Posted on 02/22/2008 7:23:44 PM PST by DeLaine
Son got his first ticket. Policeman said he didn't stop at a stop sign. It was dark, not even street lights in this area, but he saw this difficult-to-tell action in the dark, when Nathan says he had come to a stop. He didn't argue though.
But then he wanted to search the car. We've always told son not to agree to that, there is no reason. (actually, his former-cop dad told him don't agree to it) Dad is not in the picture, so I have to ask you all.
This was his first traffic stop and he was nervous. I was out of town, he'd never been pulled over before. He is 17. A conservative homeschooler. (now the LEO didn't know that, I understand that) But is mere nervousness of a 17 yo young man really probable cause? It wasn't late at night, it was after dinner, about 8:30 pm. A friend's mom had cooked him dinner and he was heading home. Son said there was 4 or 5 police cars, and a dog. That's the entire police force of this town, I think! I understand nervousness with other indicators, but what about only nervousness?? thanks
There probably was none. It was just cops being cops and making up the law as they go.
Maybe it was a slow TV night or the donut shop was closed.
Hope your son’s alright. Few deserve to be rolled over by the police and I’m sure he isn’t on the list.
Yes, when he refused permission, the officer called for what was a LOT of backup and a drug sniffing dog and searched the car, searched son, found some mints, smelled them, asked what they were.
The whole deal.
This includes a patdown and anything he can touch quickly. I.E. under the seat, the glovebox, etc.
It generally does not include zipped up backpacks and certainly not a locked briefcase where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Always refuse a search but do not physically interfere when it occurs anyway.
For more details see "You and the Police!" by Boston T. Party.
Probable Cause is another matter.
This is my only shy one. If that cop thought he was nervous then, he should have seen him on the phone to me! But I wasn’t even upset at him. From my ex, I know how hard it is to even tell if a car comes to a complete stop. You pretty much have to just watch the wheels and see if you see that little backwards motion. But in the complete dark? Give me a break.
Nervousness is not probable cause. Your son can be held ~45 minutes on RAS for a drug dog. If the dog indicates, they have probable cause to search. Some unscrupulous will wipe dope resin on a car in order to obtain PC.
Do you live around Memphis?
Very weird indeed.
Sometime the law is just strange.
My brother was arrested for speeding, he was riding his ten speed.
The charges were dropped but what an ordeal.
So the cop appears to have used lack of consent to an unwarranted search as probable cause to search. That's illegal. Go to court and challenge it on those grounds. If there was probable cause to begin with, what was it, and why did he ask for permission?
Cops don't need probable cause to search your much of your car or your person under Terry.
Go to court and challenge it on those grounds. If there was probable cause to begin with, what was it, and why did he ask for permission?
Because then he can search beyond the scope of Terry.
They said the dog alerted. I can’t imagine on what. We were given this old car by a Christian couple. It sat unused and not running for over a year two weeks ago, when we got it worked on and fixed for him to get back and forth to work. There was no backpack, briefcase or anything in the car but son.
Nate says he didn’t see anything the dog did, there were so many cops around him.
And no, not Memphis. a small town in GA
We’ll live, I just don’t want to pay more for insurance because they had nothing better to do that night.
Any dollar bill has trace amounts of drugs. And as I said, using a fake drug dog alert is Standard Operating Procedure to void the 4th Amendment these days. Once the dog alerted, they can search the whole car not just a safety search. That's why they faked the alert.
The only question remaining is how long did he wait for the drug dog. They can only detain him on a traffic violation for 45 minutes or so. Any longer than that they needed PC which didnt arrive until the fake drug alert.
Depends on the state. In some, the traffic stop acts as the probable cause.
The whole deal.
Get a lawyer and file, also file formal complaint with the department against the officers involved.
Really? Then why do they ask, and why do some searches get thrown out?
No, that can’t be. Even if he did a “California stop” at the stop sign, that’s not probably cause for a drug search.
ping
Because if you consent it broadens the scope and robustness of the search.
Because if you consent it broadens the scope and robustness of the search.
But it is enough to pat him down, search anything he can touch and hold him for the drug dog.
Wipe a little doobie resin on the back bumper and you've got your probable cause for the search. This is routine in modern day Amerika.
What race is your son?
ha. Not only is he my shyest one, he’s the palest white boy in town. LOL
Next time he should tell the officer that he is a Conservative Homeschooler and they will let him be on his way without a ticket or a search.
LOL. But Officer, I’m a GOOD white boy!!
I’m kidding about saying that, but I would like to know what to do and how to do it. That youtube video was helpful, I’m going to have him watch it too.
Maybe several times.
It just bugs me. We don’t have the money for all this hiring a lawyer and fighting it in court.
It amazes me that Americans have still not understood the full Constitutional implications of the War on Drugs.
And thats just beans compared to the fruits the War on Terror will bear.
I mean the WOD killed the 4th Amendment but now we literally have precedent warrantless surveilance, suspending habeas corpus and for torture.
I can't wait to see how that will work out.
“Fortunately, local jurisdictions with any self-awareness do seem to cull the rotten fruit from their ranks.”
You must be totally unfamiliar with small town Georgia law enforcement, said drily.
