car was searched without consent and i was arrested for cociane

[Mike Groaning]

Here is what you wrote:

"I would think that not allowing a search after you've been seen talking to a drug dealer is probable cause."

THAT is the statement you made which is out of step with the law. Being seen talking to someone with a history of dope use or even sales is NOT generally going to be sufficient to permit a search absent consent or some other lawful authority.

[/b][/quote]


Could I have made the sentence any less definitive? Would it have helped if I clearly stated that my interpretation of the law is that this situation would provide probable cause? The last I checked, the law doesn't really take a stance on how it's interpreted. If that were the case, the legal system would be much easier for the vast majority of people, and lawyers probably would be a mostly unhappy bunch.

On the other hand, you are saying definitively that what has been stated to me, and what happened to the OP generally doesn't happen. You say it happens differently, but here we have a case where it didn't. Whether or not that makes sense to me has little to do with law.

Clearly, things are less definitive than you are making them sound or else what happened to me, and to a larger degree the OP --- those things wouldn't be happening. It would be great if what you are saying about the law were totally true, but what would be even greater is if police would subscribe to the same interpretation of the law that you are.

Have there been any cases we can look up, where evidence was thrown out for similar situations? If that is the case, I am questioning the realism depicted in the TV show COPS where this seems to happen quite a bit - most namely people being detained and searched for being in high drug activity areas.

I know what The Constitution says, but not how that has been interpreted and whittled down (some say corroded) over the years.

Unless the officer has something more than simply seeing the two together, yeah - it IS pretty open and shut, and a bad search. However, I suspect the officer is going to be able to articulate more than the fact the two were seen chatting.

If one of my officers based a non-consensual search on the simple verbal exchange between the two, I'd ream his tail for exposing himself and the department to civil liability and send him back for retraining on search and seizure issues.

- Carl

I think you are right here, and maybe that's the bottom line I'm looking at - the search takes a back seat to there being more to the situation than the OP is aware of.


Let me ask you this. How much are these situations... I dunno... regional or based on demographics? Do you think departments in areas with high crime and low income aren't as worried about a defendant pursuing a civil rights case, or maybe aren't attuned to the law themselves?

 

[CdwJava]

Could I have made the sentence any less definitive? Would it have helped if I clearly stated that my interpretation of the law is that this situation would provide probable cause?

You could have stated this, but you would have been incorrect. I cannot recall a case law decision that allowed a search more intrusive than a pat down based on something so flimsy. There may be such a case in some state somewhere, but none that I am aware of, and no officer should conduct such a search based on such flimsy grounds as it would leave them open to civil litigation.

The last I checked, the law doesn't really take a stance on how it's interpreted.

Sure it does - its called "case law". There are cases on point, and some that address certain issues of a particular case. But, there is a huge volume of cases supporting the fact that a search more intrusive than a "Terry frisk" must be supported by probable cause, and seeing two people talking would not - by itself - rise to that level ... it would not meet even the "reasonable officer" test.

On the other hand, you are saying definitively that what has been stated to me, and what happened to the OP generally doesn't happen. You say it happens differently, but here we have a case where it didn't. Whether or not that makes sense to me has little to do with law.

What I said was that based upon the OP's interpretation of events, the search would almost certainly be unlawful. However, unless the officer is a complete moron or the poster child for "rookie", I suspect that he had greater articulable suspicion than, "I saw them standing together and talking."

Have there been any cases we can look up, where evidence was thrown out for similar situations?

There are volumes of such case law. Since there are minor variations by state and slightly different interpretations by federal courts of appeal, you would have to go to a local law library to do adequate legal research on your state's case law concerning unlawful searches and probable cause.

If that is the case, I am questioning the realism depicted in the TV show COPS where this seems to happen quite a bit - most namely people being detained and searched for being in high drug activity areas.

And on TV cop shows people are compelled to go in "for questioning" and read their Miranda rights upon arrest, too. Seeing it on TV does not make it real.

I think you are right here, and maybe that's the bottom line I'm looking at - the search takes a back seat to there being more to the situation than the OP is aware of.

My point all along.

Let me ask you this. How much are these situations... I dunno... regional or based on demographics? Do you think departments in areas with high crime and low income aren't as worried about a defendant pursuing a civil rights case, or maybe aren't attuned to the law themselves?

Like anyone, bad habits continue when the person involved is poorly supervised. If an officer develops bad habits or is poorly supervised he is likely to continue bad practices unless reminded of the law and training.

While some officers might think to themselves they can get away with it because of the demographics, most likely fall into bad habits due to inadequate supervision and training, or reinforcement of the basics.

- Carl

 

[CJane]

If that is the case, I am questioning the realism depicted in the TV show COPS where this seems to happen quite a bit - most namely people being detained and searched for being in high drug activity areas.

While you should definitely question the realism and remember that those shows are edited for ratings... you should also remember that the 'cases' aren't followed through the court process.

But the episodes I've seen of COPS... those people they're searching... clearly already high/stoned/causing a disturbance/fleeing the scene/evading the police.

How many times have you seen the show and the guy just calmly pulls over, gives a reasonable explanation for speeding, and then is ripped from the car and searched 'for no reason'? None. Right?

 

[dunny01]

Similar situation

OP: I can share with you what happened with me in a similar situation. However it was several years ago in California.

1998 I was pulled over for speeding. Knowing I had speed/meth on me I was immediately nervous. So when the officer asked if I had anything illegal I reply, yes Sir! In my mind, lying to an officer is NEVER an option! So in my case there was no search needed because I provided the illegal drugs to the officer. Still went to jail though!! Although I didn't know it at the time, being pulled over that day was a huge blessing. That was the very last time I had anything to do with drugs, period!

Like you, I too was released on O.R. but I was released directly from the police station without appearing in court. When I got out on O.R. I went and got myself an attorney. I too was never arrested before and didn't know what to expect. So here I am out on O.R. and I have my attorney; but no charges were filed yet. My attorney told me that he would keep checking with the courts but until there is charges filed there is nothing to do. After 6 months passed and still no charges, I started to think that maybe the charges will be dropped (wishful thinking). 11 1/2 months later I have 2 officers at my door with a warrant for my arrest. Guess the charges finally got filed, and my lawyer obviously stopped checking!! The officers were very nice to me allowing me to get a change of clothes and some shoes. The officers asked if I had anything on me, blah blah. I of course replied, Hell No! After getting to the police station I was interviewed and processed. In the interview was narc officers wanting me to cooperate and assist them with names and such. I told them that I honestly haven't touch drugs since that day I was pulled over nearly a year ago. And I had no interest or intentions of getting involved with anything that had to do with drugs.

So I'm taken back to jail until appearing in front of the Judge a few days later. The judge let me out again on O.R. and scheduled a future court date. At this point I'm very scared and wondering what will happen in court. Is my life over? Will I go back to jail? Will I lose my job? Have a permanent crimal record? What exactly am I facing here. My attorney was absolutely no help at all. Gave me the typical minimum and maximum case scenarios, both included fines and jail. So now I'm convinced that I better plan on going to jail after court.

When I finally went to court I was offered a diversion (sp?) program. Which upon completion my charges would be dropped. At this point I'm thrilled! But my attorney doesn't seem as happy as I am. He tells me "its not over yet, a very small number of my clients complete the program". I remember thinking to myself that this program offer is a god given blessing and I will complete it. Be sure of that!

The diversion program consisted of formal drug program with classes once a week for 3 or 6 months, I can't remember how long. The classes cost me a few hundred at enrollment and another $25 each week at class. Drug testing is also done randomly. In addition to the drug classes I had to attend a certain number of N/A meetings. I remember going to those for a long time too. You are also put on probation for 2 years.

After 2 years if completing all the required classes, all drug tests are clean, and a good report letter from your probation officer, you will have completed the diversion program. After completing the program I went to court one last time. The judge congratulated me for doing well and said "dismissed!!!!" Final cost was approximately $5,000. Included attorney fees, court fees, fines, program fees, etc.

For me, the 2 year program was interesting and I learned a lot about the drug that I was once using. Even though I had already quit doing drugs prior to the program, there was a lot of people still using drugs that eventually got kicked off the program for dirty tests, incomplete classes, etc.

I hope that I have been a little helpful to you in sharing my past experience.

My advise to you; take this situation seriously and learn from it! It shouldn't matter to you whether or not the officer performed a legal search. What should matter to you is the need to eliminate drugs from your life. Like me, this could be a blessing. A new beginning for a 'better you'!

Last note: It was an awesome moment when I returned to the police station many years later to personally thank that officer that pulled me over in 1998. To me, he saved my life!

 

[CdwJava]

How many times have you seen the show and the guy just calmly pulls over, gives a reasonable explanation for speeding, and then is ripped from the car and searched 'for no reason'? None. Right?

Keep in mind that when watching cops, you know even less about the situation than you do on TV cops shows. On COPS you do NOT know what the officer knows, and the episodes are heavily edited to fit into a 9 minute segment. When you consider that the average traffic stop takes 12 minutes, and in a 9 minute segment you are getting snippets of between one and 3 stops or contacts by an officer, you are getting a truly abbreviated version of events. They are edited for dramatic purposes and not for legal content.

However, I DO see things on that show that are tactically unsound, and some things that appear to be legally unsound ... until I realize that I did not see a tape of the interview, did not hear the officer's articulation of suspicion or cause, did not see or hear what the officer did, etc.

