dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8952
share rss forum feed


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8

1 recommendation

reply to battleop

Re: Detained by law enforcement

said by battleop:

Some how I think there are more things to this than we're being told.

Let me help you with that:

»www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13···he4l.pdf
--
When money men rain from the skies and shadow coins fly across the planet, then shall the New City fall into disgrace. Fortune and power dissipated like scraps of green paper. Look out below.



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

I read the first few pages and I think I have read enough to know that this should have never reached the Supreme Court.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


Midniteoyl

join:2013-11-22
Knox, IN
kudos:1
reply to battleop

I cant seem to find it, but the story I read from the AP said she was just living there.



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

If that's true and if she was a guest and not a tenant then she should not have had the authority to let them in.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


Midniteoyl

join:2013-11-22
Knox, IN
kudos:1

But they only said 'resident'.. If she was using that address on even one of her bills or license, she is a resident.

I mean, there IS more to the story - He was already a suspect in a robbery apparently according to one story, another story said the cops were called for a domestic disturbance, so who knows - but the presedent has now been set. If the cops want in, all they have to do is 'arrest' the party most likely to say 'no' and remove them from the premises. Then they can search at will. No warrant needed.

In 2006 the same court ruled that if just one person said no, the cops could not search without a warrant. This ruling modified that to say 'only persons present could refuse. If the refusing party is no longer present, the current present party could consent, even if the party not present is the property owner AND got arrested in order to remove him/her.'



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

said by Midniteoyl:

If the cops want in, all they have to do is 'arrest' the party most likely to say 'no' and remove them from the premises. Then they can search at will. No warrant needed.

You sure about this? Because I don't believe even if they arrest, they can just search at will.

billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2

said by Cheese:

said by Midniteoyl:

If the cops want in, all they have to do is 'arrest' the party most likely to say 'no' and remove them from the premises. Then they can search at will. No warrant needed.

You sure about this? Because I don't believe even if they arrest, they can just search at will.

Its called search incident to arrest. If an arrest occurs in a house without a search warrant, the search is supposed to be within 10ft of where theperson was arrested in the house, and the point was to make sure there are no weapons or evidence hidden.
If the arrest was illegal and the officers found drugs or other illegal items, the evidence in court would be suppressed and not admissible under the Fruit of the Poisoness tree Doctrine
--
No Victim=No Crime

Midniteoyl

join:2013-11-22
Knox, IN
kudos:1
reply to Cheese

If there is someone at the home that says yes, they can.. The 3 dissenting judges said exactly that.


Midniteoyl

join:2013-11-22
Knox, IN
kudos:1
reply to billydunwood

I dont think you guys are seeing the bigger picture as to why this ruling sux..

IF they needed to search the apt right away, they didn't. They waited over an hour. IF they suspected criminal activity in the home, they could have gotten a warrant. They didn't. 'Search incident to arrest' does not apply to your home, only to your person and immediate area.

The main problem again, is that now the cops can remove the non-approving person from the premises and conduct a warrantless search. Period.

You say 'so waht'? I say, 'what if you have an enemy'? Or conniving wife/husband? Or a cop who feels you wronged him? Or a million other reasons this was put into the amendments in the first place.

- Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in dissent and faulted the court for retreating from the warrant rule.

"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it," Ginsburg said.

She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday's opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was "physically present" to object.

»www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sco···us6YPcrQ

said by billydunwood:

said by Cheese:

said by Midniteoyl:

If the cops want in, all they have to do is 'arrest' the party most likely to say 'no' and remove them from the premises. Then they can search at will. No warrant needed. -

You sure about this? Because I don't believe even if they arrest, they can just search at will.

Its called search incident to arrest. If an arrest occurs in a house without a search warrant, the search is supposed to be within 10ft of where theperson was arrested in the house, and the point was to make sure there are no weapons or evidence hidden.
If the arrest was illegal and the officers found drugs or other illegal items, the evidence in court would be suppressed and not admissible under the Fruit of the Poisoness tree Doctrine


Midniteoyl

join:2013-11-22
Knox, IN
kudos:1

The story..

________________________________________________________________

The Fourth Amendment generally requires the police to obtain a warrant before searching a home, though that requirement may be avoided if the homeowner consents to the search. But happens when two (or more) people reside in the same home, and only one of them consents to the search while the other refuses? Do the police have sufficient consent to conduct a warrentless search in that instance?

