Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Am I crazy?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Metro Detroit

    Am I crazy?

    I’ve been overruled on this and I’d like to hear opinions from others.

    An officer makes a valid traffic stop and the driver has a warrant for possession of paraphernalia from a different agency. While the warrant is being confirmed and the other agency is deciding whether or not they want the individual, the officer engages the driver in conversation. Eventually the conversation leads to asking for consent to search the car. The driver says yes. The driver then asks what will happen if she says no. The officer explains that he will not search the car, but he’s not out screw her and he’s a man of his word. The officer says, “I’m not concerned with a crack pipe or chore boy or something else small.” The driver then consents to the search. The agency holding the warrant declines to pick-up on the warrant at some point in this conversation.

    The officer conducts the search and finds a crack pipe. The officer tells the driver that her honesty will decide whether she is released with a citation or jailed for it. The officer asks the driver if it’s hers and the driver states that it is. The driver is then issued a citation for possession of paraphernalia.

    To me this is bad all around. I feel that the consent is bad based on a promise of leniency (actually a lie of leniency) and the admission of ownership is coerced.

    Am I crazy? I think this bad policework at best and unethical/immoral at worst.

  2. #2
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    I have a problem at the point that he tells the subject that he's not concerned with a crack pipe but then offers one of two outcomes afterward...citation or jail.

    (I've had guys give consent which ended up in seizure of multi-kilos. When I asked if they didn't think I'd find the dope or triple beam scale they just kind of shrugged it off...like it was a roll of the dice.)

    When a consent search is conducted, with or without a signature, the rule in my own book was to keep one's word and get the job done.

    On the other hand, I had no issues with outwitting a subject or defendant in the interview room once Miranda was given and the defendant agreed to "cooperate".

    This case isn't the worst abuse of the consent process but it's nothing to brag to one's partners about, and had I been on scene I'd have expressed my dissatisfaction with the way it was handled.
    Last edited by blues; 09-23-2018 at 09:43 PM.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  3. #3
    I don’t have a problem with it until it gets to the part about the enforcement action for the crack pipe. He already told her that he wasn’t worried about a pipe or paraphernalia or whatever.

    For consent to be valid, it has to be voluntary (not coerced) and from a person with standing/authority to consent. There are court cases out there about deception being coercion in regards to consent searches (US v Crisolis-Gonzales, US v Harrison).

    Edit to add: I don’t have a problem with giving the ticket after she owned up to it. In drug work, we give people breaks all the time in exchange for honesty/cooperation in instances where we can exercise discretion (which is the vast majority of the time). The officer obviously had PC to charge, whether by citing or making a custodial arrest, with or without her admission.
    Last edited by TC215; 09-23-2018 at 10:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    The statement would be suppressed. I didn't see any inclusion of Miranda, and I think it'd be fair to say a reasonable person would believe they are in custody while being questioned about an illegal item located in their vehicle, plus the coercion.

    That said, the statement is probably completely irrelevant to the outcome of a trial and wouldn't come up anyway. Constructive possession for the sole occupant of a vehicle that belongs to them is an easy argument to make.

    Now, that said, that's a shitty way to do business. If you tell someone you aren't going to hem them up over X, you find X, you hem them up over X you're putting your tryhard over your integrity. For a paraphernalia arrest. Who gives a shit? It's a crack pipe. Now if you need them for a witness or use them as a CI for something that matters, you've shown you can't be trusted and by extension your department/police in general can't be trusted. For a crack pipe.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  5. #5
    Member GuanoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    >> The officer explains that he will not search the car, but he’s not out screw her and he’s a man of his word. The officer says, “I’m not concerned with a crack pipe or chore boy or something else small.

    Officer finds crack pipe and offers citation or jail as the options. Surprise! The officer is suddenly unwilling to use previously implied ‘discretion’ to overlook it and starts a second “honesty’ game.

