Supreme court rules police can violate 4th amendment

[mjbskwim]

This is why I have mixed feelings about all this recent LEO BS going on.
On one hand the perps did wrong,but on the other and,cops are made to try to get arrests or tickets.It's their job to make things happen.Like making criminals out of the rest of us
Then the lawyers(prosecutors included) have a reason to live. Prisons are very big business,too

It's time we start asking cops if their job is more important than the constitution. Tell them they are traders,not true patriots of the US of A when they do these type things.
When these stories are about blacks hating cops we see it different. But in reality some,I believe a lot of cops are more focused on ticketing or arresting someone than doing everything above the law.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you don't get in trouble for killing someone,what does any of the other frivolous BS,like violating someones civil rights,matter?
Next time this goes on ask the cop where he stands as a patriot

 

[CoastRange57]

Yeah - I see this all the time on FB; people complaining about Congress "gridlock", that congress "isn't doing anything".

Personally, I am glad when this happens. I would gladly pay them to stop making new stupid laws, stop expanding government, stop spending so much of my tax money - but especially stop making new laws.

The best measurement of a Legislative session in Oregon, is by how much or how little damage the Democratic governor and the Legislature does to small business in one year.

 

[The Heretic]

The best measurement of a Legislative session in Oregon, is by how much or how little damage the Democratic governor and the Legislature does to small business in one year.

While I am pro-capitalism in general, and I dislike how my tax money is spent, I place a much higher priority on my civil rights than I do on financial issues.

 

[jvp]

in oregon they have the right to search your car without your consent if they have reasonable cause. there is no definition of reasonable cause.

 

[CoastRange57]

Subject to different views I suppose.

www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ALPR/oregon/Washington%20County%20Sheriff%27s%20Office/30012-30050%20Search%20and%20Seizure%20Field%20Guide.pdf

Criminal Investigative Stops (AKA: "Stop and Detain")
Stop: A stop occurs when an officer, by show of authority, restrains the liberty of the
person encountered so that a reasonable person would not feel free to refuse to
cooperate, or to leave the scene.
In alignment with federal case law (Terry v Ohio), Oregon gives police officers the
authority to "stop" persons for a limited time, for the purpose of brief questioning in order
to establish the persons identity and dispel (or confirm) the officers reasonable
suspicion that the person has committed, or is about to commit a crime. ORS
131.615(2) further limits this detention to the vicinity of the stop, and for no longer than a
reasonable time. Based on case law, the "vicinity of the stop" would include the area
immediately surrounding (or within several yards) of the stop, but does not extend as far
as in the case where the detainee was moved three blocks away. A "reasonable time"
has been interpreted to mean that the police are "diligently pursuing the investigation."
Because there are no set time limits, it is important to document your investigative
steps, in order to show your "stop" did not last any longer than was necessary.
If, during the course of an investigation, your reasonable suspicion is dispelled
(dissipates), the stop must end. Detention beyond that point will be deemed unlawful.
A stop will be considered reasonable if it is limited to: 1) the immediate circumstances
that aroused the officer's suspicion; 2) other circumstances arising during the course of
the detention and inquiry that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and
3) ensuring the safety of the officer, the person stopped or other person's present.
During the course of a criminal investigative stop, an officer has statutory authority to
ask for consent to search at any time, as well as make inquiry about the presence of
weapons, whether or not the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe such
weapons exist However, if the officer does not have reasonable suspicion and if the
inquiries or search extend the duration of the stop, the court may find the consent was
not voluntary and suppress any evidence regardless of the statutory authority.
Reasonable suspicion to detain a person does, as a practical matter, extend to the
detention of that person's property (i.e., vehicle, bag, etc.). However, absent consent or
some other authority, the mere fact that an officer has conducted a criminal investigative
stop does not, in itself, provide the officer with the authority to search a person, their
vehicle, or other belongings for evidence of the crime that was the reason for the stop
8
- 30020 -

 

[Caveman Jim]

in oregon they have the right to search your car without your consent if they have reasonable cause. there is no definition of reasonable cause.

Herein lies the problem and they (the legislators) did an end around of the law. They only care to keep the criminal justice system humming along, after all, that's where they can supposedly justify their existence!!!!

 

[linflas]

in oregon they have the right to search your car without your consent if they have reasonable cause. there is no definition of reasonable cause.

I am not so sure this is true, I believe they can ask for a search without cause, but not force one. If it is refused, I think a court order must be obtained

 

[CoastRange57]

If a drug certified K 9 alerts on your vehicles, that is probable cause.
If you are a criminal on parole or probation, they usually have random search conditions.
If they find weapons or contraband on your person, that is reasonable cause.

 

[The Heretic]

If a drug certified K 9 alerts on your vehicles, that is probable cause.
If you are a criminal on parole or probation, they usually have random search conditions.
If they find weapons or contraband on your person, that is reasonable cause.

and if they want to, they can make the dog alert, or they can the dog alerted

 

[Stomper]

in oregon they have the right to search your car without your consent if they have reasonable cause. there is no definition of reasonable cause.

In Oregon, LEO's have two "legal" tools for further pursuing a "shady" situation. The Oregon legal terms for them are; Probable Cause, or Reasonable Suspicion.