The Supreme Court addressed this question in the 2006 case of Georgia v. Randolph and came down against the police. At issue was a domestic violence investigation where the male suspect refused to let the police search his home while his wife welcomed the search. The police went in. Yet according to the Supreme Court, the man's refusal should have stopped the cops in their tracks. "A physically present inhabitant's express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant," the Court ruled.

Today, the Supreme Court returned to this subject with a new ruling in favor of law enforcement. At issue in Fernandez v. California was a 2009 search by the Los Angeles Police Department of the home of a robbery suspect. When the officers first arrived, suspect Walter Fernandez denied them entry, but because his girlfriend Roxanne Rojas exhibited signs of recent injury, Fernandez was arrested on separate charges of domestic violence. While Fernandez was being booked, one of the officers returned to the apartment and gained Rojas' permission to conduct a search, which soon turned up evidence linking Fernandez to the robbery.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito upheld the LAPD's actions. "A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," Alito wrote. Moreover, he added, "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence."

Writing in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, accused the majority of weakening the Fourth Amendment and granting the police too much latitude. "Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement," Ginsburg wrote, "today's decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate." This ruling, she charged, "shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph."

___________________________________________________

So ya, they basically held that if they want to search your home, all they need to do is arrest you for any other reason, then search to find evidence of a different crime, and send you to prison for that one..

____________________________________________________

And a more detailed write-up : »www.techdirt.com/articles/201402···nt.shtml


billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2
reply to Midniteoyl

said by Midniteoyl:

I dont think you guys are seeing the bigger picture as to why this ruling sux..

IF they needed to search the apt right away, they didn't. They waited over an hour. IF they suspected criminal activity in the home, they could have gotten a warrant. They didn't. 'Search incident to arrest' does not apply to your home, only to your person and immediate area.

The main problem again, is that now the cops can remove the non-approving person from the premises and conduct a warrantless search. Period.

You say 'so waht'? I say, 'what if you have an enemy'? Or conniving wife/husband? Or a cop who feels you wronged him? Or a million other reasons this was put into the amendments in the first place.

- Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in dissent and faulted the court for retreating from the warrant rule.

"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it," Ginsburg said.

She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday's opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was "physically present" to object.

»www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sco···us6YPcrQ

Uh, Search incident to arrest does apply to the immediate area in your home, if you are arrested inside your home, which is why I posted generally within 10ft of where you are arrested. Read Chimel v California, which stated that a search incident to a lawful arrest that occurred inside a home is legal, as long as it is the immediate area. Also, the police can do a protective sweep(not a search, but still the entire house) of the entire house if they have reasonable suspicion that someone dangerous is inside. And while they are doing the protective sweep, if they see something illegal in plain view, now they can seize that item, lock the house down and apply for a search warrant, which will get granted if everything was done properly.
--
No Victim=No Crime

Midniteoyl

join:2013-11-22
Knox, IN
kudos:1

said by billydunwood:

And while they are doing the protective sweep, if they see something illegal in plain view, now they can seize that item, lock the house down and apply for a search warrant, which will get granted if everything was done properly.

Which is all I'm saying.. They just need to stick to that. Now though, they dont have too..

ImpetusEra
Premium
join:2004-05-19
00000
reply to Gaff

I haven't read all the responses but if police ask (they're really telling you in a polite way, not asking) to do something then just do it. From what I understand, overseas it's common practice to disagree and argue with police. Anytime you're confrontational or evasive and spouting about rights it's a red flag, because that's what people with something to hide do. Being a "high crime" area someone likely reported you as suspicious or you match a description of someone involved in a recent crime in that area. End of the day they're regular people doing a job, no sense in adding difficulty to it.


billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2

said by ImpetusEra:

I haven't read all the responses but if police ask (they're really telling you in a polite way, not asking) to do something then just do it. From what I understand, overseas it's common practice to disagree and argue with police. Anytime you're confrontational or evasive and spouting about rights it's a red flag, because that's what people with something to hide do. Being a "high crime" area someone likely reported you as suspicious or you match a description of someone involved in a recent crime in that area. End of the day they're regular people doing a job, no sense in adding difficulty to it.

