4 ms·

>they give orders I don't legally need to follow It seems to me that a love of Americans believe in this "sovereign citizen" nonsense. No wonder American polic

by Aoyagi 10y ago

>they give orders I don't legally need to follow It seems to me that a love of Americans believe in this "sovereign citizen" nonsense. No wonder American police has to use more force than that in any other civilized country.

dgacmu 10y ago
There are more likely - and more charitable - interpretations of the comment. Specifically, police often ask for things they're not legally entitled to compel. ("May I look in your glovebox?" During a routine traffic stop with no probable cause for such a search, for example.) As. 40 year old white male with the financial resources to defend myself, I now say no to such requests. But I also don't get asked... When I was 17 and found cops terrifying, I didn't stand up for my rights. And funny - I received more unreasonable requests when I was more obviously vulnerable.
- Aoyagi 10y ago
  I don't see how opening a glove box for a cop to look in is unreasonable.
  - dgacmu 10y ago
    He had no reason to look in there (no probable cause). It's going on a fishing expedition, and it's the start of the chain of events that leads to the "if you look hard enough, everybody's guilty of something" problem. The law is very clear that under the circumstances, the officer had no right to _compel_ me to let him look. If he had, anything he found as a result of the search would be inadmissible in court. But it's entirely within his right to ask, and if I voluntarily comply, then anything he finds can be used as evidence. Here's an example with a fairly good discussion about what the police can and can't do, and under what circumstances, during a traffic stop: http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehicle-searches-and-seizures.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehi... The problem is that "voluntary compliance" is very slippery (when you think of refusing a cop's request for something like that, do you imagine that there might be retribution? You might -- and if you're not in a relative position of power, it's almost certainly on your mind.) It's therefore easier for some people to assert their rights than for others, and that can lead to very unequal protection under the law.
    - Aoyagi 10y ago
      No reason to look there? How do you know that? You think you, with your behaviour, can't be described as "acting suspiciously"? With that logic you might as well say he had no reason to stop you. Or to stop anyone unless the police officer has a very concrete reason for doing so. In other words, by your logic, routine traffic stops something you don't have to comply with at all.
      - dgacmu 10y ago
        Goodness, you're full of unfounded assumptions. You also seem unfamiliar with American jurisprudence and the basics of constitutional law - I assume you're not local? First of all, he did have no reason to stop me in particular -- it was a DUI checkpoint, and they were stopping everyone. DUI checkpoints are perfectly legit, but don't provide a basis for reasonable suspicion to search anyone thus stopped. (They were challenged, but deemed constitutional). Routine traffic stops are based upon an officer's observation of the law being broken, which provides a clear basis for stopping someone. You seem to be arguing a strawman that I'm not presenting (that this is a slippery slope that leads to nobody obeying lawful orders). But you are right on one thing: The police don't have the right to stop people unless they have a good reason to do so. This is legally well-established. See, for example, Delaware v. Prouse: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 DUI checkpoints that are pre-announced and publicized are a valid reason to stop people. Observation of breaking the law, even in minor ways, is another. A broken taillight is sufficient, as is speeding. A license plate scan showing that there's an outstanding warrant - stop away. But when it comes to expanding the search from a routine traffic stop, the 4th amendment guarantees the right to be free from _unreasonable_ search and seizure. Not from any search and seizure, but from searches and seizures lacking a reasonable basis and in which the search-ee has a reasonable expectation of privacy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment Note also that simple "nervousness" is a poor justification for expanding the scope of a stop and search (see State v. Moore, 4th circuit, 2013) http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.pdf http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.... Because of this, a police officer typically doesn't have reasonable suspicion to search your car if they just pull you over at a routine stop. (Obviously, if they see something suspicious -- open container, bag of pot, gun, whatever -- that provides a basis for further search.) But they're legally entitled to ask your permission to dig more -- and that's the behavior I object to, because it unfairly stacks the deck against people less aware of their specific rights under the situation and able to defend themselves legally.

by Aoyagi 10y ago

dgacmu 10y ago

There are more likely - and more charitable - interpretations of the comment. Specifically, police often ask for things they're not legally entitled to compel. ("May I look in your glovebox?" During a routine traffic stop with no probable cause for such a search, for example.) As. 40 year old white male with the financial resources to defend myself, I now say no to such requests. But I also don't get asked... When I was 17 and found cops terrifying, I didn't stand up for my rights. And funny - I received more unreasonable requests when I was more obviously vulnerable.

Aoyagi 10y ago
I don't see how opening a glove box for a cop to look in is unreasonable.
- dgacmu 10y ago
  He had no reason to look in there (no probable cause). It's going on a fishing expedition, and it's the start of the chain of events that leads to the "if you look hard enough, everybody's guilty of something" problem. The law is very clear that under the circumstances, the officer had no right to _compel_ me to let him look. If he had, anything he found as a result of the search would be inadmissible in court. But it's entirely within his right to ask, and if I voluntarily comply, then anything he finds can be used as evidence. Here's an example with a fairly good discussion about what the police can and can't do, and under what circumstances, during a traffic stop: http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehicle-searches-and-seizures.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/unlawful-vehi... The problem is that "voluntary compliance" is very slippery (when you think of refusing a cop's request for something like that, do you imagine that there might be retribution? You might -- and if you're not in a relative position of power, it's almost certainly on your mind.) It's therefore easier for some people to assert their rights than for others, and that can lead to very unequal protection under the law.
  - Aoyagi 10y ago
    No reason to look there? How do you know that? You think you, with your behaviour, can't be described as "acting suspiciously"? With that logic you might as well say he had no reason to stop you. Or to stop anyone unless the police officer has a very concrete reason for doing so. In other words, by your logic, routine traffic stops something you don't have to comply with at all.
    - dgacmu 10y ago
      Goodness, you're full of unfounded assumptions. You also seem unfamiliar with American jurisprudence and the basics of constitutional law - I assume you're not local? First of all, he did have no reason to stop me in particular -- it was a DUI checkpoint, and they were stopping everyone. DUI checkpoints are perfectly legit, but don't provide a basis for reasonable suspicion to search anyone thus stopped. (They were challenged, but deemed constitutional). Routine traffic stops are based upon an officer's observation of the law being broken, which provides a clear basis for stopping someone. You seem to be arguing a strawman that I'm not presenting (that this is a slippery slope that leads to nobody obeying lawful orders). But you are right on one thing: The police don't have the right to stop people unless they have a good reason to do so. This is legally well-established. See, for example, Delaware v. Prouse: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648 DUI checkpoints that are pre-announced and publicized are a valid reason to stop people. Observation of breaking the law, even in minor ways, is another. A broken taillight is sufficient, as is speeding. A license plate scan showing that there's an outstanding warrant - stop away. But when it comes to expanding the search from a routine traffic stop, the 4th amendment guarantees the right to be free from _unreasonable_ search and seizure. Not from any search and seizure, but from searches and seizures lacking a reasonable basis and in which the search-ee has a reasonable expectation of privacy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment Note also that simple "nervousness" is a poor justification for expanding the scope of a stop and search (see State v. Moore, 4th circuit, 2013) http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.pdf http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5160.... Because of this, a police officer typically doesn't have reasonable suspicion to search your car if they just pull you over at a routine stop. (Obviously, if they see something suspicious -- open container, bag of pot, gun, whatever -- that provides a basis for further search.) But they're legally entitled to ask your permission to dig more -- and that's the behavior I object to, because it unfairly stacks the deck against people less aware of their specific rights under the situation and able to defend themselves legally.