On a side note, how did they find the money? Or was this an expensive lesson in why not to consent to a search?
Basically they need to continue writing your citation for speed or a brake light or whatever, at a reasonable speed. If you ever see dash/body cam footage where this is relevant, cops have had charges dismissed because they fill out the entire citation but don't sign it in about 10 minutes, then spend 45 minutes questioning everyone in the car and trying to get probable cause for a search. This is part of why they'll do a lot of the fishing at the beginning before they start the citation process, as that's seen as more "reasonable" than doing it at the end. This is also why it's so important to only give the info you're required to and not to answer any other questions. It increases the odds you'll get that first ticket but it cuts off their ability to extend the stop.
There are also rules about how long they can detain you while waiting. See a lawyer (the rules may not be good but you can get off in court if they are 'too long')
The presumption of innocence is mostly a fiction.
BTW, I've done jury duty and witnessed the DA's case fall apart as witnesses and evidence was excluded. It's hard to build a strong narrative when whole chapters have to be ripped out. Years of evidence went up in smoke because they weren't handled correctly.
Anyway, the point is you don't make the cops job easier because they certainly don't deserve it.
We were 51% certain the guy was guilty but everything else left too much doubt.
Violation of an order of protection case, charged with violating a 500 foot OOP by 2 feet. Apparently part of the sidewalk at a nearby intersection was 498 feet from the house, but they didn't even pop up a map of the area just threw a bunch of street names at jurors from all over the major metro area.
Typically what happens is the defendant doesn't exercise their constitutional right to shut the fuck up. The only statement you should give is: "I don't consent","my lawyer","I'm remaining silent".
NEVER consent to a search. However, never obstruct one either.
Say it over and over again, any time they ask you to move, any time they ask to search again, any time they say they're going to pat you down, etc. Be a broken record. It's become a meme but this is why you see people asking if they're being detained over and over again because once the cops say yes that changes the rules considerably (in your favor).
It's worth a shot, yes, but it's also unlikely to change the tables. Because again, the only time you would need to utilize such information is when you're encountering a cop who is actively abusing their power. My point is that in such situations, the information has a chance to de-escalate, be neutral, or escalate the situation.
It's hard to tell on the Internet what the intent is because well intended seemingly good advice can also be noise. I'm just trying to convey that the picture isn't black and white. I mean if things happened they way they should, we wouldn't need to call a supervisor or remind a cop of the law, right?
Yes, because in intense situations, it matters often much more how you say something, than what exactly you are saying.
Remember that from the point of view of the cops, you might draw a gun at any moment, if they misjudged you. They need to feel they are in control of the situation.
So giving a legal correct counter, but in a snarky or aggressive voice, might not help.
But calmly reminding them of certain laws and maybe even asking them, if they are sure that they could justify their actions in a court, might work better than resisting and demanding things of armed police officers.
This will mostly just come across as patronizing and more likely to 'deal with you in court' while your smarmy ass sits somewhere.
Some real advice: don't tell a cop how to do their job. Answer the damn questions and be assertively "no" if they ask you to consent to anything. That's it. If they go away, great. If they make your life hell. That sucks, but don't do anything to make it worse, like patronizing them. Suck it up and deal with it later.
> Remember that from the point of view of the citizen, the cop might draw a gun at any moment, if they misjudged you. They need to feel they are in control of the situation.
The point I'm making with the edit is that the cop is a trained professional while the citizen is some random bloke.
Not that while the citizen might have a weapon, the situation is unambiguous for the officer. They have several...
So both people are in the same situation and seeking the same thing (at this basic level), right? The question is who has the higher obligation, who has to "be the bigger man?"
In all other professions, it is generally without dispute that the greater burden falls upon the professional. The one with training. The one with authority! By nature of the interaction the cop has more control than a citizen. Power granted by law, a position of authority, and an unambiguous armament.
I need you to think carefully about the consequences of your argument. How they extend past this specific example we have in our heads. You'll need to clarify to what extent this is okay.
