I know they are chasing a serial killer, but the white van lead is shaky at best.

For you LEO's - what is the Probable Cause to stop EVERY white van?

How can they ticket these folks for violations when they had no real P/C to pull them over.

How can they legally justify pulling over white vans and photographing the drivers and their information?

This seems to be going too far.  After all, there were 5 people killed.  Probably 10 died in car accidents in Maryland in the same time period.  We don't pull over and photograph all the cars on the road.

If a Camry is involved in a bank robber, does that justify pulling over EVERY Camry?

If a black man is involved in a crime, do you stop EVERY black man?  No.


Flame suit on.

From what I have heard on local TV...I am local to this stuff.....

They are not ticketing the motorists they are searching after given consent.  It appears most drivers are cooperating and going about their business after the search.  

A local radio show had a guy call in who is a regular on the show and he was driving a white box truck, got stopped, cuffed, put in the car and he thought it was no big deal and understandable.

Honestly, if I was in a truck and I was right as rain, then I would comply and not sweat it.  Unless the cops started being dicks or something.....but at this point it appears they have gone by the "book".

Ed

God you're dumb.  There are murderers using a white truck, of course you're going to stop any trucks that match that description.  Do you think that's somehow a violation of civil rights?  Vehicular profiling?

This whole incident has been the midwife of so many cracked ideas it's amazing. "The VPC is behind this shooting in order to ban assault rifles!"  "These shootings happened very close to the election, COINCIDENCE?"  [rolleyes]

Probable cause for at least the car stop based only on the "white van" description is OK. Even if it means stopping every white van w/in a certain radius. You would have to be able to articulate in court that the vehicle fit the basic description and was within a distance that a vehicle could have gone in x amount of time. Anything more than the stop you would than have to articulate further. For example, we stopped the van based on a basic description, we searched the van based on the fact that we observed a loose shell casing on the floor or we smelled gunpowder etc. These are just examples, we dont need to pick these apart. Since the stop is OK, then any violations, bench warrants etc that turn up are therefore OK. Plus given the situation you would also have something called "exigent circumstances" where the rules can be bent slightly because of the circumstances. At least those are the rules here in NY, they probably arent much different in MD.
            NY LEO.

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

They ARE ticketing van drivers, for legitimate things like expired tags and such.

They ARE photographing all the van's drivers, papers, etc....  I got that first hand from a person I met this morning that was subjected to it.

Apparantly they are doing this to ensure they can track any of the folks they've pulled over.

raven - thanks bud.  God bless you too.

Okay, genius.  You have 5 killings with the shooter possibly using a white box van.  How would you handle it?

Simple.  Go to the gun stores, confiscate all the 4473's and raid the homes of all AR-15 owners.  Then go after any other rifle in a similar caliber.

While we are there, we may as well just confiscate the weapons so those owners don't flip out and do a copy-cat killing.

To be really safe, we should probably put all Maryland gun owners in interment camps.

My ideas are absurd in this day and time.

Stop with the 'I am better than you, blah, blah, blah' crap.  If you were looking for a murderer who might be using a white van, how would you handle it?  Answer the fucking question.

Well there's your PC right there. I certainly don't have a problem with them writing these people in white vans who wind up not being the shooter, but having expired tags. I have to pay $350 a year for my vehicle tags, why can't they pay for theirs?

Yup, they stop every truck.

[img]http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I42110-2002Oct04[/img]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40939-2002Oct3.html[/url]

You re-institute a constitutional government. Make the citizens responsible for their own safety. Tell everyone with a firearm to carry it in the open.

I also question the validity of stopping every white van. Certainly it would be Constitutionally unacceptable to stop every white van on the grounds that it is a white van. That description is so ridiculously vague and broad that a stopping of every white van based on the fact that it is a white van is inherently unreasonable.

