Johnson County at it again....

[Kutnupe14]

im gonna keep that in mind. if i see a butt pulling cop with pc in one hand and crack dust in the other ill know which side hes on.

Don't forget the tale-tell goose step. And if he says, at any point '''Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Furher," run!

 

[serpicostraight]

Don't forget the tale-tell goose step. And if he says, at any point '''Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Furher," run!

if he goose steps and i duck walk will he think were from the same flock and leave me alone?

 

[Hawkeye]

Exactly

Hey, I've got an idea! Maybe, just maybe, the police should respect rights instead of forcing folks to assert them? I know it seems to be a unique idea, but what if police just tried that for a change? Do you think that police might start getting more respect and acceptance from the citizenry that the supposedly are sworn "protect and defend"?

Could we have the start of a movement here? Police following the Constitution instead of going off on "fishing expeditions"?

Next time your "spidey sense tingles" or whatever, why not get a warrant if you have probable cause and if you don't then "just move along here, nothing to see"?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hey, I've got an idea! Maybe, just maybe, the police should respect rights instead of forcing folks to assert them? I know it seems to be a unique idea, but what if police just tried that for a change? Do you think that police might start getting more respect and acceptance from the citizenry that the supposedly are sworn "protect and defend"?

Could we have the start of a movement here? Police following the Constitution instead of going off on "fishing expeditions"?

Next time your "spidey sense tingles" or whatever, why not get a warrant if you have probable cause and if you don't then "just move along here, nothing to see"?

Uh, I'd be curious to know what rights have not been respected or how an officer runs afoul of the Constitution, by simply asking to search a vehicle.

 

[Keyser Soze]

On rare occasion I do go fishing if my spidy sense is tingling. I will ask for consent....Get it roughly 80% of the time, and always find something.

That being said few people get grilled over a traffic infraction.

That being said I hardly run traffic.

I respond to citizen complaints and patrol.

 

[Hawkeye]

Exactly

Uh, I'd be curious to know what rights have not been respected or how an officer runs afoul of the Constitution, by simply asking to search a vehicle.

Its really very, very simple. I'm going to assume that you really don;t understand and are not being totally disingenuous with you statement/question.

When a uniformed police officer stops someone at a traffic stop, its more likely than not that its a new, unique and probably scary situation for the "citizen" but a "routine" thing for the officer. The "citizen is probably scared, worried and concerned - probably does not know that they did something wrong. And, hey, maybe they didn't do anything wrong. Maybe a brake or taillight just happened to burn out.

The police officer is in a position of power and authority. The "citizen" is just wanting to get on about their business. Its not an "equal" situation at all. I see your asking them for permission to search their car as totally overreaching and intrusive even through they can "just say no". They are probably afraid that if they do assert their Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, that you'll be able to arrest them and haul them off to jail. They may not even realize that they have that right.

If you really think you have a need to violate that person's privacy and search their vehicle, AND you have probable cause, then do the right thing. Get a warrant and do the search. Don;t hide behind your badge and "badger" Joe (or Joleen) Sixpack into letting you do something that they don't need to do.

Understand now? Show some respect for the people you are supposed to be serving.

 

[brotherbill3]

"I know Indiana has reciprocity with Minnesota and that I am NOT required to inform him."

FYI, Indiana recognizes ALL valid permits from other states. Too bad MN doesn't return the favor. As a MN resident, maybe you could let your representatives know that true reciprocity would be a nice thing to consider. Just sayin'...

I know huh. IN is actually the ONLY state that recognizes all other states. In MN as liberal as they are, we're lucky we even got the permit to carry a pistol passed. We have to go through a full day of classroom with a skills test at the end just to apply for it, but no fingerprinting. I've noticed that fingerprinting is a big thing for many states reciprocity, a LOT of states will not even consider it with a state that doesn't require prints.

TJ - Thanks for the details; clears up my Q?.... I was wondering if you had IN plates / Drivers Lic and MN's LTCH/CCW (don't know what they call it). Indiana DOES recognize ALL other state permits - BUT not if you are an IN resident (then you have to have the IN LTCH) - that's what wasn't clear.

