One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Police)

Coded-Dude · Apr 22, 2015

This is not a cop bashing thread....please keep it civil. Unless of course you want to bash legislators. lol

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.
Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.
“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” she ruled.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...rules-cops-cant-hold-suspects-to-wait-for-dog

The Oklahoma Senate has approved Open Records Act legislation that would limit access by the public and media to audio and video recordings obtained from equipment attached to a law enforcement officer or vehicle.
The Senate voted 46-0 for the House-passed bill Tuesday and sent it to a joint House-Senate conference committee for more work. Its Senate author, Republican Sen. David Holt of Bethany, says lawmakers are working with law enforcement and media representatives to fashion the bill's final form.
Among other things, the bill would authorize law enforcement agencies to withhold footage that depicts acts of violence resulting in severe injuries unless they are perpetrated by a law enforcement officer.
It also allows the withholding of test forms for state licensure examinations.

http://www.theadanews.com/news/okla...cle_7bc799b0-e862-11e4-a8ee-bf7fb9ed941b.html

Oklahoma legislature got this one wrong, and I hope it doesn't pass, but it also doesn't surprise me. Discuss.

Hobbes · Apr 22, 2015

That legislation also eviscerates open meeting and open records laws that have been on the books for years.

The Oklahoma legislature is completely controlled by the special interests with full time lobbyists in the halls and offices of the capitol every day.

Clueless and apathetic citizens fail to demand accountability and get exactly the government they deserve.

RidgeHunter · Apr 22, 2015

Interesting SCOTUS ruling to be sure, but it changes nothing on the side of the road.

Coded-Dude · Apr 22, 2015

I agree it won't change much on the side of the road, but more cases may get thrown out because of the ruling.

Perplexed · Apr 22, 2015

Coded-Dude said:
I agree it won't change much on the side of the road, but more cases may get thrown out because of the ruling.

If that happens, wouldn't more PD's instruct their officers to be more conservative about stretching out roadside stops without a clear case for doing so? I'd think the increase in court cases, and dismissals of the same, would result in cities leaning on their PD's to be less of a financial liability.

Coded-Dude · Apr 22, 2015

Seems plausible. The court case is interesting because the defendant was all over the road and they found meth in the car(though I don't know if said defendant was proven to be under the influence at the time of the stop). So it's not like this was a case of the police not having reasonable suspicion(or merely going on a fishing expedition), because they did find something.....the courts just decided it was inappropriate regardless(which is a win for the 4th amendment in the end)

soonerwings · Apr 22, 2015

I for one can't wait to read the opinion in full and relish every last bit of it. It's a huge win for freedom. It might not change anything on the side of the road immediately, but it will in the long run. Once possession cases start getting thrown out, the police departments will eventually stop using the old "oh, you don't consent to a search? Then please wait patiently while I call the K-9" tactic to bully their way into consent.

FullAuto · Apr 22, 2015

They should give him his meth back now.

Kyle78 · Apr 22, 2015

I don't see were Open Records Act legislation isn't a bad thing. It appears to be a protection for victims of violent crimes. Keeps the news agencies from obtaining those videos, and profiting from them. What's ya'lls thoughts?

CHenry · Apr 22, 2015

I am so confused

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Police)

Coded-Dude

Sharpshooter

Hobbes

Sharpshooter

RidgeHunter

Sharpshooter

Coded-Dude

Sharpshooter

Perplexed

Sharpshooter

Coded-Dude

Sharpshooter

soonerwings

Sharpshooter

FullAuto

Sharpshooter

Kyle78

Sharpshooter

CHenry

Sharpshooter

Similar threads

Latest posts

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Police)

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!