Authority needs not just be accountable, but accountable in proportion to the power we grant them. Do I need to quote Uncle Ben‽‽‽ Without a doubt, officers have substantially more power than the average citizen, thus I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest they should be held to a higher degree of accountability. I maintain this position regardless of the type of authority. In many cases, ignorance is not an excuse. With professionals, ignorance may not just not be an excuse, but an active act of malice (a doctor who does not continue their education has actively chosen inaction. Their ignorance will not hold up in a court of law. In our case, I see no reason ignorance is different from malice when the requisite knowledge is commonly taught in middle and high school. I am willing to give a pass for complex issues, but not stop and frisk)
Again, this is not true. There are other situations where this info can be beneficial (ignorant cops or deceptive but not corrupt cops).
> ignorant cops
We are talking about something fairly basic, so if our standards of policing are that it is excusable that a cop does not understand... the 4th amendment... then I'm not sure it is worth distinguishing from abuse. As such level of incompetence would necessitate willfulness.
> deceptive
Look, I am happy you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. We need people to provide such perspectives. In all honesty, I do appreciate your comment and that you are pushing back, but I think you'll need to take a significantly different route if you are to sway me. I think continuing down this train of reasoning will fail to persuade those with similar views. This does not mean there isn't an argument that would, just not this one.
Most police officers will bully you within the extent of their authority and try to deceive you into complying beyond their authority, but will not physically break the law.
With those police, being polite but firm is a good strategy.
- - - - -
Example: you’re in the parking lot of a business after hours, sitting there with a backpack; two officers in a cruiser park and get out to find out what you’re doing.
1. Well — legal or not, they’re going to detain you for a moment until they decide how to proceed
2. and they’ll pretend the only way to make that stop is let them search your bag to “prove you didn’t steal anything”
3. but if you politely repeat that you’re not consenting to any searches and would like to leave, they’ll let you go because at best they have probable cause for trespassing.
"most" is probably correct, but of course cops that don't break the law don't make the news because it's uninteresting.
I think the real problem we have is the cops that DO break the law and violate your rights and absolutely nothing happens.
A cop that searches your bag without probable cause or consent needs immediate retraining on the first offense, and needs to be fired on the second offense. If the cop gets fired and then gets hired as a cop somewhere else and commits the same offense, they need to be permanently banned from being a cop.
But you’re right, we shouldn’t be in this place as a nation, wondering if police are going to be ethical even most of the time.
They get trained to get you to misspeak, and they ask you questions that if you answer them like a normal human you give up rights...
"Simply tell the cops you're leaving because The Law" even moreso.
In the US if you ask the cops anything you risk getting tased or having a knee on your neck.
On another note, in many states the dogs can't be trained on marijuana as it has legal purposes (medicinal or recreational). If coming from a state where it is legal, it still shouldn't provide probable cause as the sniffable residue could be from previous legal use.
So in my view, the drug dog liability is low (biggest threat being planted evidence, but that could happen anyways), and being reined in further. Yes, the made-up probable cause is more likely. That's why I was wondering.
Well, really everything has become heavily criminalized in the 20th century. Especially as things that aren't outright outlawed are regulated to the extreme. Drugs, alcohol, guns, knives, etc. Some things have gotten more open, but virtually everything has gotten more complicated and easy to get tripped up on technicalities.
It may as well be "The officer saw you drinking in a vision"
The plain smell test has this problem in general. So does any witness testimony. In the case of driving, they will issue sobriety tests and a blood test. But part of these searches is different because of the way driving is treated as a privilege and the conditions you agree too in requesting a license. These subsequent tests will verify the officer's statements. The admissibility of evidence from searches based on this sort of "mistake" is up to the court to determine if it was in good faith.
As for the lying... there is a difference between lying and being mistaken. Very few people in general are prosecuted for perjury because it requires proving that they willfully provided false testimony. This is very evident in the way protection from abuse orders are misused in many divorces and the requestor is almost never charged. However, police are (in theory) held to a higher standard with the use of Giglio/Brady lists. These list only need to show that the officer is repeatedly unreliable, not actually lying. In practice, these might not be very effective because it's up to prosecutors to maintain these lists. They only have incentive to add officers if they lose too many cases for the prosecution.
