
Annie Dookhan, chemist at Mass. crime lab, arrested for allegedly mishandling over 60,000 samples.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-d...for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
What they said. Most officers ignore them but if they want to pull you over and are looking for a reason those tags frames will get you every time. I think it's weak and a dumb reason. I can honestly say in 10yrs I never made a stop based on that.
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
I was discussing this thread with a LEO buddy of mine who is very libertarian, the kind of guy you want wearing the badge, he mentioned a point that hasn't been discussed. The notion of a terry frisk or stop centers around an officers "reasonable suspicion" that a person is armed and he may conduct a limited search for his protection. The courts have expanded that to areas of a vehicle accessible by the occupants. Does our duty to inform grant an officer the right to search the passenger compartment of our vehicle since he has more than reasonable suspicion we are armed? I honestly haven't thought about it that way but my buddy had to address that with another officer he backed up and he defended his warrantless search by citing terry and that the person had a cwp.
Just because you are armed with your CCW does not mean you are a threat. If you as a driver did not notify then I think it would be OK. But I would bet good money J. Rubin would call it bullshit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/opencarry/comments/1dkjri/according_to_us_v_deberry_lawful_possession_of_a/
No law expert, but my understanding is the DeBerry v US ruled that the presence of a firearm, where legal, is not reasonable suspicion. Same with US v Black, which is in our district. Charlotte, in fact.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/115084.P.pdf
Last edited:
There is a lot of caselaw to go with Terry v Ohio there was one recently that declared that simply the act of legally possessing a gun does not make the person dangerous under Terry.
Edit
@pinkbunny beat me to it.
Last edited:
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
I've been out of the game for a few years but that makes sense. Still won't protect you from uninformed officers but good to know. It honestly never crossed my mind when I dealt with a cwp holder to search them or ask to see the firearm. To me that was a symbol of the good guys and usually got them out of whatever I pulled them over for. I fear pro 2A LE are getting fewer and fewer
Last edited:
No, innocent until proven guilty does not apply to officers. Where do you get that idea? There is no presumption of innocence in any police encounter. None. If a police officer presumed someone innocent, why would he/she EVER pull anybody over? Conduct a Terry search? Perform a no-knock forceable entry? Question a suspect? Arrest anybody?
The STATE has the burden of proving guilt in the courts. This is where the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty" comes from...it comes from the COURTS. Not the arresting officer or the State who is prosecuting the citizen.
Maybe so. Maybe not.
But gypsum, the substance I was citing in my example, is not a compound substance with a lot of other substances in it which would product a positive result. It's calcium sufate dihydrate (dihydrate simply meaning it has water in it). CaSO . 2H2O
There are only a limited number of chemical reactions possible for CaSO.
But that's only a moot point anyway. We're talking about consent to, and probable cause for, a search. An officer is already doing a search if he's gotten to the point of testing a substance he's found.
And the test isn't definative, anyway...because there's an actual chemical analysis which has to be performed on the substance in question if the person is detained and charged.
Don't consent to a search if you're not being detained in the first place and he won't get to that point unless he chooses to come up with some form of probable cause. In which case, he was going to search you anyway.
Last edited:
So exercising one right surrenders others? Is the Bill of Rights now a choose only one proposition?
Sorry, he is not the kind of guy I want wearing a badge. That attitude demonstrates he is unfit!
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
That wasn't his view, he had a problem with it when he saw it done. I had never thought of that line of reasoning but apparently there are those out there who do. Maybe my post wasn't worded right but he questioned the officers reason for the search and that was the explanation he got.
Herin lies another problem, word of mouth training. One officer receives training on a subject, either hears it wrong or take the wrong lesson from the training and then proceeds to spread the misinformation among the others. I don't know how many times I've heard " that's what we were told".
Or the ever popular, "We have done it this way for 15 years! "
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
I don't know if that's so much a case of word of mouth training as it is speaking up when he saw someone do something incorrect. How many times have we heard people who bash complain that the good cops don't say anything hen they see a bad one do something wrong? If a guy is doing something that will get himself killed, jailed or sued someone should step up and say "hey, what are you doing? That's no the way it should be done."
thrillhill
Assistant TO The Regional Manager
Staff member
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Sponsor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Yep. Just can't help myself. It started when I was young. It's not my fault. It's a disease, not an addiction.
