15 ms·

I once had the cops seize $800 in cash I had on me to pay for motorcycle service (15% discount with cash) and hold it for 3 months. Eventually I got a letter s

I once had the cops seize $800 in cash I had on me to pay for motorcycle service (15% discount with cash) and hold it for 3 months. Eventually I got a letter saying I had to show up and prove I wasnt going to do drugs with it. So I showed up with my invoice. Then I was told I had to submit fingerprints and sign a letter promising I wasnt going to do drugs and I refused. Finally a month later they sent me a letter saying I had forfeited the money and I showed up again (took a day off work) and they said I had to go to court. So I went to court, and the judge spent ten minutes telling the cops that didnt show up I had to get my money back. Next month after that I got a call saying I had property to pick up and that I'd be fined daily if I didnt. So I got the money back.

giantg2 2y ago
Pretty common. This sort of mistrust is one reason people oppose red flag laws that require seizure (before even being tried, and without the protections of the criminal system). On a side note, how did they find the money? Or was this an expensive lesson in why not to consent to a search?
- sneak 2y ago
  If you don’t consent to searches, cops that want to search you will either simply search you illegally anyway, or call out dogs that are trained to alert whenever the cops want them to. There’s a reason that K-9 units are called “probable cause on four legs”.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    Not true, I have refused a “look over”of my car for two traffic stops, both cops threatened canine cops and I told them go ahead. One radioed in “not available”, The other one went back to his car and wrote me a ticket and told me I was lucky he got another call while he was filling out the ticket. I’m sure they sometimes do “do it anyway” but it isn’t a sure thing.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Canines need to be well trained, if it goes to court the need to prove the dogs won't point if there are no drugs (or whatever the dog looks for) so if there isn't good reason to suspect you they won't bother (depending on how far away a dog is) they are just threatening as if you are guilty you may give up. There are also rules about how long they can detain you while waiting. See a lawyer (the rules may not be good but you can get off in court if they are 'too long')
      - sneak 2y ago
        No, in practice they do not need to prove that. The presumption of innocence is mostly a fiction.
        giantg2 2y ago
        They do need to prove it. It's just that they treat it like a radar gun - they take the last certification testing as the proof. It's very rare to get to re-examine them.
      - enragedcacti 2y ago
        It's impossible for a test to prove that a canine ONLY alerts to contraband. It doesn't matter how many controlled tests it has passed, dogs could nevertheless be responding to conscious or unconscious signals from an officer who is already expecting to find drugs.
    - papercrane 2y ago
      Ever since Rodriguez v. United States the police cannot make you wait for the K9. It's considered an unlawful detainment if they extend the traffic stop, without reasonable suspicion of another crime, beyond the time it takes to deal with the original reason they pulled you over.
      - pc86 2y ago
        This is generally accepted to be about 20 minutes but that's not a hard and fast rule and multiple things can extend that time. Basically they need to continue writing your citation for speed or a brake light or whatever, at a reasonable speed. If you ever see dash/body cam footage where this is relevant, cops have had charges dismissed because they fill out the entire citation but don't sign it in about 10 minutes, then spend 45 minutes questioning everyone in the car and trying to get probable cause for a search. This is part of why they'll do a lot of the fishing at the beginning before they start the citation process, as that's seen as more "reasonable" than doing it at the end. This is also why it's so important to only give the info you're required to and not to answer any other questions. It increases the odds you'll get that first ticket but it cuts off their ability to extend the stop.
  - liquidgecka 2y ago
    If they try make sure you assert that you do not consent to searches, and would like to be on your way.. Then when they try to hold you ask them if the detention is inline with `Rodriguez v. United States` which specifically forbids cops from delaying a driver so that they can get dogs to the scene.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      Does it forbid the tactic in a way that results in negative consequences for the perpetrating officers?
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Your right has been confirmed in that case. It then has the basis for a civil rights case.
        klyrs 2y ago
        But Rodriguez is way past the qualified immunity deadline. What incentives the cop not to do this?
        giantg2 2y ago
        How so?
    - godelski 2y ago
      This sounds nice until a cop throws you against a car anyways. You're right to give the advice because this is what should happen but that's not the reality because the whole premise is based on what already should not be happening. You'd only need that line against a cop abusing their power. They're almost always going to continue abusing their power
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Many cops just try to trick you or are ignorant. Providing this info and asking for a supervisor is the best basis for any potential future legal recourse (especially if recording). Of course none of that matters in the moment, but it can make a big difference in getting that $800 back or not having it seized in the first place.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > If you don’t consent to searches, cops that want to search you will either simply search you illegally anyway Over a decade ago (in California) I had met up with some friends at a park where we were going to carpool to a concert in LA. I had a medical license and my weed was locked in my trunk AND we hadn't smoked. Cops pulled up, asked what we were doing, we explained, they asked if they could search, we said no, they did anyways. One friend had his hands in his pockets when the cops rolled up and they asked him what he had in there, so he naturally pulled them out and the cops threw him against a car and searched, saying they thought he was pulling a knife on him... I got a ticket, had to show up to court. Contested which meant another court date (I was following the law. Cop didn't even show up!). I talked with one of the clerks because I had a calc midterm that day and he pushed me to a afternoon session. Showing up to that the judge grilled me about "being late" (I had docs) and I yelled at him for wasting my time, the publics time, money, and how I was scheduled for this time because I had a fucking calculus test so to stop treating me like a degenerate. That I followed the letter of the law. 15 minutes total and charges dismissed. What a shit show... Another time I was visiting the Golden gate Park. I asked a ranger for directions. He said we smelled like weed. I told him SF smelled like weed. He asked to search, we walked, he grabbed us and my backpack. His evidence to give us a ticket was my still sealed bottle from the dispensary. I won't say all cops are bad, but some just want to abuse their power. I won't say cops are good, because the ones that don't abuse do know the ones that do. And you know what they say about "good men" who do nothing... And people still wonder why I'm critical of authority
