Foo - Some cops need to be stripped of their badge

Heres the story. I was in a hurry today to finish up in my friends shop afterschool, and in the rush to get out to do some work, I left my backpack inside. My friend noticed this and put it out front of the shop for me to pick up later. I call him at around 11 and let him know I will be popping by to pick it up, on the way over I pass a squad car and think nothing of it.

I pick up my backpack and start riding home, I pass the squad car again. A few seconds later he flashed his lights at me, I stopped and walked up to him expecting to be *****ed out for not having a helmet on. Instead, I was questioned for 35 god damn minutes about everything he could think of. He was rooting around in my pack, going through my school supplies when he pulls out my welding torch body, claiming its a piece of drug paraphernalia. Everything from a crackpipe to a tool for making meth. For **** sakes, it even says 'IOxygen Listed SA8316 Welding Torch 6Z22 VM-221' on the side of it. He eventually let me on my way, but the way he was talking down to me and treating me like some criminal pissed me off in a way I haven't been in a long time.

This is the torch that apparently I can smoke rock through :rolleyes::
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/wethepeople101/other%20stuff/100_1154.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/wethepeople101/other%20stuff/100_1155.jpg

He's been watching too much TV... he thought you were a drug runner! HAHAHA!

Sorry that the cops harrassed you. did you get his name and badge number? Report him to his Supervisor.

I got his rank and name, He'll be getting reported tomorrow. I don't want to sound like a dick on the phone right now, which I most certainly will because of my current mood...

Don't forget to follow that call up with a letter as well! The pen is mightier than the sword, is what my dad taught me.

Good luck!

The pen is mightier than the sword, is what my dad taught me.Then thank god for http://www.penisland.net/ !

Sorry that cop is a dick. Next time you should bring pepper spray.

Good god Mergatroid... I read that as Penis Land! :roflmao:

Good god Mergatroid... I read that as Penis Land! :roflmao:

Uh, me too. I was thinking it was a site to complain about Penis-heads.

me too :lol: (there's still something in me that says that must be a joke)

you must have missed the punch line

smoking crack through a welding torch how does that work??????????

I wonder what his "probable cause" was for performing the search? I'm not asking that to imply or accuse you of anything, but if there wasn't anything to qualify as probable cause, the officer might be in a bigger heap o'trouble than expected.

Wethepeople -

I'm not blaming you or saying what you did was wrong, but I do feel the need to inject some legal info into this thread to, hopefully, save you some frustration. From what you posted, it sounds like the cop was just doing his job and you experienced a fairly unremarkable stop.

I'm not giving anyone advice here. I don't have nearly enough facts about your experience to give you a definite answer as to what happened, legally speaking. But here's some general info that might help you understand what happened from a legal standpoint.

First, depending on where you live, picking up a backpack from in front of a house at night is extremely suspicious to a cop's eyes. Believe it or not, the cops need less in order to stop you in a "high drug" or "high crime" area than they do in areas not so designated, where they already need very little to stop you.

Next, is wearing a helmet mandatory where you live? If it is and you weren't, the cop had an easy reason to stop you. Having seen you pick up the backpack already, he has a convenient reason to stop you and ask you some questions. Now, you don't generally have to answer or allow him to search your bag without a warrant, but I think you did the right thing given the situation - i.e., simple explanation and nothing illegal going on.

Finally, the cop doesn't need probable cause to stop you. Reasonable suspicion is all he needs, and it's a very low, very flexible threshold. There's something called a Terry Stop that allows a cop to detain a person briefly to determine whether a crime has been committed, is going on, or is about to be committed. What you experienced would probably fit somewhere on the very low end of a Terry Stop. Also, given what you posted, the cop doesn't have to give you Miranda warnings b/c you weren't in custody.

Cops are not known for their winning personalities when on duty. I'm really sorry you had an unpleasant encounter. If you decide to contact the police, or anyone else, don't be surprised if your story evokes very little outrage.

Good god Mergatroid... I read that as Penis Land! :roflmao:
I read it as Jsharr Land.

If there ever is a next time, first thing, don't give him permission to root through your stuff. If he has probable cause, he'll do it anyway. If a cop asks for permission to search anything of yours, always say no (this from a former FBI agent, by the way, not any of my own paranoia!).

Next, if you've answered his basic questions and he starts going down the road this guy apparently took, tell him you have to go, and leave. Again, if he has cause to arrest and hold you, he will. Otherwise, if he's just on some power trip - as this guys sounds to have been - just leave.