Otherwise I'd say you may be right - The LEO didn't know about the MN CCW reciprocity and / or he was 'fishing' ... or something; Could be he was having an off night. I.e. I know an LEO that won't disarm most of the time, unless someone / something gets his 'spideysense' going ... maybe this gusys 'spideysense' was off. I'm not saying he was right.

I guess I ride the fence on the whole issue. Family and friends are LEO, I want them home safely. I know they support LTCH/CCW and I've heard of them doing both ends (i.e. Leave it where it is to taken and unloaded.)

Sorry I don't see this as an aboslute issue on EITHER side, and in a less than perfect world I don't think it can be or should be. (which is why I usually ignore these threads). I think you handled it well.

 

[Hawkeye]

On rare occasion I do go fishing if my spidy sense is tingling. I will ask for consent....Get it roughly 80% of the time, and always find something.

...

I guess what you are saying is "the end justifies the means", eh?

Since you "always find something", you feel justified in backing folks into a corner and coercing them into consenting?

 

[AJBB87]

I guess what you are saying is "the end justifies the means", eh?

Since you "always find something", you feel justified in backing folks into a corner and coercing them into consenting?

Isn't it the citizens responsibility to know their own rights?

 

[Hawkeye]

Isn't it the citizens responsibility to know their own rights?

Sure. And if they police want a totally adversarial situation then keep on forcing folks to "assert" their rights. Cops constantly pushing and crossing the line creates bad citizen relations.

 

[AJBB87]

Sure. And if they police want a totally adversarial situation then keep on forcing folks to "assert" their rights. Cops constantly pushing and crossing the line creates bad citizen relations.

Asking to search isn't crossing a line.

Do you prefer a more REactive approach to police work or a PROactive approach to police work?

While citizen relations are very important, any cop should be aware of the current mentality towards law enforcement. Sometimes you just have to do your job.

 

[Hawkeye]

Asking to search isn't crossing a line.

Do you prefer a more REactive approach to police work or a PROactive approach to police work?

While citizen relations are very important, any cop should be aware of the current mentality towards law enforcement. Sometimes you just have to do your job.

I've already explained why I believe it does in many situations cross or at lest push the line.

I'd prefer that police not violate the Constitution. It can be done you know.

The "us versus them attitude that you exhibit is what causes the problem. Not a result. Keep it up and see what happens.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

TJ - Thanks for the details; clears up my Q?.... I was wondering if you had IN plates / Drivers Lic and MN's LTCH/CCW (don't know what they call it). Indiana DOES recognize ALL other state permits - BUT not if you are an IN resident (then you have to have the IN LTCH) - that's what wasn't clear.

Otherwise I'd say you may be right - The LEO didn't know about the MN CCW reciprocity and / or he was 'fishing' ... or something; Could be he was having an off night. I.e. I know an LEO that won't disarm most of the time, unless someone / something gets his 'spideysense' going ... maybe this gusys 'spideysense' was off. I'm not saying he was right.

I guess I ride the fence on the whole issue. Family and friends are LEO, I want them home safely. I know they support LTCH/CCW and I've heard of them doing both ends (i.e. Leave it where it is to taken and unloaded.)

Sorry I don't see this as an aboslute issue on EITHER side, and in a less than perfect world I don't think it can be or should be. (which is why I usually ignore these threads). I think you handled it well.

I am a MN resident with a MN CDL class A and a MN permit to carry a pistol. The truck I was driving is not mine it belongs to an IN resident and has IN plates. It is not a crime or even PC for me to drive someone elses vehicle. I find it funny how this guy wasted his time, maybe he thought he could find something as most do, but I AM NOT a criminal. I am a law abiding citizen. I actually hope it pisses this guy off that he couldn't find anything. Today after sleeping on it, I am a bit more bothered by the fact that this guy even thought he would find anything. Based on my CDL and my Permit to carry I likely know the laws better than he does and in more places. The scrutiny we undergo just having a CDL should tell him I'm not going to yield any fish for his cooler, then when you add my permit to carry......I have some suspicions of perhaps favors being done by the LEO in this case. The pres of the HOA where the wifes house (uncles estate) is located, works for the city of greenwood, has a lot of leo buddies, is a volunteer firefighter, etc...A big part of the reason the estate is still open is due to the fact that the HOA is making trouble over some silly crap and never got along with the family. I wish I could link the two by evidence somehow, I would certainly file suit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Its really very, very simple. I'm going to assume that you really don;t understand and are not being totally disingenuous with you statement/question.

