Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/29/2002 5:21:54 PM EDT
Why in most states do the Officers prefer the violator to remain inside the vehicle? Here in south La. we want them out of the vehicle. I want to hear your opinion!
Link Posted: 5/29/2002 6:15:06 PM EDT
It's a safety issue. With them in the vehicle you have more control over them. Yes, there could be weapons in the vehicle, but its harder for them to see you should you take cover. Plus if they get hit by a vehicle outside the car, you could open yourself up to liability. Here in NY, if someone fails to get back in the vehilce at our direction, we arrest them for obstructing. Just my 2 cents
Link Posted: 5/29/2002 7:58:46 PM EDT
SnipAr15, Actually I want to hear why you guys in south LA take them out of the car. Am curious as to what your reason(s) are. I leave them in for the same reasons Jake75 said.
Link Posted: 5/30/2002 5:59:12 AM EDT
In GA theres no rule or reg on it. When I was chasing tail lights I always prefered them to stay in the vehicle. But It depended on what I saw and the manuerisms of the passengers.
Link Posted: 5/30/2002 6:02:15 AM EDT
It's a lot more difficult for them to shoot you when you're approaching because they are at a disadvantage physically. Plus, it makes it harder for them to run on foot, since they would first have to get out of the car (against your direction).
Link Posted: 5/30/2002 7:11:06 PM EDT
Keep em in the car and watch em. Get em they take the 2 steps it takes to react and turn it into 4 or 5 steps. If we hook you up while in the car the courts look more kindly on us tearing up your car to find your drugs/guns/cash /whatever.
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 1:31:01 PM EDT
well said 7ring....we are restricted enough for searches, no need to restrict ourselves any more.
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 1:55:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2002 6:25:35 PM EDT by QuikSilver]
I still think that he wasn't taking a favorable (ie: supporting the citizens) and recognizing the limits that are placed on LEO's thru the 4th amendment. It seemed as though he was complaining about not being able to search anyone he wanted to. It never ceases to amaze me the attitude some cops have. Not that all cops are bad, but the problem is that it only takes a few bad apples to spoil it for everyone else... EDITED: Dave, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was merely venting about what I saw as a blatant attempt at trying to tear away citizens rights. I am a guest here and I value the people and information presented here. I did not say all cops are bad, I was referring to his attitude. I re-read both 7ring and kbbbandits posts and I still see problems with the posts. I have edited the thread to remove any questionable remarks and I do apologize to the original poster of this thread (SnipAR15)for "high-jacking" it.
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 3:03:36 PM EDT
QuikSilver, kbbandit [b]was[/b] talking about the restrictions created by the 4th Amendment and search and seizure case law. If you stopped to engage your brain and read, you might have realized that. Knee-jerk cop-bashing is not permitted here. If you have a problem with a civil exchange, take it elsewhere. Otherwise, if you're not sure what someone said, ask them to clarify. Don't cram your foot in your mouth with a slam/flame based on misinterpretation or misunderstanding. You're welcome to post here if you're civil. No legitimate opinion is excluded, even if you don't agree with the others here. Dave G moderator
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 3:06:35 PM EDT
i think it is because we dont have as many wakoos as L.A. we figure not all (some) need to get out.
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 5:54:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 6:07:49 PM EDT
IMHO, there is one advantage to getting them out of the car, and that is sheer officer safety. If they are a single person (driver only), and you have them step out of their vehicle and approach yours, you have effectively cut them off from: 1) Any weapons they may have in their vehicle and 2) Their most immediate escape route (their vehicle). Also it is easier to see their hands when they're out of the car and it gives the officer a much better target should a shooting occur. On the other hand, if the suspect is out of his car, it could turn into a foot chase, which, from my own experience, is what arresting officers try to avoid once they're past their second year on the job (Rookies and first years are still in Academy shape and are specifically deployed for those fast-paced foot pursuits). A car chase, while somewhat higher in liability, is also an easier thing to stop and can justify the deployment of pursuit personnel, stop sticks, et cetera to make for an effective felony stop and a good arrest, as opposed to the possibility of someone outrunning a cop and the worst that happens is the car is impounded and the case becomes iffy in court. But for sheer personal safety, I'd rather get my suspect out of the car so I can unequivocally see his hands, period. I realize my opinion goes against common practice. But it's just my opinion. Panz [bounce]
Link Posted: 5/31/2002 6:23:04 PM EDT
Dave, I think that maybe YOU need to take a chill pill and reread kbbandit's post
well said 7ring....we are restricted enough for searches, no need to restrict ourselves any more.
