Cops Using Devices To Seize Funds On Prepaid Cards

mope54 said:
Ah, I see what's going on here.

Criminal law:
reasonable suspicion to stop
probable cause to arrest persons or seize property
beyond reasonable doubt to convict (in a courtroom)

Civil law:
suspicion of crime to seize
preponderance of evidence to prevail (in a courtroom)

Cops are stopping people in the streets where their constitutional protections in regards to criminal law control the interaction
But they are seizing assets according to civil law where those normal constitutional protections don't apply (because they don't have to charge you with a crime)

The end result is when you try and get your money back you're playing by the rules of a small claims hearing except you're fighting against the government instead of your neighbor.
Click to expand...

This may be the result, and I major focus on your part regarding the discussion.

But that is not my focus, my focus is false sensationalized claims by "civil rights organizations" and media reporters and these false claims being so easily accepted by others and echoed. Why have readers on this forum, not that they are different then anywhere else, so accepting of what the media writes without challenging it and taking a look for themselves?

We can only act on what we know about. But if we continue to just accept what these "reporters" tell us without ever questioning it, well we'll get what we deserve.

EDITED:

And I just spotted this at the end of your post and I completely accept it.
Also, sorry for the troll comment. I see where you were coming from and you see where I was coming from and it was a genuine mistake on my part that I apologize for making.
Click to expand...

I also hope you will accept that I think you are correct in your ethical approach to this problem because despite our arguing back and forth, I do think there is a problem as well. I just don't think that the media has to go overboard and make false or inaccurate assertions to help get it fixed.
 
Last edited:
Suspicion alone is the grounds for civil forfeiture in the vast majority of states because they haven't yet established a higher standard for civil forfeiture during routine police stops.

In OK, where this article is talking about, the standard is still controlled by civil law (mere suspicion to seize and preponderance of evidence to get it back during a civil trial).

The inconstancies you note are because I apparently didn't make it clear enough that the probable cause standard is controlling during the traffic stop in Georgia but the preponderance of evidence is the standard during the civil trial to keep the assets. They are two different standards applied in two different contexts. It's confusing because they have not historically been jumbled together like they are in civil asset forfeiture.

But even in Georgia, where that higher standard exists during the traffic stop, the state still falls under this discussion because the lower standard controls during the civil trial.
In practical terms that means the standard is higher in the street when MacLeod seizes the assets than it is for the court to rule they get to keep it during the civil trial, which means the judge is not acting as oversight over the seizure.

Am I being clear why that is? Normally, the standard during the street stop is lower than the court trial standard. So if a cop arrests or seizes something the government then has the burden of proof to prove to a court that everything they did was legal. In a civil forfeiture case, even in Georgia, that gets inverted. The standard is actually lower than the cop had to demonstrate to effect the seizure (logically, if the cop met a higher standard in the street then it follows the court would ratify that behavior because there is no higher burden to overcome as far as the judge and the law is concerned) and the accused needs to meet the burden instead of the government.

Those issues are the heart of the problem. It's not sensationalism it's a real problem.
The reason we have this problem is because law enforcement and prosecutors were finding it too hard to seize and retain the assets under criminal law so they started applying civil law to people suspected of crimes.
There already exists a framework to lawfully seize assets that are connected to criminal activity, it's just a tougher burden to meet in the street and even higher in a courtroom so law enforcement and prosecutors are using civil law rather than criminal law.
 
Khaelec said:
I"m with you on 90% of what you said, and I too was taught you find someone being an idiot report it, but reality is the hazing that happens, the career ending the threats on the daily will turn away a lot of people. I have reported people for questionable acts in my time, and it took years for others to trust me, but my ethos like yours prevents me from not doing what I think is right.......................
Click to expand...

Ummm, no I don't think you are completely getting it.

I am not talking about reporting it, I am talking about right there on the spot getting into someone's face and telling them they are wrong, explaining to them what is right, and then insisting that they correct it on the spot with the most assured expectation and confidence that they will do so, regardless of rank or position.

Then if that person refuses to do what is right or stop doing what is wrong, you report it.
 
mope54 said:
Suspicion alone is the grounds for civil forfeiture in the vast majority of states because they haven't yet established a higher standard for civil forfeiture during routine police stops.

In OK, where this article is talking about, the standard is still controlled by civil law (mere suspicion to seize and preponderance of evidence to get it back during a civil trial).

The inconstancies you note are because I apparently didn't make it clear enough that the probable cause standard is controlling during the traffic stop in Georgia but the preponderance of evidence is the standard during the civil trial to keep the assets. They are two different standards applied in two different contexts. It's confusing because they have not historically been jumbled together like they are in civil asset forfeiture.

But even in Georgia, where that higher standard exists during the traffic stop, the state still falls under this discussion because the lower standard controls during the civil trial.
In practical terms that means the standard is higher in the street when MacLeod seizes the assets than it is for the court to rule they get to keep it during the civil trial, which means the judge is not acting as oversight over the seizure.

Am I being clear why that is? Normally, the standard during the street stop is lower than the court trial standard. So if a cop arrests or seizes something the government then has the burden of proof to prove to a court that everything they did was legal. In a civil forfeiture case, even in Georgia, that gets inverted. The standard is actually lower than the cop had to demonstrate to effect the seizure (logically, if the cop met a higher standard in the street then it follows the court would ratify that behavior because there is no higher burden to overcome as far as the judge and the law is concerned) and the accused needs to meet the burden instead of the government.

