Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

mcsupersport · 04-05-2011, 01:11 AM

(04-04-2011 09:46 PM)Jesus Wrote: Did he have one of those six hour boners when they caught him?

After the way he acted, I would say HE IS the six hour boner.

Yeah, they will give you crap for any prescription drug that isn't in a properly labeled container/package or if you can't produce the dr prescription.

For the most part cops will not give you any problem if you keep driving a SHORT distance if you acknowledge them and let them know you are going to stop but want a better area to do so, like a parking lot or a side road. They generally don't mind if you make an effort to make the stop safer for them by pulling into a side area as long as you acknowledge them, and don't try to drive miles and miles down the road to do so. I have done this as well as turning on the inside car light at night to let them see inside the vehicle to make it easier and safer for the officer, and usually puts them in a better mood more likely to cut you a break, doesn't always work but it has sometimes.

mdrake34 · 04-05-2011, 10:18 AM

(04-05-2011 12:46 AM)ChrisD Wrote: Well someone (Me) hasn't been paying attention in class. Thanks for the info guys lol

But regardless, I feel like saying "no" just gives the cops more a reason to look for something extremely dumb to give them probable cause. How is it that someone being "figity" can give them probable cause, but not someone saying "No you can't search my car"

Probable cause can be found by adding together several factors. Saying no by itself does not lead to probable cause, but saying no and being very nervous might get you there. However, there lies a catch 22, as most people, including myself, are inherently nervous around police, even when they are doing nothing wrong.

I imagine once you're on the job you'll know PC when you see it. I doubt many people are ever going to refuse consent to a search because a large number of people don't realize they have the right to say no; further, the vast majority, just as Murphy did, will consent like 90% of the time, even when they have a car full of contraband. No one has been able to explain why, but the statistics show whether you've got groceries or 2 kilo's of booger-sugar in your car, most people consent to a search.

My point was only that a law abiding person is free to exercise his right to decline a search and then not still be subjected to a search as that refusal alone is not enough to establish PC.

ChrisD · 04-05-2011, 01:50 PM

(04-05-2011 10:18 AM)mdrake34 Wrote: Probable cause can be found by adding together several factors. Saying no by itself does not lead to probable cause, but saying no and being very nervous might get you there. However, there lies a catch 22, as most people, including myself, are inherently nervous around police, even when they are doing nothing wrong.

I imagine once you're on the job you'll know PC when you see it. I doubt many people are ever going to refuse consent to a search because a large number of people don't realize they have the right to say no; further, the vast majority, just as Murphy did, will consent like 90% of the time, even when they have a car full of contraband. No one has been able to explain why, but the statistics show whether you've got groceries or 2 kilo's of booger-sugar in your car, most people consent to a search.

My point was only that a law abiding person is free to exercise his right to decline a search and then not still be subjected to a search as that refusal alone is not enough to establish PC.

You know your stuff drake! Like I said, if I ask to search a car, and someone says no, I'm then looking for every reason to search.

In Louis Murphys case, I think he just didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

xstealth · (This post was last modified: 04-05-2011 03:52 PM by xstealth.)

(04-04-2011 01:42 PM)ChrisD Wrote: Really? This is ridiculous. Viagra isn't an illegal drug. What a crock of crap. Loud playing stereo? Really? Around where I'm at the cops don't really give a crap. Generally the loud music is just a cop trying to find something, anything, to pull over a vehicle with a young black male behind the wheel.. And no, I'm not black. But regardless of what ANYONE says that's the truth. No matter what ethics has to say about it.

I don't think it had anything to do with him being black, if you haven't noticed there are millions of blacks around, I don't see them all being harassed any more then me, and I am a white boy.

Police are out for money, they will harass anyone they come across, I wouldn't be shocked if the arresting officer was black.

mdrake34 · 04-05-2011, 06:06 PM

(04-05-2011 01:50 PM)ChrisD Wrote: You know your stuff drake! Like I said, if I ask to search a car, and someone says no, I'm then looking for every reason to search.

In Louis Murphys case, I think he just didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

From the article:
"Gainesville police said Murphy was originally asked to pull over his Cadillac Escalade because an officer noticed his stereo was playing loudly.