    - ethagnawl 2y ago
      It's very much a spectrum but, in my personal experience, many cops are drawn to the job for the wrong reasons, like the power or being able to retire after 20 years with a pension (varies by municipality but very common in the northeast). It would never happen and I'm not sure it should but I often think about what a community based approach might look like. For example, a requirement that police live in the community they're policing or some sort of conscription model.
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        Wanting to collect a pension is NOT a wrong reason. It is a very legitimate reason for any government worker. I'd even bet it's inversely correlated with wanting to abuse power. Moreover, the abuse of power looks to develop over time, learning it from other abusive cops, and going further. It is a cycle of abuse taught from senior to junior. Even if the police represent the community or are conscripted, they still can learn such abusive behavior. The solution can be for all teams to be new, to not pass bad cultural knowledge from the old team to the new team.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Drug dogs only provide probable cause for drug searches. They arent suppoaed to extend to other crimes. Just as if the dog alerts on private property and a warrant is then needed, it only provides probable cause for a drug search (or related offense). On another note, in many states the dogs can't be trained on marijuana as it has legal purposes (medicinal or recreational). If coming from a state where it is legal, it still shouldn't provide probable cause as the sniffable residue could be from previous legal use. So in my view, the drug dog liability is low (biggest threat being planted evidence, but that could happen anyways), and being reined in further. Yes, the made-up probable cause is more likely. That's why I was wondering.
    - advael 2y ago
      The entire existence of a class of contraband that cops can claim to be searching for at any time is a massive loophole in the fourth amendment, and as such, the drug prohibition wave of the mid-20th century was instrumental in turning the US (and for that matter a majority of developed countries) into police states
      - giantg2 2y ago
        That's the thing - it's not considered a search. That's how they get away with it. The sniffing has to happen in public (or with a warrant) and is considered in plain smell (same as an officer smelling alcohol on your breath in a car). Then the dog provides probable cause for the real search. Well, really everything has become heavily criminalized in the 20th century. Especially as things that aren't outright outlawed are regulated to the extreme. Drugs, alcohol, guns, knives, etc. Some things have gotten more open, but virtually everything has gotten more complicated and easy to get tripped up on technicalities.
        mapt 2y ago
        The officer "smelling alcohol on your breath" is infamously applied to any situation where the officer lacks probable cause. It cannot be verified in a criminal case or in litigation, the officer is simply presumed to be telling the truth, and if proven to be lying is never, ever imprisoned for perjury. It may as well be "The officer saw you drinking in a vision"
  - csomar 2y ago
    You are misunderstanding the reason to not consent to a search. If the police officer can't justify his search in court, the evidence will be dismissed. By consenting, you are giving the court free evidence. NEVER consent to a search. However, never obstruct one either.
    - pc86 2y ago
      It's also very very important to explicitly say "I do not consent to any search or seizure." They will tell you to do things you're not legally required to do, e.g. "move over here for me" and if there's no audio recording of you refusing to consent, they can (and will) simply say in court that they took your choosing to get out of the way when you didn't have to as consent. Now you have to argue that you didn't consent, which you wouldn't have to do if it was clear on camera that you were refusing the whole time. Say it over and over again, any time they ask you to move, any time they ask to search again, any time they say they're going to pat you down, etc. Be a broken record. It's become a meme but this is why you see people asking if they're being detained over and over again because once the cops say yes that changes the rules considerably (in your favor).
  - yardie 2y ago
    They can also plant evidence, find something left behind by a passenger, or any myriad of things. You do not consent to the search because if you are arrested I guarantee that's the first thing the lawyer will ask. And will turn a $10k into a $20k if you allowed it. Because even 1 piece of illegally gathered evidence can wreck the whole case. BTW, I've done jury duty and witnessed the DA's case fall apart as witnesses and evidence was excluded. It's hard to build a strong narrative when whole chapters have to be ripped out. Years of evidence went up in smoke because they weren't handled correctly. Anyway, the point is you don't make the cops job easier because they certainly don't deserve it.
    - pc86 2y ago
      Interesting, typically all the evidentiary hearings happen without the jury present - because as much as we like to pretend otherwise, once the jury hears something it's going to be considered no matter what.
      - yardie 2y ago
        In my case we had pictures of random people, we assumed "accomplices", with no statement. Dates and timestamps where there was lots of activity, then nothing for 2-3 weeks and then lots of activity. We determined in the jury room the prosecution was hiding evidence from us probably because some of it wasn't legally obtained. We were 51% certain the guy was guilty but everything else left too much doubt.
        fencepost 2y ago
        I was on jury duty recently that seemed the epitome of "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride," along with a terrible job done by the prosecutors. I explicitly told the defense attorneys on the way out that they didn't win their case, the prosecution lost by doing a terrible job with evidence. Violation of an order of protection case, charged with violating a 500 foot OOP by 2 feet. Apparently part of the sidewalk at a nearby intersection was 498 feet from the house, but they didn't even pop up a map of the area just threw a bunch of street names at jurors from all over the major metro area.