Those issues are the heart of the problem. It's not sensationalism it's a real problem.
The reason we have this problem is because law enforcement and prosecutors were finding it too hard to seize and retain the assets under criminal law so they started applying civil law to people suspected of crimes.
There already exists a framework to lawfully seize assets that are connected to criminal activity, it's just a tougher burden to meet in the street and even higher in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait. So I get that I am wrong and that it only requires reasonable suspicion to seize in most States, until I see differently I can accept your word on that.

But you are saying that in Georgia, where McLeod works, they require the higher standard of Probable Cause to make a seizure, yet if one wants to get their property back the State only has to show a Preponderance of Evidence to win? And yet, the Officers must have already established enough evidence for Probable Cause to be satisfied, so unless some of that evidence is dismissed in court, would the State not already have Probable Cause regardless of that which must be established in the court room? I am just thinking that evidence isn't supposed to be disappearing so....


And I apologize, but I have to get past this before I continue with the remainder of your post.
 
lcpiper said:
Wait wait wait. So I get that I am wrong and that it only requires reasonable suspicion to seize in most States, until I see differently I can accept your word on that.

But you are saying that in Georgia, where McLeod works, they require the higher standard of Probable Cause to make a seizure, yet if one wants to get their property back the State only has to show a Preponderance of Evidence to win? And yet, the Officers must have already established enough evidence for Probable Cause to satisfied so unless some of that evidence is dismissed in court, would the State not already have Probable Cause regardless of that which must be established in the court room? I am just thinking that evidence isn't supposed to be disappearing so....


And I apologize, but I have to get passed this before I continue with the remainder of your post.
Click to expand...
Close, the burden of proof is no longer on the state during the civil trial. Also, keep in mind that the court doesn't need probable cause to rule that the government gets to keep the assets because it's a civil trial. The civil trial requires you, the accused, to prove beyond 50% that your assets were not related to criminal behavior. That's a tougher burden for you to meet than it is for the officer to seize the assets in the first place.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
Ummm, no I don't think you are completely getting it.

I am not talking about reporting it, I am talking about right there on the spot getting into someone's face and telling them they are wrong, explaining to them what is right, and then insisting that they correct it on the spot with the most assured expectation and confidence that they will do so, regardless of rank or position.

Then if that person refuses to do what is right or stop doing what is wrong, you report it.
Click to expand...


Nope we're on the same page, some things don't get corrected though, and I'm def not going into detail in here...but you know. Either way I get where you're going.
 
mope54 said:
Exactly. Keep in mind, however, that the court doesn't need probable cause to rule that the government gets to keep the assets because it's a civil trial. The civil trial requires you, the accused, to prove beyond 50% that your assets were not related to criminal behavior. That's a tougher burden for you to meet than it is for the officer to seize the assets in the first place.
Click to expand...

I am still not sure how this works, probably because I have neither experienced it myself or adequate examples.

I think I found a good source for an explanation though. Some might challenge the source but as a layman, the reading seemed to make some sense to me.

Understanding Probable Cause

Because some lower courts persisted in an effort to create a legal checklist of complicated "prongs" or "factors" to be evaluated, the Supreme Court made another effort to define PC in a 1983 case, saying the following:

"Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable cause standard is that it is a practical, nontechnical conception. The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. The evidence must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. Probable cause is a fluid concept, turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." (Illinois v. Gates)

Translation: lower courts should stop using a law school approach to analyzing Probable Cause issues and simply consider how an officer in the field would understand the situation he or she confronted.
Click to expand...


And what I take from this is that if I am talking about an Officer making a stop or a seizure, I need to consider that his actions are a part or a process and are not so much about proof as they are about action in a practical sense. An Officer needs an understanding of what is not only reasonable but also what acts as a practical guidance for his actions. Later, if things progress to the court room, we are no longer dealing with suspicions but with actual evidence and levels of proof. And therefor, even though an Officer may be perfectly justified in arresting someone and seizing their property based on a reasonable level or probable criminal activity, in the court room where one must prove that the property was or wasn't illegal gains from criminal activity, carrying a greater than 50% burden of proof is unreasonable to lay on the accused even more so if the accused was neither charged nor found guilty of a crime.

I think I get it.
 
MacLeod said:
Yes it's very suspicious but it's not grounds to search your car. As for the stop, different cops take different amounts of time. As long as the average of that particular cop's traffic stops were around 20 minutes, that would be ok. Now if I hold you for 30 minutes while Im fishing for something and find it but your lawyer pulls my logs and my average traffic stop is 5-10 minutes, there is a chance that anything I found will be thrown out unless I can articulate like a motherfucker some really good reasons for detaining you that long. He looked shifty, refused a search and things like that are not gonna fly in court.
Click to expand...
See, that sounds like there's quite a few loopholes that cops can take. One, cops who would use these things are probably assholes, so them taking a long time with their ticket writing seems like it's par for the course. 2nd, can the cop not claim that the person was being more uncooperative than normal, so the stop took longer, not only does that give a reason to the time, it would solidify the suspicious behavior claim.
 
pothb said:
See, that sounds like there's quite a few loopholes that cops can take. One, cops who would use these things are probably assholes, so them taking a long time with their ticket writing seems like it's par for the course. 2nd, can the cop not claim that the person was being more uncooperative than normal, so the stop took longer, not only does that give a reason to the time, it would solidify the suspicious behavior claim.
Click to expand...


