DSIM

iTrader: (1)

I personally feel that the officer should have PC before removing the dog from his car. The dog is a search tool, if the officer feels that the dog is needed, what made the officer believe so? If he felt the situation called for grabbing the dog, why not just call in a supervisor? What would he have done if he didnt have the K9?


OK, so the officer can walk around the car. Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant by my statements is that the officer can clearly see in the car when he/she is addressing you at your window, there shouldnt be a need to do a walk around but they are legally able to... you are correct. Now what about the dog? Thats the point of this thread anyway.

BigZee71

iTrader: (5)

I was once asked to step out of my car for not using a turn signal (reason for stop).

The officer asked if I had anything he needed to know about and if I would allow him
to search.
me: "no, there is nothing illegal in my car, no I do not concent to a search" exact words.

officer: " well we are going to call in the K9 unit to do a quick walk around the vehicle"

me: " Look, I know my rights (important statement), and if I havnt done wnything else wronge, I would like to leave".

He had already printed my ticket, and I was outta there in less than a minute after that.

I knew why he wanted to search. Its because the appartment complex I entered with out using
my turnsignal is known as "pill hill".

But in anycase: You show respect for officers, no matter what the stuation, or who the officer thinks he is. I always stop in the closest safest spot possible, stop the car, window down, and both hands on top of the steering wheel. I think this has helped me out of more then a handfull of tickets, Ive heard the cops look for your hands first.

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

what's the worry about allowing your car to be searched if there's nothing illegal in it, other than just to show a cop you can be an *******? i have no problem letting them look in my car because i know there's nothing in there that'll get my *** in trouble. 9 times out of 10 when someone refuses a search it is because there IS something in there and the police know that. they're just trying to do their job and if they relax and ease up on the searches, then the drugs get worse. i say let them search if they want to, as long as you are stand up about it, they're just going to look around a little bit and let you go. the only situation i would get highly pissed in is if they started tearing apart my car or something, and then i would definitely be filing a complaint

DSIM

iTrader: (1)

If you want to give up your 4th amendment rights, go for it. Im not inclined to do so. Also, as has already been stated.... if they should jack up anything in your car you have no legal recourse to get it fixed by the PD.

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

LOL......4th amendment rights. man, when it comes down to it, it's not worth it to me to create some big *** problem when all i have to do is let the man try to do his job and inconvenience me for maybe half an hour. i guess i'm just getting older and don't care that much about all the BS anymore. i've been there and done that a LOT, and I've found it's easier to just chill out on things. when i'm dead and gone, my tombstone won't say "OMG it's Randy, he passed away with NO 4th amendment rights!!!"

DSIM

iTrader: (1)

Joke all you want about your rights protected by the Constitution. Hell, if thats the case whats the point of any of our rights? 1st amendment... who needs that ****?

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

I'm not joking about constitutional rights, i'm joking about people that want to cry about their constitutional rights over minor insignificant ****. people that are probably breaking the law and want to lean on their "constitutional rights" so they can keep getting away with what they are doing. a bunch of damn crybabies is what they are, and they are bringing our level of society down in this country. thank you for listening while i exercise MY 1st amendment right

DSIM

iTrader: (1)

If they have enough probable cause to search my car after I say no, then so be it. If they dont, then what was the point in asking? Once upon a time I put on combat boots for my rights, Im not rolling over so easy.

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

ok, me too. so now what's your point? it's not a matter of 'rolling over', it's just a matter of making a mountain out of a mole hill

DSIM

iTrader: (1)

I dont feel that way, so I will just agree to disagree with you on this one. No need to make a mountian out of a mole hill.

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

haha, i can second that notion

SSwt00SS

iTrader: (18)

DSIM, i understand what your points are, and agree with you...

a Right not exercised, is our Right lost...



Rooster, just because i choose to exercise my rights doesnt make me a 'crybaby', nor does that mean im responsible for brining down society. that's what we have lilberal democrats for...



**note/comment in general**

just because one chooses to stand firm on their rights does not mean they are trying to be billy badass, an *** in general, or trying to stir ****, etc., regardless if you have anything illegal or not in the vehicle during a routine stop. if you allow yourself to be walked over, then that's exactly what will happen. it's what happen once you choose to waive your rights that's extremely concerning...

it's amazing that people cry over their privacy yet, they will gladly waive their rights simply because they choose not to educate themselves. that's why society is heading the direction it is. they will give up rights for comfort/security/convenience...