- duped 2y ago
  I think people have fewer qualms about cops seizing weapons than any other kind of property. Taking cash or a car from someone is not equivalent to taking their guns.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Property is property Until they start seizing bank branches under suspicion of being used in a crime, this selective scamming won’t stop
    - duped 2y ago
      Ideological opposition to these laws without a frank understanding of their intent and impact is arguing in bad faith. Property is not all equal and not treated that way, for reasons that should be self evident. Guns are tools to kill people. Red flag laws exist to identify people who have them and are likely to use them. If a few people get caught up by the net by mistake, the societal impact is that we have fewer guns on the streets while those people are inconvenienced. Compare that to seizing people's cars. Sure, cars are dangerous, but people need them to travel to/from work/school/etc. The impact of seizing a car from someone by mistake is they could lose their job, their house if they lose income, etc. It's a lot worse than a gun owner not having access to their gun for a little bit. So no, property is not property.
      - abfan1127 2y ago
        I'd argue your argument is in bad faith. Guns are tools, that can be used to kill people, just like knives, clubs, or other weapons. Guns are also tools for ensuring equity in a potentially violent world. You don't need to be 6'2 250lbs to defend yourself with a gun from a criminal or violent government. Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary.
        duped 2y ago
        The overarching point I'm making is that the government seizing $2,000 in cash from you is not the same as seizing a $2,000 gun from you, because the $2,000 in cash isn't a potentially immediate threat to the public. Red flag laws are one of the very few pro-active tools for law enforcement. I think any argument around guns that focuses on ideological thought experiments like self defense from a "violent government" is not worth exploring. Because then you're talking about how to organize an armed insurrection, not how to reduce mass shootings and domestic partner violence. > Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary. And it's convenient for the craziest people in our society to have easy access to weapons and ammunition because of widespread paranoia about defending yourself from those people. Seems like the easy solution is to make access to weapons harder!
jajko 2y ago
Why such needless arrogance from cops in a developed country like US? They for sure couldn't be following some written law, right? I mean that's not even pretending to 'protect and serve', unless we change subject from 'citizens' to 'ourselves'. I would expect such stories from say Russia or some parts of Africa, not champion of free world.
- sneak 2y ago
  Cops in the USA are social tech support. They exist to protect the social and economic status quo, and to close out trouble tickets that come in over the phone. Protecting and serving aren’t in the job description, practically or even legally.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    Ive had a bunch of run ins with cops and, to me, they just seem like guys who have a job thats annoying. I didn't get a big "classist conspiracy" vibe.
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Your head not being on a pike/your continued breathing is also part of that 'economic and social status quo'. I think we can agree then that 'economic and political status quo' is thus a uselessly vague term.
- cypress66 2y ago
  It should be up to the legislators and justice to limit cops power, and punish them when appropriate.
- acdha 2y ago
  There’s a lot of sordid history around the police being used to keep certain ethnic groups in line (heavily but not just black people - one of the more interesting shifts was how Irish immigrants went from being over-policed to comprising large fractions of many forces), but then the war on drugs really hardened things into a relationship more like an occupying military force. That coincided with many cops joining white flight to the suburbs, meaning that they didn’t feel part of the cities where they served as had been the case a generation earlier, and the lurid tales of how violent & well-armed drug gangs were along with how dangerous “super predators” were lead to a lot of quasi-military weaponry and tactics becoming routine with quaint things like warrants being severely undermined. I say quasi-military because I’ve known multiple combat vets to express disbelief at the poor discipline shown by cops compared to the rules they had in places like Fallujah. The other big driver was the concept of qualified immunity and civil forfeiture. The modern form of the latter was invented during the drug war and formally embraced by the Reagan administration as a way to make elevated police presence self-funding, and that opened up a lot of room for abuse since it created huge conflicts of interest and the growth of qualified immunity removed the potential counterbalance of personal accountability.
metadat 2y ago
Utterly ridiculous. I'm sorry that happened to you, how infuriating.
chasd00 2y ago
[flagged]
- 1123581321 2y ago
  The police do not need to find evidence to seize property on suspicion.
jascination 2y ago
This is hilariously Kafka-esque, what a shitshow
Fokamul 2y ago
Heh USA biggest police state, in EU there is only one state with same level of policing. Germany. Cops there will make you strip search even before concert, because of "drugs" lol.
- Glawen 2y ago
  Do they have the right? I was stopped by German police many times and they asked me to search my car every time, which I complied. However one time I was stopped, one policeman was speaking to me while I was in my car, and his colleague started opening the passenger door and searched without asking. That's when I told them to stop and questioned their authority to do so. German citizen did not seem to question the authority, because when I asked around, they didn't know if it was legal or not.
  - estebank 2y ago
    > German police authorities are authorised to stop vehicles throughout the territory of Germany at any time, although the police have the general authority to scrutinise a vehicle only in order to inspect the technical condition of the vehicle. Other vehicle checks (e.g. for the purpose of examining the objects being transported in automobile vehicle) may be carried out only if there is a suspicion that the person is perpetrating a crime or threatening safety in some other way. > Unlike the police authorities, the customs authorities are, in principle, authorised to stop vehicles only in near-border areas, i.e. at a distance of up to 30 kilometres from the border. However, in a near-border area, the customs authorities may also carry out vehicle checks without the existence of any suspicion that a crime is being perpetrated or that there is a threat to safety. https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/checks-and-selected-procedural-aspects.aspx https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/checks-and-selected-proce...