I don't get anything like that from his post. He is saying that even if he actually found something that if he takes longer than average in order to find it that it could be thrown out. That sounds like it's far more in favor of the citizen and that even the asshole cop will have some explaining to do if he makes a habit of indulging his appetites.
 
uxhGfIL.jpg
 
pothb said:
Conviction would be after the trial, wouldn't it? I'd say no arrest, no forfeiture makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Not even for just an arrest. If their is no conviction, I see no reason for the government to continue to hold your property. Freezing an asset, until a trial, is one thing, not returning it after the acquittal, or dropping of charges, is theft as far as I am concerned.
 
lcpiper said:
I don't get anything like that from his post. He is saying that even if he actually found something that if he takes longer than average in order to find it that it could be thrown out. That sounds like it's far more in favor of the citizen and that even the asshole cop will have some explaining to do if he makes a habit of indulging his appetites.
Click to expand...

But what if he's an asshole cop, who always took his time? was what I was getting at. There are tons of cops who enjoy the power of it. He said, if the cop took longer than normal, but if his "normal" time was already long enough, then it's moot.

Gorankar said:
Not even for just an arrest. If their is no conviction, I see no reason for the government to continue to hold your property. Freezing an asset, until a trial, is one thing, not returning it after the acquittal, or dropping of charges, is theft as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was thinking of more until trial aspect. If there is acquittal and things aren't return. Then the cops can go fuck themselves, and had best be ready to pony up extra or be fired or something. Cuz that'd be going completely against what they're supposed to do as civil servants.
 
Khaelec said:
Pennsylvania
In Philadelphia, it is often the homes of African-Americans and Hispanics who are targeted by civil forfeiture abuses; what happens in many instances is that a child or grandchild who doesn't own the home is nabbed on a drug-related offense, and police use this as a pretext to seize the entire home.[6] In Philadelphia, authorities made thousands of "small-dollar seizures"; in 2010, the city filed 8,000 forfeiture cases which amounted to $550 for the average take.[9] From 2002 to 2012, Philadelphia seized $64 million by means of its forfeiture program, a total which was more than that seized byBrooklyn and Los Angeles combined.[9]
Click to expand...

Lets frame this conversation a little more accurately. We're not talking about 15,000 in cash, we're apparently talking about 550$ on average, which means half of the time it's less. Probably more than half of the time it's less since the few (probably legit) large takes would skew the numbers.
 
nutzo said:
I think you better check again. :(
Click to expand...

I was being questioned by cops once and they asked how much cash I had on me and I said $700.00, which I did. They immediately had me figured for a criminal when in fact I was there because I was a victim and not the other way around.
 
lcpiper said:
This may be the result, and I major focus on your part regarding the discussion.

But that is not my focus, my focus is false sensationalized claims by "civil rights organizations" and media reporters and these false claims being so easily accepted by others and echoed. Why have readers on this forum, not that they are different then anywhere else, so accepting of what the media writes without challenging it and taking a look for themselves?
Click to expand...

Perhaps there are some false claims by the media, but even a few abuses should worry us all.

Do we err on the side of becoming more authoritarian or do we err on the side of one of the last few places on earth that tries to give our citizens true freedom (even if that freedom has some downsides)

You seem to always side with more power to the government whatever the cost, I will always side the other way around.. Hopefully we end up with a society somewhere in the middle where we both can be happy.
 
rezerekted said:
I was being questioned by cops once and they asked how much cash I had on me and I said $700.00, which I did. They immediately had me figured for a criminal when in fact I was there because I was a victim and not the other way around.
Click to expand...


It's a good business model though : You give them the money, then they have the money.
 
pothb said:
See, that sounds like there's quite a few loopholes that cops can take. One, cops who would use these things are probably assholes, so them taking a long time with their ticket writing seems like it's par for the course. 2nd, can the cop not claim that the person was being more uncooperative than normal, so the stop took longer, not only does that give a reason to the time, it would solidify the suspicious behavior claim.
Click to expand...

They vast majority of traffic stops are routine traffic violations or equipment violations of average ordinary folks. Maybe 1 in 10 sets your antenna off and makes you want to dig a little deeper and maybe 1 in 50 where you REALLY want to get in a car. Pretty much none of us are going to stretch out a routine busted taillight stop to 20 minutes for that 1 in 50.

Trust me, searching a car sucks. Check out the floorboards of your car sometime. They're pretty nasty. Now imagine what the floorboards of some meth head with rotted teeth look like. When you search a car you're almost literally rolling around in that filth. Now add to that the fact that I'm going to be asshole deep in that filth on the side of the highway with cars zooming by me at 80 MPH. I promise you, we're not searching cars unless we're pretty sure there's something there to find. I can guarantee you I'm not. I hate searching cars.

As for claiming somebody was uncooperative, 95% of road cops have audio/video recorders in their cars. So bullshit claims aren't gonna fly like they would in the 70's. Even without the cameras, just saying "he was being an asshole" isn't justification for a prolonged stop. If you're one of those that are sitting there raising hell, I don't have to argue with you. Once you give me your license, it's not my job to try the case right there on the side of the road. If you're being uncooperative then I just walk back to my car and scratch out a ticket. If I waste 20 minutes arguing with you about running a stop sign, that's on me and not valid cause for detaining you further. Now if you're uncooperative to the point of obstruction, then I'm just going to arrest you for obstruction and whatever infraction I stopped you for then I get to search your vehicle when I do the inventory before towing it. And before you start, no I'm not seizing your car. Unless you have a licensed driver at the scene, we tow your car because we can't leave it there. If your car is left unattended because I arrested you and somebody comes and steals it or smashes it up, we're the ones responsible so we have it towed by a bonded towing company and store it in their secure lot. Once you bond out you go get it from the wrecker service.
 
Is obstruction recording a video from down the road? A cop from a video I saw on youtube a while back seemed to think so. So obstruction seems like it can be stretched pretty thin. There was also a video of a cop arguing with some, albeit idiotic, girl for a good while. Maybe that was on him, or maybe not. Not the greatest example because she was an idiot, but there are plenty of cases where such things happen. And the cop probably wouldn't say he's being an asshole to a judge, but usage of uncooperative can go a long way. There are definitely cops who are offended when someone doesn't lower their windows all the way, if something so small can offend a cop, what wouldn't count as uncooperative?

You come off as someone who's righteous, and if you are, then good for you. But can you talk for every cop? Just 1 in every station is already a lot to deal with. I know cops, and they back each other up on everything. Even if they are generally a good guy, they'll still back up someone who bold facedly lied.
 
MacLeod said:
They vast majority of traffic stops are routine traffic violations or equipment violations of average ordinary folks. Maybe 1 in 10 sets your antenna off and makes you want to dig a little deeper and maybe 1 in 50 where you REALLY want to get in a car. Pretty much none of us are going to stretch out a routine busted taillight stop to 20 minutes for that 1 in 50.

Trust me, searching a car sucks. Check out the floorboards of your car sometime. They're pretty nasty. Now imagine what the floorboards of some meth head with rotted teeth look like. When you search a car you're almost literally rolling around in that filth. Now add to that the fact that I'm going to be asshole deep in that filth on the side of the highway with cars zooming by me at 80 MPH. I promise you, we're not searching cars unless we're pretty sure there's something there to find. I can guarantee you I'm not. I hate searching cars.

As for claiming somebody was uncooperative, 95% of road cops have audio/video recorders in their cars. So bullshit claims aren't gonna fly like they would in the 70's. Even without the cameras, just saying "he was being an asshole" isn't justification for a prolonged stop. If you're one of those that are sitting there raising hell, I don't have to argue with you. Once you give me your license, it's not my job to try the case right there on the side of the road. If you're being uncooperative then I just walk back to my car and scratch out a ticket. If I waste 20 minutes arguing with you about running a stop sign, that's on me and not valid cause for detaining you further. Now if you're uncooperative to the point of obstruction, then I'm just going to arrest you for obstruction and whatever infraction I stopped you for then I get to search your vehicle when I do the inventory before towing it. And before you start, no I'm not seizing your car. Unless you have a licensed driver at the scene, we tow your car because we can't leave it there. If your car is left unattended because I arrested you and somebody comes and steals it or smashes it up, we're the ones responsible so we have it towed by a bonded towing company and store it in their secure lot. Once you bond out you go get it from the wrecker service.
Click to expand...

A vast majority of cops are good guys, and I am inclined to back them up, I have never had a bad experience with one, even when I have gotten a ticket.

This isn't even about a few bad apple cops.

This is about a law that is poorly written that is easy to abuse that isn't needed and only creates distrust between cops and those they serve.

From what others have said in this thread it isn't even the law in your state (GA) so your citizens don't have to fear that from you. If all the states had forfeiture laws that were good, this wouldn't be an issue.

Criminal forfeiture laws are good tools for cops to have, and maybe even some limited well written civil forfeiture laws too, though I would probably still fight against those.

But AZ, TN, CA, and OK, plus others I am sure, have BAD laws on the books that actively encourage Policing departments to steal from those they should protect. Do all Police misuse the poorly written laws in those States? No! But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix those laws.
 
pothb said:
Is obstruction recording a video from down the road? A cop from a video I saw on youtube a while back seemed to think so. So obstruction seems like it can be stretched pretty thin. There was also a video of a cop arguing with some, albeit idiotic, girl for a good while. Maybe that was on him, or maybe not. Not the greatest example because she was an idiot, but there are plenty of cases where such things happen. And the cop probably wouldn't say he's being an asshole to a judge, but usage of uncooperative can go a long way. There are definitely cops who are offended when someone doesn't lower their windows all the way, if something so small can offend a cop, what wouldn't count as uncooperative?
Click to expand...

Recording from down the road, no. Being 5 feet from the cop while he's trying to deal with somebody yelling at the cop, refusing to get back when told to and making shit worse, yes. Basically if I have to stop what I'm doing to deal with you then you're obstructing. Also don't judge by all those videos. Pretty much all I have seen are the last minute of a 5 minute altercation. There are assholes out there and being nice doesn't work and eventually you have to start being a dick back to them and that's when the cameras start to roll. Not to mention there are a lot of videos made by people deliberately trying to provoke some shit with a cop so they can be the next Youtube star. Look up some "sovereign citizen" videos. Those guy will make even the most liberal cop hating hippy want to bash their head in.

