first time run in with "street cops"

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? VA



From the start: i walk into a gas station, i buy a pack of cigars, and i look over and see the street cop having a convo with one of the workers so i say thanks and leave to my friends house and i sit there for like 10 mins then a knock on the door, of course we try to hide anything we can, my friends mother lets the street cops in the front door but like a cop does walks around like if it was his own, and he follows me down the stairs to talk to me, he says i saw you buying cigars and i know your going to use them to smoke weed!!!! so of course i gave them up and then he asked for the weed and he started to say if we didnt give it up he will call in a dog so we gave it up he gaves a ticket and went on his way. so this is my question...



1. can a cop profile me for being a young spanish male buying cigars at a gas station

2. follow me back to my friends house

im just really stuck on the issue where he followed me after buying cigars, this is my first time so im in not so much trouble is was only a couple of grams but to me thats not right he kept saying b.c hes a street cop he can do that lol, i know when my friends mom open the door it was a big no no but is this worth the fight or just let it get dismissed after probation? please i need some advice thank you.

Ar30la said:

so this is my question...
1. can a cop profile me for being a young spanish male buying cigars at a gas station

2. follow me back to my friends house

Click to expand...

Answer to Number 1: No. A cop cannot profile you or anyone else for that matter. Not even an Islamic people saying prayer and praying with a Kuran in an airport be profile. However, profiling does happen but proving it isn't worth the effort, time nor expense. Not in this situation.

Answer to Number 2: Yes. Police can follow you anywhere they desire. In fact, so can anyone else so long as you are not threatened, stalked, etc.. After all, we all have a right to travel. Police have a right to travel, follow or even talk to other people. They are human with constitutional rights just as us all.

Where you're BIG mistake came about was when grandma opened the door and said "Yeppers, come on in Mr. Po-Po man". Once that happened the cop had consent to enter the home. As for "searching" the home, he didn't. All he did was threaten to bring in a dog, bla, bla, bla. The second mistake was not revoking consent and demand he leave. Then more than likely he would have called for an anticipatory arrant or some other tool of the trade and sat there while the warrant, dogs, SWAT and whoever else.

LESSON: When you have pot in your home, or anything illegal and the police knock on your door SIMPLY DO NOT ANSWER IT. I would pay the fine and be done with it.

Trickster said:

LESSON: When you have pot in your home, or anything illegal and the police knock on your door SIMPLY DO NOT ANSWER IT. I would pay the fine and be done with it.

Click to expand...

Poor advice, then you'll end up in jail for the pot and needing to replace your door.

Peligroso said:

Poor advice, then you'll end up in jail for the pot and needing to replace your door.

Click to expand...

In the scenario given, there is no way the police had probable cause to break down the door and enter.

Stevef said:

In the scenario given, there is no way the police had probable cause to break down the door and enter.

Click to expand...

The police are also certainly not going to simply shrug their shoulders and walk away. I was simply pointing out the worst case scenario.

At face value you are correct, then we enter the world of hypothetical situations and exigent circumstances. In fact, if the police can articulate they heard any noises coming from inside the residence into a reasonable probable cause to enter, they will. It is pointless to argue what someone might or might not do when the situation will never and has never happened, unless you have possession of the forums crystal ball. Do you?

The main point of my post was that Trickster was releasing poor advice. That advice has been corrected.

Moving on.

Noises do not an exigent circumstances make.

Trickster and Stevef were correct in theory and in reality. Peligroso's musings were in error in reality. In theory a cop can enter with probable cause combined with exigent circumstances (that he, the cop, did not cause). Of course, in the facts we have here, there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances.

tranquility said:

Noises do not an exigent circumstances make.

Trickster and Stevef were correct in theory and in reality. Peligroso's musings were in error in reality. In theory a cop can enter with probable cause combined with exigent circumstances (that he, the cop, did not cause). Of course, in the facts we have here, there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

OP, what they are saying is that the cops had a hunch... nothing more. When they knocked on your door, they were hoping for a break and your mom (or grandmother, not sure) handed it to them.

Of course, this also assumes you are old enough to purchase the cigars in the first place.

If the person at the door had refused the officers entry, I doubt very much that they could have gotten a search warrant to pursue.

Last, the officer's was only allowed to use the "plain sight" rule... and so, when he didn't see or smell anything, he had to ask. You answered and handed over your stash.

Basically, you and your mom didn't know your rights and so made the cop's life much easier. G

Peligroso said:

It is pointless to argue what someone might or might not do when the situation will never and has never happened, unless you have possession of the forums crystal ball. Do you?

Click to expand...

No, which is why I prefaced my response with 'In the scenario given'. You, on the other hand are delving into the 'what if there were noises', 'what if the police found exigent circumstances'.

No noises were presented, and no exigent circumstances were presented. No probable cause is found in the facts presented what would support a search warrant, hence the police had no reason to kick down a closed door.

I agree.

I don't want to live in a country where the purchase of cigars (a legal activity) allows officers to kick in a door and search a home.