I thought one time I could switch from Krispy Kreme to Dunkin Donuts. You know, kinda wean myself off the hard stuff.
It didn't work.
I remember one time, after an especially onerous school fundraiser, I rolled home with over 8 kilos of Krsipy Kreme in my truck. I was nervous as all get out. Thank God I didn't get pulled that day.
The shame though. It is a stumbling block. Makes it hard to break the cycle.
In another context you can still read members right here on CFF telling others that they cannot concealed carry at a parade or funeral, etc. Not right, not done with malice, but still disseminating false information.
They should, but in no profession would ,or should, a coworker call out another coworker in front of customers. It undermines the integrity of the whole business to have a shouting match between co workers in public. (Yes Cops are just like everyone else they don't like to be called out in public) The proper thing to do would be to take that officer/co worker aside and correct him. That may be hard to do when the S is HTF. I know that isn't ideal but it's the way the world works.
T
The Swamp Fox
Guest
I totally agree with what you're saying. On a traffic stop there is ample opportunity for officers to talk to one another out of earshot of the driver. This conversation took place after the fact and was a simple question from officer to another about how he went obtaining pc or permission for the search. I must be bad at relaying the story but it seems like people are jumping to conclusions about my buddy condoning the search or jumping all over the guys case in front of the driver. Niether of which happened. Veteran officers routinely question the methods of the younger guys to keep each other sharp and to find out if they just if they are opening each other up to liability. If I go to back up another officer I want to know if he's done, doing or about to do something that's going to get us both in trouble.
There's a fundamental lack of understanding by a great many people with respect to law enforcement.
Police officers, for example, are NOT attorneys. They don't have the years of education it takes to pass the bar in their state, nor do they have the years of practical OJT that comes along with practicing law. And part of practicing law is a never ending cycle of continuing education in order to stay on top of what the law says, how it's being interpreted, and new laws that come out.
So it doesn't make sense to ask a police officer for legal advice. They're NOT attorneys. They're law enforcement. Different beast, with only the shell of a common factor between them.
So...how much actual continuing training do police officers, as a rule, receive? For that matter, how much actual continuing training does the average person receive in their day-to-day job?
A 40 hour work week just doesn't allow for much continuing training, if they're expected to earn their pay on the beat. And overtime isn't paid for training, it's paid for the officers to do the job that's needed when it's needed.
When I was still Active Duty on submarines, our day-to-day routine was integrated through-and-through with training. In addition to a typical 6 hour on, 12 hour off watch standing cycle, after watch we performed maintenance, repairs, and cleaning. Running drills was a daily routine, eating away at that 12 hours off, either as casualty response teams or drill monitor teams. Each week had Divisional training, Engineering Department training, EOOW/EWS training for me. Add to that General Military Training, studying and qualifying for various watchstations, casualty response training. And then there are the exams we had to take all the time, too.
That only touches on the training requirements that goes on all the time for a typical submariner.
Where does anybody else have that kind of time to commit to continuing training every single week when they're working a 40 hour work week?
It would be REALLY cool to hear from someone who has the experience as a LEO to talk about this.
Indeed. The written law isn't always easy to find, nor easy to understand. However, it would do a lot of people a world of good to actually read the source material itself (the written laws) and then proceed to discussions for clarification rather than ignoring the written laws in the first place.
The way you wrote that leads the reader to conclude that it was your buddy defending the warrantless search.
Nothing can be written so simply or clearly that it cannot be misunderstood.
Are you seriously suggesting that a police officer, who takes an oath to uphold the law, should watch the law be violated and not intervene simply because the offender is also sworn to uphold the law? Really?
So if I understand you correctly and you are consistent in applying that principle, if every hood rat publicly repeats the same magic words, they are immune from consequences?
BTW, we are not your customers.