The 23-year-old refused to pull over, and continued driving to a parking lot where he and his passengers got out of the vehicle and attempted to walk away.

Officer Thomas Harrison said when he ordered them to stop, Murphy refused to provide identification and would not put his hands behind his back when police attempted to handcuff him."

I'd say he arguably gave the police PC by his behavior, but I'm sure police are taught to ask first because then it can't be challenged if there's consent.

**BTW, disclaimer - I'm a third year law student, I graduate in May and take the bar in late July. I can't legally or ethically give legal advice until I pass the bar, I'm just stating general legal knowledge at the moment.

The Falcon Jedi · 04-05-2011, 06:35 PM

(04-05-2011 06:06 PM)mdrake34 Wrote: From the article:
"Gainesville police said Murphy was originally asked to pull over his Cadillac Escalade because an officer noticed his stereo was playing loudly.

The 23-year-old refused to pull over, and continued driving to a parking lot where he and his passengers got out of the vehicle and attempted to walk away.

Officer Thomas Harrison said when he ordered them to stop, Murphy refused to provide identification and would not put his hands behind his back when police attempted to handcuff him."

I'd say he arguably gave the police PC by his behavior, but I'm sure police are taught to ask first because then it can't be challenged if there's consent.

**BTW, disclaimer - I'm a third year law student, I graduate in May and take the bar in late July. I can't legally or ethically give legal advice until I pass the bar, I'm just stating general legal knowledge at the moment.

Murphy seems pretty stupid. Maybe having the whole world knowing he needs Viagra was a fitting punishment in this case.

Sporkdevil · 04-05-2011, 10:33 PM

(04-05-2011 06:06 PM)mdrake34 Wrote: I'd say he arguably gave the police PC by his behavior, but I'm sure police are taught to ask first because then it can't be challenged if there's consent.

Woah, lets slow our respective rolls, here.

Granted, all I did was surf the internet in crimpro, but... the officer had PC. PC as to his actions: 1) being a douche 2) having a loud stereo 3) not listening to a cop 4) disorderly, because it always is.

However, the probable cause doesn't open up the ability to check out everything. Gant would prevent anything except an inventory search or anything in plain view in these circumstances. The police did NOT have probable cause to search for more evidence for the crimes, unless perhaps they are looking for his ID? (I dunno, I think Gant is a shit decision). If there is no belief of drug use (did he have an erection?) or any other criminal activity, it would not give a police officer PC to search the car.

For example, (I forget the case name), but I'm sure you remember the case where an undercover cop goes into a private residence to buy drugs or something, and gets shot and dies. Cops were waiting outside, bust in, either shoot to death or arrest the shooter, and they spend a few days just looking around the entire residence. Opening drawers, etc., all in rooms too far away to hold any evidence while they had ample opportunity to get a warrant. If that is unconstitutional, for a cop murderer investigation, I gotta say anything other than an inventory search for an automobile where the driver is just not cooperating is crossing the line.

Sporkdevil · 04-05-2011, 10:38 PM

(04-04-2011 10:37 PM)UCSBDirtyBird Wrote: Awesome. Congrats! I remember (a whole year ago) how nervous I was when I had to make my first actual argument on the record. After one, they are all easy and get to be fun.

I am doing a 10+ count DV trial on Thursday from Voir Dire to Verdict. Should be an interesting, long day.

Woot, congrats. Sounds like a pretty solid case. I'm still waiting to get my dumb ass on the record.

DemBirds · 04-05-2011, 10:59 PM

(04-04-2011 06:46 PM)Radical Wrote: What does that accomplish?

(04-04-2011 07:15 PM)The Falcon Jedi Wrote: Yea and costs me my tax paper money to support him. No thanks

Did that really go over both of your heads? I'm not sure if it did Jedi's or not but it definitely looks like it did yours Radical lol.

The Falcon Jedi · 04-05-2011, 11:08 PM

(04-05-2011 10:59 PM)DemBirds Wrote: Did that really go over both of your heads? I'm not sure if it did Jedi's or not but it definitely looks like it did yours Radical lol.

No I got the joke. Thats why I replied with my own.