4 ms·

1. No legal cause or case. 2. They were basically trespassing, if only the owner asked them to leave. 3. Person invited them in and let them take their proper

1. No legal cause or case. 2. They were basically trespassing, if only the owner asked them to leave. 3. Person invited them in and let them take their property. Geez people really just create the drama they want. Easily should've told them to pound dirt and slam the door in their face. Instead the article goes on about one agent being apologetic, and the others not caring. People really are not aware of their rights. Remember, if someone has to ASK you or have you CONSENT you can say no. But it seems people don't know they can refuse anymore.

jstarfish 3y ago
> Remember, if someone has to ASK you or have you CONSENT you can say no. But it seems people don't know they can refuse anymore. "Just say no" on police matters is not good universal advice. It can have undesirable consequences. Two immediate examples: If you're pulled over and the cop wants to search your car for drugs, you can play roadside lawyer if you'd like. Say no-- it's your right. They'll bring in a drug dog, it'll ring positive (coerced or not), then they proceed to disassemble your car to punish you for being obstinate-- we're talking ripping off door panels and liners to look behind and underneath. Reassembly is for you to deal with. If you have nothing to hide, you save yourself some trouble by just consenting before they call in the dog, which only ever increases the invasiveness of the search. Fail early. Same for DUI. You don't have to take a roadside sobriety test. Invoking your right to say no means you're getting detained anyway and will spend the next few hours in the hospital lab, which you will be billed for later. If you were drunk, you lose either way, but being stubborn is the costlier approach. Fail early. You have some rights on land you own. Fewer rights on land you rent. No rights on the road.
- rootsudo 3y ago
  100% Disagree. While dogs can ring positive for coerced, you want to make sure the search is as illegal as possible so that any evidence can be tossed, no evidence == no case. A dog can signal falsely for "drugs" but let's say they found $8000, that you have a receipt from the bank? While they will attempt civil forfeiture -- the dog was only for drugs - meaning no drugs found == better attempt to get that case thrown. Same for other medications, or any contraband. For your DUI example, many a lawyer I talked too and in my university days every law/pre-law professor stated if that ever happened, they would always refuse because it does not present evidence easily - a few hours in a hospital lab means any test result then will be delayed, and lets say you were drunk, (something I don't condone) - you now have more time to sober up and the further test results will be farther from when the stop was done. It is much easier to defeat a DUI Charge if there was no evidence at roadside that you were actually impaired. Even if your car is towed and you're billed high for the forced blood test and what not - it is still cheaper than a DUI charge which runs $15,000 nowadays, not including the future insurance waivers/SR-22/FR-44 probably required. You have rights, it is much easier to win a case/have your case dismissed if there is proof the police violated your rights. Lawyers glee and prosecutors will drop cases where there is overt police rights violation. I would say depending on the area, and on your race/skin color is more of a issue if you're being pulled over vs not consenting to a search because bias exists and LEO will try and try more - but with dashcams and such - that's changing, marginally. Though the video of the uber lawyer lately has been making the laps, to the point where that officer in question did get a promotion.

jstarfish 3y ago

> Remember, if someone has to ASK you or have you CONSENT you can say no. But it seems people don't know they can refuse anymore. "Just say no" on police matters is not good universal advice. It can have undesirable consequences. Two immediate examples: If you're pulled over and the cop wants to search your car for drugs, you can play roadside lawyer if you'd like. Say no-- it's your right. They'll bring in a drug dog, it'll ring positive (coerced or not), then they proceed to disassemble your car to punish you for being obstinate-- we're talking ripping off door panels and liners to look behind and underneath. Reassembly is for you to deal with. If you have nothing to hide, you save yourself some trouble by just consenting before they call in the dog, which only ever increases the invasiveness of the search. Fail early. Same for DUI. You don't have to take a roadside sobriety test. Invoking your right to say no means you're getting detained anyway and will spend the next few hours in the hospital lab, which you will be billed for later. If you were drunk, you lose either way, but being stubborn is the costlier approach. Fail early. You have some rights on land you own. Fewer rights on land you rent. No rights on the road.

rootsudo 3y ago
100% Disagree. While dogs can ring positive for coerced, you want to make sure the search is as illegal as possible so that any evidence can be tossed, no evidence == no case. A dog can signal falsely for "drugs" but let's say they found $8000, that you have a receipt from the bank? While they will attempt civil forfeiture -- the dog was only for drugs - meaning no drugs found == better attempt to get that case thrown. Same for other medications, or any contraband. For your DUI example, many a lawyer I talked too and in my university days every law/pre-law professor stated if that ever happened, they would always refuse because it does not present evidence easily - a few hours in a hospital lab means any test result then will be delayed, and lets say you were drunk, (something I don't condone) - you now have more time to sober up and the further test results will be farther from when the stop was done. It is much easier to defeat a DUI Charge if there was no evidence at roadside that you were actually impaired. Even if your car is towed and you're billed high for the forced blood test and what not - it is still cheaper than a DUI charge which runs $15,000 nowadays, not including the future insurance waivers/SR-22/FR-44 probably required. You have rights, it is much easier to win a case/have your case dismissed if there is proof the police violated your rights. Lawyers glee and prosecutors will drop cases where there is overt police rights violation. I would say depending on the area, and on your race/skin color is more of a issue if you're being pulled over vs not consenting to a search because bias exists and LEO will try and try more - but with dashcams and such - that's changing, marginally. Though the video of the uber lawyer lately has been making the laps, to the point where that officer in question did get a promotion.