COPS: TERRY SEARCH
Thread started by
el_spaniard at 01.27.09 - 11:11 am
Arizona v. Johnson
This morning the Supreme Court handed down the decision in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg. The Court limited its opinion to how this power applies in a traffic stop setting. It held first that the Terry v. Ohio power to detain is met in a traffic stop setting "whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation." Second, "To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." That is, the police can pat-down the passenger in a lawful traffic stop if the passenger is reasonably suspected of being dangerous regardless of what other crimes are suspected.
I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, AND EL_SPANIARD WILL SAY IT AGAIN, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND KNOW YOUR LAWS.
So if the PO-PO ever come a knockin...you don't take it in the ass.
reply
so for all of you out there that didnt want to read that schpeil, if youre about to be patted down, ask the cop "do you have reason to suspect that i am armed and dangerous?"
if the cop says something smart-ass, such as "should i?" ask to have his supervisor called to the scene and dont say or do anything until he gets there.
and dont carry anything resembling a gun unless youre bentstrider.
tortuga_veloce01.27.09 - 11:42 am
reply
What if his supervisor is a nazi douchebag as well?
stillline01.27.09 - 2:27 pm
reply
I'd like to hear some input from the MR lawyers (the real ones, not the jailhouse ones) about this decision. I honestly can't figure it out. Did we gain rights here or lose them? Knowing the SCOTUS I suspect the latter.
Here is an interesting thread on the decision. It's good reading, but I'm still scratching my head. What did the Court actually do? It seems like they've blurred the distinction between a Terry stop (which has to be based on reasonable suspicion of a crime) and a traffic stop (which can be based on r.s. of an infraction) with regards to whom and under what circumstances an officer can frisk a person. That, and I guess they settled the question of whether a passenger in a car being stopped for a traffic infraction investigation is free to leave? Or something?
PC01.27.09 - 2:47 pm
reply
If you ask the question, "do you have reason to believe...?" and request their supervisor, sure, maybe their supervisor is an ass too, but you also present an opportunity for 1) The officer to decide not to try and search you, and/or release you (waiting for the sup would probably take a long and annoying amount of time), and 2) Make the officer (and supervisor if/when they arrive) aware that you know your rights. This will make them think twice about harassing people unnecessarily.
Cops are not hesitant to try and search people, sometimes without asking or giving you any notice before they start digging through your car. If more people know their rights, less people will be harassed. It has the potential to be an overall deterrent. Think about the recent moratorium on bike licenses - It came into effect because many of you exercised your rights. And we all end up benefiting from that.
kryxtanicole01.27.09 - 2:57 pm
reply
I got a ticket on Saturday at JAZ Pressure
BECAUSE I called a supervisor. Amazing.
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 3:06 pm
reply
I'm a little confused, too.
So we don't have to consent to a search of our person in a traffic stop as long as the officer has no reasonable suspicion that we are armed/dangerous.
For some reason I thought this was already the case? I mean you know 4th amendment and stuff? whatever.
la duderina01.27.09 - 3:07 pm
reply
I take it you don't specialize in Constitutional law.
PC01.27.09 - 3:10 pm
reply
watchu talkin bout willis. 4th amendment = right against unwarranted searches and seizures.
only in my 2nd semester. con law is next year.
la duderina01.27.09 - 3:12 pm
reply
bicycle obstructing the sidewalk...
on private property, in a parking lot, and the officer couldn't determine which bike was his...
FuzzBeast01.27.09 - 3:19 pm
reply
good grief. another chapter in Santa Monica's WAR ON EXERCISE.
tortuga_veloce01.27.09 - 3:23 pm
reply
As much as I hate to say this, revenue generator.
By the looks of where Hal took that picture, it appears to be that same Ralphs in Marina Del Rey where the "contract-deputies" hassled everyone at the December C-Mob.
Then there was the tussle in July after the Wetside Ride.
Different municipalities, different marching orders given out by the local civic-officials.
bentstrider01.27.09 - 3:34 pm
reply
different police stations too. west la pd, is usually pretty reasonable (although i did get a citation in error from a very nice officer) but west traffic division off of venice and la brea is ridiculous.
one taco tuesday, they actually annouced that we should occupy the "bicycle lane" on that stretch of venice. everyone ive talked to from there is an idiot, although that might just be luck of the draw.
ive heard pacific is "weird." well, what do you expect from marina del rey; no one ever hangs out in the streets except us. santa monica is an elite task force for the petty whims of its residents, and culver city wants your money.
to those of us on unemployment: now is your chance to reform the police in your area! waste enough of their time and resources fighting them and they will eventually give up.
that's what i call the POWER OF POVERTY!
tortuga_veloce01.27.09 - 3:42 pm
reply
@ AT - That is amazing. Amazingly awful. Too bad. Ok, so that's a potential outcome too.
kryxtanicole01.27.09 - 3:48 pm
reply
West Hollywood and Marina Del Rey are contracted out to the sheriffs department.
Then of course West LA, Venice and the neighborhoods in between falling to LAPD.
Then there's the "posh" cities like Beverly Hills, Culver City(?), and Santa Monica that are wealthy enough to have their own police force for their small-ass boundaries.
So many different jurisdictions in an area, so many different ways of handling various things.
bentstrider01.27.09 - 3:49 pm
reply
"to those of us on unemployment: now is your chance to reform the police in your area! waste enough of their time and resources fighting them and they will eventually give up."
Yes, because adding to your police record while unemployed is likely to have a positive long-term outcome.
JB01.27.09 - 4:03 pm
reply
parking lots are seen as private property and if youre not a buying customer, then youre trespassing. there are signs posted in every parking lot everywhere that say "no trespassing/no loitering". we get away with it a lot of the time but when someone finally gets a ticket for it then a discourse like this tends to happen. yes, they could be patrolling the streets for drunk drivers or murderers or whatever else, but in the end its nothing more than a way to generate revenue, as adam said.
ruinedbyidiots01.27.09 - 4:10 pm
reply
Thanks for you usual two cents RBI. As usual, off topic, irrelevant, and it seems you might be replying to another thread. Maybe no one is direct with you so I will be - I don't value your input and I think you're obnoxious.
Fuzzbeast pretty much nailed it. The cop told us to move, at which point we made sure all the bikes were on the sidewalk and not in the street. Literally, his only instruction was "move", totally ambiguous. Then he jumps out of the car and starts harassing Daniel, at which point I chimed in asking him why he was hassling us. He didn't like that, and told us that if we didn't start moving, we would all get arrested. I countered with saying that I didn't think instructing 20 people that they would all be arrested was reasonable or proper police procedure and that I was calling his watch commander. Immediate response was "don't move, you're getting a ticket. Daniel and I were detained for 45 minutes, and they brought 4 cars to the spot. Nuts.
All on private property. And later that night when we went to Chipotle it got really hilarious because he showed up and guarded the Chipotle for 30 minutes. Even after the manager came out and told him that she didn't mind our presence he still stuck around. And then we called the watch commander again and asked them to send a supervisor because he was harassing us.
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 5:04 pm
reply
RBI,
I'm holding a ticket for obstructing a public sidewalk with my bicycle when
1) I wasn't on a bike at the time
2) He cannot identify a bike as mine
3) It was private property
4) I was given no opportunity to move any bike that may have been mine
So what does that have to do with trespassing? I bought things at that Ralph's, and no one instructed me to leave, so I couldn't even be charged with trespassing. Moreover, if you think I should get ticketed for it then
a) the ticket should be for trespassing
b) go fuck yourself
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 5:08 pm
reply
Folks, that's what we call a technical knockout. Alex Thompson wins this one by TKO. Done and done.
Now, about that Supreme Court decision...
PC01.27.09 - 5:15 pm
reply
AT,
Was this SMPD or LAPD?
How will you be handling it? Court, trial by declaration?
skd01.27.09 - 5:39 pm
reply
+1
Alex that was one sweet ass FACE palm.....
Debut21301.27.09 - 5:43 pm
reply
It was our friends at . . . wait for it . . .
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Marina Del Rey Division
I swear. Those guys really earn their reputation.
In person trial, February 24th. I intend to win in humiliating fashion, and if I can find someone to represent me afterward, I'll sue him for false arrest. As someone said to Stephen Box regarding a post on the Light Festivale - "litigate."