And yeah, cracking your window when we walk up is a total dick move and you just made the whole thing confrontational right off the bat. If you just barely crack your window, I'm probably going to get you out of the car because there is obviously something in there you don't want me to see and that could be a weapon so I'm going to separate you from it. Now you have to exit the car if I tell you. If you don't then we're back to that whole obstruction thing and there is now a good chance you're gonna wind up in jail instead of a warning citation for a busted taillight. If we're doing something you feel is improper, document it. You're allowed to video me during a traffic stop and you're more than likely being recorded anyway by my recorder. File a complaint, take charges or file a suit for violation of your rights. You an me out there hooking and jabbing on the side of the freeway over a speeding ticket is stupid. Now I won't get my feelings hurt if its a young girl that's scared of everything, but a grown ass man or woman, yeah that's telling me you're looking for something to start some shit over.

You come off as someone who's righteous, and if you are, then good for you. But can you talk for every cop? Just 1 in every station is already a lot to deal with. I know cops, and they back each other up on everything. Even if they are generally a good guy, they'll still back up someone who bold facedly lied.
Click to expand...

I don't know what else to tell you brother. It seems like you're just dead set on having a beef with cops. Like I said earlier, I get it. The only time most people have anything to do with cops is when they're getting a speeding ticket or having their parties broken up and so on. All I ask is for a little respect and be willing to look at these cases with some context and don't start calling for the torches and pitchforks when one stupid cop gets busted or was an asshole to you during a traffic stop. We ain't customer service and we deal with the anus of society 12+ hours a day running from us, fighting us, lying to us. Not to mention dead bodies, suicides, gnarly car wrecks and such that we see every day. So cut us a little slack if we're a little rude when you come up to us while we're parked somewhere trying to eat lunch to complain about the lunatic on your street that drives too fast.
 
MacLeod said:
Recording from down the road, no. Being 5 feet from the cop while he's trying to deal with somebody yelling at the cop, refusing to get back when told to and making shit worse, yes. Basically if I have to stop what I'm doing to deal with you then you're obstructing. Also don't judge by all those videos. Pretty much all I have seen are the last minute of a 5 minute altercation. There are assholes out there and being nice doesn't work and eventually you have to start being a dick back to them and that's when the cameras start to roll. Not to mention there are a lot of videos made by people deliberately trying to provoke some shit with a cop so they can be the next Youtube star. Look up some "sovereign citizen" videos. Those guy will make even the most liberal cop hating hippy want to bash their head in.

And yeah, cracking your window when we walk up is a total dick move and you just made the whole thing confrontational right off the bat. If you just barely crack your window, I'm probably going to get you out of the car because there is obviously something in there you don't want me to see and that could be a weapon so I'm going to separate you from it. Now you have to exit the car if I tell you. If you don't then we're back to that whole obstruction thing and there is now a good chance you're gonna wind up in jail instead of a warning citation for a busted taillight. If we're doing something you feel is improper, document it. You're allowed to video me during a traffic stop and you're more than likely being recorded anyway by my recorder. File a complaint, take charges or file a suit for violation of your rights. You an me out there hooking and jabbing on the side of the freeway over a speeding ticket is stupid. Now I won't get my feelings hurt if its a young girl that's scared of everything, but a grown ass man or woman, yeah that's telling me you're looking for something to start some shit over.



I don't know what else to tell you brother. It seems like you're just dead set on having a beef with cops. Like I said earlier, I get it. The only time most people have anything to do with cops is when they're getting a speeding ticket or having their parties broken up and so on. All I ask is for a little respect and be willing to look at these cases with some context and don't start calling for the torches and pitchforks when one stupid cop gets busted or was an asshole to you during a traffic stop. We ain't customer service and we deal with the anus of society 12+ hours a day running from us, fighting us, lying to us. Not to mention dead bodies, suicides, gnarly car wrecks and such that we see every day. So cut us a little slack if we're a little rude when you come up to us while we're parked somewhere trying to eat lunch to complain about the lunatic on your street that drives too fast.
Click to expand...


Is there a law that you have to roll down your window all the way? It sounds like you want to be confrontational just because someone does the minimum. Please go ahead and abuse your power because you think someone is hiding something just because they crack their window. This is the reason qualified immunity should be removed from police officers. If you go ahead and search a vehicle because someone cracked a window and find nothing you should be able to be sued.
 
MacLeod said:
Recording from down the road, no. Being 5 feet from the cop while he's trying to deal with somebody yelling at the cop, refusing to get back when told to and making shit worse, yes. Basically if I have to stop what I'm doing to deal with you then you're obstructing. Also don't judge by all those videos. Pretty much all I have seen are the last minute of a 5 minute altercation. There are assholes out there and being nice doesn't work and eventually you have to start being a dick back to them and that's when the cameras start to roll. Not to mention there are a lot of videos made by people deliberately trying to provoke some shit with a cop so they can be the next Youtube star. Look up some "sovereign citizen" videos. Those guy will make even the most liberal cop hating hippy want to bash their head in.

