Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="perfor8" data-source="post: 3943252" data-attributes="member: 10088"><p>I'm retired LEO.</p><p></p><p>You mentioned in a post that the deputies offered to "drop the charges". Was he cited? Arrested? If not, then there will be no "charges" and it all worked out exactly as it should have. The upshot is the deputies conducted an investigation and concluded no crime was afoot. What, exactly, are you upset about? For what it's worth, officers don't make "charge" decisions. District Attorneys do, based on reports and investigations of officers.</p><p></p><p>Regarding no Miranda warning... Miranda is required for custodial (conditions under which a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave) interrogation. Given that your son was detained (and handcuffed) the circumstances were certainly custodial. Any question qualifies as interrogation. The problem is that the only "remedy" for violating Miranda warning requirements is that any evidence procured absent Miranda isn't allowed in court. There's no punishment for the officer. No fine, no slap on the wrist, no civil lawsuit is available. The same applies to unreasonable searches - the only remedy is that evidence procured outside of constitutional protections isn't allowed in court. A 20 year old man should be aware that he has a right to be silent, regardless of whether a Miranda warning is given.</p><p></p><p>Yes, the detainment is legit given the non-operable third taillight and the search could be legal if K-9 alerted. Yes, K-9 can smell incredibly low concentrations of substances.</p><p></p><p>The response and actions of the deputies seem extreme given the circumstances. Either we don't know the whole story or they were bored. Even given only your half of the story, I see no malevolence on the part of the officers - and I hold them to high constitutional standards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="perfor8, post: 3943252, member: 10088"] I'm retired LEO. You mentioned in a post that the deputies offered to "drop the charges". Was he cited? Arrested? If not, then there will be no "charges" and it all worked out exactly as it should have. The upshot is the deputies conducted an investigation and concluded no crime was afoot. What, exactly, are you upset about? For what it's worth, officers don't make "charge" decisions. District Attorneys do, based on reports and investigations of officers. Regarding no Miranda warning... Miranda is required for custodial (conditions under which a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave) interrogation. Given that your son was detained (and handcuffed) the circumstances were certainly custodial. Any question qualifies as interrogation. The problem is that the only "remedy" for violating Miranda warning requirements is that any evidence procured absent Miranda isn't allowed in court. There's no punishment for the officer. No fine, no slap on the wrist, no civil lawsuit is available. The same applies to unreasonable searches - the only remedy is that evidence procured outside of constitutional protections isn't allowed in court. A 20 year old man should be aware that he has a right to be silent, regardless of whether a Miranda warning is given. Yes, the detainment is legit given the non-operable third taillight and the search could be legal if K-9 alerted. Yes, K-9 can smell incredibly low concentrations of substances. The response and actions of the deputies seem extreme given the circumstances. Either we don't know the whole story or they were bored. Even given only your half of the story, I see no malevolence on the part of the officers - and I hold them to high constitutional standards. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom