Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

Me?? Personally?? I'd consider it a bad day, try not to mull it over so much I develop PTSD and move on with my life. NOT one of those things worth all the time you have already sunk into it. And most certainly not worth throwing perfectly good money at.

The judicial system may not write law, but it most certainly influences, and shapes the interpretation and creates guidelines to be followed in the application of that law, by judges' rulings and juries' determination in cases. The case law out there does very much "write" law. Stating that "the judicial system does not write law" is extremely naive. And a basically uneducated way of studying law and the application thereof.

You can be able to recite the Constitution by memory, and be able to give me the Webster's Dictionary interpretation of every single word in the Constitution and if you are unaware of the applicable case law on both sides of the issue, you don't have a clue how any particular law is or is not applied in the real world.

That's not me passing judgement on any particular person in this thread. That is what one of the senior partners at McKinney, Stringer & Webster told me my first day of work there when he was explaining to me why he expected his support staff to understand how to research legal issues, not just type the pleadings and prepare documents required in discovery.

You had to understand the "why" with regard to every single thing you put down on paper: As a defense of your position, or what you anticipated the other side to use as a defense of their position.

ETA: Sorry, I couldn't stand it -- I HATE paragraphs that are 3 pages long. Had to deal with that last "paragraph" that was a Wall of Text ...

That's all fine, but does not address specificity.

In point of fact it is not reasonable to proceed from "third light" and "looks nervous" to a specific suspicion of criminal activity. It just isn't. There is no articulable path from A to B to C.

 

[THAT Gurl]

Were based only on that ... I remember being involved in a civil suit years ago where my attorney said yep you're right and you have a good solid case I can represent you no problem. He then said how much money and time do you have ? And we might still lose so would you like to try and work out a settlement ?


I say all that to say I am actually really well aware of case precedent and how it can affect the law and the handing out of judgements. I am also saying though allowing such to the level we have has corrupted the spirit of the law and what is actually written.

I don't know who it was (more than one person in here -- it is not pertinent enough for me to care to go back and reread to find out) stated that --

The Judicial System does not write laws.

That is one of the most accurate inaccurate statements I have read in a while. Technically speaking, judges do not write laws. Realistically speaking, judges and juries interpret what was intended by the legislative branch when they wrote and passed any law. INTERPRETATION by the judicial body of what was written by the legislative body, practically speaking, WRITES law.

 

[THAT Gurl]

That's all fine, but does not address specificity.

In point of fact it is not reasonable to proceed from "third light" and "looks nervous" to a specific suspicion of criminal activity. It just isn't. There is no articulable path from A to B to C.

Look, you asked me what I would do based on my experience. I told you. I'm not gonna spend the next week of my life researching legislative history with regard to the specifically applied law as written and then spend another week researching case law and come back here with a Memorandum with regard to the viability of any possible wrongful detainment lawsuit. I'm just not.

And apparently the Judicial System does not agree with your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. I can't help that. Sorry.

 

[WoodsCraft]

Just to make sure I'm on the same page with your idea on the 4th Amendment...

Are you saying no search or seizure should ever be allowed without a warrant?

Probable cause is specifically mentioned in the 4th Amendment , but its abused in its application more often than not. Keep in mind I think there should be great rigor in applying the concept instead of it being used for fishing expeditions in hope you find something, no matter how good your hunch might be .

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

That's all fine, but does not address specificity.

In point of fact it is not reasonable to proceed from "third light" and "looks nervous" to a specific suspicion of criminal activity. It just isn't. There is no articulable path from A to B to C.

I'm curious how long it took to reassemble the car your son was driving after it was "torn apart" by the officers?

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Probable cause is specifically mentioned in the 4th Amendment , but its abused in its application more often than not. Keep in mind I think there should be great rigor in applying the concept instead of it being used for fishing expeditions in hope you find something, no matter how good your hunch might be .

Yeah, well... That wasn't the question.

 

[Glocktogo]

I agree some protections have been seriously eroded over the years. No question. But I certainly wouldn't say 4th Amend protections are almost non-existent.