I believe you are also wrong about the limited scope of a search. If additional crimes are uncovered during a legitimate search, they absolutely can charge you with it and use the evidence they found. Think about what you're saying. If they find pools of blood in your trunk while looking for drugs, they will definitely admit that as evidence against you and cause to search all your property.
Local police can arrest anyone for illegally crossing US border and can arrest someone for being undocumented(where not banned by state law), they are just not obligated to by federal law or US constitution.
The residue is enough for the dog to alert.
"If additional crimes are uncovered during a legitimate search, they absolutely can charge you with it and use the evidence they found."
Any examples of that? Usually with warrants they have to specify what they are looking for. Probable cause searches are supposed to do the same.
> Only the feds enforce federal crimes
Recreational - no, but you also won't get arrested by the Feds. TSA will report it to law enforcement. If it's legal in that state, nothing will happen orher than forfeiture if you plan to fly. Basically the same deal as if you left a knife in your bag.
You're unlikely to be arrested by any federal LEO, as there are not many of them. Your local LEO do the arrest and then transfer to the relevant agency.
Law enforcement can, and do, cooperate to arrest individuals.
Imagine if a suspect could get away from being arrested just by crossing into another state.
Enforcement begins whenever someone is detained and federal LEOs routinely request assistance from local LEOs... and they get that collaboration.
Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol
This one might be interesting too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans Even an error in a warrant might not save you.
You'd just be an idiot to think that your dead body in the trunk would be excluded as evidence during any search, much less a lawful search. Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant, only probable cause like "I smelled something" or "The suspect was acting erratic/intoxicated" which is your word vs. theirs. If you find a case where a murderer was uncovered during a lawful search and that evidence was thrown out due to it being off topic, please let me know.
Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier.
"Even an error in a warrant might not save you."
Yeah, depends on the error and the good faith excpetion.
"Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant,"
Yes, I mentioned that in other comments. But that probable cause is supposed to follow the same standards. It's just expedited by cutting out the judge.
That example would be hard to find because anything they find could be potentially covered under the independent source avenue. But that has to come from a separate warrant. Since murders don't have a statute of limitations, that's open ended and would almost always result in a secondary search even if the first search evidence was thrown out.
I think there is more than one plain view exception. Things in plain view from outside your protected space are definitely fair game but that is not what that case describes. Things were found in plain view while conducting a search for another reason. So, presumably, if your garage was being searched for a stolen car, that would not cover discoveries made while digging through boxes in there. But if they were digging through boxes for stolen property and found evidence of another crime, they could use it. The contents of opaque boxes are not in "plain view" but can be uncovered in an unrelated search.
Can a discovery from an illegal search give probable cause for another search? I think it can.
There are many ways the 4th amendment can fall apart in practice. All I was saying in the first comment (that I remember) is that evidence of additional crimes is admissible if it was found during a legal search for some other purpose. Needless to say, there are also many situations where an officer can lie about probable cause and get away with it. Juries and judges care more about stopping crime than the privacy rights of criminals. Only the most blatant violations of the 4th amendment ever work against the state from what I've seen. And if you're innocent, you can complain. But the complaints rarely go anywhere either.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417
What’s more interesting is how easy hacker news can detect a boiled egg.
Only the most refined version of a red head can make it here on hacker news. One must veil their agitations in deep plausible deniability to get past the gate. Embrace the vanilla and refine your penmanship.
Then there's the "You're posting too fast" thing. I think fast and people respond with predictable stuff to my comments. I can only respond to like 2 of them at once or I won't be able to comment on anything else for hours.
I don't think there's anything wrong with spirited discussions. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Simple argument does not make it a flame war.
The problem is things are very selectively enforced, so it ends up not feeling fair or consistent. The intentions are great, the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
Instant downvote.
> If you don’t consent to searches, cops that want to search you will either simply search you illegally anyway
Another time I was visiting the Golden gate Park. I asked a ranger for directions. He said we smelled like weed. I told him SF smelled like weed. He asked to search, we walked, he grabbed us and my backpack. His evidence to give us a ticket was my still sealed bottle from the dispensary.
I won't say all cops are bad, but some just want to abuse their power. I won't say cops are good, because the ones that don't abuse do know the ones that do. And you know what they say about "good men" who do nothing...
