Warrantless search - Rogers County

[mouthpiece]

Can you file a FOIA and see what other info you can get or does it have to be a specific request.

my kids are all guilty for the most part, we did have a BAPD fishing incident in my in-laws front yard with one of my boys and I couldn't believe how stupid the popo were, but my kids bring it on themselves.

but if really think your son is innocent or that popo did not follow procedure, get an atty and get after it.
do you have enough money to defeat the county?

 

[perfor8]

Is anyone familiar with the Rogers County Sheriff's department?

My 20-year-old son was pulled over this morning for a "tail light" by three SUVs from the Rogers County Sheriff's Office, was told they "smelled weed", handcuffed him, his car was torn apart and searched by the K9 that was already there. They told him the dog alerted on his car. Couldn't find anything, but his trunk smells strongly of weed, and if he would just "tell them where it is" they would drop all charges.

This is all utter nonsense. He has never touched the stuff, never had any in his car, doesn't smoke, drink, chew, or anything. He really is a nice guy. They obviously had a vehicle description that matched his Corolla, because they were already loaded for bear. I guarantee any mention of an alert by a dog or by a person "smelling weed" is a complete fabrication.

The problem is the warrantless search without any advisement of rights and without any remote probable cause. Not to mention placing my son's very life in danger without cause! Fortunately he is a very nice guy, did not get belligerent in any way, did not resist in any way. But you can see the problem if he had lost his temper.

Is anyone familiar with Rogers County? (We live in Washington County and are not familiar with Rogers.) I need to know who to talk to, where to file a complaint, and so on.

Thanks.

I'm retired LEO.

You mentioned in a post that the deputies offered to "drop the charges". Was he cited? Arrested? If not, then there will be no "charges" and it all worked out exactly as it should have. The upshot is the deputies conducted an investigation and concluded no crime was afoot. What, exactly, are you upset about? For what it's worth, officers don't make "charge" decisions. District Attorneys do, based on reports and investigations of officers.

Regarding no Miranda warning... Miranda is required for custodial (conditions under which a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave) interrogation. Given that your son was detained (and handcuffed) the circumstances were certainly custodial. Any question qualifies as interrogation. The problem is that the only "remedy" for violating Miranda warning requirements is that any evidence procured absent Miranda isn't allowed in court. There's no punishment for the officer. No fine, no slap on the wrist, no civil lawsuit is available. The same applies to unreasonable searches - the only remedy is that evidence procured outside of constitutional protections isn't allowed in court. A 20 year old man should be aware that he has a right to be silent, regardless of whether a Miranda warning is given.

Yes, the detainment is legit given the non-operable third taillight and the search could be legal if K-9 alerted. Yes, K-9 can smell incredibly low concentrations of substances.

The response and actions of the deputies seem extreme given the circumstances. Either we don't know the whole story or they were bored. Even given only your half of the story, I see no malevolence on the part of the officers - and I hold them to high constitutional standards.

 

[cjjtulsa]

but if really think your son is innocent or that popo did not follow procedure, get an atty and get after it.
do you have enough money to defeat the county?

And there you have it. You'll never have enough money to take on the Crown, especially when they're funded by unlimited tax dollars.

 

[shelshy]

More information as we gathered it at the Sherriff's office:
It's the third brake light, you see. I examined his car and took video of the perfectly functioning brake lights, but I do acknowledge on review that the third light, the little one up in the rear window, is not working.

"Do you habitually stop a car for the third brake light," I asked, when the two normal brake lights are operating? Is a third light even required?"

"Oh yes," the Lieutenant exclaimed enthusiastically, "all day long!"

Oh, come on! Not buying it. We counted four third lights out on various cars as we drove out of Claremore. I don't think I've ever noticed that partticular, egregious malfunction in my life! I've certainly never heard of anyone being stopped for that! LEOs, help me out here: is that normal?

It's entirely possible that one of the deputies on the stop was in training and they were trying to get him/her some contacts in. When I was in patrol I would stop third brake lights as a courtesy to let the driver know it was out. The third brake light falls is required equipment per statute:

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 47. Motor Vehicles
Chapter 12 - Equipment of Vehicles
Article Article 2 - Lamps and Lighting Devices

Section 12-206 - Stop Lamps and Turn Signals Required on Motor Vehicles
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __​

---

A. Every vehicle shall be equipped with at least two stop lamps which shall meet the requirements of this section.

B. The stop lamps required by this section:

1. Shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle at the same level, as far apart as practicable, and at a height of not more than seventy-two (72) inches nor less than fifteen (15) inches;

2. Shall display a red or amber light, or any shade of color between red and amber, visible from a distance of not less than five hundred (500) feet to the rear in normal sunlight; and

3. Shall be actuated upon application of the brakes.

C. If so equipped in its original design and manufacture, every motor vehicle shall be additionally equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp located on the vertical center line above the level of the stop lamps described in this section which shall display a red light, visible from a distance of not less than five hundred (500) feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and which shall be actuated upon application of the brakes.

 

[El Pablo]

Does your son want to pursue additional action or is this coming from you? If you haven’t asked him, I suggest you do.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

More information as we gathered it at the Sherriff's office:
It's the third brake light, you see. I examined his car and took video of the perfectly functioning brake lights, but I do acknowledge on review that the third light, the little one up in the rear window, is not working.

"Do you habitually stop a car for the third brake light," I asked, when the two normal brake lights are operating? Is a third light even required?"

"Oh yes," the Lieutenant exclaimed enthusiastically, "all day long!"

Oh, come on! Not buying it. We counted four third lights out on various cars as we drove out of Claremore. I don't think I've ever noticed that partticular, egregious malfunction in my life! I've certainly never heard of anyone being stopped for that! LEOs, help me out here: is that normal?

Well you should believe it because stopping vehicles for minor offenses, whether traffic or equipment related. is just good police work. It's called being proactive. Stops like that frequently lead to police officers getting people who need to be off the street, off the street. Oftentimes it's because of warrants and sometimes because, thru good police work, a stop for a minor violation like that leads to other things...like the discovery of drugs in cars. I could tell you story after story of minor stops or simple contacts for other minor infractions led to me arrest people on murder warrants, having kidnap victims in cars, drugs...all sorts of stuff.

I'm willing to bet any officer that's worked the street for more than a year or two will tell you it's not uncommon to turn a minor traffic offense into some other sort of felony arrest.

You should be thankful officers do that sort of thing. I bet you'd really find it eye-opening to learn how often this is done and how often it leads to something huge.

You'd probably also be just a little offended if people on this forum, with no flying experience, started bashing pilots and telling them how to do their jobs and how they could do it better. That's an everyday thing for cops. Everybody's a f**kin' expert on law enforcement except for those who actually do it every single day.

 

[tweetr]

It's entirely possible that one of the deputies on the stop was in training and they were trying to get him/her some contacts in. When I was in patrol I would stop third brake lights as a courtesy to let the driver know it was out. The third brake light falls is required equipment per statute:

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 47. Motor Vehicles
Chapter 12 - Equipment of Vehicles
Article Article 2 - Lamps and Lighting Devices

Section 12-206 - Stop Lamps and Turn Signals Required on Motor Vehicles
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __​

---

A. Every vehicle shall be equipped with at least two stop lamps which shall meet the requirements of this section.

B. The stop lamps required by this section:

1. Shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle at the same level, as far apart as practicable, and at a height of not more than seventy-two (72) inches nor less than fifteen (15) inches;

2. Shall display a red or amber light, or any shade of color between red and amber, visible from a distance of not less than five hundred (500) feet to the rear in normal sunlight; and

3. Shall be actuated upon application of the brakes.

C. If so equipped in its original design and manufacture, every motor vehicle shall be additionally equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp located on the vertical center line above the level of the stop lamps described in this section which shall display a red light, visible from a distance of not less than five hundred (500) feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and which shall be actuated upon application of the brakes.

Good info, thanks. I'm leaning toward the officer-in-training explanation myself. They forgot to return his driver's license and pocket knife, and had to track him down at work to return them. They apologized that the young deputy didn't mean to keep them, he just forgot, we're really sorry and so forth.

 

[JEVapa]

sigh

 

[tweetr]

Well you should believe it because stopping vehicles for minor offenses, whether traffic or equipment related. is just good police work. It's called being proactive. Stops like that frequently lead to police officers getting people who need to be off the street, off the street. Oftentimes it's because of warrants and sometimes because, thru good police work, a stop for a minor violation like that leads to other things...like the discovery of drugs in cars. I could tell you story after story of minor stops or simple contacts for other minor infractions led to me arrest people on murder warrants, having kidnap victims in cars, drugs...all sorts of stuff.

I'm willing to bet any officer that's worked the street for more than a year or two will tell you it's not uncommon to turn a minor traffic offense into some other sort of felony arrest.

You should be thankful officers do that sort of thing. I bet you'd really find it eye-opening to learn how often this is done and how often it leads to something huge.

You'd probably also be just a little offended if people on this forum, with no flying experience, started bashing pilots and telling them how to do their jobs and how they could do it better. That's an everyday thing for cops. Everybody's a f**kin' expert on law enforcement except for those who actually do it every single day.

Guys, my taking offense is entirely related to violating the natural rights of citizens, of which I am one, and therefore an accredited expert. I don't want any citizen stopped by police on a fabricated pretext, either for training or because somebody might be committing a crime somewhere. That does not pass the smell test, let alone the Fourth Amendment test. A free citizen ought to be free to go peaceably about his business without being detained, manhandled, cuffed, stuffed in the back of a police car, and searched without a warrant issued upon probable cause. Period.

 

[user 51785]

Guys, my taking offense is entirely related to violating the natural rights of citizens, of which I am one, and therefore an accredited expert. I don't want any citizen stopped by police on a fabricated pretext, either for training or because somebody might be committing a crime somewhere. That does not pass the smell test, let alone the Fourth Amendment test. A free citizen ought to be free to go peaceably about his business without being detained, manhandled, cuffed, stuffed in the back of a police car, and searched without a warrant issued upon probable cause. Period.

another lawyer lol. like you been told the stop was legit but you go ahead and think you are right and know everything. you wont be the only one here like that.