3 ms·

I am misunderstanding the article, if "The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jump

I am misunderstanding the article, if "The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges." he was wanted, why do they need a pretext for the stop?

jordanb 2mo ago
> The bail jumping charge was dismissed; Abrams-Phillips was found guilty only of weed possession in the case, according to the court records. Apparently the bail jumping charge was weak? That seems like a black-and-white situation to me so no idea what the details were, but there was clearly something wrong with that charge. If the charge was so weak then they probably couldn't get a warrant to arrest him outright? Therefore they needed the marijuana probable cause to stop and search him. Regardless the disturbing part is that they're using surveillance state footage of a person traveling to a state where something is legal as "probable cause" for a crime.
- ang_cire 2mo ago
  The bail jumping charge was actually dropped in the end, so weed possession was the only charge.
- crooked-v 2mo ago
  Reading between the lines, I would bet the bail jumping charge was based on him crossing state lines back and forth, and was dismissed by the court when it became clear he wasn't actually running away anywhere. Thus the cops hunting for any and all petty bullshit to punish him with instead, like the marijuana possession.
  - jordanb 2mo ago
    That makes sense yes.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
tantalor 2mo ago
The article is wrong on this point: the fact that he was crossing state lines was not a pretext for the stop. They actually wanted to add another charge. The cameras helped them find the right opportunity to do that. If they just picked him up driving around, they would only be able to charge those existing crimes. By waiting for him to cross state lines, they have a chance to add on another charge. They already had enough PC for the stop, and they could have searched the car as incident to the arrest at any time.
- plorg 2mo ago
  Unless I'm misreading this is all covered explicitly in the article.
  - albedoa 2mo ago
    The article claims multiple times that the cops used the interstate travel as a pretext for the search that turned up the marijuana, but in most jurisdictions, the arrest would have allowed them to inventory the car anyway as part of the impound process. Unless this jurisdiction is an outlier, the pretext wasn't needed for the search. As the parent comment says, the cops used the interstate travel as a timing strategy to increase the charges.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
garyfirestorm 2mo ago
IANAL - if they break the bail conditions the judge may issue a warrant depending on severity, clearly a warrant was not issued here, otherwise there’s no need for pretext like you said. Article also states bail jumping charge was dismissed but the weed charge is the only charge that remains.
- Muromec 2mo ago
  They still have to bother with actually going to a judge and actually getting that warrant. Why do that if you can just skip it and not deal with inconvenient questions.
  - saghm 2mo ago
    The Flock camera network is much less of a stickler for those pesky civil liberties being respected
hwillis 2mo ago
1. those charges were dismissed 2. the article address that specifically: > The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.
- bko 2mo ago
  I think using technology to capture alleged criminals is a good thing.
  - nemomarx 2mo ago
    does this work for any allegation? if it was a serious one surely they could get a warrant. if it's not enough for that it might as well be gossip imo.
    - FireBeyond 2mo ago
      According to Flock's CEO, yes. He has stated he sees a false positive as a better outcome than a false negative.
      - bko 2mo ago
        Flock provides technology. They don't set the laws. It's like complaining about the CEO of Ford bc a police Ford vehicle damaged some property
        antonvs 2mo ago
        Flock provides tools and information that influence and encourage bad behavior from police. Yes, we need laws to help stop this. Ideally, those laws should entirely destroy Flock's business model and lead to its bankruptcy. The issue is not whether cameras are useful for law enforcement. The issue is how that camera information is managed and overseen. What Flock is doing would fit right in in a cartoon authoritarian state, but it doesn't belong in the real world.
fusslo 2mo ago
Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better. > The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition. so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant. > Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used flock to find a pattern of coming/going over the state line. I'm guessing they stationed someone nearby to wait for a flock alert and arrest him. The following is total speculation on my part: The police are including the "Based on prior flock hits, the vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there." to build probable cause for searching the car and finding the marijuana. Otherwise the only PC is: "He declined consent to search his vehicle. However, DeputyKowalski informed him he would be conducting a search of his vehicle due to the odor of marijuana". Maybe the olfactory skills of officers are so dubious that courts need more facts than just an odor? That'd be my guess. direct link to the complaint (it's also embedded in the article) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671comp6522626-1.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671...
- mixdup 2mo ago
  They don't need probable cause to search his vehicle if he had a warrant. They can search his car because they are arresting him and towing the vehicle
  - cogman10 2mo ago
    > They don't need probable cause to search his vehicle if he had a warrant. Incorrect. Warrants have to be specific. An arrest warrant is not a general search warrant (in fact, general search warrants aren't legal). You don't lose your rights because a cop is arresting you. Now, what can happen (and probably would happen) is the cops can take a drug sniffing dog to the car when it goes to impound and while the owner isn't there and claim "Oh, the dog signaled on the car so we searched it".
    - jimt1234 2mo ago

jordanb 2mo ago

> The bail jumping charge was dismissed; Abrams-Phillips was found guilty only of weed possession in the case, according to the court records. Apparently the bail jumping charge was weak? That seems like a black-and-white situation to me so no idea what the details were, but there was clearly something wrong with that charge. If the charge was so weak then they probably couldn't get a warrant to arrest him outright? Therefore they needed the marijuana probable cause to stop and search him. Regardless the disturbing part is that they're using surveillance state footage of a person traveling to a state where something is legal as "probable cause" for a crime.