View Quote
Seems to me that kb feels that the 4th is a hinderance. Isn't your car YOUR property? Just like your house? If so, probable cause and a warrant are needed, unless the driver/ocupant is wanted on a felony, or has just committed one. If a cop ever asked me if I'd submit to a search of my car, he'll get a "NO".
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 4:08:50 AM EDT
Isn't your car YOUR property? Just like your house? If so, probable cause and a warrant are needed
View Quote
Go to the library and read some law books. Warrants are not needed on a vehicle providing certain circumstances. In it's simplist terms, vehicles are mobile objects, homes are not.
unless the driver/ocupant is wanted on a felony, or has just committed one
View Quote
Ok what if you're wanted on a misdemeanor warrant? Television law degrees amaze me...
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 8:23:56 AM EDT
HydGuy, It's a point of view thing. To one with an LE background, when another LE Professional says "...we are restricted enough for searches, no need to restrict ourselves any more..." he is saying that the US and State Constitutions, as well as case law based on them and S & S codified laws provide sufficient restrictions on Search & Seizure. There is no need to add more restrictions ourselves by deliberately taking actions that would avoid situations were contraband is in plain sight. Seth is right, too.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 10:33:00 AM EDT
Dave, sure it's a point of view thing. But just because your point of view is that there are TOO MANY restrictions, doesn't mean that it's right.The Fourth Amendment is about protection, not obstruction or restriction. Seth, you have me on the misdemeanor. I should have just said warrants. But even so, is a person's briefcase not covered under the Fourth Amendment, even if it isn't ON their person. Just because there is case law supporting an action, doesn't make it Constitutional or right. How about a simple Restraining order? Is that sufficient enough to honestly keep a person from bearing arms? The majority herer think not, but it's a law, with NO constitutional ground to stand on. Like I said, if a cop asks to search my car he will get a polite but firm NO. P.S. Sorry about hijacking this thread!!
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 10:58:34 AM EDT
Hyd- I totally agree with you, Dave on the otherhand doesn't see anything wrong with any of the things said. I would go on but it would just piss Dave off and its not worth it.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 11:26:47 AM EDT
As far as the occupant of a stopped vehicle it's a different philosphy in some geographic areas. When I was pulled over in Ca.(I grew up there and was stopped a lot) the cops always wanted me out. I moved to AR. in 1984 and on my first stop I got my information out and stepped out of the vehicle, just like I had learned to do in CA. The trooper looked like he was going to draw and in a very stern voice advised me to get back in my car and wait. There are advantages to both methods, even from an officer safety point of view. I prefer that the occupants stay inside and if I have a reason to ask them to step out I will, sometimes one at a time. As far as the 4th, it's there for a reason and I totally support it. That being said, most all searches or inventories performed by me are consentual or subsequent to arrest. You would be surprised how many people will allow you to search even with Meth on their person or in the vehicle. In the end it is all a game and if I play by the rules I don't have to avoid myself in the mirror or try to remember what was what 6 months later when i go to court. Most of the Deputies I work with feel the same way. You learn to work and play the game by the rules and still make good arrests and go home at the end of your shift. That's what it is all about.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 11:51:23 AM EDT
QuikSilver, No offense taken. We just like to keep it lively but civil. Your edit is appreciated. QS and HG, Your prejudices appear to be clouding your understanding of what the LEO's are saying. Part of that may be that their comments are phrased as if they were speaking only to other LEO's and may not be as clear to a non-LEO as they would be to another officer. Neither 7ring nor kbbandit said that there were "Too many" restrictions, just that there were "enough" and that [b]WE[/b] didn't need to add more of our own. The word "enough" does not mean "too many." It means "Sufficient to meet a need or satisfy a desire; An adequate qantity." I think that there are "enough" restrictions on Search & Seizure to adequately guaranty peoples rights. Another thing is that your focus is too narrow, and you have been victims of "TV Law." Were you aware that if you are arrested for a misdemeanor and your vehicle is going to be towed, the arresting officer can choose to inventory the property in your car and can charge you if he finds contraband during the inventory? Really. He can. That's what 7ring meant when he said,"If we hook you up while in the car the courts look more kindly on us tearing up your car to find your drugs/guns/cash /whatever." That's cop talk for what I just said.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 12:56:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: The word "enough" does not mean "too many." Another thing is that your focus is too narrow, and you have been victims of "TV Law." Were you aware that if you are arrested for a misdemeanor and your vehicle is going to be towed, the arresting officer can choose to inventory the property in your car and can charge you if he finds contraband during the inventory? Really. He can. That's what 7ring meant when he said,"If we hook you up while in the car the courts look more kindly on us tearing up your car to find your drugs/guns/cash /whatever." That's cop talk for what I just said.
