I Hate Cops!!!!

[Skip Towne]

Shortly before noon I was driving in downtown Claremore, Ok when the flashing lights come on behind me. The first thing the cop asks is if I knew why he stopped me. I said no. He said defective exhaust system. (My van doesn't smoke at all and isn't at all loud.) In the squad car he runs my tag and finds nothing amiss. He gives me a warning ticket for defective exhaust and never says a word about my exhaust. He says I am free to go but he wants to ask me another question. Do I have any drugs, alcohol, guns, knives or bombs in the van. I say no. He says do I mind if he checks. I say he has no reason to search my van so he calls for a drug dog crew. He says my eyes are bloodshot so I must be doing drugs. Now I not free to go all of a sudden. The drug dog doesn't hit on the van so the dickhead finally lets me go. This is outrageous bullshit. From a bogus defective exhaust warning to searches and drug dogs because he doesn't like the looks of my eyes. Where is this shit going to end?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

Why do you ask? You got a warrant?

Just curious.

[CoMoChief]

Cops ****ing suck, thats all im gonna say about that

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by BSPimpDude

Cops ****ing suck, thats all im gonna say about that

They didn't suck when they busted Liz Cox at Mizzou and you got to see it through the window and mock her.

[Mr. Kotter]

I know it doesn't seem fair, and not knowing the specifics (from the cops point of view)....he was over-zealous to be sure, but probably within rights....

First, if he pulls you over....and you are in anyway acting suspicious, that may have caused him to inquire further. Second, the red eyes alone wouldn't have done it; IF he asked to search your van, he had something else he was going on....your driving, the smell of your clothes or van, possible other "profiling" observations he didn't mention to you. Once you refused permission for the search, in some states.....that constitutes "reasonable suspicion" and, in an automobile, they don't NEED a search warrant.

The standard for most of society, in most circumstances is "probable cause" which would be used to obtain a search warrant. However, automobile incidents are legally considered "exigent circumstance" which means, basically....because you could flee to Mexico before he could obtain a search warrant, that the standard for a search is lowered to "reasonable suspicion."

Basically, it becomes your word against his (and his video-cameras.) If he claims, credibibly to have had "reasonable suspicion"....if you were to push this as a violation of your rights or whatever, he would merely have to convince a jury that his suspicion was reasonable. Not a difficult task really. Although, I do realize some cops use this fact to be even more over-zealous than their colleagues.

It kinda sucks, but that's the way it goes...

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I know it doesn't seem fair, and not knowing the specifics (from the cops point of view)....he was over-zealous to be sure, but probably within rights....

First, if he pulls you over....and you are in anyway acting suspicious, that may have caused him to inquire further. Second, the red eyes alone wouldn't have done it; IF he asked to search your van, he had something else he was going on....your driving, the smell of your clothes or van, possible other "profiling" observations he didn't mention to you. Once you refused permission for the search, in some states.....that constitutes "reasonable suspicion" and, in an automobile, they don't NEED a search warrant.

The standard for most of society, in most circumstances is "probable cause" which would be used to obtain a search warrant. However, automobile incidents are legally considered "exigent circumstance" which means, basically....because you could flee to Mexico before he could obtain a search warrant, that the standard for a search is lowered to "reasonable suspicion."

Basically, it becomes your word against his (and his video-cameras.) If he claims, credibibly to have had "reasonable suspicion"....if you were to push this as a violation of your rights or whatever, he would merely have to convince a jury that his suspicion was reasonable. Not a difficult task really. Although, I do realize some cops use this fact to be even more over-zealous than their colleagues.

It kinda sucks, but that's the way it goes...

YES they DO need a search warrant to search a vehicle. Why would the cop ask me for permission if they didn't? And why did I drive away after denying permission if they didn't need a warrant?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

YES they DO need a search warrant to search a vehicle. Why would the cop ask me for permission if they didn't? And why did I drive away after denying permission if they didn't need a warrant?

