BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

[Hawke]

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

[yt]yqMjMPlXzdA[/yt]

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah, i've seen it before......

This is always a good one too.....<caution there may be some profanity> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=related

 

[sgtmac_46]

Fortunately for Junior in his video he was dealing with that officer, and not me. I'd have been polite.

'I don't consent to a search, officer'

'That's fair enough and within your rights.....have a seat while I check out your license information and the registration for the vehicle and issue you a summons for exceeding the posted speed limit by going 50mph in a 30mph zone'

10 minutes later.

'I need you to sign the summons agreeing to appear in court....this is not an admission of guilt but simply a promise to appear in court to take care of the charges to avoid having to post a bond.........thank you!'

'Oh, and could you step out of the vehicle the K9 officer has just arrived and will be conducting a plain sniff walk around of the exterior of your vehicle, which is perfectly legal and Constitutional as determined by state and federal case law.'


'What is this? This appears, based on my training and experience, to be marijuana.'

'Officer, that's not mine and i'm not familiar with it ever being in my vehicle'

'That's fine, according to State and Federal case law, all passengers in the vehicle are subject to arrest, so you and your two friends are under arrest for possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana. Please turn around and put your hands behind your back.'

I'm all for asserting one's rights....but it's probably the BEST idea to 'Obey the Law' because not every cop out there is the stupid Barney Fife portrayed in the video who will cower and urinate on himself with 19 year old Junior lawyer starts expounding on how he knows the law......and is CRITICALLY mistaken on a few key points. I do like how these videos ALWAYS revolve around some 19 year old punk kid holding weed.


Of course i'm not consenting to a search of my home or vehicle either. Not because i've got anything to hide, but because I don't have to. At the same time the police have a job to do, and that is enforce the law.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I just love the disclaimer in the beginning of the video


i hate to say it but if the officer really wanted to do a complet search I am sure he could have found a reason

 

[Ninjamom]

Question for LEOs:

If I were ever in such a situation, I would refuse permission for a search of my vehicle or my house, not because I have anything to hide, but as a matter of principle. If you were the officer who pulled me over for speeding/broken tail light/whatever, and you were suspicious of me for who-knows-why, and I said, "No officer, I do not consent to a search," how would that fly in real life?

 

[Tez3]

We just wear them down until they give in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJSEPcs2sI&feature=related

I think we approach things a little differently?( I couldn't find a 'search one'.)

 

[sgtmac_46]

Question for LEOs:

If I were ever in such a situation, I would refuse permission for a search of my vehicle or my house, not because I have anything to hide, but as a matter of principle. If you were the officer who pulled me over for speeding/broken tail light/whatever, and you were suspicious of me for who-knows-why, and I said, "No officer, I do not consent to a search," how would that fly in real life?

It depends on what I was suspicious of. If I thought you had drugs i'd call for the K9 and write you a ticket while we waited for him.

But i'm much better at asking for consent than the guy in the video.

To quote the great American poet Jay-Z......

"Well, do you mind if I look round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that
"Aren't you sharp as a tack, you some type of lawyer or something'?"
"Or somebody important or somethin'?"
Nah, I ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my ****
"We'll see how smart you are when the K9 come"
I got 99 problems but a ***** ain't one

 

[jks9199]

Question for LEOs:

If I were ever in such a situation, I would refuse permission for a search of my vehicle or my house, not because I have anything to hide, but as a matter of principle. If you were the officer who pulled me over for speeding/broken tail light/whatever, and you were suspicious of me for who-knows-why, and I said, "No officer, I do not consent to a search," how would that fly in real life?

I've had it happen. The driver went on their way, I documented the incident as required by our policy and that was it.

My personal practice is simple. Under the Carroll Doctrine, I can search a car if I've got PC to support a warrant. If I've got PC -- I don't ask. I search, and I tell you why. If I'm asking, I don't have PC. You have the right to refuse, and refusal does not equate to giving me PC. You go on your way -- though I may try to change your mind as long as you'll let me.

For searches of persons or homes, it's a little different. There is no Carroll Doctrine; depending on what evidence I have to support it -- I can have someone hold a house (or, sometimes, even a person) while I get a warrant. If I don't have enough for that -- I'm out o' luck. I'll have to use other means to continue my investigation...

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm all for folks knowing their rights...........but I want to know why the 'hero' of these little 'Know your rights' drama plays is always some 19 year old punk kid holding weed? Perhaps because every 19 year old punk kid holding weed has this as a fantasy I suppose.......you know, quoting the law and cowing the cops.......the irony is that it almost ALWAYS backfires on the 19 year old kid who tries to follow the advice given.....because they almost ALWAYS forget one critical element or another.

And quite frankly a teenage boy is the LAST PERSON that needs to be getting away with anything.....then he becomes a 'grown man' who thinks he can get away with anything and ends up in prison after he outsmarts himself.

 

[Deaf Smith]

First off, in my 53 years of existance, I have been stopped maybe 10 times in all. Most were trafic speeding but a few were license check road blocks. Once I even had a .357 magnum on the back seat (back then in Texas there was no carry law, and thus you had to prove you were 'traveling'.)

I have NEVER been searched. Not once. Not even threatened with a search.

But my policy is to say no to any search. Politely say no. Firmly say no. But still say no. I will explain to them I have nothing, zero, nada, zelich, illegal in the car or house. But it is my polcy to not allow searches.

Sure they might bring a dog. Fine. I'll wait. I won't get pissed off. But I will wait.

Like I said, never been even threatend with a search. Now you ask me, what did the cops say when they saw my .357 on the back seat? Well after I told them I was going to shoot at a friends house, they told me to next time put it in the car pocket cause 'if we can't see it, we can't arrest you for it." and they let me go on my way.