And people still wonder why I'm critical of authority
It would never happen and I'm not sure it should but I often think about what a community based approach might look like. For example, a requirement that police live in the community they're policing or some sort of conscription model.
Moreover, the abuse of power looks to develop over time, learning it from other abusive cops, and going further. It is a cycle of abuse taught from senior to junior. Even if the police represent the community or are conscripted, they still can learn such abusive behavior.
The solution can be for all teams to be new, to not pass bad cultural knowledge from the old team to the new team.
> a community based approach might look like
I think some of the problems are related to the fact that parts of society don't scale well (though some do). As population grows, so does anonymity. But a powerful tool to fight abuse of authority is by decreasing anonymity, as this creates a social pressure. There are disadvantages to cops being biased towards their communities, but I think this is better than the bias of indifference. We're dealing with humans, and the direction in which we should _error_ should *always* be on the side of compassion.
[0] Perfection does not exist and will not. So we have to be nuanced
Until they start seizing bank branches under suspicion of being used in a crime, this selective scamming won’t stop
Guns are tools to kill people. Red flag laws exist to identify people who have them and are likely to use them. If a few people get caught up by the net by mistake, the societal impact is that we have fewer guns on the streets while those people are inconvenienced.
Compare that to seizing people's cars. Sure, cars are dangerous, but people need them to travel to/from work/school/etc. The impact of seizing a car from someone by mistake is they could lose their job, their house if they lose income, etc. It's a lot worse than a gun owner not having access to their gun for a little bit.
So no, property is not property.
The real differentiator here is simply the prejudices the speaker holds against one item or the other. For example, you conveniently leave out all manner of lawful and beneficial uses that the gun owner is inconvenienced with, including potential loss of life or victimization while unarmed.
I think any argument around guns that focuses on ideological thought experiments like self defense from a "violent government" is not worth exploring. Because then you're talking about how to organize an armed insurrection, not how to reduce mass shootings and domestic partner violence.
> Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary.
And it's convenient for the craziest people in our society to have easy access to weapons and ammunition because of widespread paranoia about defending yourself from those people. Seems like the easy solution is to make access to weapons harder!
For me this smacks of California style government i.e. "we've made gas and energy so expensive that people use less energy, and environmentally that's -a good thing-" or "we've made permit regulations so bad nobody is able to build anything anymore and environmentally that's -a good thing-"
The crux of these things is that if you presume that these are basic rights: not having property confiscating, building a house without too much red tape, free market energy economy - then we have arrived at -a good thing- via -an unethical thing- and thus it's a good outcome through an unethical means, or "fruit from the poison tree" as ethics states.
From a legal perspective, these are trying to avoid a completely hypothetical scenario of Peter's hypothetical gun hypothetically shooting Paul, or Peter's hypothetical +20% pollution hurting the life of Paul, and George got jammed up by the law and hates it, but the lawmaker who is worried solely about Paul is quite pleased with himself about having saved Paul from the hypothetical which may or may not have actually happened.
That's the problem though, isn't it? Less guns should exist in public, and the 'right' the US has shouldn't have been extended as far as it has, so it needs to be choked and leashed.
Same with utilities...they might be a right, but the specific means of generation isn't necessarily a right, and maybe it shouldn't be.
I did not make that point, but I also don't understand yours.
Guns are used to kill something. In hunting they are used to kill animals, and otherwise they are used to kill other people, or yourself in the case of suicide. You don't do anything with a gun except kill or attempt to kill something.
But yes, in general killing or potential killing is the purpose. But this reasoning implies that killing is bad even when there are legitimate circumstances.
Also, I never once implied that killing is bad. For example, killing animals for food is not bad. Also, killing someone who is trying to kill you is not bad.
Websters even considers books as tools as they relate to scholars. By the definition, they are tools. In the context of hunting (and policing, and self defense), they absolutely offer utility.
I don't know what you meant to imply or not. But colloquially, when those statements are made they usually imply a negative view of it. I would bet that more than a few readers would have read it with that in mind. What is evident based on your prior comment and this one is that you do not consider utility to include killing.