I'm not trying to get in a pissin' match with you Skip....no, they DON'T need a search warrant to search your vehicle IF he has reasonable suspicion; when the dog didn't hit on your van though....I suspect he felt less sure of his "reasonable suspicion." He asked for permission, as a courtesy....and you'd be surprised at the number of folks who say, yes, hoping that gets the cop off their back.

He brought the dog, to verify his "suspicion".....had he not had access to a dog, and he felt his suspicion to be reasonable....he could have searched the van without a warrant. I'm not kidding.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

Why do you ask? You got a warrant?

Funny how people always state that they have a right to refuse to be searched but assume the cop doesn't have a right to ask to do so.

I also find it funny that most cops I know (and I know plenty) are former drunks and potheads. They're not always right (or intelligent) but they're not complete idiots either.

Plus, I've read your posts for a good while now and know you deserve to be given as much $#it as possible...

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I'm not trying to get in a pissin' match with you Skip....no, they DON'T need a search warrant to search your vehicle IF he has reasonable suspicion; when the dog didn't hit on your van though....I suspect he felt less sure of his "reasonable suspicion." He asked for permission, as a courtesy....and you'd be surprised at the number of folks who say, yes, hoping that gets the cop off their back.

He brought the dog, to verify his "suspicion".....had he not had access to a dog, and he felt his suspicion to be reasonable....he could have searched the van without a warrant. I'm not kidding.

Yeah your definitly right. They do not need a warrant at all.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by Miles

Yeah your definitly right. They do not need a warrant at all.

So do you think he let me drive away without a search (when he obviously wanted one) as a courtesy? You're incorrect or I would have been searched.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Miles

Yeah your definitly right. They do not need a warrant at all.

Skip will have to hear it from 10 other people before he believes somethin' I said....

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

So do you think he let me drive away without a search (when he obviously wanted one) as a courtesy? You're incorrect or I would have been searched.

No, he had the dog on standby. Had he NOT had the dog, and had he felt he had "reasonable suspicion" he'd have searched your van...check with any lawyer.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

So do you think he let me drive away without a search (when he obviously wanted one) as a courtesy? You're incorrect or I would have been searched.

Pretty much dependss on whether they meet the burden of resonable suspicion (pretty sure SDChiefs is right on the term). Its pretty easy for a cop to meet that standard if he really wants to search your van. From what i can recall just saying your eyes look bloodshot so he thinks you may be holdin is enough.

Also my response may be oversimplified because i cant remember it all that well.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

No, he had the dog on standby. Had he NOT had the dog, and had he felt he had "reasonable suspicion" he'd have searched your van...check with any lawyer.

That's all just doubletalk, typical of you. That dog wasn't on any sort of standby, he circled the vehicle three times while sniffing. YOU need to check with a lawyer. I drove away from a cop who was bent on searching my van today. That proves they need a warrant. I've seen cases where the cops have detained a vehicle while they went to a judge and got one.

[RNR]

Cops like every other group of people have their share of jerks. Sometimes you will bump into the picked on in school guys out to be the tough guy. That said most I have known or been around are good people with a shit job for shit pay. I am glad there are people willing to do the job. The problem is when a person is a jerk in that job they have alot of power. It sucks you got the raw deal Skip. My oldest brother is a former detective and my niece is PD, over the years I have seen both sides.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

That's all just doubletalk, typical of you. That dog wasn't on any sort of standby, he circled the vehicle three times while sniffing. YOU need to check with a lawyer. I drove away from a cop who was bent on searching my van today. That proves they need a warrant. I've seen cases where the cops have detained a vehicle while they went to a judge and got one.

Go read a law book, or government book....your driving away simply proves he was less sure of his reasonable suspicion once the dog didn't hit on your van--that's all. He decided he bigger fish to fry, and didn't want to deal with the messy "his word vs. my word" thing that would have taken place in court. FTR, your van was "searched"---by the dog.

Bottom-line: If they have reasonable suspicion, they don't need a warrant. If you wanna believe they don't need a warrant, keep thinking that....but you better not run across an even more over-zealous cop, because he won't get a dog or a warrant. And for you to have the search declared invalid, you'll be going to court in a case you'll probably lose.