Deaf

 

[sgtmac_46]

First off, in my 53 years of existance, I have been stopped maybe 10 times in all. Most were trafic speeding but a few were license check road blocks. Once I even had a .357 magnum on the back seat (back then in Texas there was no carry law, and thus you had to prove you were 'traveling'.)

I have NEVER been searched. Not once. Not even threatened with a search.

But my policy is to say no to any search. Politely say no. Firmly say no. But still say no. I will explain to them I have nothing, zero, nada, zelich, illegal in the car or house. But it is my polcy to not allow searches.

Sure they might bring a dog. Fine. I'll wait. I won't get pissed off. But I will wait.

Like I said, never been even threatend with a search. Now you ask me, what did the cops say when they saw my .357 on the back seat? Well after I told them I was going to shoot at a friends house, they told me to next time put it in the car pocket cause 'if we can't see it, we can't arrest you for it." and they let me go on my way.

Deaf

I am in agreement with you, i'm not granting consent to search either.....but, like yourself, i'm also not engaged in a criminal enterprise. Contrary to what folks making videos like this would have everybody believe, most police encounters are like you describe.....cursory and professional, if not sometimes cordial.

The guys telling each other what the cops can and can't do are generally engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise of some sort, generally drug possession....and it's that very participation in that ongoing criminal enterprise that makes them so worried about the police and police searches. It would probably be easier for them if they just didn't break the law.

 

[jks9199]

I'm all for folks knowing their rights...........but I want to know why the 'hero' of these little 'Know your rights' drama plays is always some 19 year old punk kid holding weed? Perhaps because every 19 year old punk kid holding weed has this as a fantasy I suppose.......you know, quoting the law and cowing the cops.......the irony is that it almost ALWAYS backfires on the 19 year old kid who tries to follow the advice given.....because they almost ALWAYS forget one critical element or another.

And quite frankly a teenage boy is the LAST PERSON that needs to be getting away with anything.....then he becomes a 'grown man' who thinks he can get away with anything and ends up in prison after he outsmarts himself.

And that's why I don't care about these videos...

I personally prefer Chris Rock's "advice"; it's more practical, I think.

The bottom line is that I know how to do my job, within the limits of the US Constitution and state law. I don't have a problem with someone knowing and exercising their rights. If they're breaking the law -- I'll have other ways than a consent search to get them. Or it won't be a consent search...

 

[Hawke]

My relations with LEOs have been very good for the most part.

When trouble is coming it's nice to have the law on your side, whether you need police protection or protection from the police.

For some people some of these rights shown in this video or the one by the law professor (http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62972) are rights some people do not know they have.

 

[MA-Caver]

Question for LEOs:

If I were ever in such a situation, I would refuse permission for a search of my vehicle or my house, not because I have anything to hide, but as a matter of principle. If you were the officer who pulled me over for speeding/broken tail light/whatever, and you were suspicious of me for who-knows-why, and I said, "No officer, I do not consent to a search," how would that fly in real life?

I've had it happen. The driver went on their way, I documented the incident as required by our policy and that was it.

My personal practice is simple. Under the Carroll Doctrine, I can search a car if I've got PC to support a warrant. If I've got PC -- I don't ask. I search, and I tell you why. If I'm asking, I don't have PC. You have the right to refuse, and refusal does not equate to giving me PC. You go on your way -- though I may try to change your mind as long as you'll let me.

For searches of persons or homes, it's a little different. There is no Carroll Doctrine; depending on what evidence I have to support it -- I can have someone hold a house (or, sometimes, even a person) while I get a warrant. If I don't have enough for that -- I'm out o' luck. I'll have to use other means to continue my investigation...

To my understanding that if I say No to a warrantless search then the LEO's go search it anyway and don't find anything then they'll get in trouble.
I was traveling east with a friend and his wife to visit her family. At about 11:45 in the evening we crossed into Illinois from Iowa and pulled over at a gas station to restroom, get drinks, etc. Plan was to drive past Chicago on the other side (to avoid AM rush-hour traffic) and continue on.
Now I don't know if this made any difference or not. My friend suspected that it was the real reason, we're white and his wife is black.
We pull out of the gas station and go under the over-pass, make our left turn and start on the on ramp when the lights hit and I pulled immediately over.
We were questioned and licenses checked (I was driving) and then we were asked to vacate the vehicle while they searched. They asked if we had illegal weapons or drugs (would ANYONE honestly answer "yes" to that one?? ) we said no, they asked to search the vehicle.
I don't know what the PC was but I felt that they didn't have to... but we politely relented and kept in plain sight while they did their thing.
Of course they found... nothing. Oh they said the reason they pulled us over was because I failed to signal my left turn onto the on ramp... Umm, I distinctly remember that I did but didn't argue the fact.

This has bugged me even to this day, though a lot less through the years. I wondered what would've happened if we said "No" ? What made me say yes and to give a curt nod of "do it don't argue" to my friend (owner of the car) was that I noticed one of the officers had his hand on the butt of his holstered pistol... with the guard off. WTF?? Were we suspected kidnappers or something? Two white guys can't travel with a black girl anymore?? Sheesh!

Like Hawke and several others here my relations with LEO's and encounters have always turned out good. I'm a good boy and thus don't sweat it when I get pulled over. I might be curious as to WHY? But I'm not going to be nervous because I've got nothing to be nervous about. I know that seasoned cops can sense this and will react accordingly. I always do however... keep my own hands insight and will turn my body (if outside the vehicle) to where I'm reaching so that it's in view of the officer.
I think it's just being respectful and understanding of the "unknown" that a cop has to face on a daily basis. The less I make THEM "sweat" the less I will.