- immibis 2y ago
  Can confirm. The people in front of me in line were taken away by police. I met them later and they said they consented (because they were stupid) to be searched for drugs.
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
They took my camera and then when I tried to get it back they claimed that nothing like that was in evidence. So I filed a police report because the police stole my camera, but I never heard back about it. Glad you eventually got your money.
- dheera 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pc86 2y ago
    As absolutely ridiculous (and illegal) as this advice is, if you find a way for inanimate objects to "detect that they have been stolen" I'd imagine you'll become wealthy enough that you won't need to worry about it.
    - dheera 2y ago
      I don't see anything illegal. It would be a device intended for my use, not the police's use, and I'm happy with the way it is constructed, therefore I purchase it and own it. If you steal it, you assume all liabilities thereof. See similar: https://skunklock.com/ https://skunklock.com/
      - banannaise 2y ago
        Booby traps are incredibly illegal, even if they're "non-injurious" by your personal definition. This also applies to the classic tale where someone is stealing food from a communal fridge so an enterprising idiot puts laxatives in a sandwich. Congratulations! You've just committed a felony by poisoning someone.
        dheera 2y ago
        - Fart spray isn't a booby trap and doesn't injure anyone, it will just make the police office stink like ass - It isn't a trap if it is in my possession all of the time. Anyone who takes it out of my possession forcefully, it's their fault
wraptile 2y ago
Reading anecdotes about US police is trully terrifying. How one of the richest countries in the world be so incompetent in this one particular regard. Is there some sort of historic review that highlights how it got this way?
- adastra22 2y ago
  This comment is good: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41285843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41285843
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Police unions in some districts are incredibly strong. New York City is famous. That means when you try to charge the police, none of the other officers will want to testify against bad behaviour. Plus, there is bribery-lite with stuff like "Fraternal Order of Police" where you can donate money (no idea what they do with it), get a sticker for your car and you will be statistically much less likely to be pulled over in your car. (Really, I wish I were joking.) A deeper question: Why don't other highly advanced democracies decay in the same way? For example: Why hasn't the same happened in Japan or Denmark or Portugal?
  - Vinnl 2y ago
    > A deeper question: Why don't other highly advanced democracies decay in the same way? For example: Why hasn't the same happened in Japan or Denmark or Portugal? My pet theory is that multi-party, coalition-based systems help a lot.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      You have my vote! Multi-party systems really do seem less extreme as an outside observer.
  - SkyBelow 2y ago
    >get a sticker for your car In some cases, larger donations get you different stickers showing your level of 'support'.
lazide 2y ago
California and the Federal gov’t has a requirement that if you’re ever accused of domestic violence, you’re not allowed to be near any firearms unless the accusations have been withdrawn or found without basis. (Notably, it is a very low bar for them to be found as having a basis. The standard is literally ‘could have possibly happened/occurred’, not did or beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) Practically in California, you’re required to turn them all in for storage or sell them within 24 hrs of being served - either selling them to a dealer or turning them in to the cops or to a very hard to find, expensive, and specialized type of gun dealer who doesn’t advertise. Keep in mind - accused - not a finding of or anything - and the court is happy to issue these orders ex-parte based off accusations which the impacted party has no chance to rebut or is necessarily even aware of at the time the order is issued. And the bar to issue it is very, very low. The accusations don’t even need to make sense or be supported by any police calls or the like. In theory? Fine. In practice, a very common abuse and harassment tactic. Or actually necessary. If you can’t find the specialized type of dealer and get him everything within 24 hrs, and can’t sell everything for penny’s on the dollar to a standard gun dealer in time, then you have to turn them into the cops. Or be committing a felony. Oh and the court will demand proof when you go to reply to/contest the emergency order that you did everything within the requisite amount of time, and did indeed turn everything in. In Santa Clara county - among others - apparently the cops will also never actually return the guns to you either. Because ‘it would look bad if you then used them in a crime’. Yes, this is clearly against the law. They DGAF. There are multiple outstanding lawsuits against them for this, last I checked, but the courts keep putting them on the back burner as after the Judge Persky recall no one wants to be involved in anything like this in the current political climate. They’d much rather drag it out for years or even decades over procedural matters. Even if it’s really clear what the legal thing to do is. One or two guns, not a lot of money. But folks with collections? Better not piss off anyone you’re living with.
- tekknik 2y ago
  It doesn’t even have to be someone you’re living with unfortunately.
- bambax 2y ago
  Well, maybe people should not own guns. At all. Any gun, let alone "a collection".
hinkley 2y ago
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
- polski-g 2y ago
  You believe that police abuses originated in the late 1980's?
- kbelder 2y ago
  Sure, 'Hinkley', you would think that.
xtiansimon 2y ago
It’s maddening to hear such a story. It should have ended with the invoice.
germandiago 2y ago
That is clear abuse. I think there should be very clear law and the same that the police should be extremely diligent applying laws, abuse should be punished the same way. But for this, rules need to be crystal clear.
Aerroon 2y ago
If that happened to me I would put up posters with the face and name of the thief (police officer) that did that in his neighborhood. I would want everyone to know what kind of an asshole he is.
webninja 2y ago
What state and county was this in?

