Ethics - Lying to make an arrest

[irfner]

imported post

I always thought 'reasonable suspicion' had to come before the stop and search. But then thats just me again.

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

I'm with you on requesting a person stop for an encounter. I can even get behind a REQUIREMENT to stop. I'm glad that you, and presumably other officers, recognize a right not to speak, BUT:
If you are able to stop and pat me down based merely on my location and "suspicious behavior," I regard this as a violation of my rights.

In this case, the suspicious behavior, talking to someone in a car while I am not, certainly doesn't pass the Terry test of "articulate suspicion" of criminal activity.

So I can support stopping him forcefully in this case, but only if it is made clear to the public that if I stop and don't talk, that I can go on my way within X amount of time.

A cop is not normally going to just stop people just to stop them. Cops are not that hard up to F with people. I am not saying it could not or does not happen. Anything is possible.

The police must determine if your are involved in criminal activity in a "reasonable" amount of time or let you go. That time is not set in stone.

Now if you are suspected of something that involved guns... like being in a gang.. the courts have already ruled that pat down of suspected gang members is absolutely permitted.

Yes..if I suspect you are a gang member I get to pat you down!! I will try and find the ruling.

So how do you differentiate between a gang and say a rouge political party the government doesn't like. We don't register gangs or vote that the cryps (sp?) are a gang and the hell's angles aren't.
Do you see the civil liberties implications with that kind of police discretion? I'm not so worried about what's happening today, but rather where this will lead us toward totalitarianism...

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

This subject highlights the problem with laws that allow the police to stop, detain, and prosecute when no other citizen has been harmed or filed any sort of complaint. The laws against drugs allow stops, searches, and seizures based solely on possession of a substance that is less harmful than most stuff you can buy at Home Depot. Laws requiring seatbelt use, laws against talking on a cell phone, drivers licenses requirements, etc., etc. None of these things are done for public safety, they just make it easier to control citizens and their actions.

If we got rid of all of these useless laws things would be so much easier. When someone complains about being harmed or defrauded, the police stop and question them. If nobody has a complaint, the cops have no reason to stop someone. Simple.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

Laws requiring seatbelt use, laws against talking on a cell phone, drivers licenses requirements, etc., etc. None of these things are done for public safety, they just make it easier to control citizens and their actions.

So, you honestly think that a teenager driving while talking on the cellphone is as safe as one who is not?

Come on.

When legislators enacted the cell phone and seatbelt laws, the LAST thing on their mind is, "This will allow police more control over the public." No, they're honestly looking at statistics and studies that show that someone on the cell phone is less attentive on the road than someone without. That someone not wearing a seatbelt is more likely to be ejected from an MVA and die than someone who is secured in their vehicle.

I'd agree with you had you stuck to stupid city ordinances like the low-rider pants or something along those lines, but there're valid studies out there for cellphones and seatbelts.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

irfner wrote:

I always thought 'reasonable suspicion' had to come before the stop and search. But then thats just me again.

You do.

But RS is not hard to find.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

So how do you differentiate between a gang and say a rouge political party the government doesn't like. We don't register gangs or vote that the cryps (sp?) are a gang and the hell's angles aren't.
Do you see the civil liberties implications with that kind of police discretion? I'm not so worried about what's happening today, but rather where this will lead us toward totalitarianism...

If you are flying colors, have gang tattoos, a known gang member, hanging out with gang members, or tagging an area.....

You are talking about gangs and a party. Does this political party do any of the above? Is the party involved in murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, and theft?

If not.. I do not think your party counts as a gang.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

This subject highlights the problem with laws that allow the police to stop, detain, and prosecute when no other citizen has been harmed or filed any sort of complaint. The laws against drugs allow stops, searches, and seizures based solely on possession of a substance that is less harmful than most stuff you can buy at Home Depot. Laws requiring seat belt use, laws against talking on a cell phone, drivers licenses requirements, etc., etc. None of these things are done for public safety, they just make it easier to control citizens and their actions.

If we got rid of all of these useless laws things would be so much easier. When someone complains about being harmed or defrauded, the police stop and question them. If nobody has a complaint, the cops have no reason to stop someone. Simple.

Are you kidding me!!!????

If that was the case.. Why is a seat belt violation a secondary violation?

Why not make a law that says the police can stop anyone for anything... no violation required.

Seat belts save lives. PERIOD! I have seen this at many accidents I have gone to. A car rolling over can discharge the occupants and then crush them. The seat belt kept them inside.

Teens on mobile phones are at a higher risk of accidents as they have not achieved the experience behind the wheel to multi task. The phone is a huge distraction!!

Not sure how a license is useless as it proves you are allowed to use the roadway and have passed the tests to do so safely.

Remove your tin foil hat please!! :lol:

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

So how do you differentiate between a gang and say a rouge political party the government doesn't like. We don't register gangs or vote that the cryps (sp?) are a gang and the hell's angles aren't.
Do you see the civil liberties implications with that kind of police discretion? I'm not so worried about what's happening today, but rather where this will lead us toward totalitarianism...

If you are flying colors, have gang tattoos, a known gang member, hanging out with gang members, or tagging an area.....

You are talking about gangs and a party. Does this political party do any of the above? Is the party involved in murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, and theft?

If not.. I do not think your party counts as a gang.