Sounds like they did everything by the book to me. With the exception of faking the drug dog indication and the failure to stop at the sign. But both of those are well within plausible deniability. There is absolutely nothing out of line here except the reader's blank incomprehension of the current state of our legal system.
Did the officers ask your son to consent to a search?
If yes, did he say "I do not consent" or words to that effect?
If yes, did the officers say: "I'm going to search anyway because I believe I have probable cause?"
Now probable cause is, legally, "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed" - unless the officer can explain convincingly why he had a reasonable belief that your son had committed a crime, then a search without consent is a violation of your son's rights.
Moreover, he is a minor and I presume that the vehicle he was driving is in your name and not his.
Unless the officers were trying to argue that they were in imminent fear for their lives, they should not have touched your car or questioned your minor son further until you were present.
Please supply more details.
The dog alerted on training. IOWs the cops cued him to alert, or the dog alerts on anything. ...like mints...
How long did it take between the stop and the arrival of the dog?
Was your son cited? If he was, this is highly challengeable.
A sniffer hound should not get a positive on mints. If this is all they found, either the dog is completely useless for police work or the officer was lying to your son.
Any meth labs in that neighborhood?
I got a ticket for running a stop sign when I was 18. I fought it in court and got it dismissed because the judge knew the street and believed that the cop could be mistaken.
Yes, they asked him to consent, he respectfully refused, as he was taught. They did the same thing as that youtube video. “i can’t help you unless you come clean”
I don’t know what they said, exactly, but the gist of it was “well, we’ll have to do this the hard way, and call in the drug dog” or something like that.
The dog didn’t alert on the mints, the police pulled them out of the console and asked what they were and smelled them. It was just a few little candies. No Visine, nothing like that. just some Tic Tacs.
There was no belief that a crime had been committed. (rolling eyes) He said the original officer barely spoke to him before calling for backup and this guy came that did all the talking.
He is a minor and the car is registered in my name, but I wasn’t available and I’m glad they didn’t know, or they might have put him in detention or something!!!
Is it really an issue that they didn’t receive my permission when they also didn’t receive his permission?
The dog alerted, he says he thinks the dog was at the back of the car when she supposedly alerted. and he only had to wait a few minutes until the dog arrived. It’s a very small town. Probably a few thousand people.
If by cited, you mean given a ticket, yes, for running a stop sign.
The dog has a good reputation, but what do we really know???
I don’t know. I just want to know that my son is safe going back there, his girlfriend and several of his friends live there.
mark this thread
So, if I get this straight, the end result was that your son got a ticket for running a stop sign. And the car was searched?
Challenge it in court. Have your son tell the judge that he came to a complete stop. The officer was mistaken. Have him tell the conditions of the time of the stop, dark. And have him relate the story of how his car was searched with out his consent. Have him ask the judge what his recourse is for that. Let him decide he if wants follow up on that. The court system can be fun and there is no need for a lawyer. At a minimum he will still have to pay the ticket, but likely they will throw it out.
Don’t fear the court system, have him just go in and tell the truth. He is a home schooler and this is a good opportunity for him to deal with the government. Go with him but don’t talk on his behalf.
I thought that they look to see that your head/neck bobs when you come to a full stop.
This wan an illegal search if you have given the whole story. You should sue.
No. They had him legitmately detained on the stop sign violation, they got the dog to the car within the allowed time for a RAS based detention. The dog gave them PC for a search.
Sue them? What do think will happen to this boy the next time he is stopped in small town Georgia. They were willing to fake the drug dog alert this time. What do you think they fake next time?
Should that make a difference?
Unless they found something illegal during the search, a suit is going to be a fool’s errand.
Generally, the argument that an illegal search uncovered evidence is an argument worth making. You get the results of the search excluded as evidence.
What exactly are the damages for searching and finding nothing, especially if nothing was damaged during the search?
I was just trying to let you know that this isn’t some drug addled slacker. You can’t see him.
And we don’t sue, that’s not an option outside of actual intentional damage. We have to live (near) here, as someone pointed out.
And thanks CJW, that’s the clearest post. Thanks to ALL of you, but this one, in layman’s language, was very helpful.
So many were helpful though. Thanks again, so much.
Running a stop sign is not probable cause to search somebody. Nothing in this story indicates a search of the car was warranted. This sounds like a typical example of police violating the rights of a child who is unaware of the protections afforded by the Constitution.
I also would not be intimidated into inaction by the prospect of terroristic actions by the police.
You asked what the probable cause for the search was. It was based on the dog alerting on the car. There was nothing illegal about the search.
So a search without probable cause is probable cause to do a search without probable cause?
I've given you a detailed description of how reasonable articulable suspicion escalated to probable cause within the allowable duration of a detention based on RAS.
Sorry but America decided a long long time ago that the War on Drugs was far more important than the 4th Amendment. This stop and search were not only totally legitimate it was a textbook case of using a drug dog to gain PC with a suspect silly enough to believe he has meaningful 4th Amendment protection.
Have you ever lived in Georgia? The fake drug alert already indicates one of the cops is crooked and quite possibly planting drug residue. What do think will happen next time they see this kid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.