    I would argue that the officer is not a man of his word and the person gving consent is equally naive.
    Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    Now, that said, that's a shitty way to do business. If you tell someone you aren't going to hem them up over X, you find X, you hem them up over X you're putting your tryhard over your integrity. For a paraphernalia arrest. Who gives a shit? It's a crack pipe. Now if you need them for a witness or use them as a CI for something that matters, you've shown you can't be trusted and by extension your department/police in general can't be trusted. For a crack pipe.
    I agree 100% The officer (and by extension, our department) will look absolutely silly if this video is played in court. The actual exchange between the officer and driver prior to the search was even more dramatic with him assuring him that he is a man of his word and isn't the type of person that says one thing and does another. It was all a lie and this is his way of doing 'business' a.k.a. getting stats with no regard of balancing if what he is doing is actually doing good or bad for the community. Our department will be burning so much credibility capital with the courts and attorneys if this case ends up going to trial.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Back when I was a Law Enforcement Explorer any decades ago, I saw a Motorola training film in which the actors portraying cops do an illegal vehicle search despite the objections of the smarter of the two partners. When the trunk is popped open, the officers discover a bound and murdered corpse. After drawing revolvers on the driver, one exclaims "Call the sergeant!". Having spent most of my career and life as a sergeant, I fielded some of those calls.

    The search in this case may or may not have been lawful. That said, why? Why would you bring a maybe lawful case to court for a crack pipe? Would it not be smarter to wait until an arrest was made or it was determined that the driver was not under arrest before diving into the intricate issues of a consent search?

    The officer may or may not have felt he was being truthful with the suspect regarding leniency. Many offenders and cops consider a citation leniency compared to a full custody lock-up. There is validity to that. We return, however, to the "why" issues. Why risk creating restrictive court decisions when you could enforce the law and investigate crime with solid backing. There are times when you might need to push the limit (Terry frisks being my usual example), but a crack pipe?

    I also agree with the argument to be honorable and truthful with our "customers". In retail, they say a happy customer is a return customer. In our business, unhappy customers are return customers. While we sometimes have to lie to bad guys, I don't see a reason to do so for a crack pipe lock-up.

    I will confess that it is difficult to guide those who are hungry for stats. Hopefully, time and experience will show them that their way is not THE way.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Quote Originally Posted by jnc36rcpd View Post
    The search in this case may or may not have been lawful. That said, why? Why would you bring a maybe lawful case to court for a crack pipe? Would it not be smarter to wait until an arrest was made or it was determined that the driver was not under arrest before diving into the intricate issues of a consent search?
    You nailed it...what's the point? To provide context, I was the sergeant reviewing the report and citation. I kicked it up to the LT with a recommendation that the citation get voided. The other sergeants said I was crazy because that would open the department up to liability because we were admitting an illegal search was conducted. I just shook my head. That's the whole point of a supervisor reviewing reports! Sometimes mistakes are made and they need to be corrected. I feel that they really misunderstand vicarious liability, despite all of the training that we get on it.

    I was told by the LT that the driver never really said "no" after saying "yes" the first time. Maybe it's just me but I don't think consent for a vehicle search is somewhere we should be going to court and splitting hairs over.


  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    US
    At both agencies I have worked for, it is SOP to detain the individual until the warrant is confirmed if one shows in the system. If the suspect was detained in the back of the police vehicle, this search is too close to coercion to be worth it (from what you have told me, anyways).

    Regarding BBI’s comment on the suspect’s admission of guilt, it would highly depend if the officer had already detained that suspect in cuffs in the back of the vehicle, vs outside the vehicle, vs not at all, and whether or not the officer thoroughly explained the suspect was or was not in custody. Miranda applies to questions asked in-custody, not questions asked while seized.

  10. #10
    Site Supporter PearTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Southeast
    I agree the situation described is bad policework and the officer based on what you said straight up lied to that female. But I'm not seeing anything that would lead me to believe anything illegal was done. Honestly who cares about a crack pipe? I've got more important stuff to deal with and enough paperwork as it is.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •