Warrantless search - Rogers County

[TedKennedy]

Seems to be their actual job, don't it.

Vanilla ISIS, coming right up.

Gotta look back to Ruby Ridge, followed by Waco. Antigovernment feelings don't appear in a vacuum.

 

[jakeman]

In the first place, that's not what I said. Fictitious PC was not what I was talking about and you know that. Furthermore, the place to resist is not on the side of the road if you think you're being wronged by an officer as distasteful as that may be. You'll have your chance to share your version of events in court.

Lots of people think if they just yell and scream and carry on during a LE contact that makes them right. It doesn't. It's just more of that stupidity that so many people seem to want to put on display.

And qualified immunity doesn't protect an officer against civil suits...especially in a 1983 action...for depriving a person of their civil rights.

You might beat the rap, but you ain't never gonna beat the ride.

You might also wind up guilty of something, like resisting, when you were innocent to begin with.

 

[jakeman]

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.

I don't believe your concerns are legit, and I don't believe anyone's constitutional rights were violated.

Just because I live under the protections provided by the Constitution, that does not make me an accredited Constitutional expert.

You have to do what you have to do, but I believe you're going to end up in the same place you are now, only possibly poorer.

 

[JEVapa]

One more time - sigh

 

[kingfish]

Snippy has nothing to do with it. I'm tired of trying to explain the way things work to you when you're obviously unwilling to understand it. I know you're capable of understanding...you just won't.

So I would like to have you help me with your experience to understand the main problem I have here. I don't want to get into the debate about the legitimacy of the stop. The one thing that bothers me about the scenario is the appropriateness of the person being stopped being place in handcuffs and locked in the patrol car prior to the establishment that any actual offense has taken place. This doesn't seem normal to me. Forgive me because I don't know your particular circumstance, but if you have one, would you be okay with your wife, daughter, or mother being treated in this same manner? Maybe this is the only safe way to conduct a vehicle search when your are the only officer on the scene without having to keep an eye on the suspect while doing the search. But in this case it sounds like he had called for backup and was expecting other officers to arrive on the scene. It seems to me that the appropriate course of action would have had the driver remain in the car until backup arrived. Then one of the other officers could have taken the driver back by his car and continue to talk with him while the search was done. If nothing is found and and the officer talking with the driver had no reason to believe he was in any way impaired to drive the he be allowed to leave and go on about his own business.

 

[THAT Gurl]

One more time - sigh

I love you.**

















**In that strictly kinda sorta plain platonic masochistic way that you can only find on OSA. (No worries, I'm probably old enough to be your grandma... )

 

[JEVapa]

I love you.**

















**In that strictly kinda sorta plain platonic masochistic way that you can only find on OSA. (No worries, I'm probably old enough to be your grandma... )

Lol, All good

 

[DavidMcmillan]

One of the missing pieces of information here would be the actions and attitude of the young man at the initial time of the stop.

 

[tweetr]

I don't believe your concerns are legit, and I don't believe anyone's constitutional rights were violated.

Just because I live under the protections provided by the Constitution, that does not make me an accredited Constitutional expert.

You have to do what you have to do, but I believe you're going to end up in the same place you are now, only possibly poorer.

Of course his were. Expressly. In spirit and in detail. The relevant section of law is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seisures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What part of this law is satisfied in the events of this case?
It's not remotely difficult.

 

[jakeman]

Of course his were. Expressly. In spirit and in detail. The relevant section of law is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seisures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What part of this law is satisfied in the events of this case?
It's not remotely difficult.

Keep us updated.