Police Powers: Taking of property, papers, life, effects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In France, they raided homes without probable cause based on an attack “arising from” hatred toward a publication. It is no surprise to me that Benjamin Franklin was our revolutionary advocate to France in times such as this. His quote regarding trading fundamental liberties for a bit of security is spot on and should be reviewed by our friends and colleagues. Well, that is, perhaps if we set the example? The government was never to control a press against citizens in the first place. Now today due to the inspiring wrongdoing of government press we have a Kremlin-controlled “press” in Washington D.C. (Perhaps police forces should release their blogs through Russia Today so things would be more organized and make more sense)
 
Last edited:
I see no reason to change it. The basis of search and seizure in the US is the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Click to expand...
So in a nut shell if an law enforcement officer wants to arrest you or seize something you own (assuming that it is not by its nature illegal such as an illegal narcotic) than they need probable cause which basically means that a reasonable and prudent person would probably believe a crime had taken, or is about to take place, and that that person or item is probably involved and responsible.

For comparative purposes the full scale consists of:

Nothing: No cause to detain, consensual encounter only
Mere Suspicion (Gut feeling): No cause to detain, consensual encounter only
Reasonable Articulable Suspicion: Cause for temporary detention (Ex: traffic stop)
Probable Cause: Required for arrest
Preponderance of Evidence: Required to win civil case
Beyond a reasonable Doubt: Required to convict on criminal case
Absolute Certainty: Perfect knowledge, rare, not used in law except maybe to exonerate
 
Last edited:
redbaron162 said:
So in a nut shell if an law enforcement officer wants to arrest you or seize something you own (assuming that it is not by its nature illegal such as an illegal narcotic) than they need probable cause which basically means that a reasonable and prudent person would probably believe a crime had taken, or is about to take place, and that that person or item is probably involved and responsible.
Click to expand...
No. Probable cause only gives them the power to obtain a Warrant. A Warrant must be signed by an Article 3 judge, must describe what is to be searched, what they are searching for and what may be seized. You can’t seize property based on probable cause alone.
 
I understand it like this. An officer can not arrest you without probable cause. However, he may detain you without probable cause (maybe so he can ask you questions as part of an investigation).

Once you are arrested; you are no longer able to effect like you were before being arrested because many of your rights are taken away. For instance, you can’t make any phone call you’d normally make as if you were not under supervision (or behind bars).

Then, we have stop and frisk. That is questionable. But, that is only an option to an officer when an individual is on a public street or in say a public building.

Then entrapment exists. That is where you are set-up. For instance, when an undercover offers to sell an individual something illegal. It is a test to see if the individual is prone to a certain behavior. I understand, if charges are made by DA when entrapment is involved, a good attorney may get the charges dropped.
 
Further, a warrant is needed in order to search a vehicle or private residence, etc… This is when there is no first hand evidence that a crime has been committed (ex: police officer did not observe the criminal act take place) but there is enough evidence to believe an act was committed by individual. If belief exists, judge issues warrant. Property can be taken; and arrest can be made.

A drug sniffing dog is a tool used to obtain probable cause when individual does not consent to a search. If positive, officer is witness to dog, and he can call in for a warrant.
 
Lemuel said:
Probable cause only gives them the power to obtain a Warrant. A Warrant must be signed by an Article 3 judge, must describe what is to be searched, what they are searching for and what may be seized. You can’t seize property based on probable cause alone.
Click to expand...
I suppose this may be true about entering houses, but it is not the case with searching cars and persons detained on the street. I have seen “probable cause” range from broken headlights to “large amounts of smoke emanating from the car windows”. Persons are taken out of their cars and asked to submit to a search, the car is searched, people who were in the car are arrested if something illegal is found in the car. They are incarcerated with charges, whether the material was found on their persons, or not. All this happens without any judge or warrant.

I was pulled over a few months ago for “driving too slow” when I was looking for an address. This “probable cause” then resulted in four frivolous citations for which I had to take off work and appear in court to have dismissed. I think this kind of thing is an abuse of power.
 
Ought to have a look at the state of civil asset forfeiture in the US. Note in particular the seizure of cash. Believe there was a Washington Post expose about this a few years ago. Will just note that it’s a huge cash cow for law enforcement agencies as they are usually not required to share the proceeds with non-law enforcement entities. This is one of the reasons they don’t want to end the drug war: because going after dealers and users for their assets regardless of convictions is just too lucrative.
 
Last edited:
guanophore said:
Persons are taken out of their cars and asked to submit to a search, the car is searched
Click to expand...
Sure. The cops can ask and the person can say “yes” and the search goes on. But person can also say “no” and no search goes on without a warrant. Then the cop has to detain you and has to have reasonable cause to do so. The same thing happens at home. I’ve had a cop come to my door and ask to search my house. I said, “No, but come back with a warrant and you’re welcome to search.” She got really angry about it but left and never came back.
 
Lemuel said:
Sure. The cops can ask and the person can say “yes” and the search goes on. But person can also say “no” and no search goes on without a warrant. Then the cop has to detain you and has to have reasonable cause to do so. The same thing happens at home. I’ve had a cop come to my door and ask to search my house. I said, “No, but come back with a warrant and you’re welcome to search.” She got really angry about it but left and never came back.
Click to expand...
Probable cause can be anything a cop wants it to be. A “no” isn’t going to stop cops from searching a car if they really want to search that car. They’ll make it up out of nothing if they think there is cash, drugs and/or firearms to be found.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
A “no” isn’t going to stop cops from searching a car if they really want to search that car.
Click to expand...
A cop can be a jerk and plant evidence in your car as well. You are correct though. But my point is, if a cop were to ask permission then that indicates to me that he needs permission and you can say no. If he believes you have committed a crime and sees a bloody knife on your seat he’s not going to ask for permission.

