Westfield PD Extreme Traffic Stop- Teens

[jsharmon7]

Correct. Why would the average Joe think the prosecutor would side with them over a cop?

In the context of kutnupe's post that you quoted, that's not what he was saying. Calling any search by a male officer of a female suspect "molestation" would be inaccurate and would go nowhere with the prosecutor. If there was truly molestation going on, they would definitely look into it. You would need some sort of details other than "well he's a male officer and he searched a female."

 

[littletommy]

In the context of kutnupe's post that you quoted, that's not what he was saying. Calling any search by a male officer of a female suspect "molestation" would be inaccurate and would go nowhere with the prosecutor. If there was truly molestation going on, they would definitely look into it. You would need some sort of details other than "well he's a male officer and he searched a female."

Ok, I'll give you that. I'm going by what the OP posted, and nothing more. I do realize that there are instances where female officers are not available, and I realize that a male officer patting down a female is not strictly taboo, and I'm not saying it should be. As I said in an earlier post, You should be sure you are right when going into court. My comments here are based solely on what the OP stated, and as described, if I were that girls father, I'd be extremely pissed. The cop saying he smelled it as they drove by is preposterous, which, as has been alluded to here already, makes these two teens seem to be perfect candidates for a serious distrust of LEOs. Defending a cop who practices this type of "law enforcement", is beyond me (once again, based on what the OP stated).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, I'll give you that. I'm going by what the OP posted, and nothing more. I do realize that there are instances where female officers are not available, and I realize that a male officer patting down a female is not strictly taboo, and I'm not saying it should be. As I said in an earlier post, You should be sure you are right when going into court. My comments here are based solely on what the OP stated, and as described, if I were that girls father, I'd be extremely pissed. The cop saying he smelled it as they drove by is preposterous, which, as has been alluded to here already, makes these two teens seem to be perfect candidates for a serious distrust of LEOs. Defending a cop who practices this type of "law enforcement", is beyond me (once again, based on what the OP stated).

Again, the OP never states the sex of the officer that patted down the girl. And Westfield has several female officers.

 

[long coat]

Again, the OP never states the sex of the officer that patted down the girl. And Westfield has several female officers.

You need to reread the OP. He did state the sex.

 

[ryknoll3]

I'm not sure where our how to post this.

My 17 year old son and his 17 year old girlfriend were stopped last night just after midnight up in Westfield, In. She just left work and picked him up at our house and were heading to get something to eat. Both kids were sober, etc. The girl was driving. Plan was to get some burgers and then come back to our house. Curfew is technically 11pm on Fridays, except if you are coming from work or a school event....but I told them to get the chow and come right back... Let's say 1230 at the latest. I even offered to go with them...but, hey I was 17 once too! So, off they go.

About 1230 I get a call from my son telling me they have been stopped by WPD on suspicion of using marijuana. The officer had him call me and verbally tell me that they were "suspicious". The officer allegedly smelled pot as they drove by in downtown Westfield. Followed and pulled them over. Searched the car. Put my son IN CUFFS, and sat him on the curb all the while cursing them from taking up his time with "stupid pot stops". He found nothing after really going through the girl's car and trunk. The girl's mother (we know her too) went to the scene and followed the 2 home to our house. Both kids were clear-eyed and did not smell of anything! I sniffed my son's hair- nothing. Just smelled of shampoo. The car was fine- no stale, funky, pot-smoke smell. Same with the girl.

Now my son is no angel, but last night he was. The girl said she was groped pretty well by the WPD as he patted her down for weapons and contraband. My son said the officer kept saying, "where is it? I know you have some pot here! I'll find it if it takes all night- up to you two as to when you go home, so you better tell me now!" And he kept getting more upset. My son said later that he though the guy was kind of unstable (?)

Is it me or are there LEO's with a mission to catch teens? I felt bad for my son because I could not smell anything on them both that would hint of pot or booze for that matter. WTF as they say...

I did tell my son- you just can't be out past midnight anymore. I guess if you are a teen, driving after midnight, you will get stopped.

I have a friend, who happens to be black, who was stopped in Carmel a few weeks ago, "DWB", driving-while-black. So I guess now it's "DWT", driving-while-teen!

Any LEO's on here?- tell me why I shouldn't be pi$$ed off.

Pappy

He did allude to the gender of the officer several times. The whole stop sounds like a bunch of crap to me, if the OP is to be taken at his word. The "I smell pot" PC is another joke because there's no way to EVER prove that the cop was wrong. He doesn't find anything and it's, "Oops, must've been another car." or "Well you probably had something before." or like the trekkies in the Probable Cause thread, "Oh, you have marijuana 'shakings' on the floor."

