Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Am I crazy?

  1. #11
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    Now, that said, that's a shitty way to do business.
    Quote Originally Posted by PearTree View Post
    Honestly who cares about a crack pipe?
    Really. It sounds to me like the officer needs a talk from sarge about how to do the job.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  2. #12
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by fwrun View Post
    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.
    Cuffs or no, back of a car or no, the particular discussion of enforcement action after finding contraband triggers Miranda IMO. While those are certainly factors courts use to decide custody or not, accusatory questioning and if the person is free to leave at the end of the conversation are also factors. Questioning prior to finding the contraband and the officer's statement would be allowed under Berkemer v McCarty, but I think the officer went beyond what's allowable under "Berkemer" with the statement of "...will decide whether she is released with a citation or jailed for it." That indicates you aren't free to leave at the end of the conversation, particularly if you don't answer an accusatory question during a conversation initiated by police
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by fwrun View Post
    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.
    I don’t think it matters if she was in the back of the car or not, as long as she had a way to revoke consent. If we have someone consent that’s in the back of a police car, we leave the window down and an officer nearby. Courts have repeatedly ruled that a person in custody can give consent (but being in custody is a factor used to determine that “voluntariness” of the consent).

    I also think Miranda was necessary. She was not free to leave, and the questioning was outside the scope of Berkemer (Berkemer v McCarty, US v Murray). If the officer had pulled a kilo of coke out of the car, Miranda would (should) have been read. It doesn’t change just because it was a crack pipe.

    Quote Originally Posted by PearTree View Post
    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
    I would care. This time it was just a crack pipe. What happens next time when it’s something much more significant?

  4. #14
    I think the lawfulness of the search can be argued either way. Since the officer specifically used the example of a crack pipe as something he wasn't concerned with finding and the subsequently found a crack pipe before taking enforcement action, a competent defense attorney could argue that the suspect's consent was only obtained through a promise of leniency and is invalid. On the other hand, the suspect was informed that she had the right to refuse the search and the officer told her if she refused, he would not search the car. If, for example, the officer had found a stolen handgun instead of a crack pipe, it would be hard to argue the consent to search was unlawful. I haven't heard of a ruling saying an officer specifically can't tell a suspect he's not concerned with minor little infractions to talk his way into a search for something bigger.

    The suspect's admission that the found crack pipe was her's should be thrown out because she was not mirandized after the pipe was found during a conversation about possibly taking her to jail. At that time a reasonable person would believe they were in custody and the officer was questioning her in order to obtain an admission of guilt.

    Lawful or not, it's bad form to blatantly lie about consequences to talk your way into a search for minor, piddly little nonsense like drug paraphernalia. He specifically told her he was not concerned with crack pipes and then initiated legal system proceedings for her possession of the crack pipe. The right thing to do would have been to use discretion and keep his word to the suspect by not charging her for the pipe. It sounds like she was cooperative through the whole process and wasn't being an ass to the officer. He's likely burned his credibility with her if he ever needs her as a witness and he's probably damaged the credibility of your agency with anyone she talks to about the incident.

    I'd be surprised if the prosecutors go forward with these charges because the lawfulness of the search is in such question.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  5. #15
    Member GuanoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    He's likely burned his credibility with her if he ever needs her as a witness and he's probably damaged the credibility of your agency with anyone she talks to about the incident.
    People do dumb things every day, but such stories damage the credibility of more than just the officer and the officer's agency.
    Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Dallas
    Things are regional/local.

    Around here the validity of that consent would depend on when the consent was asked for, when the warrant was declined and when the traffic stop ended. On a traffic stop, if consent was asked for prior to the warrant being declined, most courts around here would toss the search. The officer would be expected to end the detention and then reestablish contact in a non custodial encounter. If the warrant had been declined, the traffic stop was over, and then consent was asked for, it would be fine.

    If she was the sole occupant of the vehicle and had care, custody or control of the vehicle and it's contents, then the officer can cite or arrest for the pipe. The admission of possession would not be admissible in court, since it would be a custodial statement and she did not appear to be mirandized. Regardless most courts around here would toss the pipe, unless the officer can reasonably demonstrate that she knew or should have known that the pipe was in the vehicle.

    YMMV and things can be radically different from on county to the next.
    Last edited by txdpd; 09-24-2018 at 06:26 PM.
    Whether you think you can or you can't, you're probably right.

  7. #17
    I am not and have never been a police officer so I don't really know the legality of the situation. But what I can say is I am real sure this story would get around and sure as heck isn't going to help police/community relations. Similar to the thought that problems w/ a product or business are heard by 10 people while kudos for a product or business are heard by 2 people(or whatever the numbers are). This would be heard by a 100 people while the cop helping someone will be heard by 2 people.

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
  •