[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Cops - Is this probable cause? (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 2/23/2010 6:04:28 PM EDT
|
Just got off the phone with my dad who lives in Illinois and works on the outskirts of Chicago (I feel for him). Anyways, yesterday on the way home from work he had to make a detour as his usual way from the office was shutdown and traffic was aweful. Apparently he didn't know the alternative routes home as well as he thought he did because he ended up driving through the ghetto to his dismay.
To make things worse, as he is trying to figure out where to go and not get carjacked in the process a Chicago city cop pulls up behind him and turns his lights on. My dad said he was quite surprised and actually thought he was being pulled over for driving too slow because he kept trying to read the street signs. Pulls over, cop gets out and asks for the usual license, registration, blah blah blah. Das asks what this is about and the cop says he'll be right back. Cop comes back a few minutes later as another cruiser shows up and asks my dad how much cash he had on him, and if there is anything in the car. At this point, my dad has the WTF look on his face and says he has like 20$ in his pocket...and what are you asking me for? They pulled him over because he was a white male, in the ghetto, in a higher-end Mercedes. They said that the fact he had cash on him and was driving in the hood was probable cause to him looking for a drug dealer or something 'illegal'. Are you fucking kidding me? Can they fucking do this? Pull you over for what part of town you are in? At this point he tells them they cannot search his car and after sitting there another 10 minutes they let him go. Seriously...what the fuck? And no, he wasn't trolling for hookers and blow because he probably would have called to ask for directions. |
|
Based on your account - probable cause wasn't involved.... which is fine since they didn't search or ask to search the car.
This happens fairly often in the 'hood. I will leave it to the board cops that know about local departmental policy about the stop. My vague memory tells me that the cops were within legal limits. |
| All that is needed for a traffic stop is Reasonable suspicion, probable cause is for an arrest. I don't work the ghetto, so I can't tell you yes or know, or what case law says. All I know is that I have to see a violation of the law to stop a car. If I stopped a car leaving a bar because I "had a suspicion" he was drunk, I would be laughed out of court. Sounds like bullshit to me... |
| He could have left at anytime and been in the right. A cop can stop somebody to question them whether in a car or on foot, but they can't detain the person without a violation or other probable cause. Most courts would toss anything illegal found during a stop if the cops admitted to stopping a car just because of what was essentially profiling. |
|
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there.
All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. |
|
Quoted: Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. |
|
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. There is a time and a place for what he articulated. I wouldnt use it all the time....but there is a time and place for it. Abusing it is what gets the stereotypes. |
|
Quoted: Just got off the phone with my dad who lives in Illinois and works on the outskirts of Chicago (I feel for him). Anyways, yesterday on the way home from work he had to make a detour as his usual way from the office was shutdown and traffic was aweful. Apparently he didn't know the alternative routes home as well as he thought he did because he ended up driving through the ghetto to his dismay. To make things worse, as he is trying to figure out where to go and not get carjacked in the process a Chicago city cop pulls up behind him and turns his lights on. My dad said he was quite surprised and actually thought he was being pulled over for driving too slow because he kept trying to read the street signs. Pulls over, cop gets out and asks for the usual license, registration, blah blah blah. Das asks what this is about and the cop says he'll be right back. Cop comes back a few minutes later as another cruiser shows up and asks my dad how much cash he had on him, and if there is anything in the car. At this point, my dad has the WTF look on his face and says he has like 20$ in his pocket...and what are you asking me for? They pulled him over because he was a white male, in the ghetto, in a higher-end Mercedes. They said that the fact he had cash on him and was driving in the hood was probable cause to him looking for a drug dealer or something 'illegal'. Are you fucking kidding me? Can they fucking do this? Pull you over for what part of town you are in? At this point he tells them they cannot search his car and after sitting there another 10 minutes they let him go. Seriously...what the fuck? And no, he wasn't trolling for hookers and blow because he probably would have called to ask for directions. i am gonna make a call and say - NO –– it is Reasonable Suspicion but not Probable Cause –– Probable Cause - an exact definition is not possible - probable cause is a fluid concept, and is different based on the assessment of probabilities in regards to specific facts or factual contexts. What this means is that probable cause exists where known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. ( had to drag out an old school book to get the precise wording down). The test courts will use is the "Totality of the Circumstances" to determine PC. - the officer may have mis-stated the terms (which is not good) but if there were Probable Cause they would not have needed his permission to search the car –– as with PC and some articulable facts (which vary from case to case) you can get a warrant. (understand this is a vast generalization) a couple of good cases to look at in regards to this - Michigan v. Long ( which includes vehicles into Terry) and Whren v. US ( where the SCOTUS upheld pretextual stops) other things to remember - yes they can pull him over if he is driving erratically, or stopping in the middle of the road even if they want to question him about drugs (i.e. Pretextual stop) - yes they can question him about why he is in the area, where he is going etc, as long as they do not detain past the point of time it would take to issue/finish the original cause for the stop. - there are no time limits established by any court as reasonable - it is judged on reasonableness of any other officer given the facts at that time. so if he refused and they had him sit there for 10 minutes to get a K9 to sniff the car, that would be reasonable - if they had him sit for 10 hours to wait for a K9 that would NOT be reasonable. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. |
|
i am gonna make a call and say - NO –– it is Reasonable Suspicion but not Probable Cause –– Probable Cause - an exact definition is not possible - probable cause is a fluid concept, and is different based on the assessment of probabilities in regards to specific facts or factual contexts. What this means is that probable cause exists where known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. ( had to drag out an old school book to get the precise wording down). The test courts will use is the "Totality of the Circumstances" to determine PC. - the officer may have mis-stated the terms (which is not good) but if there were Probable Cause they would not have needed his permission to search the car –– as with PC and some articulable facts (which vary from case to case) you can get a warrant. (understand this is a vast generalization) a couple of good cases to look at in regards to this - Michigan v. Long ( which includes vehicles into Terry) and Whren v. US ( where the SCOTUS upheld pretextual stops) other things to remember - yes they can pull him over if he is driving erratically, or stopping in the middle of the road even if they want to question him about drugs (i.e. Pretextual stop) - yes they can question him about why he is in the area, where he is going etc, as long as they do not detain past the point of time it would take to issue/finish the original cause for the stop. - there are no time limits established by any court as reasonable - it is judged on reasonableness of any other officer given the facts at that time. so if he refused and they had him sit there for 10 minutes to get a K9 to sniff the car, that would be reasonable - if they had him sit for 10 hours to wait for a K9 that would NOT be reasonable" Very well said and quite accurate. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Wow for a public servant you sure have a lot of disdain for said public. |
|
Probable cause is not necessary to make a traffic stop guys. A stop can be based on articulable reasonable suspicion. That's all that's needed. The stop was based on previous encounters the officer has most likely encountered. A ten to twelve stop also isn't unreasonable for an investigatory stop. SCOTUS has ruled on this exact stop numerous times.
Now to the person who says the can just drive away before released by the officer, you are incorrect. Then you have most likely committed an obstruction offense or similar state statute. I know this post will elicit a ton of jbt comments and that's ok...but research the law before you flame the leo's here. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. calm down just playing devils advocate but what about "Out of Place" walking around on a public sidewalk - can you be stopped? would you be upset at being stopped? before you start calling your lawyer i would see Terry v. Ohio. |
|
Quoted: This part is the reason. What divine power gives you the precognition to know a car "needs to be stopped"? You don't have any. You just stop innocent people going about their lawful way and detain them for no other reason then because you think they "need to be stopped"Quoted: Quoted: Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. Sure you may catch a bad guy now and then with this tactic but you give the law enforcement community a black eye doing it. Profiling is not a tool at your disposal. Precognition is not taught in any academy or endorsed as a law enforcement tool by any agency. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Wow for a public servant you sure have a lot of disdain for said public. Back that up. That is absolutely not true. What was I supposed to do in patrol, sit around and scratch my ass until a call came in? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Please understand, I very much appreciate what 98% of what LEO do every day. I am also very well aware of what the law is. What the OP described is clearly improper. The police involved COULD have made everything proper by waiting until they saw a traffic violation, but they didn’t. And yes, I am a lawyer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This part is the reason. What divine power gives you the precognition to know a car "needs to be stopped"? You don't have any. You just stop innocent people going about their lawful way and detain them for no other reason then because you think they "need to be stopped"