giantg2 2y ago

Pretty common. This sort of mistrust is one reason people oppose red flag laws that require seizure (before even being tried, and without the protections of the criminal system). On a side note, how did they find the money? Or was this an expensive lesson in why not to consent to a search?

sneak 2y ago
If you don’t consent to searches, cops that want to search you will either simply search you illegally anyway, or call out dogs that are trained to alert whenever the cops want them to. There’s a reason that K-9 units are called “probable cause on four legs”.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Not true, I have refused a “look over”of my car for two traffic stops, both cops threatened canine cops and I told them go ahead. One radioed in “not available”, The other one went back to his car and wrote me a ticket and told me I was lucky he got another call while he was filling out the ticket. I’m sure they sometimes do “do it anyway” but it isn’t a sure thing.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Canines need to be well trained, if it goes to court the need to prove the dogs won't point if there are no drugs (or whatever the dog looks for) so if there isn't good reason to suspect you they won't bother (depending on how far away a dog is) they are just threatening as if you are guilty you may give up. There are also rules about how long they can detain you while waiting. See a lawyer (the rules may not be good but you can get off in court if they are 'too long')
    - sneak 2y ago
      No, in practice they do not need to prove that. The presumption of innocence is mostly a fiction.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        They do need to prove it. It's just that they treat it like a radar gun - they take the last certification testing as the proof. It's very rare to get to re-examine them.
    - enragedcacti 2y ago
      It's impossible for a test to prove that a canine ONLY alerts to contraband. It doesn't matter how many controlled tests it has passed, dogs could nevertheless be responding to conscious or unconscious signals from an officer who is already expecting to find drugs.
  - papercrane 2y ago
    Ever since Rodriguez v. United States the police cannot make you wait for the K9. It's considered an unlawful detainment if they extend the traffic stop, without reasonable suspicion of another crime, beyond the time it takes to deal with the original reason they pulled you over.
    - pc86 2y ago
      This is generally accepted to be about 20 minutes but that's not a hard and fast rule and multiple things can extend that time. Basically they need to continue writing your citation for speed or a brake light or whatever, at a reasonable speed. If you ever see dash/body cam footage where this is relevant, cops have had charges dismissed because they fill out the entire citation but don't sign it in about 10 minutes, then spend 45 minutes questioning everyone in the car and trying to get probable cause for a search. This is part of why they'll do a lot of the fishing at the beginning before they start the citation process, as that's seen as more "reasonable" than doing it at the end. This is also why it's so important to only give the info you're required to and not to answer any other questions. It increases the odds you'll get that first ticket but it cuts off their ability to extend the stop.
- liquidgecka 2y ago
  If they try make sure you assert that you do not consent to searches, and would like to be on your way.. Then when they try to hold you ask them if the detention is inline with `Rodriguez v. United States` which specifically forbids cops from delaying a driver so that they can get dogs to the scene.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    Does it forbid the tactic in a way that results in negative consequences for the perpetrating officers?
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Your right has been confirmed in that case. It then has the basis for a civil rights case.
      - klyrs 2y ago
        But Rodriguez is way past the qualified immunity deadline. What incentives the cop not to do this?
        giantg2 2y ago
        How so?
  - godelski 2y ago
    This sounds nice until a cop throws you against a car anyways. You're right to give the advice because this is what should happen but that's not the reality because the whole premise is based on what already should not be happening. You'd only need that line against a cop abusing their power. They're almost always going to continue abusing their power
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Many cops just try to trick you or are ignorant. Providing this info and asking for a supervisor is the best basis for any potential future legal recourse (especially if recording). Of course none of that matters in the moment, but it can make a big difference in getting that $800 back or not having it seized in the first place.
- godelski 2y ago
  > If you don’t consent to searches, cops that want to search you will either simply search you illegally anyway Over a decade ago (in California) I had met up with some friends at a park where we were going to carpool to a concert in LA. I had a medical license and my weed was locked in my trunk AND we hadn't smoked. Cops pulled up, asked what we were doing, we explained, they asked if they could search, we said no, they did anyways. One friend had his hands in his pockets when the cops rolled up and they asked him what he had in there, so he naturally pulled them out and the cops threw him against a car and searched, saying they thought he was pulling a knife on him... I got a ticket, had to show up to court. Contested which meant another court date (I was following the law. Cop didn't even show up!). I talked with one of the clerks because I had a calc midterm that day and he pushed me to a afternoon session. Showing up to that the judge grilled me about "being late" (I had docs) and I yelled at him for wasting my time, the publics time, money, and how I was scheduled for this time because I had a fucking calculus test so to stop treating me like a degenerate. That I followed the letter of the law. 15 minutes total and charges dismissed. What a shit show... Another time I was visiting the Golden gate Park. I asked a ranger for directions. He said we smelled like weed. I told him SF smelled like weed. He asked to search, we walked, he grabbed us and my backpack. His evidence to give us a ticket was my still sealed bottle from the dispensary. I won't say all cops are bad, but some just want to abuse their power. I won't say cops are good, because the ones that don't abuse do know the ones that do. And you know what they say about "good men" who do nothing... And people still wonder why I'm critical of authority
  - ethagnawl 2y ago
    It's very much a spectrum but, in my personal experience, many cops are drawn to the job for the wrong reasons, like the power or being able to retire after 20 years with a pension (varies by municipality but very common in the northeast). It would never happen and I'm not sure it should but I often think about what a community based approach might look like. For example, a requirement that police live in the community they're policing or some sort of conscription model.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      Wanting to collect a pension is NOT a wrong reason. It is a very legitimate reason for any government worker. I'd even bet it's inversely correlated with wanting to abuse power. Moreover, the abuse of power looks to develop over time, learning it from other abusive cops, and going further. It is a cycle of abuse taught from senior to junior. Even if the police represent the community or are conscripted, they still can learn such abusive behavior. The solution can be for all teams to be new, to not pass bad cultural knowledge from the old team to the new team.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Drug dogs only provide probable cause for drug searches. They arent suppoaed to extend to other crimes. Just as if the dog alerts on private property and a warrant is then needed, it only provides probable cause for a drug search (or related offense). On another note, in many states the dogs can't be trained on marijuana as it has legal purposes (medicinal or recreational). If coming from a state where it is legal, it still shouldn't provide probable cause as the sniffable residue could be from previous legal use. So in my view, the drug dog liability is low (biggest threat being planted evidence, but that could happen anyways), and being reined in further. Yes, the made-up probable cause is more likely. That's why I was wondering.