That scenario would be such a violation of civil rights that I cannot even comprehend the negative fall out to the city.

This would be akin to searching their home because they bought aluminum foil, brillo pads or some other normal and legal item that could be used to smoke crack.

cyjeff said:

This would be akin to searching their home because they bought aluminum foil, brillo pads or some other normal and legal item that could be used to smoke crack.

Click to expand...

The police and the DEA have already moved way beyond this and engage in active preemptive surveillance of the populace for all manor of 'suspicious' purchases of legal items that are used for drugs.

This leads to kick-in style high risk warrants being served on innocent people all the time.

The America you don't want is already here.

cyjeff said:

This would be akin to searching their home because they bought aluminum foil, brillo pads or some other normal and legal item that could be used to smoke crack.

Click to expand...

That can become the catalyst for a paraphernalia charge as well.

Ar30la said:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? VA
From the start: i walk into a gas station, i buy a pack of cigars, and i look over and see the street cop having a convo with one of the workers so i say thanks and leave to my friends house and i sit there for like 10 mins then a knock on the door, of course we try to hide anything we can, my friends mother lets the street cops in the front door but like a cop does walks around like if it was his own, and he follows me down the stairs to talk to me, he says i saw you buying cigars and i know your going to use them to smoke weed!!!! so of course i gave them up and then he asked for the weed and he started to say if we didnt give it up he will call in a dog so we gave it up he gaves a ticket and went on his way.

Click to expand...

Very interesting case facts.

Here's my 2 cents, or 3 cents, ha!

Your friends mother permitting entry is not a constitutional license to harass you.

You said he followed you down the stairs and talked to you about the weed. IMO, this was a Seizure under the 4th AM. You left the apartment. By leaving you indicated you have no desire to converse.

Following you like he did is a "show of authority", without at least a "Reasonable Suspicion" you had committed a crime, this is an Unconstitutional "Terry Stop".

If he had a RS before hand, he could have detained you before you entered the apartment.

If you plead not guilty, you can move the court by motion, this is probably a small crime not entitled to an attorney (??), to throw out, "Suppress" the evidence under the Exclusionary rule.

Some excellent points, but there are some arguments as well:

BOR said:

Very interesting case facts.

Here's my 2 cents, or 3 cents, ha!

Your friends mother permitting entry is not a constitutional license to harass you.

You said he followed you down the stairs and talked to you about the weed. IMO, this was a Seizure under the 4th AM. You left the apartment. By leaving you indicated you have no desire to converse.

Click to expand...

But by walking away and down the stairs, the defendant shows that he understand he was not being seized. the officer had a legal right to be there (consent of Mom) and is free to ask any questions he wants.

Following you like he did is a "show of authority", without at least a "Reasonable Suspicion" you had committed a crime, this is an Unconstitutional "Terry Stop".

Click to expand...

Again, since D walked away, he understood he was not being detained or "stopped".

If he had a RS before hand, he could have detained you before you entered the apartment.

If you plead not guilty, you can move the court by motion, this is probably a small crime not entitled to an attorney (??), to throw out, "Suppress" the evidence under the Exclusionary rule.

Click to expand...

The "show of authority" argument seems to be a good one, but in this instance, I'm not convinced it would prevail.

This seems to me like a simple case of a failure to assert one's rights. The police rely on that happening.

Trickster said:

Where you're BIG mistake came about was when grandma opened the door and said "Yeppers, come on in Mr. Po-Po man". Once that happened the cop had consent to enter the home. As for "searching" the home, he didn't. All he did was threaten to bring in a dog, bla, bla, bla. The second mistake was not revoking consent and demand he leave. Then more than likely he would have called for an anticipatory arrant or some other tool of the trade and sat there while the warrant, dogs, SWAT and whoever else.

Click to expand...

By nature all warrants are basically "anticipatory", but not in the context you address.

1st, the cops hunch was just that, a hunch, they play no role in securing a search warrant under the 4th AM, that requires probable cause, here, IMO, there was absolutely none.

There is US SC case law to the effect they detained a person from entering his home for about 2 hours unacompanied by an officer, prevening possible destruction of evidence, until a SW was issued, and it was ruled federal constitutional. I will have to think of the case name.

He arrived after the officers did.

In that case though, there was PROBABLE CAUSE on support of an affidavit to obtain a SW.

Stevef said:

Some excellent points, but there are some arguments as well:


But by walking away and down the stairs, the defendant shows that he understand he was not being seized. the officer had a legal right to be there (consent of Mom) and is free to ask any questions he wants.

Click to expand...

If the person was dogged to the apt. and the police entered, the "totality of the circumstances" are that is would be considered a seizure, IMO.

Again, since D walked away, he understood he was not being detained or "stopped".

Click to expand...

Possibly true, but many persons do not willingly cooperate and walk away/flee even in a lawful detention.

Once approached after he was walking down the stairs, it becomes a definite seizure IMO.

The "show of authority" argument seems to be a good one, but in this instance, I'm not convinced it would prevail.

Click to expand...

This of course is a legal question for the courts. I think it would survive.