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. Sure you may catch a bad guy now and then with this tactic but you give the law enforcement community a black eye doing it. Profiling is not a tool at your disposal. Precognition is not taught in any academy or endorsed as a law enforcement tool by any agency. Bullshit. People profile all the time not just cops. After you've been in patrol for a while you learn what to look for in an investigative stop. That's one of the ways we catch crooks. We don't just trip over them walking into the Krispy Kream or responding to a call. We're supposed to be looking for crooks between radio calls. Duh. They don't just climb in the back seat, give me their dope and ask me to take them to jail. You people who think that cops are mind readers make me laugh. Like we're supposed to know that a guy looking like a doper is just off work or in poor health, or is the deacon at his church. Crooks come in all shapes and sizes. Investigative stops are not randomly made on folks. There's a reason that something catches aour attention and a lot of times it works out to nothing. Take off the tin foil. 99% of cops in this country don't want a police state either and work hard to protect citizens and respect their rights. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Building a case? Oh nice word for fishing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Please understand, I very much appreciate what 98% of what LEO do every day. I am also very well aware of what the law is. What the OP described is clearly improper. The police involved COULD have made everything proper by waiting until they saw a traffic violation, but they didn’t. And yes, I am a lawyer. Then if you're a lawyer you should know that you probably didn't hear all the facts. You are assuming that they just made the stop and they may have. I'm assuming they saw something before they made the stop and having spent almost 25 years doing it that is an educated guess on my part. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. calm down just playing devils advocate but what about "Out of Place" walking around on a public sidewalk - can you be stopped? would you be upset at being stopped? before you start calling your lawyer i would see Terry v. Ohio. Upset while walking, yes… but to a much lesser degree. What does the cop ask at this point? What does he tell the person? When walking, if not told “you have to stay here and answer questions” then the person is automatically free to leave. Walking, however, is different than driving. The very nature of a traffic stop (and the subsequent taking of the DL, registration, etc.) makes it very clear that a person is not free to leave until given permission. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Please understand, I very much appreciate what 98% of what LEO do every day. I am also very well aware of what the law is. What the OP described is clearly improper. The police involved COULD have made everything proper by waiting until they saw a traffic violation, but they didn’t. And yes, I am a lawyer. Then if you're a lawyer you should know that you probably didn't hear all the facts. You are assuming that they just made the stop and they may have. I'm assuming they saw something before they made the stop and having spent almost 25 years doing it that is an educated guess on my part. Very possible. Just going on the facts provided by the OP. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. Good luck with that. It is common knowledge in the law world that cops do just that sort of thing. Its called building a case. You see something that is out of place and you investigate that's what cops are supposed to do. Or do you think we should just drive around aimlessly looking busy to appease the public so they think they're tax dollars are at work? We're paid to go out and investigate all sorts of things and that includes suspicious activity. It has to be gone about legally, though. You can't just stop someone because you don't like the way they shined their shoes. It has nothing to do with hassling people, its about being curious and sniffing out criminal activity. Building a case? Oh nice word for fishing. Call it what you want. Here's how it works in a nutshell: You see a vehicle or person that for some reason gets your attention. Believe it or not, you naive people, there are telltale signs of what a crook looks like and what a crook car looks like. So now you want to contact that person because you get that feeling something is up. Don't tell me none of you never have a feeling when something isn't right or is afoot so don't condem cops for feeling it, too. We're pretty good at it. So you look for probable cause in most cases or reasonable suspicion and contact the person or make the traffic stop. A pretext stop is quite legal and a very effective tool. You just shouldn't manufacture P.C. and I never did. One thing leads to another and you see dope in the car, property you know may have been stolen from a case you know about. The driver has warrants or a suspended license, etc. You arrest the driver for the warrant or you're going to tow the car because of the suspended license so you need to inventory the car prior to storing it and you find the dope, gun, body, whatever it might be. If you arrested the guy you have to search him and that's when you find the dope, gun stolen I.D. etc. That's one of the ways you catch crooks. If that is too ugly and dirty for some of you delicate people its time to start living in the real world. One of the things that always pissed me off was the attitude of some people that they wanted us to do the job but you'd better not let them see how its really done or there's hell to pay. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This part is the reason. What divine power gives you the precognition to know a car "needs to be stopped"? You don't have any. You just stop innocent people going about their lawful way and detain them for no other reason then because you think they "need to be stopped"Quoted: Quoted: Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. Sure you may catch a bad guy now and then with this tactic but you give the law enforcement community a black eye doing it. Profiling is not a tool at your disposal. Precognition is not taught in any academy or endorsed as a law enforcement tool by any agency. Bullshit. People profile all the time not just cops. After you've been in patrol for a while you learn what to look for in an investigative stop. That's one of the ways we catch crooks. We don't just trip over them walking into the Krispy Kream or responding to a call. We're supposed to be looking for crooks between radio calls. Duh. They don't just climb in the back seat, give me their dope and ask me to take them to jail. You people who think that cops are mind readers make me laugh. Like we're supposed to know that a guy looking like a doper is just off work or in poor health, or is the deacon at his church. Crooks come in all shapes and sizes. Investigative stops are not randomly made on folks. There's a reason that something catches aour attention and a lot of times it works out to nothing. Take off the tin foil. 99% of cops in this country don't want a police state either and work hard to protect citizens and respect their rights. From what I've read you must be in that other 1%. Just what does a "doper" look like? The Pastor of my Church rides to service on his Harley and has full tattoo sleeves on both arms. Your just digging your hole deeper. Put down the keyboard and step away. You are being profiled as a gestapo power hungry pig and anything you say can and will be used against you. Hows it feel? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. The way I looked at it just him being out of place was not enough reasonable suspicion for me to make the stop. I wanted more than that just in case I found something I wanted to have a solid case for court. I probably let a lot of crooks move on but I didn't want to manufacture probable cause and I didn't want to do a huge amount of work on a case that may have been weak. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Bull fucking shit! “Out of place” by driving on a public road? Not a legal reason to stop a car. If that happened in SC I would gladly sue the pants off them. calm down just playing devils advocate but what about "Out of Place" walking around on a public sidewalk - can you be stopped? would you be upset at being stopped? before you start calling your lawyer i would see Terry v. Ohio. Upset while walking, yes… but to a much lesser degree. What does the cop ask at this point? What does he tell the person? When walking, if not told “you have to stay here and answer questions” then the person is automatically free to leave. Walking, however, is different than driving. The very nature of a traffic stop (and the subsequent taking of the DL, registration, etc.) makes it very clear that a person is not free to leave until given permission. A traffic stop is much more intrusive than a pedestrian stop and you need to have more for it. However, we can talk to anyone we want when they're walking along, or in a business, etc.. They don't have to stop or give us any information if they don't want to and I can ask any question I want. There is no custody or detention situation. If I ask questions and they answer i.e., name, rank, serial number, etc then that is their option. Plenty of times I didn't have anything on someone but I just had that feeling about them. If they were dumb enough to answer all my questions truthfully in what was nothing more than a conversation and I found they were wanted for a crime or warrants then that's their problem. They shouldn't have talked to me. They were under no obligation to talk with me and if they don't know that its not up to me to start every contact with, " I must advise you of you right not to talk to me if you don't want to, you're under no obligation". Its not my responsibility to advise them of their civil rights every time I make a contact. It is a citizens duty to know their rights. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This part is the reason. What divine power gives you the precognition to know a car "needs to be stopped"? You don't have any. You just stop innocent people going about their lawful way and detain them for no other reason then because you think they "need to be stopped"
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. Sure you may catch a bad guy now and then with this tactic but you give the law enforcement community a black eye doing it. Profiling is not a tool at your disposal. Precognition is not taught in any academy or endorsed as a law enforcement tool by any agency. Bullshit. People profile all the time not just cops. After you've been in patrol for a while you learn what to look for in an investigative stop. That's one of the ways we catch crooks. We don't just trip over them walking into the Krispy Kream or responding to a call. We're supposed to be looking for crooks between radio calls. Duh. They don't just climb in the back seat, give me their dope and ask me to take them to jail. You people who think that cops are mind readers make me laugh. Like we're supposed to know that a guy looking like a doper is just off work or in poor health, or is the deacon at his church. Crooks come in all shapes and sizes. Investigative stops are not randomly made on folks. There's a reason that