  - advael 2y ago
    The entire existence of a class of contraband that cops can claim to be searching for at any time is a massive loophole in the fourth amendment, and as such, the drug prohibition wave of the mid-20th century was instrumental in turning the US (and for that matter a majority of developed countries) into police states
    - giantg2 2y ago
      That's the thing - it's not considered a search. That's how they get away with it. The sniffing has to happen in public (or with a warrant) and is considered in plain smell (same as an officer smelling alcohol on your breath in a car). Then the dog provides probable cause for the real search. Well, really everything has become heavily criminalized in the 20th century. Especially as things that aren't outright outlawed are regulated to the extreme. Drugs, alcohol, guns, knives, etc. Some things have gotten more open, but virtually everything has gotten more complicated and easy to get tripped up on technicalities.
      - mapt 2y ago
        The officer "smelling alcohol on your breath" is infamously applied to any situation where the officer lacks probable cause. It cannot be verified in a criminal case or in litigation, the officer is simply presumed to be telling the truth, and if proven to be lying is never, ever imprisoned for perjury. It may as well be "The officer saw you drinking in a vision"
- csomar 2y ago
  You are misunderstanding the reason to not consent to a search. If the police officer can't justify his search in court, the evidence will be dismissed. By consenting, you are giving the court free evidence. NEVER consent to a search. However, never obstruct one either.
  - pc86 2y ago
    It's also very very important to explicitly say "I do not consent to any search or seizure." They will tell you to do things you're not legally required to do, e.g. "move over here for me" and if there's no audio recording of you refusing to consent, they can (and will) simply say in court that they took your choosing to get out of the way when you didn't have to as consent. Now you have to argue that you didn't consent, which you wouldn't have to do if it was clear on camera that you were refusing the whole time. Say it over and over again, any time they ask you to move, any time they ask to search again, any time they say they're going to pat you down, etc. Be a broken record. It's become a meme but this is why you see people asking if they're being detained over and over again because once the cops say yes that changes the rules considerably (in your favor).
- yardie 2y ago
  They can also plant evidence, find something left behind by a passenger, or any myriad of things. You do not consent to the search because if you are arrested I guarantee that's the first thing the lawyer will ask. And will turn a $10k into a $20k if you allowed it. Because even 1 piece of illegally gathered evidence can wreck the whole case. BTW, I've done jury duty and witnessed the DA's case fall apart as witnesses and evidence was excluded. It's hard to build a strong narrative when whole chapters have to be ripped out. Years of evidence went up in smoke because they weren't handled correctly. Anyway, the point is you don't make the cops job easier because they certainly don't deserve it.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Interesting, typically all the evidentiary hearings happen without the jury present - because as much as we like to pretend otherwise, once the jury hears something it's going to be considered no matter what.
    - yardie 2y ago
      In my case we had pictures of random people, we assumed "accomplices", with no statement. Dates and timestamps where there was lots of activity, then nothing for 2-3 weeks and then lots of activity. We determined in the jury room the prosecution was hiding evidence from us probably because some of it wasn't legally obtained. We were 51% certain the guy was guilty but everything else left too much doubt.
      - fencepost 2y ago
        I was on jury duty recently that seemed the epitome of "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride," along with a terrible job done by the prosecutors. I explicitly told the defense attorneys on the way out that they didn't win their case, the prosecution lost by doing a terrible job with evidence. Violation of an order of protection case, charged with violating a 500 foot OOP by 2 feet. Apparently part of the sidewalk at a nearby intersection was 498 feet from the house, but they didn't even pop up a map of the area just threw a bunch of street names at jurors from all over the major metro area.
duped 2y ago
I think people have fewer qualms about cops seizing weapons than any other kind of property. Taking cash or a car from someone is not equivalent to taking their guns.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Property is property Until they start seizing bank branches under suspicion of being used in a crime, this selective scamming won’t stop
  - duped 2y ago
    Ideological opposition to these laws without a frank understanding of their intent and impact is arguing in bad faith. Property is not all equal and not treated that way, for reasons that should be self evident. Guns are tools to kill people. Red flag laws exist to identify people who have them and are likely to use them. If a few people get caught up by the net by mistake, the societal impact is that we have fewer guns on the streets while those people are inconvenienced. Compare that to seizing people's cars. Sure, cars are dangerous, but people need them to travel to/from work/school/etc. The impact of seizing a car from someone by mistake is they could lose their job, their house if they lose income, etc. It's a lot worse than a gun owner not having access to their gun for a little bit. So no, property is not property.
    - abfan1127 2y ago
      I'd argue your argument is in bad faith. Guns are tools, that can be used to kill people, just like knives, clubs, or other weapons. Guns are also tools for ensuring equity in a potentially violent world. You don't need to be 6'2 250lbs to defend yourself with a gun from a criminal or violent government. Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary.
      - duped 2y ago
        The overarching point I'm making is that the government seizing $2,000 in cash from you is not the same as seizing a $2,000 gun from you, because the $2,000 in cash isn't a potentially immediate threat to the public. Red flag laws are one of the very few pro-active tools for law enforcement. I think any argument around guns that focuses on ideological thought experiments like self defense from a "violent government" is not worth exploring. Because then you're talking about how to organize an armed insurrection, not how to reduce mass shootings and domestic partner violence. > Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary. And it's convenient for the craziest people in our society to have easy access to weapons and ammunition because of widespread paranoia about defending yourself from those people. Seems like the easy solution is to make access to weapons harder!