And yeah, cracking your window when we walk up is a total dick move and you just made the whole thing confrontational right off the bat. If you just barely crack your window, I'm probably going to get you out of the car because there is obviously something in there you don't want me to see and that could be a weapon so I'm going to separate you from it. Now you have to exit the car if I tell you. If you don't then we're back to that whole obstruction thing and there is now a good chance you're gonna wind up in jail instead of a warning citation for a busted taillight. If we're doing something you feel is improper, document it. You're allowed to video me during a traffic stop and you're more than likely being recorded anyway by my recorder. File a complaint, take charges or file a suit for violation of your rights. You an me out there hooking and jabbing on the side of the freeway over a speeding ticket is stupid. Now I won't get my feelings hurt if its a young girl that's scared of everything, but a grown ass man or woman, yeah that's telling me you're looking for something to start some shit over.



I don't know what else to tell you brother. It seems like you're just dead set on having a beef with cops. Like I said earlier, I get it. The only time most people have anything to do with cops is when they're getting a speeding ticket or having their parties broken up and so on. All I ask is for a little respect and be willing to look at these cases with some context and don't start calling for the torches and pitchforks when one stupid cop gets busted or was an asshole to you during a traffic stop. We ain't customer service and we deal with the anus of society 12+ hours a day running from us, fighting us, lying to us. Not to mention dead bodies, suicides, gnarly car wrecks and such that we see every day. So cut us a little slack if we're a little rude when you come up to us while we're parked somewhere trying to eat lunch to complain about the lunatic on your street that drives too fast.
Click to expand...
The lie part of my story is what I experienced. I work with cops. Cop came in and lied about getting an email about getting their new machines, Cops, right? I was like, you have one of he newer ones, but they said they got an email from the coordinator for them to get it. I was like okay, if that was what he said. Swapped it out, then I get an email from said coordinator about it, I told him what they told me. Immediately he started making excuses for him. He was generally a nice dude, but it was plainly obvious he was already covering for them.

As Wizzi01 asked, is there a law? It's an unreasonable assumption to just assume something is wrong based on just that. And there you have it, already something considered confrontational when it really isn't. As for dealing with people complaining about this and that. Okay, it sucks to get complaints about stupid shit. But that's one guy, are you going to treat everyone else because that one guy complained? Sounds like you are okay with that when it's not a cop.

Like I said, I work with cops, and not all of them are assholes, But there definitely are some. And having some of these things is what makes it worst. When you get into topics about this stuff and government mandated power, you should always think about the potential abuse of power.

The first vid I mentioned was of a guy who was recording from down the street, and judging from the distance around 3 or 4 house distance away. The cop ran down the street just to deal with him when he clearly didn't have to. He just didn't want to be recorded. You can disregard the other vid I mentioned beacause she was an idiot. One of those anarchist, I'm my own country type.
 
MacLeod said:
If you just barely crack your window, I'm probably going to get you out of the car because there is obviously something in there you don't want me to see and that could be a weapon so I'm going to separate you from it.
Click to expand...

LOL Cop logic.

Can't see in the car unless the window is rolled down.
 
I read this thread and there are continual mentions of "meth head with rotted teeth". That all sounds like stories and justifications cops tell each other so they can treat some people as being less than human. Police are supposed to protect and serve, not exploit the disadvantaged. If that is not happening then that is just a sad commentary on our society.
 
jiminator said:
I read this thread and there are continual mentions of "meth head with rotted teeth". That all sounds like stories and justifications cops tell each other so they can treat some people as being less than human. Police are supposed to protect and serve, not exploit the disadvantaged. If that is not happening then that is just a sad commentary on our society.
Click to expand...
It's especially problematic because in this hypothetical the officer disregarded the potential threat the BMW driver presents.
 
MacLeod said:
And yeah, cracking your window when we walk up is a total dick move and you just made the whole thing confrontational right off the bat. If you just barely crack your window, I'm probably going to get you out of the car because there is obviously something in there you don't want me to see and that could be a weapon so I'm going to separate you from it. Now you have to exit the car if I tell you. If you don't then we're back to that whole obstruction thing and there is now a good chance you're gonna wind up in jail instead of a warning citation for a busted taillight.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no law that he has to exit the car IN SOME STATES<--- I suggest you research this to see if yours doesn't, if it does and you do not leave the car you will be arrested, plain and simple. However keep in mind just because a police officer makes a request does not make it law. That's a misconception, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider listening, sometimes it's for your own safety.

That said however, the best thing to do if you've already pushed buttons to that point is is to 1. step out. 2. lock the doors of your car and roll up your windows. do not consent to a search unless warrant is requested, 3. Step aside and remain quiet hands where they can see, do not move quickly or aggressively, if no crime/citation is presented ask if you are free to go, which will likely antagonize the officer even more, those are also within your rights. If You've already antagonized a police officer, I guarantee you a search is the next step. If they continue to push you to talk request an attorney.

Once again I don't recommend any of this, as lets be honest it's a waste of your time and the officers who's job I guarantee is a lot harder than you give him credit for. . Also a police officer that pulled you over is doing so with reason, right to freedom of travel laws prevent said officer to pull you over without justification, that's just silly. So if you're getting pulled over you have done something and stop pretending you're innocent or just wrong place at the wrong time. YOU don't need to answer his questions, but you can accept your ticket with grace and end the interaction quickly you're not a lawyer, don't try to act like you know the laws better than an officer.
 