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 5:48 pm
reply
I am not a lawyer. But since I did law enforcement work for awhile...this is what I got from it...
Its not a significant change, but one that will require a more articulate reason for the search to take place.
It all comes down to the person who has been stopped. Not consenting to a search is that persons responsibility. The officer will try everything possible to get you to consent. The officer will lie to you if he has to.
Unfortunately, there are crooked cops out there. I know...I worked with some. So the only way you can CYA in most cases is to carry a recorder.
Here is a recording by a person who was illegally detained at a DUI checkpoint.
http://www.chrisronk.net/dui-cp.wav
^^^RECORDING LINK^^^
If I remember correctly, the person who recorded this took legal action against the officer.
el_spaniard01.27.09 - 7:40 pm
reply
It seems like they've blurred the distinction between...
Blurry laws and ambiguous language are a cops bread and butter.
Anything that gives a pig the ability to make a call at their discretion will initially be employed to work against your freedoms.
Like el spaniard says, only by flexing your rights throughout the harrassment process can you later protect yourself.
A cop's job is no longer to know the law, be just or even be truthful; they exist only to mire the legal system with petty bullshit.
Eric Hair01.27.09 - 8:15 pm
reply
Eric brings up a very interesting point, that the law is no longer the cops job...which has to compel some thinking. Whose job is it to uphold/enforce the law? That's perhaps a fine balance of those who employ it for good, bad, or otherwise. Consider it a tool more or less - If you know what it is and how it can help/hurt, then you have access to its uses.
kryxtanicole01.27.09 - 9:15 pm
reply
Whose job is it to uphold/enforce the law?
the DA's.
la duderina01.27.09 - 9:39 pm
reply
Are you sure you're a law student?
PC01.27.09 - 10:22 pm
reply
I think I like Alex Thompson alot more when he's Knittens. He's alot more charming.
User101.27.09 - 10:26 pm
reply
What do I know? I know whose job it is to uphold/enforce the law. And I'll bet you do too. Think! Think!
PC01.27.09 - 10:37 pm
reply
how is it NOT the DA's job? the people who actually go to court and put the criminals in jail? how is that NOT enforcing the law? its not only the DAs job, but it is the DAs job.
la duderina01.27.09 - 10:38 pm
reply
Correct. Not just the DA's. So, who else's?
PC01.27.09 - 10:41 pm
reply
So, in light of all of this, should we instead just pour money into "enforcement drones".
I mean, machines could be perfected and controlled by a couple of DA's in a chamber, linked telepathically.
bentstrider01.27.09 - 11:04 pm
reply
If bentstrider is crazy, I don't want to be sane!
User1 is KNITTENS
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 11:17 pm
reply
The day I go crazy is when I decide to grow my hair and beard back.
bentstrider01.27.09 - 11:26 pm
reply
If bentstrider grows his hair and beard back, I don't want to be sane!
What's a beard back?
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 11:30 pm
reply
Grow my beard back across my face.
For the time being, I'm too busy maintaining the "hard-look".
bentstrider01.27.09 - 11:40 pm
reply
How does a beard back grow across your face. This is purrrty weird.
Alex Thompson01.27.09 - 11:44 pm
reply
Obvious? Yes, yes, blindingly so. But it's all right; we can take it. So, you were saying...?
PC01.27.09 - 11:48 pm
reply
It's not a trick question, Duderina. You could knock it out in one sentence. If you answer correctly, I will give you head.
PC01.28.09 - 12:56 am
reply
And by "head," I of course mean "the respect you deserve."
PC01.28.09 - 12:58 am
reply
aww man can't it be the other kind?
law enforcement
la duderina01.28.09 - 9:53 am
reply
this morning i found 29 sherriff's cars and countless numbers of unmarked cars raiding a house next door. the numbers were overwhelming. i wonder what they did. but they had about 20 cars with people in em in the back, some shit must've gone down.
_iJunes01.28.09 - 9:55 am
reply
NO HEAD FOR YOU. I'll ask you again after a couple semesters, I guess.
PC01.28.09 - 10:22 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
