Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

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.

Sure. Obviously you have no way of knowing.
Respectful and compliant. Hands visible. Answering questions.

This information is from the Sergeant and Lieutenant with whom we spoke.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

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.

Like I said... My comments weren't specifically related to this stop and I agree with what you've said. If I was going to search a vehicle and NO BACK UP was available then, yes, pat down/handcuff and put in the car. I've also foregone the cuffing in situations like this depending on how my car was equipped, the person's behavior and demeanor, etc.

If I was waiting for back up officer(s) and knew they would arrive soon, I'd definitely put off the search until they arrived and would do exactly what you described.

The only time I think I specifically commented on the stop the OP described was regarding why it was likely (or at least possibly) a legal search regardless of how the OP felt about it and because people are afforded a lower expectation of privacy during vehicle stops...for a lot of reasons.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

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.

Apparently it is...

 

[tweetr]

Apparently it is...

This is a substantive point and worth examining.
The Fourth Amendment, like the First through Tenth, is not remotely difficult unless you want to circumvent its clear intent. Then it is difficult.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

The 4th Amendment states searches won't be "unreasonable". I know the intent of the 4th Amendment, I've received many, many hours of training on the 4th Amendment, and I've conducted many, many searches and seizures with respect to 4th Amendment protections of citizens. I have never had evidence dismissed or a case dismissed based on any 4th Amendment questions. Almost everything police officers do, in one way or another, hinges on what's reasonable based on court rules, totality of the circumstances, precedent, etc. There is a tremendous amount of case law that's shaped the way officers are allowed to conduct searches/seizures, with and without warrants.

So, yeah... It is worth examining. You should try it rather than just quoting the Amendment. You should educate yourself on what's lawful under the 4th Amendment and what's not. You should learn about things like when a warrantless search is permissible. You should learn about things like "expectation of privacy" and how your location affects that.

There's a lot more to understanding the 4th Amendment than just quoting the text.

 

[tweetr]

The 4th Amendment states searches won't be "unreasonable". I know the intent of the 4th Amendment, I've received many, many hours of training on the 4th Amendment, and I've conducted many, many searches and seizures with respect to 4th Amendment protections of citizens. I have never had evidence dismissed or a case dismissed based on any 4th Amendment questions. Almost everything police officers do, in one way or another, hinges on what's reasonable based on court rules, totality of the circumstances, precedent, etc. There is a tremendous amount of case law that's shaped the way officers are allowed to conduct searches/seizures, with and without warrants.

So, yeah... It is worth examining. You should try it rather than just quoting the Amendment. You should educate yourself on what's lawful under the 4th Amendment and what's not. You should learn about things like when a warrantless search is permissible. You should learn about things like "expectation of privacy" and how your location affects that.

There's a lot more to understanding the 4th Amendment than just quoting the text.

Understanding the Fourth Amendment begins with quoting the text.

Reading the text, what warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment? Stated simply, what is the right affirmed (not conferred) by the Fourth Amendment?

 

[TedKennedy]

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.

That says a lot about the situation doesn't it? The actions of a state employee can start a chain of events that leads to a felony for a person that was innocent.

This is a substantive point and worth examining.
The Fourth Amendment, like the First through Tenth, is not remotely difficult unless you want to circumvent its clear intent. Then it is difficult.

Some folks are smart, some folks are just clever...using the law, bending the law to justify infringements is what clever lawyers do. The same mentality that circumvents the application of the 2A, is the same mentality that wishes to circumvent any law that limits the state. The constitution isn't perfect, and it's been ignored so much as to nearly make it irrelevant in a lot of cases, but it's still a pain in the butt for the state which it was intended to limit.

 

[tweetr]

That says a lot about the situation doesn't it? The actions of a state employee can start a chain of events that leads to a felony for a person that was innocent.

Some folks are smart, some folks are just clever...using the law, bending the law to justify infringements is what clever lawyers do. The same mentality that circumvents the application of the 2A, is the same mentality that wishes to circumvent any law that limits the state. The constitution isn't perfect, and it's been ignored so much as to nearly make it irrelevant in a lot of cases, but it's still a pain in the butt for the state which it was intended to limit.

Exactly. What, for instance, is difficult about:

1. Congress shall make no law (nothing)
2. Shall not be infringed (nothing)
3. No soldier shall . . . be quartered (nothing)
4. Shall not be violated (nothing)
5. No person shall be held (nothing)
6. Shall enjoy the right (nothing)
7. Shall be preserved (nothing)
8. Shall not be required (nothing)
9. Shall not be construed (nothing)
10. Are reserved (nothing)

All that remains are what laws shall not be made, what right shall not be infringed, where soldiers shall not be quartered, what right shall not be violated, and so forth. In the fourth instance, stated at its essence, the right is to be secure. That right inarguably was violated in spirit and in detail.

There is nothing remotely difficult about any of these prohibitions unless you want to circumvent them. Then they are difficult.

 

[TedKennedy]

There is nothing remotely difficult about any of these prohibitions unless you want to circumvent them. Then they are difficult.

Well stated.

 

[WoodsCraft]

The 4th Amendment states searches won't be "unreasonable". I know the intent of the 4th Amendment, I've received many, many hours of training on the 4th Amendment, and I've conducted many, many searches and seizures with respect to 4th Amendment protections of citizens. I have never had evidence dismissed or a case dismissed based on any 4th Amendment questions. Almost everything police officers do, in one way or another, hinges on what's reasonable based on court rules, totality of the circumstances, precedent, etc. There is a tremendous amount of case law that's shaped the way officers are allowed to conduct searches/seizures, with and without warrants.

So, yeah... It is worth examining. You should try it rather than just quoting the Amendment. You should educate yourself on what's lawful under the 4th Amendment and what's not. You should learn about things like when a warrantless search is permissible. You should learn about things like "expectation of privacy" and how your location affects that.

There's a lot more to understanding the 4th Amendment than just quoting the text.

To be fair and yes I have studied it extensively over the years , individual protections under the 4th Amendment have been watered down to the point they are almost non existent by various Federal court decisions.