I had a Cops crew ride on my shift for 8 weeks back in 1992 ... I learned a lot about the show back then. Nice guys ... and very cooperative - they'd shut off the cameras if you asked them (not fun to be backlit when trying to sneak up on an armed suspect).

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Last note: It was an awesome moment when I returned to the police station many years later to personally thank that officer that pulled me over in 1998. To me, he saved my life!

From a personal perspective, THIS is the kind of thing that an officer will remember and will reinvigorate him or her to keep plugging. Like a teacher thanked by a student who has gone on to great things, a cop who is thanked for doing his job can be a fabulous morale booster! I have this happen to me, I'm happy to say, with some regularity. The most recent was when the manager at a local Burger King flew out from behind the counter to give me a hug when I was there with my kids. I hadn't seen her in months and assumed she was either locked up again or on a binge somewhere ... well, she cleaned up her life, had put on weight, was healthy and now, productive. It was a grand thing to see!

I bet you made that officer's year ... whether he would admit it or not.

Congratulations on turning yourself around, and I hope that you are able to relate your story to others! Heck, if you were in my neck of the woods, I'd bring you with me to my drug presentations!

Good luck, and God Bless.

- Carl

 

[CJane]

Keep in mind that when watching cops, you know even less about the situation than you do on TV cops shows. On COPS you do NOT know what the officer knows, and the episodes are heavily edited to fit into a 9 minute segment. When you consider that the average traffic stop takes 12 minutes, and in a 9 minute segment you are getting snippets of between one and 3 stops or contacts by an officer, you are getting a truly abbreviated version of events. They are edited for dramatic purposes and not for legal content.

However, I DO see things on that show that are tactically unsound, and some things that appear to be legally unsound ... until I realize that I did not see a tape of the interview, did not hear the officer's articulation of suspicion or cause, did not see or hear what the officer did, etc.

I had a Cops crew ride on my shift for 8 weeks back in 1992 ... I learned a lot about the show back then. Nice guys ... and very cooperative - they'd shut off the cameras if you asked them (not fun to be backlit when trying to sneak up on an armed suspect).

- Carl

That's exactly the point I was making. Someone posting on this forum that because they saw a certain thing on COPS (or CSI or Law and Order or whatever) it must be accurate, is a silly thing at best. At worst, it's damaging to the person seeking advice.

 

[dunny01]

Thanks

Thank you Carl. Yes, the officer was very happy that I came by years later to thank him. To my surprise he remembered me too! We hugged with tears in my eyes. Then we both laughed as he recalled how overly cooperative and honest I was! Like I said, lying to an officer is NEVER, EVER an option! It did make him feel good that because of him, a traffic stop changed my life forever!

I pray for the same outcome with the OP here.

Dunny

 

[Mike Groaning]

That's exactly the point I was making. Someone posting on this forum that because they saw a certain thing on COPS (or CSI or Law and Order or whatever) it must be accurate, is a silly thing at best. At worst, it's damaging to the person seeking advice.

THAT was the point you were making?

When exactly did anyone say something on COPS was accurate, and not say that they were questioning how real the show was (one that markets itself as a reality show).

I thought it was pretty obvious that my intent in posting was not to discredit CdwJane (the person who I stated I agreed with one paragraph after questioning COPS) but was to bring up the inconsistency among police officers. That should have been all the more obvious by... I don't know... me summarizing my post by asking Cdw why they think there is this inconsistency.

 

[Mike Groaning]

Keep in mind that when watching cops, you know even less about the situation than you do on TV cops shows. On COPS you do NOT know what the officer knows, and the episodes are heavily edited to fit into a 9 minute segment. When you consider that the average traffic stop takes 12 minutes, and in a 9 minute segment you are getting snippets of between one and 3 stops or contacts by an officer, you are getting a truly abbreviated version of events. They are edited for dramatic purposes and not for legal content.

[/b]


That's true. I was referring more to the episodes where they were doing drug stings, and they'd follow from the point of transaction up until the stop. However, I think I was sort of mixing and compiling all the segments I've seen into one incident. The more I think about it, they usually would only deny searches when it was an undercover cop involved in the transaction. That one is a given for legal search.

The more I think about it, the less I can think of instances where searches were denied - and I was probably just watching the show with what had been stated to me by the police, in my mind.

With that being said, let me ask you this ---- In my situation, which was probably about 1996 - 1997, we were pulled over for a broken taillight. The driver had a clean record, and everyone was sober. That was where the police asked for a search, and went on to say that they'd obtain a warrant if we refused, so we may as well "save some time" and allow the search.

So was that totally uncool? I mean, we didn't care to be searched because we had nothing to hide. However, it could have turned into them dismantling the car French Connection style - is that right? Either way, did we have a civil rights case? How out of line were those cops?