Khaelec said:
Actually there is no law that he has to exit the car IN SOME STATES<--- I suggest you research this to see if yours doesn't, if it does and you do not leave the car you will be arrested, plain and simple. However keep in mind just because a police officer makes a request does not make it law. That's a misconception, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider listening, sometimes it's for your own safety.

That said however, the best thing to do if you've already pushed buttons to that point is is to 1. step out. 2. lock the doors of your car and roll up your windows. do not consent to a search unless warrant is requested, 3. Step aside and remain quiet hands where they can see, do not move quickly or aggressively, if no crime/citation is presented ask if you are free to go, which will likely antagonize the officer even more, those are also within your rights. If You've already antagonized a police officer, I guarantee you a search is the next step. If they continue to push you to talk request an attorney.

Once again I don't recommend any of this, as lets be honest it's a waste of your time and the officers who's job I guarantee is a lot harder than you give him credit for. . Also a police officer that pulled you over is doing so with reason, right to freedom of travel laws prevent said officer to pull you over without justification, that's just silly. So if you're getting pulled over you have done something and stop pretending you're innocent or just wrong place at the wrong time. YOU don't need to answer his questions, but you can accept your ticket with grace and end the interaction quickly you're not a lawyer, don't try to act like you know the laws better than an officer.
Click to expand...


You've never been syopped by Robocop in Southwest Detroit or Inkster. He would pull you over when you were driving or walking didn't matter. Then he would beat the shit out of you for no reason. Thank God he is behind bars now. As he beat a guy to a pulp after he ran a stop signow, and then planted drugs in the vehicle. His minimum sentence should have been 3 years. Melendez sentenced to 13 mos.-10 years for Floyd Dent beating
 
Khaelec said:
Actually there is no law that he has to exit the car IN SOME STATES<--- I suggest you research this to see if yours doesn't, if it does and you do not leave the car you will be arrested, plain and simple. However keep in mind just because a police officer makes a request does not make it law. That's a misconception, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider listening, sometimes it's for your own safety.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has ruled that yes, if you're being detained at a lawful traffic stop and the officer asks you to get out, you have to. When we pull you over, you are lawfully being detained and have to obey my REASONABLE commands. If you're just sitting in your car in a parking lot doing nothing wrong and I walk up and tell you to get out without a lawful reason you can tell me to fuck off but if you're lawfully being detained that's different and a more serious matter. Now I obviously can't order you to do silly shit but reasonable commands that relate to officer and your safety and the process of the traffic stop you gotta do. Put your car in gear and turn the engine off, exit the car, don't get out of the car, pull forward into this driveway and so forth. Your 4th amendment protections are still in effect and I can't search you without consent or probable cause and can only pat you down with reasonable suspicion.

Generally we're not going to get you out of the car because leaving you in the car is usually the tactically safest unless I suspect you've got some kind of weapon in the car. If you're in the car, it's a lot harder for you to shoot us without getting out and the getting out process of a couple seconds is kinda of a buffer. If I see you trying to get out I've got a couple seconds to react before you're out and a danger. That's why one of the worst things you can do is to jump out of the car immediately after stopping.

Now sometimes we'll get you out if say you're acting squirrelly and we want you separated from whatever it is in the car that's got you acting that way. We'll also get you out sometimes if it's a crowded highway and it's easier to talk and do business outside the car off to the side. It's also a de-escalation tactic we can use especially with felony arrests. Say you come back with a warrant. If I walk up to your car and say, "you've got a warrant and are under arrest, get out of the car and turn around". You're natural reaction is to sit there in the car and argue with me and I may wind up having to drag you out, taze you or worse. But if I walk up to the car and ask, "hey you don't have any guns or knives on you do you?" Usually they'll say no and I'll ask them to jump on out just so I can pat them down. They almost always do and I'll pat them down then reach up and grab the left arm and my handcuffs at the same time and tell them about the warrant as Im cuffing the arm. Now if you want to argue or resist, you're facing away with me and I've got one hand cuffed and all the leverage in the world. This makes it way less likely there will be some kind of use of force.

Some officers when stopping somebody that tells them they're wearing a concealed firearm or have one in the car will get the guy out but just to separate him from the weapon. And yes if you're legally wearing a firearm, I can still take it from you until the traffic stop is complete. Removing a firearm from somebody I'm about to give a ticket or possibly have to arrest if the license comes back with a warrant is absolutely reasonable. But most all of us aren't going to do that because I figure if you're going to tell me you're carrying concealed, you're not going to shoot me. My response is usually, "Thank you for telling me and as long as you leave yours alone, I'll leave mine alone". Telling the officer you're carrying goes a LONG way at putting us at ease and making things go smoother. That initial approach and contact is a little hariy. You never know what you're about to walk into and your asshole is a little puckered especially at night when you can't even tell how many people are in the car til you walk up to it. Somebody smiling and being pleasant with the window all the way down and both hands visible makes us breathe a big sigh of relief.
 
pothb said:
But what if he's an asshole cop, who always took his time? was what I was getting at. There are tons of cops who enjoy the power of it. He said, if the cop took longer than normal, but if his "normal" time was already long enough, then it's moot.


