Terry stops..........

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottom line:

Do NOT consent to a search of your vehicle, be polite.....but respond only to those questions required of you.

The situation posted above was nothing more than a "Fishing Expedition".

The quicker you shut it down....the faster you'll be on your way.
 
Do NOT consent to a search of your vehicle, be polite.....but respond only to those questions required of you.
Click to expand...
And don't believe any BS, from the police or from internet commandos, about how knowing and exercising your rights makes you "suspicious". The 4th and 5th Amendments aren't optional for the police. They don't have to like them, merely abide by them.

Cops will say things like that to get you to consent to something which you don't have to consent to. Posters on internet forums do it for a variety of reasons, including an apparent contempt for the Bill of Rights.
 
waldonbuddy said:
Thanks for the info, but how would I find out if the "stolen truck" reason was real, or just an excuse to question me? It sounded like a made up excuse to harrass me. I think the main reason they pulled me over was because of the beat up truck I was driving, not because they thought it was stolen.

Also, like I said I pulled into the Sonic, the cops drove all the way around the block then came back around with all the fanfare.
Click to expand...
Assuming you are accurate about the situation, he could have checked the VIN number if there really was a stolen truck involved. Would have taken no more then 60 seconds.

My guess is he just flat out lied about it. Not unusual.

Learn to say "I do not consent to any search". It won't matter most of the time. The court has gutted the 4th amendment to the point that any story made up after the fact is considered not "unreasonable".

In its latest travesty, the court said that if the cop can't get a voluntary consent to a search that the cop should just have the car towed and its OK to search the car before it is towed. It means that the most common response to a denial of a search request of a vehicle is going to be met with a very real threat of having the car towed.
 
In its latest travesty, the court said that if the cop can't get a voluntary consent to a search that the cop should just have the car towed and its OK to search the car before it is towed. It means that the most common response to a denial of a search request of a vehicle is going to be met with a very real threat of having the car towed.
Click to expand...
Towed on what basis?

Was it not drivable?

Was the driver intoxicated?

Why was the driver stopped in the first place?
 
Deanimator said:
Towed on what basis?

Was it not drivable?

Was the driver intoxicated?

Why was the driver stopped in the first place?
Click to expand...
The jury is still out so to speak, but it appears that towing a car is an administrative action subject to only low level scrutiny.

Keep in mind that there is a very long history of the courts allowing towing for virtually any reason. It would not be hard to make up something after the fact to "justify" it. And even if eventually the towing was found unjustified there is no real recourse, and regardless of the reason (or lack there of) for the towing, the fact is that the car was towed and searching it before towing it is allowed by the courts.

Its won't take LE real long to figure this out. I fully expect within a few years that the standard response to a refusal to allow a search of a car is first a threat to tow the car, and if that does not result in "permission", an actual tow.
 
Keep in mind that there is a very long history of the courts allowing towing for virtually any reason. It would not be hard to make up something after the fact to "justify" it. And even if eventually the towing was found unjustified there is no real recourse, and regardless of the reason (or lack there of) for the towing, the fact is that the car was towed and searching it before towing it is allowed by the courts.

Its won't take LE real long to figure this out. I fully expect within a few years that the standard response to a refusal to allow a search of a car is first a threat to tow the car, and if that does not result in "permission", an actual tow.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's nearly as easy as you think, nor is it likely to happen any place that has lawyers with an IQ higher than asparagus. By the time my lawyer got done with a cop that did that, he'd eat his own gun in the courthouse parking lot.

Let's see:

theft
conversion
any damages attendant to the towing

I don't see this happening.
 
I didn't mention EPWs as a type of Terry target, I was using them as a reference. When you search an EPW, the total time taken is maybe 1-2 minutes. Therefore, a Terry search should definitely take no longer than that, as it is legally required to be much less intrusive. So, I was saying that since I have no experience with a Terry-style patdown, I based my assumption of 30 seconds for a Terry search off of what I knew from my ROTC training exercises.

http://flexyourrights.org/
 
Guys, you're a bit off target with the towing premise.

If you pull someone over for a minor infraction, running a light for example, and then ask for consent to search and get a refusal, you cannot just tow the car and do an inventory search....c'mon total misinformation.
 
beatcop said:
Guys, you're a bit off target with the towing premise.

If you pull someone over for a minor infraction, running a light for example, and then ask for consent to search and get a refusal, you cannot just tow the car and do an inventory search....c'mon total misinformation.
Click to expand...
Why not? Cops force people to endure searches when there is no good reason on a pretty regular basis with virtual impunity. Once in a blue moon they go too far, or search the wrong person and 5 or 10 years down the road a court says they should not have done so.

But there is almost never any recompense to the injured party.

And the mere threat to have the car towed is what will encourage people to give their consent. It will take a few years before it becomes common, but it will.
 
ilbob said:
And the mere threat to have the car towed is what will encourage people to give their consent. It will take a few years before it becomes common, but it will.
Click to expand...

You have made some sweeping generalizations and predictions that are not based on fact. Current training doctrine is that the aforementioned scenario is a no-go.

The search incident to arrest/vehicle search scenarios were addressed at my last in-service training...actual training, not opinion based commentary.

There will always be some violation of some sort, some flagrant, some based on technicality, but to insinuate that police as a whole do as they please is reckless and inaccurate.

The tin-foil hat crew will always see an alleged rights violation behind every encounter. If you want ACTUAL facts, I'll offer up what I can. If you would rather indulge in speculation, I'll leave you to it.
 
There will always be some violation of some sort, some flagrant, some based on technicality, but to insinuate that police as a whole do as they please is reckless and inaccurate.
Click to expand...
I've already said I consider it highly improbable, not because of the goodness of anybody's motivations, but because nobody wants their family living in a refrigerator carton.

Such an action would be so UTTERLY indefensible that it's a guaranteed loser in court. It's akin to the legal carjackings which took place in Louisiana in the '90s via civil forfeiture, only with a probably local victim, close to home and the media and with lawyers lined up to flay the cop(s) and department alive. And since everywhere I've ever lived, towing was via civilian contractor, they've created a third party witness. What's the cop going to do, shoot the tow truck driver?

The only place I can see it happening is in Chicago, but with the theft of the car as the motivation and the search as an excuse. And I wouldn't consider it LIKELY even there.
 
You have made some sweeping generalizations and predictions that are not based on fact

you are new here get used to it it happens a lot
 
deanimator said:
...towing was via civilian contractor, they've created a third party witness
Click to expand...

The witness is irrelevant...you can't circumvent the case law. I will say that there are circumstances when a vehicle is impounded in a police yard and an inventory search is conducted, but this is not applicable in the scenario provided.

I've already said I consider it highly improbable, not because of the goodness of anybody's motivations, but because nobody wants their family living in a refrigerator carton.
Click to expand...

Cops and PD's get sued regularly, some would say it's part of the job. You are indemnified. Unless such behavior is willful, wanton, & negligent, there's no issue.
 
you are new here get used to it it happens a lot
Click to expand...
Just as there are a few people here who've had so many self-induced scrapes with the law that they're completely incapable of comprehending that there are other people who want nothing to do with the police and are highly offended by the attempts of some cops to drag them into "the system".
 
Cops and PD's get sued regularly, some would say it's part of the job. You are indemnified. Unless such behavior is willful, wanton, & negligent, there's no issue.
Click to expand...
Auto theft under color of law isn't "willful" and "wanton"?

In Ohio and Chicago to name two, they're NOT indemnified for punitive damages. If you don't believe me, ask Det. Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD. He shot an unarmed, unresisting, not under arrest man in the face while standing under a bank of security cameras, then lied about it. He's on the hook for some portion of the $12.5 million judgment the survivors won against him and the city.

Of course, I've already said that the scenario posed is highly unlikely anywhere but Chicago, and pretty unlikely there.
 
has anyone ever been tagged with "auto theft under color of law"? in real life i mean
Click to expand...
Has a cop done what was suggested was going to happen?

Probably not, not even in Chicago.

If one happened, as long as there were lawyers within ICBM distance, the other happened shortly thereafter.

You seem to be arguing that a cop COULD steal somebody's car for no reason AND get away with it.
 
deanimator said:
Auto theft under color of law isn't "willful" and "wanton"?
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this stuff? It's a FACT, with the scenario provided, you cannot get a good search. There is no towing.

"Auto theft" is so far out there, I can't leave it alone. There is no conversion of property, no attempt to deprieve one of goods permanently, no intent....
When your car is towed because you are unlicensed, no insurance, a DUI, parking issue, etc it goes to the tower's lot....pay the bill & get your car.


I looked at the vid of the Weems shooting, seems like poor training, etc...the guy didn't just walk up and shoot him, as the uninformed would surmise from your post.

I suspect the cop screwed up, he pulled out a gun when it wasn't needed and could not effect an arrest due to a variety of reasons. It appears he was negligent.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/04/weems.html

What this red herring has to do with the thread is beyond me.....
 
Where do you come up with this stuff? It's a FACT, with the scenario provided, you cannot get a good search. There is no towing.
Click to expand...
I never said it was a good search. In fact, I said it would never hold up and would be actionable. The person who said that it would, didn't come up with justification of the towing when asked.

That means that in the fact set posited:

The cop unlawfully has a vehicle towed in order to conduct an illegal search that won't hold up. That's a wrongful taking, a THEFT.

Even if he manages to get the car towed, evidence of a nuclear weapon in the car would probably get tossed.

Given that there was no justification for the car to be towed, AND it was done in order to violate somebody's civil rights, the cop's going to be PERSONALLY on the hook for damages, along with the city.
 
I suspect the cop screwed up, he pulled out a gun when it wasn't needed and could not effect an arrest due to a variety of reasons. It appears he was negligent.
Click to expand...
You think?

"Effect an arrest" for WHAT? Not only did Weems not attempt to arrest Pleasance, he never even CLAIMED that he tried to arrest Pleasance.

Of course you completely left out the part where he LIED about what happened.

The victim was shot with a Ruger SP101. Ruger revolvers are known for a lot of things. Their light, silky smooth double action trigger pulls aren't one of them. How do you ACCIDENTALLY shoot somebody with a double action revolver with the hammer down? I know I couldn't do it with my S&W Model 36.

Maybe the hammer was cocked.
Maybe the gun was dangerously modified.
Maybe the shooting was intentional.

We KNOW that what Weems claimed was a LIE.

Making excuses for this shooting, video of which has been analyzed like the Zapruder film, is not the way to win respect for the police.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Really good podcast on Terry stops and frisks.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Pat-inCO
P
J
  • Locked
Gun owners’ guide to the 4th Amendment: Stop and Frisk
Replies
11
Views
1K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
H
  • Locked
Terry v. Ohio versus Arizona v. Johnson - An expansion of Police Powers
Replies
13
Views
884
Sergeant Sabre
S
P
  • Locked
How should I go about this...?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
O
  • Locked
Are these merely Terry stops, or is this acceptable policing?
Replies
9
Views
938
revjen45
R
Back
Top