What I find HIGHLY ironic (and no one has commented on yet) is the lone dissenter in the 8-1 ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She's a SUPER PROGRESSIVE, big-government loving, statist if ever there was one.

 

[Redcap]

Explain it like I'm five: what bubbleguming good is the 4th amendment, a part of our Constitution, if it just gets trampled by a bunch of crooks in black robes?

 

[Gunguy45]

Explain it like I'm five: what bubbleguming good is the 4th amendment, a part of our Constitution, if it just gets trampled by a bunch of crooks in black robes?

I'm not crazy about the ruling either, but it's not an insane or necessarily anti-liberty ruling.

Courts have always tended to give police acting in good faith the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, they merely ruled that a stop the officer believed to be legitimate, even though he was in fact wrong, was not sufficient reason to demand that result of a subsequent CONSENSUAL search be thrown out.

They key part here is both that the search was CONSENSUAL, and that the officer was acting in good faith. The state's position was that the officer's misinterpretation of law was not sufficient to taint the evidence of a CONSENSUAL search. they probably would have ruled very differently if the search had not been consensual.

Again, I am not crazy about the ruling, but it's fairly consistent with long-standing case law. Don't consent to a search without a warrant.

 

[Redcap]

I'm not crazy about the ruling either, but it's not an insane or necessarily anti-liberty ruling.

Courts have always tended to give police acting in good faith the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, they merely ruled that a stop the officer believed to be legitimate, even though he was in fact wrong, was not sufficient reason to demand that result of a subsequent CONSENSUAL search be thrown out.

They key part here is both that the search was CONSENSUAL, and that the officer was acting in good faith. The state's position was that the officer's misinterpretation of law was not sufficient to taint the evidence of a CONSENSUAL search. they probably would have ruled very differently if the search had not been consensual.

Again, I am not crazy about the ruling, but it's fairly consistent with long-standing case law. Don't consent to a search without a warrant.

Thanks, couldn't get everything to mesh up in my rage. I'm a little less irritated after an explanation, but still am not any sort of fan of this particular ruling.

 

[IronMonster]

I can tell you its not hard to be the subject of an illegal search. My own experience was riding a motorcycle and I did a California stop a stop sign at 2 AM. Pulled over, Cop asked to see my ID. I handed over my Concealed carry license and drivers license. Cop ask if I was carrying a weapon. I said no. He said, " Are you sure you are not carrying?" I said the only thing I have on my person is a pocket knife. To which he replied "get off the bike, I am going to place you in handcuffs and search you for weapons because you first indicated you did not have a weapon, and then indicated you did" I said no I did not, my pocket knife is not a weapon. They then cuffed me, frisk me, turned out all my pockets put me in the squad car and emptied my backpack on the side of the road. I at no time consented to a search, didn't matter.

It probably didn't help that I was a 25 year old kid riding a motorcycle at 2 AM, This was in the mid 90's


The thing about this search is in the eyes of the law it is "justified" because I had a concealed carry permit. The law allows the officer to do a "officer safety search" if they feel the person potentially has a weapon. The very fact that I was legally able to carry a weapon was justification enough for the search (what I was told by legal counsel after the fact)

 

[mjbskwim]

They did the same thing to a Iraq vet just back 6mo,I think.This was in WY where open carry is legal.Held him for over an hour.
Guy just gets back from defending that stupid A$$' freedom to trample on his own 4th amendment rights
Makes perfect sense to me

This goes back to the video,dont talk to the police
And I don't ever give my CCP to the cops.ABSOLUTELY no reason in this state

 

[balaperdida]

My bet is that the pig actually knew the law, but ignored it just to meet his traffic stop quota.

Need to attack these idiotic SCOTUS decisions at the State level. Get initiatives into law that require the pigs to enforce the law correctly as written.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

OK I have a question for you, for bonus points:

Given that the advice to not consent to a search may be a good legal strategy, (yet the police may search anyway,) what is the advantage to the defendant to decline the search request?

 

[IronMonster]

What? The advantage is that absolutely nothing that you say, or that they see will ever be to your benefit. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose. You may honestly think there is nothing in your car that would hurt you, but even then there is nothing to gain by saying yes. Your not trying to make friends.

 

[Gunguy45]

OK I have a question for you, for bonus points:

Given that the advice to not consent to a search may be a good legal strategy, (yet the police may search anyway,) what is the advantage to the defendant to decline the search request?

As soon as you consent to a search, any legal issue that may later come up which would require suppression of evidence becomes moot. YOU allowed it, so even if it was a bogus stop, even if the cops lied to you, even if.... you cannot EVER suppress the fruits of that search. (That includes the very unusual, but still happens, planted evidence).

NEVER EVER consent to a search.

The cop wants to search you, your car, or anything else, you say: "I will not resist, but I do not consent to any search." Say it over and over.

It may not help, but then again it may make all the difference in the world. This ruling in particular, was largely made in light of the fact that the defendant CONSENTED to the search. If he had not, there was no probable cause for the stop, and so any warrant request would have been made under false pretenses. -The whole thing would have been thrown out.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

winning answer. In short: when you consent to search you lose the right to appeal.