This "war on drugs" has certainly given a lot of excuses to violate people's 4th amendment rights.

How in the world would you EVER fight this? Make a complaint? Cop tells his boss I smelled pot, I thought it was that car. End of story. There's no way to EVER prove that a cop who decides to "smell pot" was wrong. It pretty much gives them carte blanche to do what they want.

 

[KG1]

You need to reread the OP. He did state the sex.

^This^ the OP stated that "he patted her down" also the OP stated the age of the female as being 17. You sure you're reading the same OP Kut?

 

[IndyBeerman]

Yep, if you smell marijuana, the car is yours...
(no consent needed)

Ya, be the one to walk up to my vehicle and give me the "I smell marijuana"
I'll step out, lock the doors and throw the keys in while shutting the door and make you get a search warrant, because I have not, nor ever will smoke anything including cigarettes.

You're not going on a fishing expedition without costing you and the department some $$$'s.

I had this game played on me by Greenwood PD back when I was 20, homie don't play that game.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Ya, be the one to walk up to my vehicle and give me the "I smell marijuana"
I'll step out, lock the doors and throw the keys in while shutting the door and make you get a search warrant, because I have not, nor ever will smoke anything including cigarettes.

You're not going on a fishing expedition without costing you and the department some $$$'s.

I had this game played on me by Greenwood PD back when I was 20, homie don't play that game.

I have too... good old greenwood messed my car up.

 

[long coat]

He did allude to the gender of the officer several times. The whole stop sounds like a bunch of crap to me, if the OP is to be taken at his word. The "I smell pot" PC is another joke because there's no way to EVER prove that the cop was wrong. He doesn't find anything and it's, "Oops, must've been another car." or "Well you probably had something before." or like the trekkies in the Probable Cause thread, "Oh, you have marijuana 'shakings' on the floor."

This "war on drugs" has certainly given a lot of excuses to violate people's 4th amendment rights.

How in the world would you EVER fight this? Make a complaint? Cop tells his boss I smelled pot, I thought it was that car. End of story. There's no way to EVER prove that a cop who decides to "smell pot" was wrong. It pretty much gives them carte blanche to do what they want.

First you ask the LEO if there were any other cars around, if he/she said no, then hand them a drug test from the people in the car.

 

[ryknoll3]

First you ask the LEO if there were any other cars around, if he/she said no, then hand them a drug test from the people in the car.

... and then he goes back to the "Well, you must've had something in there before." or "Someone else rode with you another time who was using marijuana."

Thing is, there's no way to prove that he didn't smell something. Unless they impounded your car, and while it was in their custody you could prove that it had no substances or odor of any substances in it, they'd simply claim that you cleaned up the vehicle and you'd be dead in the water.

 

[cobber]

Ya, be the one to walk up to my vehicle and give me the "I smell marijuana"
I'll step out, lock the doors and throw the keys in while shutting the door and make you get a search warrant, because I have not, nor ever will smoke anything including cigarettes.

You're not going on a fishing expedition without costing you and the department some $$$'s.

I had this game played on me by Greenwood PD back when I was 20, homie don't play that game.

Oddly enough, fishing expeditions often yield fish. If they didn't, officers would take up a different pastime. If fewer folks carried their stuff in their cars, we wouldn't have all these traffic stops and esoteric exceptions to the warrant requirement.

 

[lashicoN]

Yep, if you smell marijuana, the car is yours...
(no consent needed)

And after the car is yours and you search it based on the pretense that you smelled the (whatever has been banished by the people who know what's best for the rest), if you turn up nothing in your search, other than a gigantic mistake, then you should be fired. Or if we're in my ideal reality, you should be executed by a firing squad for treason against the people of the United States and Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless you catch a whiff of cannabis, in which case it is obviously permitted to inconvenience the people to search their effects to find the devil weed. Also, dogs shall cancel out this amendment.

Can anyone spot the part of Amendment IV that doesn't belong? Seriously, laws are made to balance things, or at least they used to be. When the norm is for a law enforcer to lie to your face and violate the Constitution, what do they expect we'll do? Sit on our hands and take it? Maybe for a generation or two. I'm tired of being inconvenienced and hearing about other people's inconveniences by the people who are supposed to be protecting us and our property. Kids going out to get a burger aren't a threat to me. People smoking cannabis aren't a threat to me. Go sit in your police station, we'll call you when we need something to be done sloppily and late.