Always be polite and respectful, but not subservient. Unless you've done something wrong, of course! :eek:

Believe it or not, the cops need less in order to stop you in a "high drug" or "high crime"

Hell, all you have to be is a Caucasian, and they'll stop you on the suspicion that you're a narcotics purchaser.

I guess that would be a case of DWW; 'Driving While White'.

See: NWA's "**** the police"

Good god Mergatroid... I read that as Penis Land! :roflmao:

lol, sounds like a great name for an amusement park :p

Good god Mergatroid... I read that as Penis Land! :roflmao:


Oh, I somehow knew this thread would be worth it! :lol:

WORST WEB ADDRESS EVER IN LIFE!:roflmao::roflmao:roflmao:roflmao:


Who advised them that was a good idea?:rolleyes:


:D

(And yes, both riding a bicycle and/or picking up bags is probable cause for a stop in MOST areas. Especially after the Centennial Park bombings and 9/11 + the War On Drugs.)

Well, in the cop's defense, I've known stoners to be pretty damn creative in what they make a pipe from.

Anything from the valving on an air compressor, to a gawldarn pumpkin.


"I'll take 'The Penis Mightier' for $1000, Alex."
"Mr. Connery, that's 'The Pen is Mightier'."

lol, sounds like a great name for an amusement park :p
Michael Jackson wanted to use it for his ranch, but his attorney's got him to go with Wonderland instead.

I can just see it, surfing the web at 3 AM, pants around ankles, tissue and lotion close by. Types in web address. "Hmmm, not exactly what I was looking for but that roller ball in tortoise shell is nice. I wonder if it comes in fine point?"

Neverland. ;)

I stand corrected. Try not to know too much about pedophile ethnicity shifting ex superstars.

To be honest, think about it from an objective point of view. How many 18/19 year olds carry welding components vs. the number that carry drugs or drug paraphernalia? Sure it would piss me off too, but I think that you should just put it behind you.

To be honest, think about it from an objective point of view. How many 18/19 year olds carry welding components vs. the number that carry drugs or drug paraphernalia? Sure it would piss me off too, but I think that you should just put it behind you.


He iz angry young man on u're internetz, stealing u're coffee break.

He iz angry young man on u're internetz, stealing u're coffee break.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2492/moar3ry.jpg

Skiahh beat me to it. Never ever give a cop permission to search your stuff. There is no reason to do that.

I stand corrected. Try not to know too much about pedophile ethnicity shifting ex superstars.
Awwww... Don't be hatin' transracial people.

Always be respectful to an officer but know your rights. Give him your pedigree if asked. Pedigree is name, address, and other info to establish who you are. Never volunteer information to an officer and never admit to wrong doing. Never give permission to an officer to conduct a search. If a search is conducted you politely say that you do not consent to the search but in no way try to stop it.

A Terry Stop allows an officer to make sure you have no weapons that would pose a danger to him or others. An officer is required to articulate why he felt a Terry Stop was necessary. You are not required to answer the officer's questions. Remember that you cannot be convicted for things you don't say.

It truly sounds like this officer was on a fishing expedition. File a complaint witht he local PD. If the situation leads to harassment contact the ACLU or an attorney. Wear your helmet if it is the law so as not to give anyone a reason to stop you.

Most police officers are decent people but every job has people who are bufoons. Sounds you ran into a Barney Fyfe or perennial rookie of the year. Good luck to you!


INFO:

1. Supporting the officer.Since Terry, this Court has steadily supported the authority of police officers to conduct various stops and frisks without the threat of undue judicial interference. One notable example is found in United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411 (1981). Cortez involved an investigative stop of a vehicle made after Border Patrol officers deduced, by observing various footprints at a border crossing, that groups of illegal aliens were being led across the border on foot and then transported further via vehicle. The officers used this deduction and their knowledge that certain types of vehicles are used to carry illegal aliens to stop defendant's vehicle. After conducting an immigration check, agents found six illegal aliens hiding in defendant's camper. Id., at 413-416.