Political parties and groups fly all sorts of colors some cops might not like. For instance:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

Political parties and groups fly all sorts of colors some cops might not like. For instance:

Being gay does not make you a gang member.

No more than members on this OC board are gang members.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

Because you hear everyday how cops are targetting gay neighborhoods... :X

You've just about lost all credibility now.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Being gay does not make you a gang member.

No more than members on this OC board are gang members.

There are gang members here.

You do know who the largest street gang in America is, don't you? :lol:

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I do know! And they are strutting statists.

Either we are equal or we are not. good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

 

[Legba]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Cue-Ball wrote:

This subject highlights the problem with laws that allow the police to stop, detain, and prosecute when no other citizen has been harmed or filed any sort of complaint. The laws against drugs allow stops, searches, and seizures based solely on possession of a substance that is less harmful than most stuff you can buy at Home Depot. Laws requiring seat belt use, laws against talking on a cell phone, drivers licenses requirements, etc., etc. None of these things are done for public safety, they just make it easier to control citizens and their actions.

If we got rid of all of these useless laws things would be so much easier. When someone complains about being harmed or defrauded, the police stop and question them. If nobody has a complaint, the cops have no reason to stop someone. Simple.

Are you kidding me!!!????

If that was the case.. Why is a seat belt violation a secondary violation?

Why not make a law that says the police can stop anyone for anything... no violation required.

Seat belts save lives. PERIOD! I have seen this at many accidents I have gone to. A car rolling over can discharge the occupants and then crush them. The seat belt kept them inside.

Teens on mobile phones are at a higher risk of accidents as they have not achieved the experience behind the wheel to multi task. The phone is a huge distraction!!

Not sure how a license is useless as it proves you are allowed to use the roadway and have passed the tests to do so safely.

Remove your tin foil hat please!! :lol:

FYI: Violating the seat belt law constitutes a primary offense in Ohio - I've been stopped because passengers weren't wearing them (I always wear mine), only to have it turn into a "fishing trip."

-ljp

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Legba wrote:

FYI: Violatinig the seat belt law constitutes a primary offense in Ohio - I've been stopped because passengers weren't wearing them (I always wear mine), only to have it turn into a "fishing trip."

-ljp

In Virginia and some other states it is secondary.

Seat belts save lives. Use them and you will not be stopped... now will you.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

And IIRC SC

 

[Legba]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Legba wrote:

FYI: Violatinig the seat belt law constitutes a primary offense in Ohio - I've been stopped because passengers weren't wearing them (I always wear mine), only to have it turn into a "fishing trip."

-ljp

In Virginia and some other states it is secondary.

Seat belts save lives. Use them and you will not be stopped... now will you.

Not necessarily. I was stopped once for supposedly driving by a "known crack house" slowly (I was placing a cell phone call). The police - only after stopping me - noticed that I had a cracked windshield (the only "crack" involved) and gave me an "equipment ticket" (no-point/no-fine)for that. They had no reason to have stopped me otherwise, except to try to get me to consent to a search to recover the crack they imagined I was getting at this house. Nevermind my car never stopped, I never approached the house, nobody came to the car, I don't know anyone there, I don't smoke crack, etc. I asked them if it was "known" that crack was being sold there, why they didn't arrest the people in the house instead of stopping people for just being in proximity to the place. I never got a satisfactory explanation.

I reminded the police that the entire United States is a "high drug area" and asked if it was permissible to stop anyone at any time because of this. They shrugged.

-ljp

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Only26 states have it as a primary reason to stop. Guess the other states are not on board with your reason to have the law.

http://www.rvhelpdesk.com/seatbelt-laws.html


At a rate of 82 percent, NHTSA estimates that safety belts are preventing 15,700 fatalities, 350,000 serious injuries, and $67 billion in economic costs associated with traffic injuries and deaths every year.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

And IIRC SC

Secondary Violation

 

[ufcfanvt]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Because you hear everyday how cops are targetting gay neighborhoods... :X

You've just about lost all credibility now.

Apparently you either haven't the capability to read or rather the comprehension to make sense of anything you do.
The point was not that gay people belong to gangs or that the gay movement is a gang. The point is that "flying colors" doesn't amount to articulate suspicion of anything.
I chose the gay flag to further the point that police might misuse their discretionary power to detain. I could have picked the Democrat Donkey, the Swastika, the Orange color to symbolize the recent revolution in Ukraine.

The point is it's bad practice to allow police to stop and search anyone they choose based solely on the clothes they wear. The implications are quite totalitarian.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

Apparently you either haven't the capability to read or rather the comprehension to make sense of anything you do.
The point was not that gay people belong to gangs or that the gay movement is a gang. The point is that "flying colors" doesn't amount to articulate suspicion of anything.
I chose the gay flag to further the point that police might misuse their discretionary power to detain. I could have picked the Democrat Donkey, the Swastika, the Orange color to symbolize the recent revolution in Ukraine.

The point is it's bad practice to allow police to stop and search anyone they choose based solely on the clothes they wear. The implications are quite totalitarian.

And, apparently, your weak arguments force you to result to insults in a feeble attempt to make your point.

Never has anyone stated that a Terry stop is justifiable SOLEY by the clothes they wear as you've just stated. The totality of the circumstances are taken into account and, make no mistake, the officer's power to detain is not discretionary as you're trying to pass off, they MUST be able to articulate their reasons or they put their jobs and financial well-being in jeopardy.