Westfield PD Extreme Traffic Stop- Teens

[Bunnykid68]

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?

I will be the first to admit I did not and I imagine most other folks did not. We have over 20,000 members here and I bet less than 1% have done so.

 

[IndyBeerman]

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

There are officers who will fish on the thought that they can make an arrest, just as with this case, he fabricated a lie to give himself PC. This is were the problem is, "I though I smelled it coming from your car as you went by", "You swerved a bit back there", You was, yada, yada, yaya".

Anything to give themselves an excuse to pull someone over and cast their line out and see what they can snag.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Traffic stops are the best way to make malum prohibitum arrests.

Since PDs are often judged by the number of arrests they make, you get lots of fishing.

Since prosecutors (and police) are judged by the percentage of convictions they get, tactics can be pretty heavy handed.

Since it's the public that sets these expectations of performance, we have the police and legal system we deserve.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There are officers who will fish on the thought that they can make an arrest, just as with this case, he fabricated a lie to give himself PC. This is were the problem is, "I though I smelled it coming from your car as you went by", "You swerved a bit back there", You was, yada, yada, yaya".

Anything to give themselves an excuse to pull someone over and cast their line out and see what they can snag.

Fishing isn't illegal. Making up PC is. There are plenty of busy body officers that fish like Bill Dance, but keep their actions 100% legal.

For all the years I've worked in LE, I have never backed up a guy that purposely made something up, so that they could get into somebody's car. I'm not saying that it doesnt happen, but The Blue Line isn't so wide, that other officers are going to take the chance of being named in a lawsuit with some guy who is intentionally flouting the 4th Amendment.

There are tons of legal reasons to get into someone's vehicle sans their consent. I dare say probably 1 in 5 of the cars I pull over, I could legally search without their consent. However, a lot of officers aren't into petty arrests, infractions, or whatever.

Here, I'll give you an example:

Have you ever had an expired license plate? Here's the code for that.
IC 9-18-2-40
Violations of chapter; expired plates
Sec. 40. (a) This section does not apply to section 43 or 44 of this chapter.
(b) A person who violates this chapter commits a Class C infraction.
(c) A person who owns or operates or permits the operation of a vehicle required to be registered under this chapter with expired license plates commits a Class C infraction.

But little do people know, that if 9-18-2-40(c) applies to them then:

IC 9-18-2-43
Impounding vehicles; improper certificates of registration and plates
Sec. 43. (a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary but except as provided in subsection (b), a law enforcement officer authorized to enforce motor vehicle laws who discovers a vehicle required to be registered under this article that does not have the proper certificate of registration or license plate:
(1) shall take the vehicle into the officer's custody; and
(2) may cause the vehicle to be taken to and stored in a suitable place until:
(A) the legal owner of the vehicle can be found; or
(B) the proper certificate of registration and license plates have been procured.
(b) Except as provided in IC 9-21-21-7(b), a law enforcement officer who discovers a vehicle in violation of the registration provisions of this article has discretion in the impoundment of any of the following:
(1) Perishable commodities.
(2) Livestock.

That's right, you hit the road with an expired plate and get pulled over, and the state wants you to tow their vehicle, not if you want, by you SHALL (unless you have "livestock or perishable commodities").
How many times have you heard of people with expired plates getting towed? I pull over a ton of expired plates, and won't do tow unless the vehicle is 4 or 5 months expired, and even then, it's a maybe.

But that one, of many, ridiculously easy ways to "fish" and still be perfectly legal. And yet this is how common? Anyone?

 

[ATOMonkey]

legal =/ right

 

[lucky4034]

LEO was lying. As someone who used to smoke marijuana in my youth, I can guarantee that if the kids had been smoking pot the dad would easily have been able to smell it on them or the car.

LEO is a lying POS.

+1 to this... Once the police officer pulled over the vehicle and smelled inside of it or the kids themselves, it should have been pretty obvious they weren't smoking.

A quick sniff of their fingertips would have been the fastest clue. (unless they were using a bong/bowl and then it would have been easy to smell in the car....

Either the cop wasn't savvy enough about MJ to know where to smell it... or he was just being an *******.


As far as smelling it by cars passing by? Its possible... Ive smelled it walking when a car passed when pulling up to someone smoking at a stop light. Also how many cars were out at 1230 at night? I don't know the place, but was it busy with traffic? If there was one car and the officer smelled pot as it passed by, then there ya go.... If it was a busy 4 lane street packed with cars, then it would be hard to pinpoint. He would have to pick one and hope he was right... which again would have been obvious once he stopped the car and investigated.

If you could smell it when they drove by, then you would be able to smell it when they were parked.

Either way it sucks... but at least they didn't both get hit with tickets for being out after curfew.

 

[cobber]

Since prosecutors (and police) are judged by the percentage of convictions they get, tactics can be pretty heavy handed.
QUOTE]
Bad arrests and/or charges don't make for easy convictions. They make for (lost) suppression hearings, or jury trials where the State gets handed its *ss on a platter. Or simply dismissed cases if the charges were filed.