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

oh ******* jesus, this is why you shouldn't come to ls1tech for legal advice

I'm plenty educated, thank you. This isn't a case of giving up your privacy for no good reason, or for any old somebody. This is about allowing a officer of the law WORKING FOR YOU to do his job. A job that you pay for with your tax dollars I might add, so you might want to make sure he's allowed to do it properly. As I said before in this thread, that kid was acting all kinds of suspicious, and I would hope that the cops around here would be willing enough to at least check the guy out as they did with him. If they didn't, it would make my day if they were FIRED for being lazy *****.

SSwt00SS

iTrader: (18)

thank you for informing all in this thread you are 'plenty educated'...

you intentionally twisted my words. i never stated "hey, this is legal advice, follow it word for word.". further more, i what i said was a general comment and as such was not directed for this thread. same comment as your "crybaby" comment. i can see how this was clearly missed under the bold text which said "general note/comment". in the future i will make sure what i write is clearly understood...

i stated a simple fact that the American public (majority of it) is not as educated as they should be about their rights. what you quoted shows exactly that. thank you...

you are right he did not waive his rights. he exercised his rights and they were still violated...

in no way did he act suspicious "enough" to warrant his car being searched by a dog even after he refused concent to a vehicle search. it's a seconadry non-moving violation. the cops followed protocall and did so 'properly' (as you stated above), up until they used the dog as an excuse to do what it took until they were satisfied. just because an officer might "feel" something, that doesnt give them the right to violate the right's of others. in doing so they violated his 4th admendment rights...

you either agree or disagree with the officer's actions. apparently you agree with their course of action, i do not...

JOSH13

Cops these days will ask to search your vehicle for no reason especially younger people and it really is total BS. I've had my car searched a few times. Sure I allowed it but I honestly didn't want them to. They often trick you into the search and violate several rights in doing so.

bill12690

iTrader: (4)

I didn't read the other link, but i can agree with that... It may suck sometimes, but.. oh well i guess.
Now i do agree that its BS that cops do everything they can do to search without permission.. especially younger people.
The last time i was pulled over i was simply driving about a mile down the road to the high school from my house and i was pulled over because "my taillight was out". Funny thing was the cop started to turn around as soon as i passed him.. He was looking for drugs, and i knew it. But he didn't believe me about what i had on me, or what i was doing out at that time. He searched me twice, then looked all over the inside of the truck the best he could with a flashlight without actually opening the door.. THEN once again, he came back to his car where he had me facing his hood, and ask multiple times what i was doing out and where i was going etc.... and then once again asked if i had drugs on me, and made sure to mention he could have a drug dog at the scene in a matter of minutes.
I also think its complete BS to handcuff a 19 year old kid because you "heard" him "speeding" after simply asking his age, and providing no other info on why he had been pulled over... (this was a different occasion..)

ok, done with my novel now..

thatboyvic

iTrader: (3)

Are officers trained to ask questions that could pursuade you to give up your rights? I have seen things where an offivcer might ask a series of questions which might confuse you and fool you to believe you will be in deeper trouble if you do not consent to a search?

bill12690

iTrader: (4)

I honestly believe that a lot of officers do push the limits of their powers and do try to confuse or manipulate anyone they choose..
If I'm driving down my neighborhood road and get pulled over simply for driving at around midnight, the cop wants to search me, question me multiple times as well as my friends 15 year old brother that was with me, and suggest a drug dog. Now had it been the MILF that lives next door, would he have done the same? I highly doubt that. Maybe pressured her into a ticket to see what kinda extracurricular activities she'll do to avoid it, but who knows.. It just depends on the cop.

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

sorry, i guess the point you're trying to get across is that you're smarter than anybody else in this thread. i thought you were trying to present a good argument for a particular side in this thread or something. have fun getting jacked up by the cops just because you want to prove a point, if that's what you want to run around doing. In fact, I would love to see you back up what you're saying by going out and pulling some **** like that, if you have the *****. the fact is, if you want to create a bunch of problems for yourself over nothing, then you are stupid.

That kid was acting shady, period. Any cop would have been suspicious of him, and he was flat out asking for a search. I disagree with an illegal search, but that didn't happen in that instance.

SSwt00SS

iTrader: (18)

the only person who has said anything about being 'plenty educated' has been you...

i did present a good argument. that argument was even after he refused concent to a search, they went ahead and did one. that was a violation of his 4th admendment rights. in your attempts to attack me and not the topic discussed, you have completely missed it. thank you.