something catches aour attention and a lot of times it works out to nothing. Take off the tin foil. 99% of cops in this country don't want a police state either and work hard to protect citizens and respect their rights. From what I've read you must be in that other 1%. Just what does a "doper" look like? The Pastor of my Church rides to service on his Harley and has full tattoo sleeves on both arms. Your just digging your hole deeper. Put down the keyboard and step away. You are being profiled as a gestapo power hungry pig and anything you say can and will be used against you. Hows it feel? It feels like you're talking out your ass and know nothing of law enforcement. T.V. shows are not reality. Crooks come in all shapes and sizes. Some crooks look like crooks some don't Some regular upstanding folks look like dirtbags but aren't. Several of my friends fit in that category. |
| No, they stopped the car because your father was driving too slow. They can do that. They can use that as a pretext for a stop; it is done all the time and is perfectly legal according to SCOTUS. Pretextual stops are used to net arrests and seizures for bigger crimes, like cruising the ghetto for guns, drugs, and hookers. Older white guys cruise the ghetto all the time looking for those and the police acted appropriately using the traffic offense as reason to conduct the stop as a means of investigation. The stop nets the police a legal encounter from which they can develop information about the above. Consent searches? You have no idea how many people say " go ahead". |
|
Quoted:
No, they stopped the car because your father was driving too slow. They can do that. They can use that as a pretext for a stop; it is done all the time and is perfectly legal according to SCOTUS. Pretextual stops are used to net arrests and seizures for bigger crimes, like cruising the ghetto for guns, drugs, and hookers. Older white guys cruise the ghetto all the time looking for those and the police acted appropriately using the traffic offense as reason to conduct the stop as a means of investigation. The stop nets the police a legal encounter from which they can develop information about the above. Consent searches? You have no idea how many people say " go ahead". Well said. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This part is the reason. What divine power gives you the precognition to know a car "needs to be stopped"? You don't have any. You just stop innocent people going about their lawful way and detain them for no other reason then because you think they "need to be stopped"Quoted: Quoted: Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. Sure you may catch a bad guy now and then with this tactic but you give the law enforcement community a black eye doing it. Profiling is not a tool at your disposal. Precognition is not taught in any academy or endorsed as a law enforcement tool by any agency. Bullshit. People profile all the time not just cops. After you've been in patrol for a while you learn what to look for in an investigative stop. That's one of the ways we catch crooks. We don't just trip over them walking into the Krispy Kream or responding to a call. We're supposed to be looking for crooks between radio calls. Duh. They don't just climb in the back seat, give me their dope and ask me to take them to jail. You people who think that cops are mind readers make me laugh. Like we're supposed to know that a guy looking like a doper is just off work or in poor health, or is the deacon at his church. Crooks come in all shapes and sizes. Investigative stops are not randomly made on folks. There's a reason that something catches aour attention and a lot of times it works out to nothing. Take off the tin foil. 99% of cops in this country don't want a police state either and work hard to protect citizens and respect their rights. From what I've read you must be in that other 1%. Just what does a "doper" look like? The Pastor of my Church rides to service on his Harley and has full tattoo sleeves on both arms. Your just digging your hole deeper. Put down the keyboard and step away. You are being profiled as a gestapo power hungry pig and anything you say can and will be used against you. Hows it feel? It feels like you're talking out your ass and know nothing of law enforcement. T.V. shows are not reality. No I know nothing. I'm the only one of the males in my family for the past four generations that wasn't a Detroit cop. And yes a couple of them were in that 1% too. I know you all too well. |
|
"How much money do you have on you sir."
"Enough to prove in a court I am not a vagrant." 'Well sir, you are a white guy driving a Mercedes in a rough area of town,,,' "Are you detaining me, arresting me or asking me for a date? because I am calling my lawyer now." Stop talking to the Police at that time even if and even more should they then place you under arrest and seize your Property. It won't generally go this far in Chicago or any other Illinois city because they can't afford the lawsuit that will follow provided the suspect is in the right and knows it. If the suspect is a tiny bit dirty the cops can smell the stench and they will find something that will lead to arrest. Even so,,,,stop talking, contact your attorney. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This part is the reason. What divine power gives you the precognition to know a car "needs to be stopped"? You don't have any. You just stop innocent people going about their lawful way and detain them for no other reason then because you think they "need to be stopped"
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your one of the reasons there are negative LEO stereotypes.