Can't make a silk purse out of you know what...

 

[Bang-bang]

I am NOT condoning the behavior or the excuse for the LEO's actions. This is more of a clarification.

IF the officer actually had smelled the pot, wouldn't that have been PC for a search without consent? I saw a few posts about illegal search and assumed that the LEO was basing his search efforts off of the pot smell.

TOO BAD THEY ALWAYS SMELL SOMETHING!

 

[Pocketman]

...
Here, I'll give you an example:

Have you ever had an expired license plate? Here's the code for that.
IC 9-18-2-40
Violations of chapter; expired plates
Sec. 40. (a) This section does not apply to section 43 or 44 of this chapter.
(b) A person who violates this chapter commits a Class C infraction.
(c) A person who owns or operates or permits the operation of a vehicle required to be registered under this chapter with expired license plates commits a Class C infraction.

But little do people know, that if 9-18-2-40(c) applies to them then:

IC 9-18-2-43
Impounding vehicles; improper certificates of registration and plates
Sec. 43. (a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary but except as provided in subsection (b), a law enforcement officer authorized to enforce motor vehicle laws who discovers a vehicle required to be registered under this article that does not have the proper certificate of registration or license plate:
(1) shall take the vehicle into the officer's custody; and
(2) may cause the vehicle to be taken to and stored in a suitable place until:
(A) the legal owner of the vehicle can be found; or
(B) the proper certificate of registration and license plates have been procured.
(b) Except as provided in IC 9-21-21-7(b), a law enforcement officer who discovers a vehicle in violation of the registration provisions of this article has discretion in the impoundment of any of the following:
(1) Perishable commodities.
(2) Livestock.

That's right, you hit the road with an expired plate and get pulled over, and the state wants you to tow their vehicle, not if you want, by you SHALL (unless you have "livestock or perishable commodities").
How many times have you heard of people with expired plates getting towed? I pull over a ton of expired plates, and won't do tow unless the vehicle is 4 or 5 months expired, and even then, it's a maybe.

But that one, of many, ridiculously easy ways to "fish" and still be perfectly legal. And yet this is how common? Anyone?

Back in the good ol' days, we would cruise neighborhoods after midnight when passenger plates all expired on the same day (March 31?). It wasn't uncommon to impound 15 - 20 cars during a shift. We'd often knock on peoples doors and tell them to move the car to their garage if they had one. Kutnupe14 seems like a nice guy. I'd only give them an hour or so, not 4 - 5 months.

There's two sides to every story, and different perspectives. While I am confident the OP was posted based upon what was observed and felt (no pun intended) by the two teens, a lot of this just doesn't pass the smell test (again no pun intended).

I always thought it good practice to keep communications open so that the people stopped had a thorough understanding of the situation. Of course there's always the belligerent subject (and perhaps a less than friendly officer) that wasn't interested in facts. "Your vehicle matches the description of one used in a recent mopery incident. I appreciate your cooperation and understanding. Please drive safely and have a nice day." Everyone leaves the scene with an understanding of what and why. Helps prevent a lot of angst like we're reading in this thread.

It would be worth a follow up with Westfield PD, if for no other reason than getting the officers perspective. A watch commander would much rather field a phone call than read a thread such as this.

 

[long coat]

+1 to this... Once the police officer pulled over the vehicle and smelled inside of it or the kids themselves, it should have been pretty obvious they weren't smoking.

A quick sniff of their fingertips would have been the fastest clue. (unless they were using a bong/bowl and then it would have been easy to smell in the car....

Either the cop wasn't savvy enough about MJ to know where to smell it... or he was just being an *******.


As far as smelling it by cars passing by? Its possible... Ive smelled it walking when a car passed when pulling up to someone smoking at a stop light. Also how many cars were out at 1230 at night? I don't know the place, but was it busy with traffic? If there was one car and the officer smelled pot as it passed by, then there ya go.... If it was a busy 4 lane street packed with cars, then it would be hard to pinpoint. He would have to pick one and hope he was right... which again would have been obvious once he stopped the car and investigated.

If you could smell it when they drove by, then you would be able to smell it when they were parked.

Either way it sucks... but at least they didn't both get hit with tickets for being out after curfew.

Please read the IC posted, they were NOT out after curfew, untill they were stopped.

 

[lashicoN]

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?

If a school bus full of children is teetering on the edge of a cliff, with a huge bomb inside the bus, and there are senior citizen veterans all hanging out below the cliff where the bus will land, and there is a research facility, next to the bus with the bomb, about to discover the cure for cancer, and a man is driving his car with the code to disarm the bomb, but all of a sudden a skunk runs out into the road and the man hits it. Two minutes down the road, he passes a law enforcer working real hard sitting on the side of the road catching speeders and weed smokers, who smells the skunk and pulls the car over to investigate...30 minutes later, when the car is torn apart, and the enforcer finds no weed, and the school bus has blown up the children, the research facility, and crushed the veterans, then what exactly?