I agree. I was thinking of more until trial aspect. If there is acquittal and things aren't return. Then the cops can go fuck themselves, and had best be ready to pony up extra or be fired or something. Cuz that'd be going completely against what they're supposed to do as civil servants.
Click to expand...


I can only hope that an organization that would monitor an individual's and his "normal" would also look at how normal that is respective of his peers.


And I am not so sure about this think with having the cops "pony up extra or...

Look the cops have a job and their job ends once a guy has been charged, after that a person is just in the court system, if a person isn't bailed out then they remain in custody unless for some reason they are released under their own recognizance (if I have that correct?). That is with the exception that the cops will need to testify in the court case.

But whether the person is found guilty or not, that isn't up to the cops and frankly the outcome doesn't have anything to do with them so whether someone is found innocent or guilty is outside of the power of the cops and the only way the cops could be accountable is if the person got off cause the cop fucked up.

Just because someone is found innocent of a crime, that doesn't mean the cops weren't doing their jobs right. If you held cops responsible for the conviction or acquittal of trial cases you'd be opening up a huge can of worms with that one.

I know if I was a cop and you were going to dock my pay every time I arrested someone and they weren't found guilty you can bet your ass I would "make sure you were found guilty" if I even bothered to arrest anyone at all.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
I can only hope that an organization that would monitor an individual's and his "normal" would also look at how normal that is respective of his peers.


And I am not so sure about this think with having the cops "pony up extra or...

Look the cops have a job and their job ends once a guy has been charged, after that a person is just in the court system, if a person isn't bailed out then they remain in custody unless for some reason they are released under their own recognizance (if I have that correct?). That is with the exception that the cops will need to testify in the court case.

But whether the person is found guilty or not, that isn't up to the cops and frankly the outcome doesn't have anything to do with them so whether someone is found innocent or guilty is outside of the power of the cops and the only way the cops could be accountable is if the person got off cause the cop fucked up.

Just because someone is found innocent of a crime, that doesn't mean the cops weren't doing their jobs right. If you held cops responsible for the conviction or acquittal of trial cases you'd be opening up a huge can of worms with that one.

I know if I was a cop and you were going to dock my pay every time I arrested someone and they weren't found guilty you can bet your ass I would "make sure you were found guilty" if I even bothered to arrest anyone at all.
Click to expand...

Too true, policing is already a hard job with small thanks most of the time. We need to find ways to make their jobs less difficult (I won't say easier as that has connotations I don't want to imply) without encouraging bad behavior on anyone's part.

This is way off the original topic though.
 
lcpiper said:
I can only hope that an organization that would monitor an individual's and his "normal" would also look at how normal that is respective of his peers.


And I am not so sure about this think with having the cops "pony up extra or...

Look the cops have a job and their job ends once a guy has been charged, after that a person is just in the court system, if a person isn't bailed out then they remain in custody unless for some reason they are released under their own recognizance (if I have that correct?). That is with the exception that the cops will need to testify in the court case.

But whether the person is found guilty or not, that isn't up to the cops and frankly the outcome doesn't have anything to do with them so whether someone is found innocent or guilty is outside of the power of the cops and the only way the cops could be accountable is if the person got off cause the cop fucked up.

Just because someone is found innocent of a crime, that doesn't mean the cops weren't doing their jobs right. If you held cops responsible for the conviction or acquittal of trial cases you'd be opening up a huge can of worms with that one.

I know if I was a cop and you were going to dock my pay every time I arrested someone and they weren't found guilty you can bet your ass I would "make sure you were found guilty" if I even bothered to arrest anyone at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you got that the cop has to pay if the arrest did end up convicted from my post. I merely said that if they took stuff, and the person was acquitted, and the things taken wasn't returned, then they better pony up the money to cover it. Because at that point, what right do they have to keep it? That'd be theft, plain and simple.

As for cops monitoring a cop in comparison to his peers. That sounds good. But cops, as do other groups have a tendency to protect themselves. This is innate to any group. And what if the cop was doing just fine, but he takes longer because he's overly meticulous? There aren't just bad reasons someone can take a long time.
 
pothb said:
I'm not sure where you got that the cop has to pay if the arrest did end up convicted from my post. I merely said that if they took stuff, and the person was acquitted, and the things taken wasn't returned, then they better pony up the money to cover it. Because at that point, what right do they have to keep it? That'd be theft, plain and simple.

As for cops monitoring a cop in comparison to his peers. That sounds good. But cops, as do other groups have a tendency to protect themselves. This is innate to any group. And what if the cop was doing just fine, but he takes longer because he's overly meticulous? There aren't just bad reasons someone can take a long time.
Click to expand...


pothb, it was this comment of yours;

I agree. I was thinking of more until trial aspect. If there is acquittal and things aren't return. Then the cops can go fuck themselves, and had best be ready to pony up extra or be fired or something.
Click to expand...

And I have marked what I was focused on, and I have marked what I missed and why I see that I misunderstood your meaning.

I'm sorry.

And you are correct that it can actually take longer because the cop is being meticulous and this can actually be good. Lazy cops tend to make assumptions and those assumptions can lead to people being abused by a lazy system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top