Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

Pretty much any patrol car I ever drove would get a hit by a dog. Cops frequently transport drugs in their cars...it's part of the job. So that would hardly be a valid control.

I agree.
Which illustrates one of the problems with the dog's reaction as establishing probable cause. There are many reasons that might cause a dog to react in a particular way that do not necessarily indicate probable cause to believe a crime has occurred.

Further, how does the defendant cross examine the dog under oath?

 

[CanadianRiverRat]

Expressly including citing "nervousness" as establishing probable cause for a search. And further finding the search of his person for weapons as unjustified, as there was no reasonable suspicion that the young kid might be armed.

I am not, and never have been a LEO but I find no fault in an officer responding as such. If you exhibit nervous or erratic behaviour around me, then be assured I presume the possibility you're up to something, are possibly armed and my mindset immediately goes to "prepare to engage". So no, I can't fault an officer for being suspicious and then verifying no weapons present, particularly when if he didn't and a gunfight ensued the armchair quarterbacks would hold him at fault for not checking, esp. if an innocent got injured.
I see it as a situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[tweetr]

How do you evaluate the actions of the Detective in Tea-Ahn Lea's case with respect to the Fourth Amendment? The entire encounter is available for review by his body cam recording. (Conveniently in Lea's case; inconveniently in the case I described.)

 

[CanadianRiverRat]

@ tweetr Obtain and read a book titled "Left of Bang", used as DoD training text. If you read it and understand the principles set forth, you may well gain a new viewpoint here.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

I am not, and never have been a LEO but I find no fault in an officer responding as such. If you exhibit nervous or erratic behaviour around me, then be assured I presume the possibility you're up to something, are possibly armed and my mindset immediately goes to "prepare to engage". So no, I can't fault an officer for being suspicious and then verifying no weapons present, particularly when if he didn't and a gunfight ensued the armchair quarterbacks would hold him at fault for not checking, esp. if an innocent got injured.
I see it as a situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That's because you're viewing things objectively and as a realist. Not as someone who lives in fantasy land. Courts oftentimes side with your point of view.

Tweetr believes there is never an occasion where an officer can conduct a search or seizure without a warrant. He believes that because he doesn't understand some fundamental concepts such as "un/reasonable" or "totality of circumstances". He also has no clue how law enforcement works.

He's butt hurt over this issue and he's butt hurt because things in reality are different than how he'd like them to be. I feel that way, too, but it doesn't hurt my feelings. He also likes to use emotionally charged terms like "torn apart" to describe what the officers allegedly did to his son's car. He does that, as do other people, to elicit an emotional response and to gain validation from others. Not because it's really accurate.

 

[tweetr]

@ tweetr Obtain and read a book titled "Left of Bang", used as DoD training text. If you read it and understand the principles set forth, you may well gain a new viewpoint here.

Not familiar. I'll look it up.

 

[tweetr]

That's because you're viewing things objectively and as a realist. Not as someone who lives in fantasy land. Courts oftentimes side with your point of view.

Tweetr believes there is never an occasion where an officer can conduct a search or seizure without a warrant. He believes that because he doesn't understand some fundamental concepts such as "un/reasonable" or "totality of circumstances". He also has no clue how law enforcement works.

He's butt hurt over this issue and he's butt hurt because things in reality are different than how he'd like them to be. I feel that way, too, but it doesn't hurt my feelings. He also likes to use emotionally charged terms like "torn apart" to describe what the officers allegedly did to his son's car. He does that, as do other people, to elicit an emotional response and to gain validation from others. Not because it's really accurate.

Gratuitous. And indulgent in transferrence.
But also completely unnecessary. There just isn't any reason for you to take offense. I asked for input, you provided your opinion. Whether or not I agree with your opinion, I still appreciate your giving it.

 

[tweetr]

Gratuitous. And indulgent in transferrence.
But also completely unnecessary. There just isn't any reason for you to take offense. I asked for input, you provided your opinion. Whether or not I agree with your opinion, I still appreciate your giving it.

We can cure your objection to embellishment by turning our attention away from the case in which there is no video recording, to a parallel case in which there is. Viewing the Lea stop video as linked above removes reliance merely on persons' recall.
What say you? Probable cause to search the young man and his car, or no?

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

I have no problems with you or your opinion, tweetr. I don't know you so I can't possibly not like you. But some of the things you post in regards to 4th Amend issues aren't supported in law, legal precedence or in the Constitution you like to quote so much. It's been explained to you more than once.

Whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not, or agrees with it or not, many of the natural rights affirmed to each of us are not absolute. And the Constitution sets up a high court to make those determinations. Sometimes they get it wrong, in my opinion. Probably more than sometimes. But it shapes law. Few procedures in law enforcement haven't changed over time because of this. Law enforcement adapts to precedence and court opinion just like everyone else. Miranda is a great example.

There are lots of things in this world I'd like to see changed. But I also live in the reality of many won't change. Regardless, b**ching about them on a forum surely won't change things.

 

[kingfish]

I just wanted to be the 300th post to this thread.