You also realize they said the same "we are only doing our jobs" in Nazi Germany too right? And also, if an anonymous person calls you in to the police, that is not reasonable suspicion in and of itself. The US Supreme Court ruled that the officers need to also see you acting suspiciously, and that an anonymous tip cannot create that for them. Im not going to do everything an officer asks or demands just because. Im going to exercise my rights when I need to, and cooperate when I need to.
--
No Victim=No Crime

billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2
reply to Midniteoyl

said by Midniteoyl:

said by billydunwood:

And while they are doing the protective sweep, if they see something illegal in plain view, now they can seize that item, lock the house down and apply for a search warrant, which will get granted if everything was done properly.

Which is all I'm saying.. They just need to stick to that. Now though, they dont have too..

Oh and just to also clarify, you dont have to be arrested only in your house for them to do a protective sweep inside. You can be arrested in your driveway or front lawn and police can still legally do a protective sweep. But that ruling you are referring to can be appealed to the USSC
--
No Victim=No Crime

Bobby_Peru
Premium
join:2003-06-16
reply to ImpetusEra

said by ImpetusEra:

I haven't read all the responses but if police ask (they're really telling you in a polite way, not asking) to do something then just do it. From what I understand, overseas it's common practice to disagree and argue with police. Anytime you're confrontational or evasive and spouting about rights it's a red flag, because that's what people with something to hide do. Being a "high crime" area someone likely reported you as suspicious or you match a description of someone involved in a recent crime in that area. End of the day they're regular people doing a job, no sense in adding difficulty to it.

Oh my.


hortnut
Huh?

join:2005-09-25
PNW
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Gaff

Been following this and for giggles, searched Google for "detained by police Texas".

Came up with this link from the City of Houston's Web Site on what one should do when stopped by Police:
»www.houstontx.gov/boards/ipob-whattodo.html

Here is a Bloggers' take on Texas Law:
"Texas Failure to Identify Law, What it Says vs. What Police Think It Says "
»excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/20···it-says/

From "The Chief Police Magazine"
"Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves"
By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department
»www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga···id=42007

Reading these and others, there seems to be a push to broaden and change the laws, no matter the existing laws to get people to identify themselves. I do see that in Texas there seems to be some confusion by the Police as to what they can and cannot do.


ImpetusEra
Premium
join:2004-05-19
00000
reply to billydunwood

Sure, Nazi's were just doing their jobs. What good would it do to refuse what they asked of you at the time? I don't understand what the big issue is with providing your ID to a police officer assuming you're a law abiding citizen with no prior record? When they start asking for a DNA sample then I'm on board with a little resistance.


billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2

said by ImpetusEra:

Sure, Nazi's were just doing their jobs. What good would it do to refuse what they asked of you at the time? I don't understand what the big issue is with providing your ID to a police officer assuming you're a law abiding citizen with no prior record? When they start asking for a DNA sample then I'm on board with a little resistance.

BECAUSE I DONT FREAKING HAVE TO PROVIDE MY ID, that's why. And TX law says I don't have to. So yes, I am a law abiding citizen, obeying the law that states I dont have to provide an ID unless I am arrested. I am not going to bend over and give up my rights like you want everyone to do.
--
No Victim=No Crime

ImpetusEra
Premium
join:2004-05-19
00000

I understand the law states you aren't required to provide ID but what good does it do to refuse to? I understand the annoyance of being stopped and asked for ID while not violating any law but why make a point of exercising rights at that point? Sure, maybe they're in the wrong but what good does it do to argue that there with the police officer? Spare the hassle and make the complaint after the fact to higher ups if you want to see change in the process. Personally my most questionable interaction with police was being followed for 7 miles at night before being pulled over for a slew of minor offenses collected during those 7 miles. I handed over all documentation as asked, got out of the vehicle as asked, sat in the cruiser while my ID was checked and was questioned about my passenger who remained in my vehicle. I remained compliant and polite and was on my way in under 15 minutes with nothing more than a written warning for front tires in need of replacement. It wouldn't have done me a bit of good to do anything different at the time unless I wanted points and tickets or maybe arrested, in my opinion.


billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2

said by ImpetusEra:

I understand the law states you aren't required to provide ID but what good does it do to refuse to? I understand the annoyance of being stopped and asked for ID while not violating any law but why make a point of exercising rights at that point? Sure, maybe they're in the wrong but what good does it do to argue that there with the police officer? Spare the hassle and make the complaint after the fact to higher ups if you want to see change in the process. Personally my most questionable interaction with police was being followed for 7 miles at night before being pulled over for a slew of minor offenses collected during those 7 miles. I handed over all documentation as asked, got out of the vehicle as asked, sat in the cruiser while my ID was checked and was questioned about my passenger who remained in my vehicle. I remained compliant and polite and was on my way in under 15 minutes with nothing more than a written warning for front tires in need of replacement. It wouldn't have done me a bit of good to do anything different at the time unless I wanted points and tickets or maybe arrested, in my opinion.