Thing is, there's no way to prove that he didn't smell something. Unless they impounded your car, and while it was in their custody you could prove that it had no substances or odor of any substances in it, they'd simply claim that you cleaned up the vehicle and you'd be dead in the water.

Isn't the fact that he didn't find anything after searching it proof? If I go to the ER and claim I was shot three times, and they can't find any blood, bullet holes, or anything out of the ordinary, isn't that proof that I wasn't shot three times?

 

[IndyBeerman]

Oddly enough, fishing expeditions often yield fish. If they didn't, officers would take up a different pastime. If fewer folks carried their stuff in their cars, we wouldn't have all these traffic stops and esoteric exceptions to the warrant requirement.

NO they do not often yield fish, they fish in an attempt to manufacture PC for escalating the stop.

Oddly enough, fishing expeditions can be stopped real quick.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He did allude to the gender of the officer several times. The whole stop sounds like a bunch of crap to me, if the OP is to be taken at his word. The "I smell pot" PC is another joke because there's no way to EVER prove that the cop was wrong. He doesn't find anything and it's, "Oops, must've been another car." or "Well you probably had something before." or like the trekkies in the Probable Cause thread, "Oh, you have marijuana 'shakings' on the floor."

This "war on drugs" has certainly given a lot of excuses to violate people's 4th amendment rights.

How in the world would you EVER fight this? Make a complaint? Cop tells his boss I smelled pot, I thought it was that car. End of story. There's no way to EVER prove that a cop who decides to "smell pot" was wrong. It pretty much gives them carte blanche to do what they want.

So, just so I'm getting this straight, one single officer did this? One officer made the stop, searched the vehicle, searched both the boy and the girl, with no backup, during a S60 investigation? That's very odd.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ya, be the one to walk up to my vehicle and give me the "I smell marijuana"
I'll step out, lock the doors and throw the keys in while shutting the door and make you get a search warrant, because I have not, nor ever will smoke anything including cigarettes.

You're not going on a fishing expedition without costing you and the department some $$$'s.

I had this game played on me by Greenwood PD back when I was 20, homie don't play that game.

I'm not one to manufacture RS/PC, if I smell marijuana coming from your car, firstly, I'm going to be 100% damn well sure it IS marijuana, and secondly, I going to search it. There's no way, I'd tip you off, until after you were out of the car, so unless you can read minds, locking your doors in your car would be jumping the gun a bit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And after the car is yours and you search it based on the pretense that you smelled the (whatever has been banished by the people who know what's best for the rest), if you turn up nothing in your search, other than a gigantic mistake, then you should be fired. Or if we're in my ideal reality, you should be executed by a firing squad for treason against the people of the United States and Constitution.

So, if a person smoked marijauna 10 mintues prior to being stopped, and it leads to an officer searching their car, but yet the search yields nothing, then what exactly?

 

[Rookie]

Well, according to him, you should be executed.

 

[cobber]

NO they do not often yield fish, they fish in an attempt to manufacture PC for escalating the stop.

Oddly enough, fishing expeditions can be stopped real quick.

So you're saying that most cases where officers report the smell of marijuana are false?

If this were true, wouldn't someone have convinced the liberals (or even the conservatives) on the court of appeals to reverse their decisions on this matter? Actually the courts seem to be giving officers more discretion. In vehicle stops at least.

And after the car is yours and you search it based on the pretense that you smelled the (whatever has been banished by the people who know what's best for the rest [i.e. the duly-elected legislature]), if you turn up nothing in your search, other than a gigantic mistake, then you should be fired. Or if we're in my ideal reality, you should be executed by a firing squad for treason against the people of the United States and Constitution.

The police didn't invent this exception to the warrant requirement. How can it be treason when it's allowed by the courts, and basically endorsed by the public. Before you go on about sheeple, just as the 2nd A. doesn't require you to be trained in the use of firearms, the right to vote is not conditioned on any person's particular political beliefs. The voters appear either not to care, or to approve of these practices. Which have been found constitutional by the courts.


I'm curious how many of those writing here in defense of the 4th A. and Indiana Constitution voted in their local judicial elections (and paid any attention to how their judges rule on such matters), or have looked into the decisions of Court of Appeals judges up for retention votes.

Or have written to their legislators on these issues?

Before folks start talking about executing officers (something I would expect in Afghanistan, but not the US yet), how about exercising your rights of free speech in conjunction with the vote.

 

[Tydeeh22]

hmm. probable cause.. if only there seemed to be a cause..

 

[cobber]

Since we're discussing constitutional matters, how many threads here in the past week on the selection of Indiana's new supreme court justice?


Anybody write to Mitch about this?