Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

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.

Interesting.
What natural rights are not absolute? (By which we are ultimately seeking onotology: what is a right in the first place?)
I suspect this is the root of your emotional disagreement.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

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?

Well, I'm honestly not that interested in spending 20 mins watching that video. Besides...it sounds like the issue has been resolved by a court so it really doesn't matter what I think.

You obviously don't know this, but... I left law enforcement after nearly 15 years for a lot of reasons people object to the police in the first place. And I had a really good career going...SWAT, firearms instructor, training officer and shift supervisor for the last 3 years.

I never saw what I considered to be corruption or "bad" cops. There were some who did things they shouldn't have done but, in my experience, they were punished (up to termination) by the dept or by their fellow officers. Few people outside of law enforcement believe this but a bad cop's worst enemy is the other good cops.

Most of the "bad" I saw was just in the form of being lazy or not carrying their share of the workload. I never did like the "us vs them" mentality. On the other hand, this thread and some of the comments in it, which are typical of this group, makes it really easy to understand why so many cops feel the way they do towards the people they're supposed to be serving. It's a two-way street.

I also didn't like the way so many depts were trending towards becoming para-military type organizations. For many cops, the job defines them. It's the only thing they know. I wasn't one of those types. I enjoyed my job for many years but I wasn't afraid to leave it when I was no longer happy.

I've never said there are no bad cops. We all know that's not the case. But that's because police departments hire people and sometimes one slips thru the cracks that shouldn't. It sucks for everyone. People pretty much just suck, regardless of their occupation.

I'll tell you this...I couldn't do the job today. There are far too many a-holes out there whose mission in life is to make life miserable for all police officers, good and bad. I'd be in jail if I'd had to deal with some of these people I listen to and see on YT videos day in and day out. And that's the truth. Then again, it might be worth it judging by some of the s**t I've seen.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Interesting.
What natural rights are not absolute? (By which we are ultimately seeking onotology: what is a right in the first place?)
I suspect this is the root of your emotional disagreement.

Nope... You figure that out yourself. I tried to get that discussion going but you evaded the question. You seem to be a bright guy. I'm sure you can come up with exceptions to nearly all the "rights" we have.

 

[Glocktogo]

Interesting.
What natural rights are not absolute? (By which we are ultimately seeking onotology: what is a right in the first place?)
I suspect this is the root of your emotional disagreement.

No right is absolute. Never have been, never will be.

 

[Chuckie]

Interesting.
What natural rights are not absolute? (By which we are ultimately seeking onotology: what is a right in the first place?)
I suspect this is the root of your emotional disagreement.

I want to play


When asking what " natural " Rights are absolute, are you referring to those Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States? If so then the 2nd Amendment is not absolute in that, though the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it IS limited. For example, even under the 2nd Amendment, one would not be allowed to own Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) such as Thermal Nuclear Weapons or Barometric type bombs. So in this sense, the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

Another Amendment that is not an absolute is that of the 1st Amendment which set limits on the 'Freedom of Speech' such as one cannot legally goad someone into committing suicide, publicly defame another person, nor verbally incite a riot, to name a few possibilities. 'Freedom of Speech' under the 1st Amendment is, again, not absolute.

 

[Tinytim]

"Can I search your car? What do you mean no? I smell weed, I'm gonna do it anyway. STOP RESISTING!" POW POW POW POW POW POW -Average cop these days

“Average cop these days”?, do you really believe that statement, your average cop would shoot you if you denied the Leo to search?
Sounds a tad bit dramatic.
Tim

 

[Tinytim]

Oh, and as an almost incidental aside, my son's brake lights are not broken and are functional too. So there's that!

I’ll guess that the stop was between midnight and 0700.

 

[tweetr]

Well, I'm honestly not that interested in spending 20 mins watching that video. Besides...it sounds like the issue has been resolved by a court so it really doesn't matter what I think.

You obviously don't know this, but... I left law enforcement after nearly 15 years for a lot of reasons people object to the police in the first place. And I had a really good career going...SWAT, firearms instructor, training officer and shift supervisor for the last 3 years.

I never saw what I considered to be corruption or "bad" cops. There were some who did things they shouldn't have done but, in my experience, they were punished (up to termination) by the dept or by their fellow officers. Few people outside of law enforcement believe this but a bad cop's worst enemy is the other good cops.

Most of the "bad" I saw was just in the form of being lazy or not carrying their share of the workload. I never did like the "us vs them" mentality. On the other hand, this thread and some of the comments in it, which are typical of this group, makes it really easy to understand why so many cops feel the way they do towards the people they're supposed to be serving. It's a two-way street.

I also didn't like the way so many depts were trending towards becoming para-military type organizations. For many cops, the job defines them. It's the only thing they know. I wasn't one of those types. I enjoyed my job for many years but I wasn't afraid to leave it when I was no longer happy.

I've never said there are no bad cops. We all know that's not the case. But that's because police departments hire people and sometimes one slips thru the cracks that shouldn't. It sucks for everyone. People pretty much just suck, regardless of their occupation.

I'll tell you this...I couldn't do the job today. There are far too many a-holes out there whose mission in life is to make life miserable for all police officers, good and bad. I'd be in jail if I'd had to deal with some of these people I listen to and see on YT videos day in and day out. And that's the truth. Then again, it might be worth it judging by some of the s**t I've seen.

Well, I agree with all that.

 

[tweetr]

I’ll guess that the stop was between midnight and 0700.

Nope. About 08:00. Just pulling into work.

 

[Tinytim]

I'm organizing my thoughts on how to proceed, and I welcome any input in organizing my thoughts.

1) My ultimate goal for any action is that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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. I want my son and everyone else to go peacably about their business secure against capricious search and battery upon their persons.

To that end I want the Rogers County Sheriff's Department spanked for violating my son's person. How best to proceed?

Supporting facts:
1) The brake lights are and were in fact functioning, negating the stated reason for his stop.
2) Any LEOs can help me out here: do you normally perform a "taillight" stop with three vehicles and a dog?
3) In a "tailight" stop do you normally pull the driver out, search him, handcuff him, and place him in the police vehicle?
4) Stated reason for the search of his person and vehicle was "smelling weed." As there was no weed found nor confiscated, this reason is tenuous at best and certainly bears the appearance of a blanket excuse to violate his person and effects.
5) Questioning him for what could be a felony suspicion without advising him of his rights probably violates Miranda (more research needed.)
6) There was no marijuana, nor any reasonable suspicion of marijuana.
7) Is the mere presence of (a suspicion of) marijuana grounds for a warrantless search? (More research needed.)

How old is your Son? If he’s 18 or older you’ll not get far, if he’s an adult and a parent wants to lodge a complaint, it’s hearsay, so the best course of action is to talk with your Son and see what he want to do.