Three officers showing up excessive? Maybe...but we have no idea how the call was dispatched. It's all going to depend on what the bus company dispatcher told the 911 operator. Given that this started with a verbal altercation with the bus driver, it's highly possible that the call went out that there was an intoxicated driver blocking a bus in and cussing out the bus driver. If that was how it was dispatched, then 3 officers probably wouldn't be an excessive show of force. You never know what you're getting into on a call like that. It could be an incident like you experienced, but it just have easily been a real drunk or EDP who was actually causing a disturbance. Better to have help you don't need then need help and have to wait for it.
I think alduro covered the CCW thing well. No CCW in Illinois so it's not something I deal with.
As for the search. First off everyone has to remember that there are different standards in different jurisdictions. Just because a search may have been ruled unconstitutional by a state or federal appellate court, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional outside of that court's jurisdiction. Only a ruling by the state supreme court makes a decision the law state wide and only a ruling by the USSC makes it the law of the land. Now if a person wants to challenge the search, he may use those other decisions to try to get the court in his jurisdiction to rule in his favor, but they don't have to. Conflicting rulings may be grounds to get a supreme court to look at the case, but again that isn't a lock either.
I'm sure that if challenged the officers could say that they were doing a Terry search of the interior of the car. They were called to the scene to investigate a crime, (drunk driver causing a disturbance, DUI and assault at a minimum where I work) they had reason to believe their safety was at risk (report of driver yelling at bus driver), this would allow them to make a quick search for additional weapons in areas under the driver's immediate control. Entering the glovebox wouldn't be ok in some jurisdictions, but might in others as long as it wasn't locked. I'll have to look through the search and seizure updates when I get a spare minute at work.
The seizure of the scanner? It was in plain view. The scanner, the gun (both legally possessed) and the complaint against the driver all add up to reasonable suspicion that there may be something else involved and give the officers reason to ask further questions about the scanner. But as was mentioned before, you're under no obligation to answer them. For all the responding officers knew DunedinDragon could have been the lookout for a burglar or armed robbery gang. I agree they might have asked to see the scanner instead of just grabbing it.
DunedinDragon, you were victimized, not by the police, but by the bus driver who called in the complaint.
Jeff
I think alduro covered the CCW thing well. No CCW in Illinois so it's not something I deal with.
As for the search. First off everyone has to remember that there are different standards in different jurisdictions. Just because a search may have been ruled unconstitutional by a state or federal appellate court, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional outside of that court's jurisdiction. Only a ruling by the state supreme court makes a decision the law state wide and only a ruling by the USSC makes it the law of the land. Now if a person wants to challenge the search, he may use those other decisions to try to get the court in his jurisdiction to rule in his favor, but they don't have to. Conflicting rulings may be grounds to get a supreme court to look at the case, but again that isn't a lock either.
I'm sure that if challenged the officers could say that they were doing a Terry search of the interior of the car. They were called to the scene to investigate a crime, (drunk driver causing a disturbance, DUI and assault at a minimum where I work) they had reason to believe their safety was at risk (report of driver yelling at bus driver), this would allow them to make a quick search for additional weapons in areas under the driver's immediate control. Entering the glovebox wouldn't be ok in some jurisdictions, but might in others as long as it wasn't locked. I'll have to look through the search and seizure updates when I get a spare minute at work.
The seizure of the scanner? It was in plain view. The scanner, the gun (both legally possessed) and the complaint against the driver all add up to reasonable suspicion that there may be something else involved and give the officers reason to ask further questions about the scanner. But as was mentioned before, you're under no obligation to answer them. For all the responding officers knew DunedinDragon could have been the lookout for a burglar or armed robbery gang. I agree they might have asked to see the scanner instead of just grabbing it.
DunedinDragon, you were victimized, not by the police, but by the bus driver who called in the complaint.
Jeff