As far as probable cause, however, I believe that, Constitutionally, law enforcement is not required to meet the probable cause requirements. Often referred to as a "Terry Stop" (named after a Sup Ct Case involving a man named terry)a traffic stop requires only that if a police officer has knowledge of sufficient articulable facts at the time of the encounter to create a "reasonable suspicion" that the person in question has committed, or is about to commit, a crime, the officer may briefly stop and detain the person to make reasonable inquiries, without first obtaining a warrant.

The reasonble suspicion standard is somewhat less rigorous and demanding than that of probable cause though its a very gray area and only a matter of degree.

Of course law enforcement may make such a stop for the most minor of infractions (tail light out, failure to use turn signal, license plate light out, expired registration, etc.). Sadly, there are also those officers who will make a stop on fabricated facts and unfortunately the court is more likely to believe the officer than you, the offender. It doesn't matter (says the supreme court) that the officer really stopped you for another reason. IF he had ANY legitimate reason to stop you, his motivation is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Food for thought

EDITED IN: I would respectfully disagree with the NY LEO post that you could stop every white van in a certain radius based on that description. The post mentions, for instance that that if you spot a van and it matches the gneral description (white van) and could have traveled to that location in x amount of time from the time it was identified (presumably) then it is ok to stop. Based on that rationale, the more time that passes, the wider the search may be. Eventually law enforcement could stop every white van in the country based on the description "white van" assuming enough time has passed. If that were the case, just about every vehicle in the country would be fair game by now as having being identified (blue car, for example). I would strenuously argue that the description "white van" is FAR too vague to justify a stop by itself. Of course, any legitimate reason no matter how small, will justify the stop of any vehicle and as the Officer pointed out, further observations by law enforcement may lead to searches, arrest, etc.

*the above shall not be construed as legal advice and I accept no liability for the acts of other persons. I am not a lawyer.

I support this 100%.  Law enforcement needs every tool available to help find these perpetrators and if a few innocent people lose their guns, well, it is the lesser of 2 evils.

Yes, this is legal.  It is known as "vehicle-ism" or, more properly, as "vehiclism."

The fact that it was a white van has nothing to do with it.  It's about time that it starts happening to white vans!

Ah, but you may ask "Is it moral and ethical?"  That is the question for the ages.

[/sarcasm mode]

Unless someone came up with a better description of the perps other that "maybe, a white cargo van is involved", I wouldn't be stopping jack shit.

Jay
[img]http://members.cox.net/azcop/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]

They should put an orange sticker on every van they stop. That way they will not stop the same one twice. [:D]

Bravo!.....I didn't know Einstein have twins!

Huh?  I don't get it.

They are using orange stickers.

Of course that just let's the bad guys steal a sticker and drive their truck away.

In response to legalese77, you'll have to trust me on the validity of the stop based solely on the white van description. I agree that it is not much of a description but it's all they had to go on and based on 5 homicides I believe it would be looked at as a good stop. Of course the Ron Kubys and William Kunstlers of this legal world would try to fight it as a bad stop and the Supreme Ct may even find it bad but I doubt it.
You did however take my reasoning a tad too far. The stopping all the white vans in the country comment is certainly not realistic . I was talking about a reasonable distance and a reasonable time from the attacks. I was trying to give an explanation to a prior poster who asked for LEO input . I also asked that my examples not get picked apart . My rational was right on .A couple of miles radius for a time was what I was talking about. Several of the posters agreed that being stopped under the circumstances while being totally legit even though an inconvenience would be to them and me , understandable.
Again we are talking about several homicides, that situation demands extraordinary measures.
You know what would happen if we didnt stop any vans and the perp(S) got away right, the cops would be dog sh*t in the media and to the general populace.
The botttom line is lets just hope no one else gets hurt in this mess , civilian or LEO.

I apologize for misundertanding your post. I would agree that if you stopped a van within a reasonably short time after being identified and did so near the crime scene it would undoubtedly strngthen the argument for a stop.

