8 ms·

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

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!

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!