They were within their limits. His car was obviously so out of place there and he probably fit the profile of upper-class white guys going in to buy drugs. He was profiled. The fact that he was there was not probable cause to stop him. The cops were doing an investigative stop to see who he was and why he was there. All they had to do was observe his driving long enough to think maybe he was DUI because he was driving so slowly. Maybe he didn't signal his turn, didn't come to a complete stop etc, etc. Bingo! Probable cause to make the stop. Investigative stops are done ALL the time. That's how I caught a lot of crooks. See a car that needs to be stopped and just wait for a moving violation or equipment violation. The vehicle code was my friend. I used to read it in the can when I was new so I'd know all the little obscure violations to use as a tool. It was very effective. Why is that? Do you think cops are supposed to be purely reactive? We are given tools for a reason. I didn't drive around looking for Ma and Pa Kettle to give them a ticket for some minor B.S. I used tools to catch bad guys. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? You sound like the kind of person who's pissed if you see us taking a coffee break not doing anything then you get pissed because we use the tools at our disposal to put deserving people in jail. Sure you may catch a bad guy now and then with this tactic but you give the law enforcement community a black eye doing it. Profiling is not a tool at your disposal. Precognition is not taught in any academy or endorsed as a law enforcement tool by any agency. Bullshit. People profile all the time not just cops. After you've been in patrol for a while you learn what to look for in an investigative stop. That's one of the ways we catch crooks. We don't just trip over them walking into the Krispy Kream or responding to a call. We're supposed to be looking for crooks between radio calls. Duh. They don't just climb in the back seat, give me their dope and ask me to take them to jail. You people who think that cops are mind readers make me laugh. Like we're supposed to know that a guy looking like a doper is just off work or in poor health, or is the deacon at his church. Crooks come in all shapes and sizes. Investigative stops are not randomly made on folks. There's a reason that something catches aour attention and a lot of times it works out to nothing. Take off the tin foil. 99% of cops in this country don't want a police state either and work hard to protect citizens and respect their rights. From what I've read you must be in that other 1%. Just what does a "doper" look like? The Pastor of my Church rides to service on his Harley and has full tattoo sleeves on both arms. Your just digging your hole deeper. Put down the keyboard and step away. You are being profiled as a gestapo power hungry pig and anything you say can and will be used against you. Hows it feel? It feels like you're talking out your ass and know nothing of law enforcement. T.V. shows are not reality. No I know nothing. I'm the only one of the males in my family for the past four generations that wasn't a Detroit cop. And yes a couple of them were in that 1% too. I know you all too well. In Detroit I'd believe that. But you don't know shit because if you knew me you'd know I wasn't in that 1%. I don't need to prove anything to anyone here. I retired honorably, was never sued, never abused anyone, rarely lost a case of any kind because I played by the rules and treated people right. Crooks, too. I can truely look myself in the mirror knowing I was fair and did a good job for the citizens I worked for. Good night. And the next time someone steals your car, burgs your house or makes you some kind of victim get your friends to solve the case. I love it when people rag on cops and how we're the Gestapo and want a police state and then when something happens to them we're the first people you call. I guess we're a necessary evil to some of you. That's cool. It was the most fun I had with my clothes on and I made a good living. Good retirement, too. Thanks. |
|
Had a couple of late teen-early 20's girls in the depth of the 'hood at O-dark-thirty. They claimed they were visiting a "friend", but couldn't provide a last name, an address or a phone number. They were driving a 1-year old 300 series Beemer and were from the nearly up$cale $uburb. Of course, after they get stopped, one of them conveniently has an "anxiety attack", requiring us to show up, that miraculously remitted when they discovered they weren't getting arrested. Yeah, it's profiling... it works for more than just race. It's called "what's out of place" and is related to the pre-school game of "one of these things is not like the other". |
I caught one our the LA City Board Members (White) in the hood (Watts) sitting in a Mercedes being jerked off by a hooker while she read a dirty story to him that he wrote. Botton line is that he didn't fit the norm for that area. The kicker is when we pulled him out of his car a vibrator fell out of his arse and onto the ground. Continued to buzz for several minutes to his dismay.... 
|