The Cortez Court recognized that under Terry and other cases, this investigatory stop "must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity." Id., at 417. There were two criteria for making this decision. "First, the assessment must be based upon all of the circumstances. The analysis proceeds with various objective observations, information from police reports, if such are available, and consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers." Id., at 418. These data then allow officers to make inferences or deductions that an average person might be incapable of reaching. Ibid. "The second element . . . is the concept that the process just described must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing." Ibid.
The two requirements do not straitjacket the police. Behind the Cortez decision was the realization that this "process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities." Ibid. The officers' privilege to draw conclusions from a certain set of circumstances simply reflects what had long been common practice. "Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same -- and so are law enforcement officers." Ibid. Thus, the evidence collected and conclusions drawn "must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement." Ibid.
When viewed from this perspective, the action of the Border Patrol became readily acceptable. The Cortez Court reviewed each of the Border Patrol's observations and deductions and found the whole logical chain flawless. Id., at 419-421. "We see here the kind of police work often suggested by judges and scholars as examples of appropriate and reasonable means of law enforcement." Id., at 419.

The need for police to be able to do their jobs is recognized in other post-Terry cases. In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), Police Sergeant John Connally was driving alone on patrol duty when a person known to the sergeant approached the car and told him that a person seated in a nearby car was carrying narcotics and had a gun at his waist. Id., at 144-145. After calling for assistance, Sergeant Connally approached the vehicle and asked the occupant to leave the car. When the occupant rolled down the window, Sergeant Connally reached into the car to where he thought a gun would be, and took a loaded revolver from defendant's waistband. Id., at 145. In upholding this stop and frisk, the Adams Court emphasized the need to allow police to do their jobs.
"The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response." Ibid. (emphasis added). Part of an officer's job is ensuring his own safety while conducting his duties. Thus, an officer making a Terry stop "should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect." Id., at 146. Therefore, as Sergeant Connally properly responded to an informant's tip that the suspect was armed, he could search defendant for the weapon he suspected defendant of possessing. Id., at 147-148.
Terry's basis in common sense has allowed this Court to apply it to situations beyond those which first brought about the ruling. Terry initially dealt with street encounters where a police officer believed a crime was about to take place. Terry, supra, 392 U. S., at 30. Since then, Terry has been applied to Border Patrol checkpoints, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 566-567 (1976), automobile stops, Cortez, supra, 449 U. S., at 417, and "sniff tests" of airport luggage. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 702 (1983). Terry has been expanded to include investigation of crimes that have already been completed. United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229 (1985). The post-Terry decisions have also recognized that Terry is not just a method for allowing a law enforcement officer to protect himself. A general interest in law enforcement can be enough to justify a Terry stop. See Place, 462 U. S., at 703-704. The many different uses of Terry reiterates the practical essence of this decision.
2. Appropriate limits.

Terry does not, however, present police officials with a blank check. An officer can only stop a person after developing an articulable suspicion supported by facts that the person may be involved in some suspicious activity. See Terry, supra, 392 U. S., at 21. This is intended to prevent an officer from making Terry stops with unfettered discretion.

Time and again the cases in which this Court has invalidated Terry stops turned on whether an officer's justification for the stop sufficiently limited his discretion. Thus, in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), this Court castigated the police for making a stop for the sole reason that the suspect looked suspicious. Id., at 52. The primary reason behind the reversal was to limit the discretion of police officers. "A central concern in balancing these competing considerations in a variety of settings has been to assure that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of the officers in the field." Id., at 51 (emphasis added).

Another example of conduct exceeding the limits of Terry is found in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975). Here, Border Patrol agents operating a roving patrol for illegal immigrants stopped a car near the Mexican border with no justification except that the vehicle's occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent. Id., at 875. The Court rejected this as the sole justification for a Terry stop, as it placed too much discretion in the hands of Border Patrol officials.
"In the context of border area stops, the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment demands something more than the broad and unlimited discretion sought by the Government. . . . To approve roving-patrol stops of all vehicles in the border area, without any suspicion that a particular vehicle is carrying illegal immigrants, would subject the residents of these and other areas to potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers." Id., at 882 (emphasis added). Although it is clear that Terry's reasonable suspicion standard is intended to prevent the harassment associated with unfettered discretion, the exact limit the standard places on police is less clear. It is not a " 'finely-tuned standard[],' comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence." Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 696 (1996) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 235 (1983)). Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are instead "fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed." Ibid.
3. Innocence and suspicion.

This Court has established some guidelines broader than the particular facts of the case. The information supporting reasonable suspicion need not solely point to the suspect's criminality; evidence that has both illicit and innocent explanations may support reasonable suspicion. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 8-10 (1989) (paying for expensive airline tickets with cash, combined with other factors).