Because most police have a database that they put your info in once you are stopped. I don't want my info in a database and I dont need to give up my ID for no reason. What benefit is it to give my id to an officer when Im not doing anything? So he can run me for warrants, put my name in a database and waste my time? Nope.
--
No Victim=No Crime

ImpetusEra
Premium
join:2004-05-19
00000

I don't disagree with any of that. I'd rather not be in their database, who would? For me the warrants aren't a concern since I have none but obviously some people do so it is. So as it is it should be expected if you were to refuse to provide ID as the OP did and impede their ability to check you for active warrants it's not unreasonable to expect they might not just accept your refusal and move on. I personally prefer to just do what needs to be done at the moment to produce a favorable outcome for me. I just don't see anything productive coming from arguing with an officer in the moment. I feel they will get what they want then or keep an eye on you for the future so why ruffle their feathers? If you disagree with their actions or methods make it known to their superiors after the fact is my opinion. Maybe the department policies need changing or the particular officer requires some training. I just think it's moot point arguing that with the officer.


billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2

said by ImpetusEra:

I don't disagree with any of that. I'd rather not be in their database, who would? For me the warrants aren't a concern since I have none but obviously some people do so it is. So as it is it should be expected if you were to refuse to provide ID as the OP did and impede their ability to check you for active warrants it's not unreasonable to expect they might not just accept your refusal and move on. I personally prefer to just do what needs to be done at the moment to produce a favorable outcome for me. I just don't see anything productive coming from arguing with an officer in the moment. I feel they will get what they want then or keep an eye on you for the future so why ruffle their feathers? If you disagree with their actions or methods make it known to their superiors after the fact is my opinion. Maybe the department policies need changing or the particular officer requires some training. I just think it's moot point arguing that with the officer.

It would be a favorable outcome for me because I would say this: "I don't consent to searches, I don't answer questions, I dont have to provide my ID" and I walk away. That takes less time then giving them your id and having them run it. If I did something wrong, I have no problem giving them my ID(but i still refuse searches and questions). But unlike a lot of people, I know my rights, I know the case law regarding them and I know to never consent a search or answer questions.
--
No Victim=No Crime


AppleGuy
Premium
join:2013-09-08
Canada
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·voip.ms
reply to Gaff

Not sure that I'd have done the same thing, but probably would after what your wrote.

However, my reasoning would be entirely different. I've gotten to that point i life where I believe people should work for their money. The cops that detained you worked for their money. And that is all I want to see in life now. Too many lazy people out there.



Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to Gaff

Kinda amused at the replies assuming that the cops wouldn't have given you any guff had you presented the ID at the first request. The fact that they stalked you proves that they had more than a glancing hunch, or were just power tripping. Either way, they were going to give you crap. Going above and beyond what's constitutionally required to comply with law enforcement makes their lives easier, not yours.



Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to KingsAgain

said by KingsAgain:

I don't get what the big deal is. Why do you feel the need to be above the law? Is your goal in life to feel superior to others? Or is it to live comfortably?

With that logic, we might as well erase the 4th amendment completely.
Expand your moderator at work

8744675

join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
reply to towerdave

Re: Detained by law enforcement

Just doing what your told by the cops is how they get away with the crap they do. They break the law and then find ways to justify their actions. Being complacent is being complicit with their unlawful detainment, searches and questioning and just emboldens them even more.

That's how we've reached the point where where everyone is labeled as a "terrorist" by law enforcement for petty things like talking back, and the NSA knows what time you take a piss every day.



Booost

@151.190.40.x

Happened here on Saturday:

quote:
Marques told police that he didn't have to provide an ID, since all he was doing was "yelling loudly and joking around," police said. Officers also noted that his breath smelled of alcohol, according to the report. Police gave the man multiple opportunities to fork over an ID, according to the report, but Marques started yelling, "I don't have to!" Police arrested Marques and charged him with obstruction and disorderly conduct.
»www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014···out.html

ctggzg
Premium
join:2005-02-11
USA
kudos:2
reply to Gaff

Whatever rights someone has or thinks they have, there's no reason to be an ass when nothing harmful or violating is being done to them, especially if they've allegedly done nothing wrong.