With all due respect, I would seriously doubt the validity of stopping all vans based on nothing more than the "white van" description. Of course, under the right circumstances (say you are two blocks from the crime scene shortly after the comission of the crime at 2am when there are no other vehicles around) the stop may very well be appropriate.

The mere fact that someone drives a white van is not sufficient (IMHO) to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Especially in light of the astronomical number of white vans.

Obviously the stop would more likely be upheld if a make, model, out of state license plate or particular driver could be described as well.

I don't raise these issues merely to address the potential for abuse but to also suggest that law enforcement might spend a disproportionate amount of time doing something that may very well go nowhere. I'm not sure what exactly law enforcement has been told that has led them to believe a white van is involved. If I were law enforcement and that was the best description given, I would be skeptical of any eyewitness information in any case as eyewitnesses are often mistaken. Although I'm sure there is more to it that I am not aware of and so am not really qualified to give an opinion on this aspect.

I know that you have mentioned exigent circumstances and the need to catch a person who is obviously very dangerous. I am not aware of any case that permits Constitutional rights to be suspended, however, in order to solve a crime, regardless of the danger. It is also my understanding that exigent circumstances have typically been used only to relax the warrant requirement; the idea being that when the criminal may quickly dispose of evidence or create a risk to the lives of LEO or the public that a search or seizure is still reasonable under the circumstances without a warrant.

I have never understood exigent circumstances to do away with the requirement of probable cause or, in this case, reasonable suspicion.

In any case, I hope for a quick resolution of the situation as you do. I also will add that I hope that the Constitutional rights of the innocent are preserved and respected.

I agree 100% that people should be allowed to arm themselves, but having a pistol on your belt while pumping gas or walking out of the grocery store isn't going to deter some jacka$$ from sniping you by surprise from 100 yds.

It might.   While you can't return fire, the sniper would be aware that others in the area can.

Remember how they stopped the Texas School Tower shooter?  Private citizens with rifles started shooting back.  (not sure if citizens or the cops killed him)

A traffic stop and a few questionsis one thing, A felony stop, and [b]being ordered out at gunpointis NOT ACCEPTABLE![/b]. As usual, the pussy LEO's can't find the real criminals, so they resort to bullshit tactics like this. How typical. Peoplehave jobs to do, and deadlines to meet.

I think I heard that Jesse Jackson and others are supposed to hold a news conference and represent the NAACV. They will advocate the repeal of vehicular profiling by law enforcement agencies nationwide. Stating that a vehicles color should not be given any different treatment.

As a sidenote, I hope that they catch the shooters and prosecute the preps.

Quite honestly, if they deserved a ticket before being pulled over, then by all means they deserve a ticket period.  Not so sure I would let them take my picture, would immediately ask for my lawyer--assuming I had no expired tags, no guns, no tailight out etc.  The reports I hae heard from one guy on a radio station is no big deal.  The one guy pulled over from my Dad's company, no big deal.  So sorry if your source was pissed about getting a ticket....likely deserved it huh?

If you are on the right side of the law, why sweat it?  I don't fear the police, or "the Man" as I know the laws that apply to me and I obey them the best I can.  If I get a ticket, I pay it, unless I KNOW what I did is not what is reported.  Why is it so tough to pay your property tax or get an inspection on time?

Kind of a silly thread, with a silly question and some even more silly responses.

If you think it's against your rights, don't stop.  See how that works.

Ed

Well, I know for damn sure I'm not walking up on a suspected armed mass murderer and saying "Howdy".

Only, please tell me how you would do it since you obviously can do my job without any experience or training.

I can tell you one thing.  There has not been a cop within 150 miles of that place that's been off duty since the shootings.  Even if they've been ordered home, they'll patrol around on their own.