The type of proof demanded by the reasonable suspicion standard allows it to be supported by such ambiguous evidence. Instead of some quantum of proof such as the reasonable doubt or preponderance standards, the reasonable suspicion standard "requires some 'minimal level of objective justification' for making the stop." Id., at 7 (emphasis added) (quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 217 (1984)). "That level of suspicion that is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence." Ibid.
Rather than the level of proof, reasonable suspicion is concerned with finding some specific objective fact or facts supporting an inference of criminality. Objectivity is the hallmark of the Fourth Amendment, a fact noted by the Terry Court. See Terry, supra, 392 U. S., at 21, n. 18. By being objective and centered on the detainee's potential criminality, reasonable suspicion helps to prevent the harassment that was the central concern of the Terry Court, while its "minimal" level of suspicion allows police to investigate suspicious activity without fear of undue judicial interference.

In re Tony C., 21 Cal. 3d 888, 582 P. 2d 957 (1978) demonstrates this point. The California Supreme Court first provides an excellent summary of what Terry requires:
"[T]he courts have concluded that in order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience [citation], to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question." Id., at 893, 582 P. 2d, at 959 (citation and footnote omitted). This decision then gives further substance to reasonable suspicion when it rejects the notion that only unambiguously suspicious behavior supports a Terry stop. "Indeed, the principal function of [the officer's] investigation is to resolve that very ambiguity and establish whether the activity is in fact legal or illegal . . . ." Id., at 894, 585 P. 2d, at 960. This reinforces Terry's role as an investigative tool. A decision so closely tied to the core of police work requires a deferential standard. That standard is defined by what Terry seeks to prevent.
"The citizen's undoubted interest in freedom from abuse of this procedure is protected--so far as it is within the law's power to do so--by the correlative rule that no stop or detention is permissible when the circumstances are not reasonably 'consistent with criminal activity' and the investigation is therefore based on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch." Ibid. Therefore, reasonable suspicion is satisfied by no more evidence than that necessary to raise the officer's suspicion beyond "mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch." What matters is not the level of suspicion, but the existence of some articulable fact and an objectively reasonable, but minimal, inference of possible criminality. So long as there is some suspicion beyond the level of a hunch or rumor then the threat of harassment is averted, and Terry is satisfied. Terry was decided with the recognition that the police encounter many difficult situations when working in the field. The needs of the police and the rights of individuals are balanced by allowing relatively unintrusive stops and frisks so long as some legitimate law enforcement goal justifies the intrusion. The only requirement is that the officer have some reasonable suspicion that the suspect is engaged in some suspicious activity. Terry is a practical case and it should be used in a practical manner. So long as the officer's discretion is sufficiently limited and the purpose of his actions are properly related to legitimate law enforcement goals, courts should not second-guess decisions made by officers in the field.

http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/wrdlw2.htm

Lots of information and advice on this thread.

If you're really going to file anything of any use, you need a lawyer who can advise you, especially as to your state's constitution and laws. Your state's constitution and laws may provide greater protections than those found at the federal level. If you want to pursue anything, you might want to do it sooner rather than later just in case you face any statutes of limitation.

I have no doubt the experience was unpleasant, but sometimes people are jerks, especially when they're in a position of authority and a "big bust" vaporizes in their face. I think that's enough out of me. Good night and good luck.

Wow, good information and advice from PATH.

Definitely if you feel you were wronged or if you feel your rights were violated in some way file a complaint. At the very least you should get a better explanation of what was going in the area that he felt he needed to detain you for such a long time. If there was no real justification other than his general suspicion of you than he was obviously in the wrong.

My advice and request of you is to not hold this incident against every other cop you see. Most cops really are good people who care deeply about their communities and the people in them, but just like every other profession there are some jackasses out there. It is tough for me to admit that, but it's true. Take it for what it is, an isolated incident. Try to get some satisfaction for yourself if you like, but in the end just blow it off. It is not worth being angry about forever.

BTW, If I ever see you around where I work I might stop and chat with you just to see if you will let me ride your super cool tallboy :D

Report him to your local Office of Citizen Complaints or similar if available. A few years ago a cop harassed me and it made me feel a lot better going down to the OCC office and reporting the incident. The idiot in question ultimately had to go to the OCC office and discuss what he did and was reprimanded for several of his actions. Not sure what ever, if anything, happened to him with his superiors, but as I said reporting the whole incident and having another human tell me the cops actions were inappropriate made me feel better. Also thinking about the jerk having to sit in front of someone and answer some questions of his own made it a bit better!~!