jajko 2y ago

Why such needless arrogance from cops in a developed country like US? They for sure couldn't be following some written law, right? I mean that's not even pretending to 'protect and serve', unless we change subject from 'citizens' to 'ourselves'. I would expect such stories from say Russia or some parts of Africa, not champion of free world.

sneak 2y ago
Cops in the USA are social tech support. They exist to protect the social and economic status quo, and to close out trouble tickets that come in over the phone. Protecting and serving aren’t in the job description, practically or even legally.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  Ive had a bunch of run ins with cops and, to me, they just seem like guys who have a job thats annoying. I didn't get a big "classist conspiracy" vibe.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  Your head not being on a pike/your continued breathing is also part of that 'economic and social status quo'. I think we can agree then that 'economic and political status quo' is thus a uselessly vague term.
cypress66 2y ago
It should be up to the legislators and justice to limit cops power, and punish them when appropriate.
acdha 2y ago
There’s a lot of sordid history around the police being used to keep certain ethnic groups in line (heavily but not just black people - one of the more interesting shifts was how Irish immigrants went from being over-policed to comprising large fractions of many forces), but then the war on drugs really hardened things into a relationship more like an occupying military force. That coincided with many cops joining white flight to the suburbs, meaning that they didn’t feel part of the cities where they served as had been the case a generation earlier, and the lurid tales of how violent & well-armed drug gangs were along with how dangerous “super predators” were lead to a lot of quasi-military weaponry and tactics becoming routine with quaint things like warrants being severely undermined. I say quasi-military because I’ve known multiple combat vets to express disbelief at the poor discipline shown by cops compared to the rules they had in places like Fallujah. The other big driver was the concept of qualified immunity and civil forfeiture. The modern form of the latter was invented during the drug war and formally embraced by the Reagan administration as a way to make elevated police presence self-funding, and that opened up a lot of room for abuse since it created huge conflicts of interest and the growth of qualified immunity removed the potential counterbalance of personal accountability.

metadat 2y ago

Utterly ridiculous. I'm sorry that happened to you, how infuriating.

chasd00 2y ago

[flagged]

1123581321 2y ago
The police do not need to find evidence to seize property on suspicion.

jascination 2y ago

This is hilariously Kafka-esque, what a shitshow

Fokamul 2y ago

Heh USA biggest police state, in EU there is only one state with same level of policing. Germany. Cops there will make you strip search even before concert, because of "drugs" lol.

Glawen 2y ago
Do they have the right? I was stopped by German police many times and they asked me to search my car every time, which I complied. However one time I was stopped, one policeman was speaking to me while I was in my car, and his colleague started opening the passenger door and searched without asking. That's when I told them to stop and questioned their authority to do so. German citizen did not seem to question the authority, because when I asked around, they didn't know if it was legal or not.
- estebank 2y ago
  > German police authorities are authorised to stop vehicles throughout the territory of Germany at any time, although the police have the general authority to scrutinise a vehicle only in order to inspect the technical condition of the vehicle. Other vehicle checks (e.g. for the purpose of examining the objects being transported in automobile vehicle) may be carried out only if there is a suspicion that the person is perpetrating a crime or threatening safety in some other way. > Unlike the police authorities, the customs authorities are, in principle, authorised to stop vehicles only in near-border areas, i.e. at a distance of up to 30 kilometres from the border. However, in a near-border area, the customs authorities may also carry out vehicle checks without the existence of any suspicion that a crime is being perpetrated or that there is a threat to safety. https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/checks-and-selected-procedural-aspects.aspx https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/checks-and-selected-proce...
immibis 2y ago
Can confirm. The people in front of me in line were taken away by police. I met them later and they said they consented (because they were stupid) to be searched for drugs.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