Let me try to explain exigent circumstances as we are taught at our academy. Again these are just examples.
1- You have a kidnapping where we have the perp in custody but we dont have the victim. We, law enforcement believe that the victim is still alive, maybe buried somewhere. We question the perp but he wants to retain a lawyer and not answer any more questions. Under normal circumstances he/she would have absolute right to an attorney and questioning should cease. Using the exigent circumstances rule we would not "immmediately" honor that right . Nor would we honor some of his other "constitutional" rights if we felt there was imminent danger of the victim dying . In this case the victims rights outway the defendants rights, at least temporarily, due to the exigent circumstances.
2- This one may be more pertinent in todays time. We have a bomber in custody, however we dont know where the bomb is . We do know maybe that it is due to go off soon. Again some of the perps constitutional rights maybe "temporarily" suspended because of the exigent circumstance. The bomb may go off and injure many people.
Now these are again just examples, they can be picked apart by what ifs. I'm just trying to explain for a non LEO or a lay person what guidelines LEOs operate under these type of situations. Are the constitutional rights of some people being infringed on ? Yes! Are there justifiable reasons for doing so?  Yes!  Have these reasons been defended in a court of law and been upheld ? Yes!
Again this is a one in a million situation thankfully. Lets hope the resolution is quick and without any more bloodshed. Lets also hope it doesnt lead to a backlash against law abiding gun owners. I can just see Sarah, Hillary, Chuck Schumer and Sen. Feinstein sharpening their claws over this one. Esecially if it is an AR or mini.
I hope this has cleared things up a little,
Remember 9-11 !   NY LEO

Nice idea, but you fail to remember that this is occuring in the Peoples Republic of Maryland. Check the gun laws.

Pretty much true since 9-11. This is now involving a large area, all the way into VA, not just over the line either, these guys travel and will hit anywhere.

They now have conflicting eye witness reports.   One says it was an SUV, the other says it was a pickup truck.

So LarryG, should the police be stopping [i]every[/i] SUV and [i]every[/i] pickup truck within an X mile radius???

Don't bother with the know nothing civilians.

As he is an expert, I would call in FBI Special Agent Christopher Braga to direct the traffic stops.

Executive order as of 10-03-2002 all STATES CCW federally approved and if you have any configuration of a AR15,you shall carry with your person at all times.[:D]


Let me say now BATF-APPROVED is running for president of the USA in 2004.[^]

BTW i will be running on the GUN party ticket

Well shit i own 2 white pick ups,1 white box truck with my name on the side and other writing on them, stating what i do for a living,and a SUV and a dump truck.

I have the required papers to transport my firearms to the range i visit. i would hate to think what would happen if this type of action was taken upon myself while i was going to the range.

BTW- this is plain wrong to stop trucks simply because they might be the killer's truck.do the cops really think that the killers are still driving this truck.[whacko]

Hmmmm, here in NY the local paper has an article in which it says the local cops are calling it an ar15, yet in an accompanying photo it shows an ATF agent at a press conference holding a bolt rifle with a scope. Have they made an official call yet or still just a lot of speculation.

Not only that, but it makes us "feel" safe...
From the article...
[b]The officers put an orange sticker on the back of the truck, a safe-passage talisman signaling that this one was legit. By late afternoon yesterday, it seemed most small white delivery trucks in Montgomery County had orange stickers.

Look closely at the fine print and you saw the stickers usually serve another purpose. "This vehicle has been marked for . . . parking abandonment."

"I feel safe with my sticker," Gustafson said, recalling his 2 p.m. encounter with the police shortly after it ended.

[/b]

That pakistani dude who killed the CIA workers outside the CIA HQ a few years ago bought his AK right before the shooting.  The first step was to take a look at recent AK purchases in the area.

One would think to wait a little longer but these people are stupid.

Even if the truck has been abandoned,  don't you think it would be necessary to find that particular truck?  Evidence, fingerprints, etc.  

I briefly read most of the replies above, and here is a question.  You are driving one of these box trucks.  Do you consent to the search of your truck or do you say no.  I've learned by reading on here that you always say no.

I doubt it, they're pulling over WHITE vans.....