However, I DO see things on that show that are tactically unsound, and some things that appear to be legally unsound ... until I realize that I did not see a tape of the interview, did not hear the officer's articulation of suspicion or cause, did not see or hear what the officer did, etc.

Yeah, there's a lot of questionable edits in that show. I've worked in video & broadcast and can't help noticing the cuts, and what happens there. There's been one instance where you'd see the suspect beginning to struggle <CUT> the suspect is on the ground. I generally assume that the cameras were just in the way, but it's still fun to fill in blanks.

I've always wanted to do, or see done, a COPS-like show that addresses the entire process. Court TV has a couple things I've seen in that vein, but not to the same extent as COPS. I'd imagine it wouldn't pull in many ratings.

I had a Cops crew ride on my shift for 8 weeks back in 1992 ... I learned a lot about the show back then. Nice guys ... and very cooperative - they'd shut off the cameras if you asked them (not fun to be backlit when trying to sneak up on an armed suspect).

I picture the cameramen the size of trees, the way they can keep up with the officers running while carrying fifty pounds of gear. Is that the case?

Did they use lavaliere mics on you guys, or was it all boom?

 

[CdwJava]

That was where the police asked for a search, and went on to say that they'd obtain a warrant if we refused, so we may as well "save some time" and allow the search.

If you were coerced, then consent was NOT freely given and any evidence would likely have been suppressed at court absent some other good cause to justify a search without consent.

Whether you had a "civil rights" case is questionable, but it would almost certainly have been ruled a bad search on the facts as presented here.

I've always wanted to do, or see done, a COPS-like show that addresses the entire process. Court TV has a couple things I've seen in that vein, but not to the same extent as COPS. I'd imagine it wouldn't pull in many ratings.

Almost everything is edited - if not for time or content, then to prove a point of view.

Remember Rodney King? How many people actually saw the WHOLE video? I did ... but, I venture to guess that most people only saw the three minutes of "incriminating" footage, and not the previous 9 minutes of attempts to gain control of a fleeing felon.

I picture the cameramen the size of trees, the way they can keep up with the officers running while carrying fifty pounds of gear. Is that the case?

The ones we worked with had some experience either in law enforcement or as journalists in war zones. And, yes, they were carrying a lot of gear. A sound man and a video man, and each carried easily 20 lbs. or more of gear.

Did they use lavaliere mics on you guys, or was it all boom?

It was boom mics in the field, and lapel (wireless) mics on the officer they rode with.

- Carl

 

[CJane]

THAT was the point you were making?

When exactly did anyone say something on COPS was accurate, and not say that they were questioning how real the show was (one that markets itself as a reality show).

Interesting. I've always thought that 'if then' statements were ... I dunno... rather 'iffy'.

Have there been any cases we can look up, where evidence was thrown out for similar situations? If that is the case, I am questioning the realism depicted in the TV show COPS where this seems to happen quite a bit - most namely people being detained and searched for being in high drug activity areas.

You said IF that is the case THEN you were questioning. Which leaves a whole lot of room for "I totally believe(d) that COPS was accurate."

Whatever.

Your subsequent post makes it sound a lot like you thought it was real too.

Again. Whatever.

 

[Mike Groaning]

Interesting. I've always thought that 'if then' statements were ... I dunno... rather 'iffy'.



You said IF that is the case THEN you were questioning. Which leaves a whole lot of room for "I totally believe(d) that COPS was accurate."

Whatever.

Your subsequent post makes it sound a lot like you thought it was real too.

Again. Whatever.

What's really up for interpretation is why you believe, as of October 2007, that reality shows being staged isn't common knowledge, and would take steps - not just once, but THREE TIMES, to make someone out to be a dip based on this.

Being silly isn't always as easy as bringing up COPS. As we have found, it sometimes takes effort.

 

[Mike Groaning]

Interesting. I've always thought that 'if then' statements were ... I dunno... rather 'iffy'.



You said IF that is the case THEN you were questioning. Which leaves a whole lot of room for "I totally believe(d) that COPS was accurate."

Whatever.

Your subsequent post makes it sound a lot like you thought it was real too.

Again. Whatever.

What's really up for interpretation is why you believe, as of October 2007, that reality shows being staged isn't common knowledge, and would take steps - not just once, but THREE TIMES, to make someone out to be a dip based on this. "Oh, silly me. The TV with it's flashing lights and magical moving images totally had me fooled! Thanks for clearing things up for me, or else I may have destroyed my TV trying to help those little people escape!!!"

Being silly isn't always as easy as bringing up COPS. As we have found, it sometimes takes effort.

But right - whatever.

 

[seniorjudge]

IF [condition A happens]
THEN [condition B happens}
OTHERWISE
THEN [condition C happens]
ENDIF




CJane, you got questions on programming or logic, you come to SJ, okay?