View Quote
Dave, I don't think the the problem is with the definition of enough. I know what it means, as do ther rest of us. But I think that the Founding Fathers whould have a fit over some of the searches that go on. As far as the search after arrest, yes I was aware of the possibility of charges for contraband found after a search. But that is IF you are arressted. You cannot be arrested for going 5-10 MPH over the speed limit or a broken tsail light (in and of those violations themselves). A cop asking to sarch on a routine stop is one LOOKING for an arrest. If there are no wants/warrants against the person, and the vehicle is legal, then where is the probable cause to even WANT to initiate a search? A joint in the ear, an 8 ball on the dash is one thing, but to just ask for no real reason than to get an answer is wrong.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 1:12:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/1/2002 1:17:06 PM EDT by QuikSilver]
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Your prejudices appear to be clouding your understanding of what the LEO's are saying. Part of that may be that their comments are phrased as if they were speaking only to other LEO's and may not be as clear to a non-LEO as they would be to another officer. Neither 7ring nor kbbandit said that there were "Too many" restrictions, just that there were "enough" and that [b]WE[/b] didn't need to add more of our own. The word "enough" does not mean "too many." It means "Sufficient to meet a need or satisfy a desire; An adequate qantity." I think that there are "enough" restrictions on Search & Seizure to adequately guaranty peoples rights.
View Quote
On a lighter note Dave, you sound like Clinton trying to define the word "is" [:D] ...now seriously, I can see what you are saying. I guess it was the way he said how he wanted to "tear up your car" to find anything he could nail you with, that was the attitude I was referring to. If its just cop talk, then so be it. It still comes across as having an egotistical attitude.
Another thing is that your focus is too narrow, and you have been victims of "TV Law." Were you aware that if you are arrested for a misdemeanor and your vehicle is going to be towed, the arresting officer can choose to inventory the property in your car and can charge you if he finds contraband during the inventory? Really. He can. That's what 7ring meant when he said,"If we hook you up while in the car the courts look more kindly on us tearing up your car to find your drugs/guns/cash /whatever." That's cop talk for what I just said.
View Quote
I understand that if you are arrested that they can search the vehicle. But that is only true if you are on a public road. If you are being pulled over with the lights flashing behind you, if you can find a shopping center, gas station or any other private property they cops cannot tow the vehicle. Although I believe that if you are on private property you could lock the vehicle and leave it there and have a friend/spouse/whoever come and drive it home. But correct me on that last part I'm not totally sure about the searching if on private property. Hyd basically took the letters off my fingertips with his last post. I couldn't have said it better myself. Its one thing to arrest for seeing something illegal (drugs) or a DUI arrest, its another to go on a fishing expedition for no good reason.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 3:31:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydguy: .....You cannot be arrested for going 5-10 MPH over the speed limit or a broken tsail light (in and of those violations themselves.
View Quote
In Texas. you can be if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you will fail to show up to either pay the fine or dispute it. It's not used often, but sometimes it is. Then the car must be inventoried.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 4:07:02 PM EDT
I understand that if you are arrested that they can search the vehicle. But that is only true if you are on a public road. If you are being pulled over with the lights flashing behind you, if you can find a shopping center, gas station or any other private property they cops cannot tow the vehicle. Although I believe that if you are on private property you could lock the vehicle and leave it there and have a friend/spouse/whoever come and drive it home. But correct me on that last part I'm not totally sure about the searching if on private property.
View Quote
Television law degree strikes again! Although the property may be considered private it is public accessed, therefore a police tow is warranted. Publicly accessed property is not some mysterious "safe zone".