They took my camera and then when I tried to get it back they claimed that nothing like that was in evidence. So I filed a police report because the police stole my camera, but I never heard back about it. Glad you eventually got your money.

dheera 2y ago
[flagged]
- pc86 2y ago
  As absolutely ridiculous (and illegal) as this advice is, if you find a way for inanimate objects to "detect that they have been stolen" I'd imagine you'll become wealthy enough that you won't need to worry about it.
  - dheera 2y ago
    I don't see anything illegal. It would be a device intended for my use, not the police's use, and I'm happy with the way it is constructed, therefore I purchase it and own it. If you steal it, you assume all liabilities thereof. See similar: https://skunklock.com/ https://skunklock.com/
    - banannaise 2y ago
      Booby traps are incredibly illegal, even if they're "non-injurious" by your personal definition. This also applies to the classic tale where someone is stealing food from a communal fridge so an enterprising idiot puts laxatives in a sandwich. Congratulations! You've just committed a felony by poisoning someone.
      - dheera 2y ago
        - Fart spray isn't a booby trap and doesn't injure anyone, it will just make the police office stink like ass - It isn't a trap if it is in my possession all of the time. Anyone who takes it out of my possession forcefully, it's their fault

wraptile 2y ago

Reading anecdotes about US police is trully terrifying. How one of the richest countries in the world be so incompetent in this one particular regard. Is there some sort of historic review that highlights how it got this way?

adastra22 2y ago
This comment is good: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41285843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41285843
throwaway2037 2y ago
Police unions in some districts are incredibly strong. New York City is famous. That means when you try to charge the police, none of the other officers will want to testify against bad behaviour. Plus, there is bribery-lite with stuff like "Fraternal Order of Police" where you can donate money (no idea what they do with it), get a sticker for your car and you will be statistically much less likely to be pulled over in your car. (Really, I wish I were joking.) A deeper question: Why don't other highly advanced democracies decay in the same way? For example: Why hasn't the same happened in Japan or Denmark or Portugal?
- Vinnl 2y ago
  > A deeper question: Why don't other highly advanced democracies decay in the same way? For example: Why hasn't the same happened in Japan or Denmark or Portugal? My pet theory is that multi-party, coalition-based systems help a lot.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    You have my vote! Multi-party systems really do seem less extreme as an outside observer.
- SkyBelow 2y ago
  >get a sticker for your car In some cases, larger donations get you different stickers showing your level of 'support'.

lazide 2y ago

California and the Federal gov’t has a requirement that if you’re ever accused of domestic violence, you’re not allowed to be near any firearms unless the accusations have been withdrawn or found without basis. (Notably, it is a very low bar for them to be found as having a basis. The standard is literally ‘could have possibly happened/occurred’, not did or beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) Practically in California, you’re required to turn them all in for storage or sell them within 24 hrs of being served - either selling them to a dealer or turning them in to the cops or to a very hard to find, expensive, and specialized type of gun dealer who doesn’t advertise. Keep in mind - accused - not a finding of or anything - and the court is happy to issue these orders ex-parte based off accusations which the impacted party has no chance to rebut or is necessarily even aware of at the time the order is issued. And the bar to issue it is very, very low. The accusations don’t even need to make sense or be supported by any police calls or the like. In theory? Fine. In practice, a very common abuse and harassment tactic. Or actually necessary. If you can’t find the specialized type of dealer and get him everything within 24 hrs, and can’t sell everything for penny’s on the dollar to a standard gun dealer in time, then you have to turn them into the cops. Or be committing a felony. Oh and the court will demand proof when you go to reply to/contest the emergency order that you did everything within the requisite amount of time, and did indeed turn everything in. In Santa Clara county - among others - apparently the cops will also never actually return the guns to you either. Because ‘it would look bad if you then used them in a crime’. Yes, this is clearly against the law. They DGAF. There are multiple outstanding lawsuits against them for this, last I checked, but the courts keep putting them on the back burner as after the Judge Persky recall no one wants to be involved in anything like this in the current political climate. They’d much rather drag it out for years or even decades over procedural matters. Even if it’s really clear what the legal thing to do is. One or two guns, not a lot of money. But folks with collections? Better not piss off anyone you’re living with.

tekknik 2y ago
It doesn’t even have to be someone you’re living with unfortunately.
bambax 2y ago
Well, maybe people should not own guns. At all. Any gun, let alone "a collection".

hinkley 2y ago

You can thank Ronald Reagan for that.

polski-g 2y ago
You believe that police abuses originated in the late 1980's?
kbelder 2y ago
Sure, 'Hinkley', you would think that.

xtiansimon 2y ago

It’s maddening to hear such a story. It should have ended with the invoice.

germandiago 2y ago

That is clear abuse. I think there should be very clear law and the same that the police should be extremely diligent applying laws, abuse should be punished the same way. But for this, rules need to be crystal clear.

Aerroon 2y ago

If that happened to me I would put up posters with the face and name of the thief (police officer) that did that in his neighborhood. I would want everyone to know what kind of an asshole he is.

webninja 2y ago

What state and county was this in?