Important point incoming. WHO eroded those protections? Or to break it down to its basic components, on whose behalf were the erosions initiated? On whose behalf were the laws eroding those protections passed? On whose behalf were the "legal" erosions fought in the courts, all the way to SCOTUS, so the caselaw would support eroding those protections.

When you know the answer to those questions, then you understand the reasonable distrust of the "justice" system. To put a finer point on things, I believe far more LEO's fail to understand that "just because you can. doesn't mean you must", than are openly hostile to constitutional protections. Still, they erode that basic trust that must be maintained between the governors and the governed. Both sides suffer when that trust is eroded. Too often the system fights to maintain its authority, rather than maintaining balance. If you want an example, look no further the RCSO not having any body cams, but they have a fully functional MRAP!

Every law is Constitutional.... until ruled as unconstitutional by a court of law, not a group of individuals.

That's the way the system views it, but it's not accurate.

In the interest of further understanding, let us put a finer point on the matter. LEOs, help me out here:

Let us assume for discussion that the Rogers County deputies respected the Fourth Amendment and applied for a warrant to search for marijuana on the following gounds:
1) The third brake light of his car is inoperative.
2) He looks "nervous".
(These are the only two points articulated by the Rogers County deputies before searching.)

Do you anticipate that any judge would issue a search warrant on these grounds?

Sadly, yes. Rogers Co. has had its share of issues with the judiciary side of the "justice" system as well. That's not to say it's just a small jurisdiction issue. After all, the federal FISA court judges were rubber stamping the FBI's specious warrants against US citizens too.

I think we have gotten far off the original thought of this thread. The officers were acting within the laws, as currently written. There may well be more to this story. Individuals deciding what laws are "repugnant" to the Constitutional seldom has a happy ending.

That makes it sound like you can be stupid, or you can be fearful, but you can't be right. That's not right.

I think the key should and can fall back to one crucial word: reasonableness. It may not have been reasonable to do what the RCSO deputies did on the side of the road. It may have been reasonable under the circumstances they had knowledge of, which the subject of the stop wasn't aware of. Maybe they shouldn't have cuffed him and maybe they should've, only they will ever know. What they may have done is explain why they did what they did, once they knew they were pumping a dry well? You'd have to examine whether it was a case of bruised ego that they came up dry, didn't feel they should explain themselves because "he's just a kid who won't know any better", or they're trained not to give explanations because that opens them up to more questions. It could be a combination of all three. Or it could be they honestly believe the subject is a bad actor who just happened to not be holding this time.

I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze beyond what's already been wrung out of this case. OP and son went to the agency and aired their concerns. Said concerns were heard and acknowledged. Whether remedial training will be applied is beyond the purview of the citizen, as there's no legal requirement to comment on individual internal matters. The subject could sue, but to quote Mal from Firefly, "That’s a long wait for a train don’t come.”

I do know that if I'm stopped in Rogers Co., I'll help them out by recording the contact for them, since they can't as of yet.

 

[THAT Gurl]

Were it based only on that ... I remember being involved in a civil suit years ago where my attorney said yep you're right and you have a good solid case I can represent you no problem. He then said how much money and time do you have ? And we might still lose so would you like to try and work out a settlement ?


I say all that to say I am actually really well aware of case precedent and how it can affect the law and the handing out of judgements. I am also saying though allowing such to the level we have has corrupted the spirit of the law and what is actually written.

I do not disagree with anything you've said here. But knowing how "corrupted" a system may be does not absolve any of is from having to work inside the boundaries of that system. To be able to do that is every attorney's wet dream -- I miss Dave-and-Some-Numbers SO MUCH right now.

 

[CanadianRiverRat]

I'm amazed this fecal flinging fight is still dragging on....and on....and on.........

 

[THAT Gurl]

I'm amazed this fecal flinging fight is still dragging on....and on....and on.........

Ehhhhhh ... It's OSA. We have a love affair with the words "Yeah, well what if ...??" And look how much more info has come out about the stop (and actions after) since the original post. Paul Harvey was right about "the rest of the story". Biden will do ... Or say ... something stupid and we will move on shortly.