police activity...

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2592161
You're right. I was not trying to have a contest. I voiced my discontent for law enforcement and how overbearing they are and got attacked for my opinion. It's ok that pontius wants to attack me and my opinion, I have no problems with that. Were people on a message board we can have our difference.
I would hope that the thread doesn’t get locked for one persons aggression toward people who don’ t put cops on a pedestal.
yeah, you're so innocent. you've used profanity twice in this thread, which is a very clear violation of the guidelines of this board.
 

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2592179
yeah, you're so innocent. you've used profanity twice in this thread, which is a very clear violation of the guidelines of this board.
ok seriously what’s the deal man? chickens*** and a** does that bother you? Are some saint and have never used profanity? I never typed out the complete word just enough to get my point across.
I can see I hit a nerve with you and I’m not sorry that my opinion bothers you. But its my opinion and should not be afraid to voice how I feel.
I never and will never say I’m innocent and or an angel. I read the story and the accounts of what happened, said my piece and now I deal with you.
your 31 yrs old man. Deal with life, stop looking for guidelines to get you thru life.
Are you trying to get a lock thrown on this thread?
 

sharkbait9

Active Member
Anyway. This all falls on the installer for causing a concern. The officers were only acting on a tip. The judge (who was newly appointed) should have wanted more evidence then just tip before signing a warrant.
 

aw2x3

Active Member
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2592219
Anyway. This all falls on the installer for causing a concern. The officers were only acting on a tip. The judge (who was newly appointed) should have wanted more evidence then just tip before signing a warrant.
Whole heartedly agree. I'm all for a little more lenient regulations for police officers (only when it's blatant infractions) but I'd be suing if someone came and broke down my door, handcuffed me, only to find a bottle of vinegar, next to the 'ole fish hangout.
I've been friends with law enforcement (city boys, all the way to federal marshalls), for a long time and have been on ride alongs, many many times. It's alot different when you see what our peace officers actually have to put up with, even during routine traffic stops.
There are WAY too many people who have disdain and disrespect for cops, for the simple fact they hate authority.
 

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2591783
it's not a flip flop. my point has been that it is very easy to determine PC for searching a car. easier than PC for a warrant to search a house. I was "liberal" in my description of what most cops would use for PC to search a car. but I don't not back off my statement that a cop can come up with PC to search a car on close to 100% of traffic stops if they choose.
you are referring to your state law. but again, a state may impose stricter limitations on itself, but these are not the same limitations that have stood up in the US Supreme Court.
but again, we agree that the PC for the issuance of the search warrant on this house sounds flimsy at best.
First you said if you refuse the search, that in itself is PC, you again stated this is "law in every state, period" (something to this effect.) Cite any code or statute anywhere in this country that can back this up. If you were simply using this to illustrate a point, I would kindly ask that you do so without distorting the law :)
Why is this important to me? Because some kid on this board may give up his 4th Amendment rights based on what you said if it went unchallenged. Whether he did anything wrong or not is irrelevant, it would be a travesty either way IMO.
Not to challenge it any further, but PC has to meet the same criteria as any search warrant, just that the administrative and time issues would not allow for the search. If PC does not meet the same criteria, any evidence would be inadmissible from a strictly legal perspective with a decent attorney.
 

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2593220
First you said if you refuse the search, that in itself is PC, you again stated this is "law in every state, period" (something to this effect.) Cite any code or statute anywhere in this country that can back this up. If you were simply using this to illustrate a point, I would kindly ask that you do so without distorting the law :)
Why is this important to me? Because some kid on this board may give up his 4th Amendment rights based on what you said if it went unchallenged. Whether he did anything wrong or not is irrelevant, it would be a travesty either way IMO.
Not to challenge it any further, but PC has to meet the same criteria as any search warrant, just that the administrative and time issues would not allow for the search. If PC does not meet the same criteria, any evidence would be inadmissible from a strictly legal perspective with a decent attorney.
first, I already stated that I was too liberal in saying what most police would use for PC to search a car, but that it is NOT HARD AT ALL TO ESTABLISH PC TO SEARCH A CAR ON A TRAFFIC STOP. if you're pulled over, the cop already has a right to be at your car window. at that point, it is not hard to establish probable cause to search. probable cause = reasonable suspicious that crime has been committed. the cop has a right to be at your car window, inches from you, so if he truly believes a crime has been committed, PC is not hard to establish.....weaving all over the road, glassy eyes, smells of alcohol or drugs, the way you are acting, etc etc etc. and a search warrant is NOT NEEDED TO SEARCH A CAR ONCE PC IS ESTABLISHED. if your state requires a warrant to search a car, that's great. but that limitation is state level, not what the US Constitution has established. I'm pretty much 100% sure that this has been to the US supreme court and has stood.
now while a cop on a traffic stop, as I've stated umpteen times, has a right to be in close proximity to you therefore making it easier to establish pc. a cop with no particular reason to be at your house would find it tougher to establish PC. after all, you are not going to be weaving in and out of traffic in your house, and a smell of drugs or anything else illegal is probably not going to be so strong that it leaves your house and hits the neighborhood where it would be in plain sight or smell of a cop. and a warrant IS required for searching a house except in excited circumstances. and unless the utility guy in the original article was some kind of expert in what is and is not evidence of a meth lab, his hearsay evidence should not be enough to establish PC for the search of a house.
so what I've said, repeated over and over again, is that the standards for searching a car are NOT as strict as the standards for searching a house. I'm not going to to continue to repeat it. you can disagree all you want, but this has stood the test in courts over the years. maybe instead of the overly liberal example I originally used, maybe I should've said this.....a cop will pretty much know if you're drunk/high or have been drinking or using drugs, etc. if you refuse a sobriety test, you've given the cop reason to arrest you and pc to search the car. if there is an obvious smell of drugs or alcohol, you've given the cop reason to search the car. if the traffic violation you committed was so egregious that it could warrant an arrest, you've given the cop pc to search your car. and like I've also stated, these are some of the standards that have stood federal court. a state may choose to put further restrictions on itself, but that is an individual state standard and not a federal standard.
 

