Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

Well you should believe it because stopping vehicles for minor offenses, whether traffic or equipment related. is just good police work. It's called being proactive. Stops like that frequently lead to police officers getting people who need to be off the street, off the street. Oftentimes it's because of warrants and sometimes because, thru good police work, a stop for a minor violation like that leads to other things...like the discovery of drugs in cars. I could tell you story after story of minor stops or simple contacts for other minor infractions led to me arrest people on murder warrants, having kidnap victims in cars, drugs...all sorts of stuff.

I'm willing to bet any officer that's worked the street for more than a year or two will tell you it's not uncommon to turn a minor traffic offense into some other sort of felony arrest.

You should be thankful officers do that sort of thing. I bet you'd really find it eye-opening to learn how often this is done and how often it leads to something huge.

You'd probably also be just a little offended if people on this forum, with no flying experience, started bashing pilots and telling them how to do their jobs and how they could do it better. That's an everyday thing for cops. Everybody's a f**kin' expert on law enforcement except for those who actually do it every single day.

You do understand that is the exact nature of my Constitutional objection, don't you? That stopping him for a brake light  could lead to more serious charges. That is the exact opposite of requiring probable cause before a citizen may be searched. To stop a citizen and search him  because you may then find probable cause for an additional search means there is no Fourth Amendment security in a citizen's person and effects.

See?

 

[tweetr]

another lawyer lol. like you been told the stop was legit but you go ahead and think you are right and know everything. you wont be the only one here like that.

No need for that.

 

[THAT Gurl]

sigh

Bears repeating ...

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Guys, my taking offense is entirely related to violating the natural rights of citizens, of which I am one, and therefore an accredited expert. I don't want any citizen stopped by police on a fabricated pretext, either for training or because somebody might be committing a crime somewhere. That does not pass the smell test, let alone the Fourth Amendment test. A free citizen ought to be free to go peaceably about his business without being detained, manhandled, cuffed, stuffed in the back of a police car, and searched without a warrant issued upon probable cause. Period.

Again...you quote me but I wasn't referring to you specifically.

And, I gotta be honest. This is simply wrong-headed thinking. Of course you want police to stop people who might be committing a crime somewhere. That's their job. (I can't and won't defend a stop based on a fabricated reason...most cops don't need to do that if they know their job.)

Free citizens are generally able to do just what you said. But sometimes free citizens commit crimes either intentionally or unintentionally, serious and minor.

It's not a violation of any of your rights to be stopped by the police for a valid reason or even suspicion under certain circumstances. It has to be that way or the system wouldn't work.

If a bank is robbed and the description of a person or vehicle matches you/your vehicle, you may be stopped as part of the police response and investigation if you're seen in the area or a reasonable distance from where the offense occurred.

 

[tweetr]

Again...you quote me but I wasn't referring to you specifically.

And, I gotta be honest. This is simply wrong-headed thinking. Of course you want police to stop people who might be committing a crime somewhere. That's their job. (I can't and won't defend a stop based on a fabricated reason...most cops don't need to do that if they know their job.)

Free citizens are generally able to do just what you said. But sometimes free citizens commit crimes either intentionally or unintentionally, serious and minor.

It's not a violation of any of your rights to be stopped by the police for a valid reason or even suspicion under certain circumstances. It has to be that way or the system wouldn't work.

If a bank is robbed and the description of a person or vehicle matches you/your vehicle, you may be stopped as part of the police response and investigation if you're seen in the area or a reasonable distance from where the offense occurred.

Your remarks hinge upon a valid reason. What is the valid reason? What is the cause for suspicion?

No bank was robbed.
No marijuana existed (if that is even a valid reason for a search. I haven't been able to verify that.)

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

You do understand that is the exact nature of my Constitutional objection, don't you? That stopping him for a brake light  could lead to more serious charges. That is the exact opposite of requiring probable cause before a citizen may be searched. To stop a citizen and search him  because you may then find probable cause for an additional search means there is no Fourth Amendment security in a citizen's person and effects.

See?

Again... I don't think you're the Constitutional expert you seem to think you are. There are many ways in which police may conduct searches without a warrant. You are correct that it's not legal to perform a search without probable cause or a warrant in order to find PC, though. I doubt that happens very often...and if it does it doesn't hold up in court.

Let me give you an example (true story):

I was patrolling early one morning...about 0300. I stopped a car for a minor violation...don't recall what. When the driver opened his glove box he had a stack of currency about 4" tightly wrapped in a zip-loc baggie in there. It was a lot of money and it seemed odd to me. Nothing wrong or illegal, but I saw it and nothing prohibits me from asking questions about it. The driver is not obligated to answer.

I asked him where he got the money? "Work". Why is it in your glovebox? "I'm going to look at an apartment." Right now? "In about 30 mins." At 3:30 in the morning? That's odd. "Yeah...that's when the guy's available."

OK...not a thing in the world wrong with looking at an apartment at 3:30 in the morning. But it's VERY unusual...especially in the rural area where this occurred.

Went back to the stop and he couldn't produce proof of insurance. He also had an address that was an hour away and couldn't explain why he was in this particular area when he said he was looking at an appt much closer to where he lived.

In Colorado, failure to provide proof of insurance is a misdemeanor offense (or it was then). I knew the guy's story was bulls**t and I knew he was up to no good based on my experience. So I arrested him. Unusual to arrest someone for that, yes. But perfectly reasonable and legal.

I had to secure his car. And because he had a very large amount of cash I did what's called an inventory search of the vehicle in his presence to account for all his valuables...like the cash. He said he had a lot of work tools in the trunk...very valuable stuff. When I searched the trunk I found many items commonly associated with burglaries.

I forwarded the report to the detectives and they were able to clear 30-some odd burglaries traced to this guy and recover hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of property.

You can be a Constitutional purist all you want. But nothing in the Constitution prohibits honest police work and a lot of things you're complaining about have been upheld in the courts for decades.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Your remarks hinge upon a valid reason. What is the valid reason? What is the cause for suspicion?

No bank was robbed.
No marijuana existed (if that is even a valid reason for a search. I haven't been able to verify that.)

OK... Never mind. I tried to explain everything to you based on my 15+ years of police/investigative work. But obviously your experience as a Constitutional purist gives you far greater insight into how law enforcement works in terms of the 4th Amendment.

I'll just head on outta here because you obviously don't want to understand what I'm telling you.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Y'all might want to read this case. Smell of MJ is still a valid reason to search in Oklahoma.

STATE V. ROBERSON​

2021 OK CR 16 | 492 P.3d 620
Case: S-2020-550Decided: 6/17/2021

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

I’m not racist but…

Yeah... I'm probably going to hell cuz I laughed, too.

 

[Ready_fire_aim]

Dang mods are on it big time that joke got deleted immediately haha! Oops