I'd like to emphasize the "potential" here even more - one of the greatest uses of guns is as as a deterrent, and this is worth differentiating from actually killing.
People who claim that the only use for a gun is to kill are factually wrong, and you can point this out.
What non killing-or-practicing-killing use do handguns have? Zero.
Surely there must be better ways of “ensuring equity” than threat of death.
Also, if you think a handgun is going to protect you “from a … violent government” you should see what happens (or really, doesn’t happen) when a handgun round hits modern tank plate.
This argument implies that killing is never justified. Society in general seems to disagree with that. Killing as a last resort to protect yourself is considered reasonable.
Also, there are remote areas where it would be much more likely for the killing to take place against animals than humans. These sorts of scenarios seem to be overlooked quite frequently in these arguments.
In your remote area hypothetical, a rifle would be the appropriate tool. I was very specifically talking about handguns, which are most frequently used to kill the person holding it[0][1], and it’s getting worse[2], hence the Red Flag laws that started this entire thread. And that’s the reason there’s a significant difference between a pile of cash and the equivalent value handgun should absolutely not be treated equally.
0: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/05/24/suicides-...
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...
2: https://www.cdc.gov/firearm-violence/php/data-trends/firearm...
The logical conclusion from this is that if someone is going to kill you, and you have the option to stop them via possible-fatal means, you have to let them kill you. I don't think most people agree with this ideology, or that it's compatible with...any of the common systems of morality.
> It should never, ever be up to one person to decide if someone else should live or die.
This is inconsistent with reality. Criminals don't adhere to this belief, and so it doesn't work for anyone who might be attacked by a criminal, either.
The courts find justifiable homicides often. Statute, code, and case law even define specific instances when it is justified. That's not one person, but many creating those. The only person who can make a decision in the moment is the person who is there. They have to live with that decision, but nobody else can make it for them.
"In your remote area hypothetical, a rifle would be the appropriate tool."
Not really. Handguns are the prevailing tool of choice due to the ease of carrying them while performing other tasks. Sure, rifles and shotguns are better choices for hunting, but get burdensome if fishing, foraging, working, etc.
"I was very specifically talking about handguns, which are most frequently used to kill the person holding it[0][1], and it’s getting worse[2], hence the Red Flag laws that started this entire thread."
They might be the tool of choice for suicides, and that suicides are more common than homicides. However, that has nothing to do with their "most frequent use". There are plenty of uses that don't result in death. If you only focus on the negatives, then your perspective will be skewed and you can come to a valid value proposition. The numbers have been trending down and have only ticked up slightly. Your argument also assumes that suicide is always wrong. Most of the people I know who committed suicide did so because they had terminal dementias. Perhaps it's not as big of a problem as the gross numbers suggest if we dive into it deeper. There are also stats out there that show defensive gun use us more common that firearm injuries.
Finally, red flag laws are not primarily about preventing suicide. Existing laws about involuntary commitment better handle it because they offer actual help whereas red flag laws take away only one of many methods of suicide and don't offer any real help. They were primarily created to prevent mass shootings by creating a a version of existing protection from abuse orders that didn't require domestic or family relations.
This is factually wrong. Guns are extremely useful as deterrents, even when never fired.
> Also, if you think a handgun is going to protect you “from a … violent government” you should see what happens (or really, doesn’t happen) when a handgun round hits modern tank plate.
This has been debunked a long time ago, in Afghanistan, and in most other authoritarian regimes - governments need a disarmed populace in order to stay in power. You cannot have tanks driving around on the streets, policing opposition - actual humans have to do the policing.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/779/561/67c...
I'd lean towards saying that there are many times more misuses of a gun than "a good guy with a gun". Wonder if there are stats on lawful shootings vs unlawful.
it was purely about assets, their attributes of valuation, in-kind transfers based on appraisal value to normalize it amongst a cash seizure. commonalities that all property shares. in that regard, to the government and its constitution, property is property.
I did make a mistake in assuming this article was about civil asset forfeiture though, where my observation would apply more strongly as the property is charged instead of the person. This article is about something in between civil and criminal asset forefeiture.
If believing in basic protections and rights is too narrow a view, I'm happy to say that I support that narrow view.