When a uniformed police officer stops someone at a traffic stop, its more likely than not that its a new, unique and probably scary situation for the "citizen" but a "routine" thing for the officer. The "citizen is probably scared, worried and concerned - probably does not know that they did something wrong. And, hey, maybe they didn't do anything wrong. Maybe a brake or taillight just happened to burn out.

The police officer is in a position of power and authority. The "citizen" is just wanting to get on about their business. Its not an "equal" situation at all. I see your asking them for permission to search their car as totally overreaching and intrusive even through they can "just say no". They are probably afraid that if they do assert their Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, that you'll be able to arrest them and haul them off to jail. They may not even realize that they have that right.

If you really think you have a need to violate that person's privacy and search their vehicle, AND you have probable cause, then do the right thing. Get a warrant and do the search. Don;t hide behind your badge and "badger" Joe (or Joleen) Sixpack into letting you do something that they don't need to do.

Understand now? Show some respect for the people you are supposed to be serving.

Show some respect? Get a warrant when PC already exist? You have me thoroughly confused.

Are you implying that most people are ignorant of their rights, and that I, as a police officer, should take that into consideration while doing business? If so bro, that's not the way the world works. It would be nice if every bad guy had a flashing purple light blinking above their heads, but such isnt the case.

Bad guys and gals often don't look the part, so for everyone else, being pro-active, within the confines of the Constitution, is acceptable. Sorry, I'm not in the business of hand-holding someone into understanding the Bill of Rights. If they don't know their rights, they do not, legitimately, care for their rights. The spirit of the intentions of the Founders is lost on their part.

My authority has clear limits, know what they are. If you're scared, because I'm wearing a gun and have a badge, that's on you. I, and a great many officers like me, are often respectful to a fault, and will always defer to your Constitutionally provided rights, should you express them, that still does not change how we are expected to serve the public (obviously within the confines of law).

In conclusion, this thread is exactly why our nation has fallen on the hard times it has. People have become too thin skinned. There was a time that people relished their rights and actively sought to challenge those that would take them away. Today, people willingly "roll over like a log" and then have the audacity to complain about their rights being trampled.

Let me be clear, I am a firm supporter of people exercising their rights. Please do. I get a chuckle every time a guy tells me "no" when I ask for a consent search... he knows his rights, and I gladly accept his expression of them. To the people that don't know their rights.... don't point the finger at LE due to their ignorance. Inform and educate oneself about the rights given to you by the Founders, and which you should have learned in grade school...

 

[AJBB87]

I've already explained why I believe it does in many situations cross or at lest push the line.

That still does not make it unconstitutional to "ask" for consent.

I'd prefer that police not violate the Constitution. It can be done you know.

Absolutely it's done, they do not violate the Constitution all the time... That's why we have jails and prisons and court rooms.
That's not what I asked.

The "us versus them attitude that you exhibit is what causes the problem. Not a result. Keep it up and see what happens.

You're saying the police are the problem, correct? If the cops would stay at the station until they are called upon by a citizen, then everything would be OK?

If cops would only speak when spoken to then everything would be OK?

If anything, the "us vs them" attitude is perpetuated by BOTH sides.

.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Show some respect? Get a warrant when PC already exist? You have me thoroughly confused.

Are you implying that most people are ignorant of their rights, and that I, as a police officer, should take that into consideration while doing business? If so bro, that's not the way the world works. It would be nice if every bad guy had a flashing purple light blinking above their heads, but such isnt the case.

Bad guys and gals often don't look the part, so for everyone else, being pro-active, within the confines of the Constitution, is acceptable. Sorry, I'm not in the business of hand-holding someone into understanding the Bill of Rights. If they don't know their rights, they do not, legitimately, care for their rights. The spirit of the intentions of the Founders is lost on their part.

My authority has clear limits, know what they are. If you're scared, because I'm wearing a gun and have a badge, that's on you. I, and a great many officers like me, are often respectful to a fault, and will defer to you Constitutionally provide rights, should you express them, that still does not change how we are expected to serve the public (obviously within the confines of law).

In conclusion, this thread is exactly why our nation has fallen on the hard times it has. People have become too thin skinned. There was a time that people relished their rights and actively sought to challenge those that would take them away. Today, people willingly "roll over like a log" and then have the audacity to complain about their rights being trampled.

Let me be clear, I am a firm supporter of people exercising their rights. Please do. I get a chuckle every time a guy tells me "no" when I ask for a consent search... he knows his rights, and I gladly accept his expression of them. To the people that don't know their rights.... don't point the finger at LE due to their ignorance. Inform and educate oneself about the rights given to you by the Founders, and which you should have learned in grade school...

The only issue I really have with this post is the fact that we the people dont get paid to sit in classes instructing us how to prevent those that do get paid for sitting in classes from violating our rights. LEOs are paid for training in tactics used to evade our rights, tactics developed by paid psychologists and psychometrists. Perhaps when an officer asks if he can search a vehicle, he should be required to be honest and up front? Like, "hey there joe citizen, I have no PC to do so and you have the right to refuse without threat of recourse, but do you mind if I rummage through your car and try to find a reason to arrest you?". I mean an LEO expects us to be forward, open and honest with them while being deceptive and misleading all the while.

 

[Hawkeye]

This thread clearly illustrates why I always tell folks never, ever, talk to the police. Never, ever, consent to a search or test.

And with that, I'm going to take my own advice on this thread. Some folk have obviously been to popogandized with their own power to be reached.

 

[AJBB87]

This thread clearly illustrates why I always tell folks never, ever, talk to the police. Never, ever, consent to a search or test.

Why isn't that part of drivers ed?

 

[Keyser Soze]

I guess what you are saying is "the end justifies the means", eh?

Since you "always find something", you feel justified in backing folks into a corner and coercing them into consenting?

I never said anything about coercing. Any coerced consent is in fact not consent. Anything seized will be suppressed in court. Fruit of the poisonous tree. Not only will charges not be filled but you will look silly. Lose credibility.

If I had a gut feeling the person I had stopped was up to no good or had something illegal in the vehicle WHY IN THE HELL would I not make an attempt to get consent to search. Maybe he is on his way to kick your door in and rape your wife...or life partner? Maybe he is on his way to sell your teenager heroin that they would have overdosed on?

Bottom line folks I have a job to do. Few of you understand. You go wherever the media takes you, forming your opinions on bias information. Let me explain it to you like this.

Lets say you worked quality control at a factory inspecting widgets. Most widgets are good and you send them along. Every now and then you come a crossed a widget that is not obviously defective but something is off. You have came a crossed enough of these widgets to know sometimes they will explode in childrens faces when they play with the widgets, sometimes they may not. You can hold the assembly line and take a even closer look at the widget and ensure that it is indeed safe. Or send it along. It is indeed my job to take a closer look.

You would not show up to work as a truck driver, janitor and refuse to drive or clean? Why would you show up to a job protecting and serving and refuse to protect? Because a few new world order Illuminati end of the world guys watched some youtube videos and read some stuff on www.copsaresatan.com? Not me.

 

[youngda9]

If I had a gut feeling the person I had stopped was up to no good or had something illegal in the vehicle WHY IN THE HELL would I not make an attempt to get consent to search.

I can understand this line of thinking...but the line of thinking below that you are somehow a richeous savior of humanity, and can justify harassing guys line the OP who did nothing wrong IS the problem here. Some cops get off on their power and can use ideas like what you say below to justify virtually ANYTHING in your mind, your boss's mind, and the DA's mind.

Maybe he is on his way to kick your door in and rape your wife...or life partner? Maybe he is on his way to sell your teenager heroin that they would have overdosed on?

Trampling one's rights, in order to (supposedly, well maybe) "protect" another from some hypothetical scenario. I say thank you but NO NO NO.

BTW, the supreme court ruled that the police have no duty to "protect", so you can scrape that word off the side of your car, and put of your mind.