ang_cire 2mo ago
The bail jumping charge was actually dropped in the end, so weed possession was the only charge.
crooked-v 2mo ago
Reading between the lines, I would bet the bail jumping charge was based on him crossing state lines back and forth, and was dismissed by the court when it became clear he wasn't actually running away anywhere. Thus the cops hunting for any and all petty bullshit to punish him with instead, like the marijuana possession.
- jordanb 2mo ago
  That makes sense yes.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

tantalor 2mo ago

The article is wrong on this point: the fact that he was crossing state lines was not a pretext for the stop. They actually wanted to add another charge. The cameras helped them find the right opportunity to do that. If they just picked him up driving around, they would only be able to charge those existing crimes. By waiting for him to cross state lines, they have a chance to add on another charge. They already had enough PC for the stop, and they could have searched the car as incident to the arrest at any time.

plorg 2mo ago
Unless I'm misreading this is all covered explicitly in the article.
- albedoa 2mo ago
  The article claims multiple times that the cops used the interstate travel as a pretext for the search that turned up the marijuana, but in most jurisdictions, the arrest would have allowed them to inventory the car anyway as part of the impound process. Unless this jurisdiction is an outlier, the pretext wasn't needed for the search. As the parent comment says, the cops used the interstate travel as a timing strategy to increase the charges.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

garyfirestorm 2mo ago

IANAL - if they break the bail conditions the judge may issue a warrant depending on severity, clearly a warrant was not issued here, otherwise there’s no need for pretext like you said. Article also states bail jumping charge was dismissed but the weed charge is the only charge that remains.

Muromec 2mo ago
They still have to bother with actually going to a judge and actually getting that warrant. Why do that if you can just skip it and not deal with inconvenient questions.
- saghm 2mo ago
  The Flock camera network is much less of a stickler for those pesky civil liberties being respected

hwillis 2mo ago

1. those charges were dismissed 2. the article address that specifically: > The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.

bko 2mo ago
I think using technology to capture alleged criminals is a good thing.
- nemomarx 2mo ago
  does this work for any allegation? if it was a serious one surely they could get a warrant. if it's not enough for that it might as well be gossip imo.
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    According to Flock's CEO, yes. He has stated he sees a false positive as a better outcome than a false negative.
    - bko 2mo ago
      Flock provides technology. They don't set the laws. It's like complaining about the CEO of Ford bc a police Ford vehicle damaged some property
      - antonvs 2mo ago
        Flock provides tools and information that influence and encourage bad behavior from police. Yes, we need laws to help stop this. Ideally, those laws should entirely destroy Flock's business model and lead to its bankruptcy. The issue is not whether cameras are useful for law enforcement. The issue is how that camera information is managed and overseen. What Flock is doing would fit right in in a cartoon authoritarian state, but it doesn't belong in the real world.

fusslo 2mo ago

Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better. > The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition. so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant. > Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used flock to find a pattern of coming/going over the state line. I'm guessing they stationed someone nearby to wait for a flock alert and arrest him. The following is total speculation on my part: The police are including the "Based on prior flock hits, the vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there." to build probable cause for searching the car and finding the marijuana. Otherwise the only PC is: "He declined consent to search his vehicle. However, DeputyKowalski informed him he would be conducting a search of his vehicle due to the odor of marijuana". Maybe the olfactory skills of officers are so dubious that courts need more facts than just an odor? That'd be my guess. direct link to the complaint (it's also embedded in the article) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671comp6522626-1.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671...

mixdup 2mo ago
They don't need probable cause to search his vehicle if he had a warrant. They can search his car because they are arresting him and towing the vehicle
- cogman10 2mo ago
  > They don't need probable cause to search his vehicle if he had a warrant. Incorrect. Warrants have to be specific. An arrest warrant is not a general search warrant (in fact, general search warrants aren't legal). You don't lose your rights because a cop is arresting you. Now, what can happen (and probably would happen) is the cops can take a drug sniffing dog to the car when it goes to impound and while the owner isn't there and claim "Oh, the dog signaled on the car so we searched it".
  - jimt1234 2mo ago