I noticed your handle. I’ve been on Zzyzx Road many times. What a name …
 
Last edited:
First of all, driving too slowly is in fact a traffic violation in many states. In NY, where I work, it is a violation if there is a minimum speed limit posted, or even when there is no minimum limit if you are obstructing traffic. Diving too slowly also contributes to the reasonable suspicion necessary (RS is the standard to stop a car, while probable cause is the standard to search or effect an arrest) to stop a car even when not specifically illegal so long as other factors are present. It is one of the main tell tale signs of a drunk driver. I wan’t there for your case so I don’t know what happened, but perhaps there were other cars behind you?

Secondly, the concept of frivolous citations is laughable. We don’t write citations for no reason as we derive no benefit from it. The “power trip” that comes form issuing a ticket wears off after around the second day on the job, so I doubt that the officer wasted his time writing four tickets for no reason.

Also, typically we only arrest the person on whom contraband was actually found unless there is overwhelming cause to believe that someone else in the vehicle was somehow involved. Arresting multiple people for the same offense just adds to our paperwork load without any additional credit or benefit to our careers, so there is actually a strong disincentive to doing so. If the contraband is found in the vehicle, but not on any particular person, then anyone in the vehicle is fair game unless and until we figure out exactly to whom it belongs, which we usually do pretty quickly given the above-mentioned incentive to not do extra paperwork.

There certainly are corrupt cops out there, but this image that people have of outlaw cowboys looking to bring down anyone for no reason at all is ridiculous. The countless hours of paperwork and months of court appearances drive us to make sure everything is squared away before we take action. Fabricating probable cause would cost us our pensions and possibly freedom if found out, so what would the point be? To get a shiny pin to wear on top of our badges? Seriously? Most of us are just trying to do our jobs and go home.
 
My department’s policy is that we always ask permission to search first, even if we don’t need it. Most departments of which I am aware have the same policy.
 
Where I live and happen to know personally how they operate, cops get incentives to give citations or to meet quotas, even though they claim that quotas are illegal. My wife was recently fined $200 for not coming to a complete stop at an empty intersection with no view obstructions in the middle of nowhere. She even saw the cop parked across the intersection. He boasted about how many tickets he had given that day.
That was not a safety issue. It was a revenue issue. One of the main functions of government is to sustain itself by making law-breakers out of decent upstanding people.
 
Last edited:
Not all officers are as conscientious as you. Not to mention even conscientious officers still defend their fellow officers who stray. That combination along with the prevalence of cash seizures does not inspire confidence.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Probable cause can be anything a cop wants it to be. A “no” isn’t going to stop cops from searching a car if they really want to search that car. They’ll make it up out of nothing if they think there is cash, drugs and/or firearms to be found.
Click to expand...
I can verify the truth of this statement.
 
Fuerza said:
I wan’t there for your case so I don’t know what happened, but perhaps there were other cars behind you?
Click to expand...
No, the street was pretty empty. But I could tell he was very disappointed that he could not get me for DWI. I think that is why I got a bunch of bogus citations.

He also lied on the report, saying the street was dry, when it had been raining. The car was wet,and I had just shut off the wipers (I drove out of the rain).

I am surprised you say that about the frivolous tickets. I thought there was a ticket quota, and my citations helped him to make his expected sum. I pulled up to the Dairy Queen where I was headed, and he held me hostage for 28 minutes until it closed so I could not get what I went to get. Maybe he was a new cop?

I can certainly appreciate the massive amount of paperwork. I work at the juvenile jail, and there is a lot of it! When they pull over a car of juveniles, they bring as many as they are able to detention.

I know that the majority of law enforcement officials are brave persons of integrity, but not all. And those who abuse their power give a bad reputation to all

Thank you for your post, and your service.
 
It’s possible it was for revenue. Perhaps that’s how it works in some towns. In my jurisdiction officers are paid more for a court appearance than what is generated from most fines, so revenue isn’t really an issue. It’s also possible that the officer observed what he interpreted to be a bad habit (or the early stages of forming one) in the act of rolling through a stop sign. If drivers develop such a habit, it will eventually result in rolling through a sign when someone else is coming, thus causing an accident. Part of our job is correcting driving habits before they cause a problem. Sometimes a warning is not sufficient, especially when I look through the computer and see that a driver has received multiple warnings for the same infraction. Again, I don’t know what happened in this particular case, but it’s always possible that there’s another perspective besides yours.
 
Ticket quotas are illegal and do not actually exist. Individuals like to believe in quotas because it allows them to lessen their own guilt in their minds, but it’s just not true. The closest thing that you will find is a requirement to conduct a certain number of traffic stops in a given month or quarter (which, given how traffic laws are written, is extremely easy to meet) but even then tickets are not required. I was recently given a commendation for my productivity in traffic enforcement, even though I had issued only a few summonses in the three-month period. In general, the only summonses I issue are for those traffic offenses which are also crimes (DWI, reckless driving, suspended license, etc…).

The truth is, police on the whole tend to be conservatives or at least libertarians, which means we’re not big fans of the government’s regulating every aspect of people’s lives. We also take our legally granted right of discretion seriously. If quotas did exist, police unions would be suing left and right as an illegal attempt to limit our discretion. My union actually tried to sue over our stop quota, but we lost because it does not actually require us to take any enforcement action and therefore does not limit our discretion.
 
Should they be able? No.

Are they able? Yes.

If the government wants something, they are generally going to get it. The average cop is a good guy who works as the boot of the bad guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top