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 4:47:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Neolock: In Texas. you can be if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you will fail to show up to either pay the fine or dispute it. It's not used often, but sometimes it is. Then the car must be inventoried.
View Quote
Sorry, but I don't live in texas, so I don't know their laws. In every state that I have lived in, anything less that 15 over is a moving violation, not an arrestable offence. Anything over that is up to the officer on wether or not you are arrested. As for inop safety equipment, I don't think that there is any state that allow for arrest for that. I just find it funny that there are so many cops that are willing to push this kind of crap. And for that reason, I don't believe that there should be any kind of breaks cut for "fellow" cops. All people should be treated equally. But it will never happen.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 5:22:38 PM EDT
We're nitpicking guys. In most, if not all states, there are circumstances where you can be taken forthwith before a magistrate or the violator can demand it. If it's after hours, you get booked. Oh...and your car gets towed. If you don't want an officer to search your car, when he asks, say "No." The officer has the absolute right to ask.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 6:48:18 PM EDT
Dave_G What happens/happened when you tow a car. An inventory search right? Also if I want in a car most people do enough jumping around in the car after they stop before I get to the car. I also think people should be secure in their vehicles/homes. If don't want me in your car obey the law and I will simply wave or nod at you. Remember to smile because I'm on camera when I'm on duty.
Link Posted: 6/1/2002 8:10:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/1/2002 8:11:52 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Yup, yup, yup...Uh-Huh. Car gets tossed and towed. Yup, yup, yup. [bounce]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 2:37:31 PM EDT
What concerns me more (to stray off topic just a little) is those little situations where the nice officer asks to search your car, and you refuse, per your constitutional right, and he says, "My training in drug interdiction causes me to interpret your refusal as probable cause to search your vehicle. Please step out now, keeping your hands in plain sight." Sort of a catch-22, don't you think? I've been advised by counsel to refuse all voluntary searches on principle, ESPECIALLY if innocent. I wonder what kind of court case would come out of a situation like that? Just a thought. Just for the record, I've been on both sides. That's why I have counsel on retainer. Panz [bounce]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:17:28 PM EDT
You do exactly what he says and let him search the car without interferring and let your retained counsel work out anything he finds AND charges you with in court. If he finds contraband and confiscates it as such, but doesn't charge you with anything, you're just out the contraband and don't need your attorney. If you feel it necessary to have counsel on retainer, it makes one wonder what exactly it is you are doing that makes it necessary for you to do that. Hmmm....
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:41:13 AM EDT
Probably the same reason I have counsel on retainer. I carry a weapon and have been known to have LEGAL NFA items in my possession, which most locals don't know squat about. I'd rather not have to pick an attorney out of the phonebook if I'm sitting in jail some night because Barney and Andy decided "You cain't have one of them there MACHINE GUNS! Git in the car, boy!" It's just insurance, nothing more, nothing less. Be careful you don't fall into the trap of thinking, "If you didn't do anything wrong, why am I talking to you?" QS
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 4:13:47 PM EDT
I retain counsel for several reasons: 1) Many of the arrests I have made are still pending in the court system, even though I have long since hung up my badge and gun (Not LEO, Bail) 2) I am still licensed as a security officer, armed qualified, which, in this litigious society is enough in and of itself to warrant retention of counsel to combat frivolous lawsuits. 3) I enjoy my freedoms and my privacy, and as previously stated, the time to select a lawyer you trust (at least as far as you can throw him) is NOT while you're cooling your heels in the county hoosegow. As I've said, I've been on both sides. It can get sticky on either side of the enforcement process, whether you are the enforcer or the enforcee. THAT's why I retain counsel. Fair enough? Panz [bounce]
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 11:28:05 AM EDT
I leave them in the vehicle unless they are unable to produce ID, start acting suspicios, or I have at least a Misdemeanor violation. Around here if you pull someone out of the car the judge is going to want to know why. They dont want to here, "becuase the courts have said we can" as an answer.
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 6:25:45 PM EDT
I also retain counsel because of the job I do. My first month on the job was exciting. Having my name plastered on the hometown rag of a paper was not. My lawyer got my side of the story out when the department would not.
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 6:54:56 PM EDT
I usually leave them in, although I let the situation dictate the tactics. [:D] P3[pyro][^][heavy]
Top Top