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by AW2x3
http:///forum/post/2592826
Whole heartedly agree. I'm all for a little more lenient regulations for police officers (only when it's blatant infractions) but I'd be suing if someone came and broke down my door, handcuffed me, only to find a bottle of vinegar, next to the 'ole fish hangout.
I've been friends with law enforcement (city boys, all the way to federal marshalls), for a long time and have been on ride alongs, many many times. It's alot different when you see what our peace officers actually have to put up with, even during routine traffic stops.
There are WAY too many people who have disdain and disrespect for cops, for the simple fact they hate authority.
Ok. So you have been on ride along (community police awareness) You see what they go thru. That’s the job they took. Police officers were not forced to become cops. Its no different then a day at the office and the boss picked you to pick on all day.
Sure a person gets cranky and rips on someone innocent but in the end no ones insurance is going up and money takes a powder out of their wallet.
A cop knows, sure you make me made I’ll hurt your wallet in more ways then one. So they rips tickets out of a book to get even. When the person they pulled over was nothing more then sorry and apologetic, but the scrub an hour earlier is still on the cops mind. So in the cops head “I’m having a bad day everyone I pull over is going to have a bad day.
The public can not really allow police to have lenient rules. Simply they will find ways to bend the rules even more or find loop holes in the regs. Its human nature to play dirty, no one is always going to play fair. For a lot of cops ( and I know them too well) they are nice guys to hang with, play golf together go the range together, scuba dive, they pin that tin to their chest its like turning of instant A-HOLE.
It would be a lot easier and a lot more simple if you made rules and reg and title 39 codes (nj) as simple as possible to follow that a chimp would understand and failure to follow or bend would be cause for dismissal.
I have said from the get go, we as citizens of the US are slowly giving up our rights in the name of safety of security from terrorism.
And the whole thing of “ if it saves one child” then we must do it. That’s a worm hole for cops to run a muck.
Its not so much hate and disrespect for authority as it is a lack of trust in our police. That lack of trust breeds hate and disrespect also. I can name at least one hundred incidents that happen in the crummy state faster then I could type.
Also a lot of parents today do not instill fear and respect in their kids. Kids know they can not be hit or disciplined and that equates to lack of respect for police.
Prime example, look at the black people who were shot in NY over a lack of control.
I defy anyone to say they would stand still and not try and drive or run away when gun shots are being fired. Cause they are liars.
Look at the Baltimore cop who was getting loud and physical with the kids who were skate boarding.
No need for that type of reaction.
If the worst those kids were doing is skate boarding then people need more fulfilling reasons in their lives.
If a kid was to get hurt skateboarding then the parents should not be allowed to sue. They were skateboarding there is an inherent danger to the sport, injuries happen. A judge would turn around and grant the lawsuit for what? because we are a sue happy country and want to make quick money.
Not realizing that a lawsuit raises the insurance rate and everyone suffers, because an insurance companies are not going to ever lose money if they don’t have to.
 

michaeltx

Moderator
I dont know about meth but the police have come to my door in suspected marijuana growing out fit because they licked up alot of heat regestering for my home. I had 1 tank with 2-250 MH and a tank with 2 300 watt MH lighting. O yeah BTW the same lighting we use on our tanks is also used in growing marijuana plants and put off the same heat signature.
after they come in and looked they left and marked my home off so that they wouldnt show up anymore when they read the heat signatures.
it is crazy though.
Mike
 

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by MichaelTX
http:///forum/post/2597495
I dont know about meth but the police have come to my door in suspected marijuana growing out fit because they licked up alot of heat regestering for my home. I had 1 tank with 2-250 MH and a tank with 2 300 watt MH lighting. O yeah BTW the same lighting we use on our tanks is also used in growing marijuana plants and put off the same heat signature.
after they come in and looked they left and marked my home off so that they wouldnt show up anymore when they read the heat signatures.
it is crazy though.
Mike
so they gave you an all clear to start growing marijuana????
 

michaeltx

Moderator
nope I am sure if the did a heat signature on my home and it was even higher they would have come back. That was in Texas though.
Mike
 
Top