Hypotheticals are fun.

But seriously, there should be some repercussions from a search that yields nothing, no? If the enforcer is going to pull over and detain a person, just because he smelled a skunk, shouldn't there be blowback if the enforcer was only inconveniencing an innocent person? You're a police officer, so it's hard to put it into perspective for you, but being innocent and having your car tossed while you're being treated like a criminal is an unreasonable nightmare and it causes a lot of distrust.

Would you be fine with it if your wife was out shopping, and a store employee came up to her, confiscated her purse against her will, detained her in a back room against her will, and physically restrained her against her will(as happened in the original story) all because he mistakenly thought that she stole something. If it turns out that she didn't steal something, as evidenced by the fact that he found nothing in her purse, shouldn't there be some repercussions?And that's just a private business looking out for its inventory. When a person who has been hired for the sole purpose of protecting you does this to you, yes, there should be some extreme repercussions. The theft of free will of an innocent person is no minor offense in my book, especially if it has been done by an entrusted member of the public sector.

I'm sticking to my guns. I believe if you detain an innocent person, and search their belongings, you had better find what you thought was there, or find another country to live in. Why should the people be inconvenienced by the public's mistake? It shouldn't work that way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But seriously, there should be some repercussions from a search that yields nothing, no?

I find it odd that you think that a search must yield fruits of some sort, even if solid PC exists, or their should be a penalty. That's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Denny347]

But seriously, there should be some repercussions from a search that yields nothing, no?

Are you trying to redefine "Probable Cause"? If I have PC does that mean that they are 100% guilty...NO. So if I have PC to search, how does that affect the result. OC does not mean that they are 100% in possession of what I am looking for. You logic does not work.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I find it odd that you think that a search must yield fruits of some sort, even if solid PC exists, or their should be a penalty. That's utterly ridiculous.

I agree.... that's ridiculous.

By the same token - Probable Cause is not the joke that some of the police make it out to be. PLEASE NOTE that this is NOT directed at you Kutnupe! Nor do I beleive it to be the prevalent attitude amongst LEO's . But it IS there enough that it deserves some concern. Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the LEO's look at PC as "just a legal pain in the arse to deal with so I conduct REAL business". That sort of attitude is equally ridiculous.

The whole notion that "fishing expeditions" are ok, is what provokes the upset attitude from people.

 

[wally05]

I don't see it as utterly ridiculous. The private sector has to worry about the same thing. If a search is conducted and nothing is found... bring on the lawsuits. I'm surprised that as an LEO who is sworn to uphold the constitution that you don't at least see some little problem with it. Limited protections are fine b/c if you had to worry about being sued all the time, you wouldn't want to do your job. But, there should be some sort of apprehension about holding possibly innocent people. If you were ever on the receiving end of what happened with the OP, I think you'd feel differently, a problem that a lot of longtime LEOs have.

 

[bobzilla]

I have never met a Carmel officer I didn't like, or at least respect, either at my work, after a wreck, or even those who pulled me over the 2 times I've been stopped in Carmel.

Sadly, I've yet to meet one I did like. Not very impressed with the 4 I've come into contact with. I was not in the wrong on any of the 4.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sadly, I've yet to meet one I did like. Not very impressed with the 4 I've come into contact with. I was not in the wrong on any of the 4.

If you're gonna put it out there, I'm going ask that you back it up (4 times).

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I can tell ya 4 IMPD Officers I love to death, I'd give them everything I owned if they ask for it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't see it as utterly ridiculous. The private sector has to worry about the same thing. If a search is conducted and nothing is found... bring on the lawsuits. I'm surprised that as an LEO who is sworn to uphold the constitution that you don't at least see some little problem with it. Limited protections are fine b/c if you had to worry about being sued all the time, you wouldn't want to do your job. But, there should be some sort of apprehension about holding possibly innocent people. If you were ever on the receiving end of what happened with the OP, I think you'd feel differently, a problem that a lot of longtime LEOs have.

Ok, I'll play. Let's say that I am given a tip of a person that has a warrant driving a red chevy, plated XYZ123. I come across the a red Chevy, plated XYZ123, and run the plate. The owner of the vehicle has a suspended license and indeed also has a warrant. I conduct a traffic stop, thinking "this guy has a warrant." I ask the driver for his license, he presents it to me, and low and behold, it's not the owner of the vehicle. Given that this stop applies almost textbook concerning search and seizure, and I obviously have the wrong person, what type of penalty do suggest? The rack, Chinese water torture, what exactly?


And what is this "apprehension about holding innocent people?" What makes you think that isn't always a concern already? Believe it or not, not everybody in my family are coppers, meaning that they can be subjected to the exact same things that I do to others. I conduct my job, as I would wish someone would when dealing with my mother, father, brother or sisters.
Even when I have guilty people, I do not relish, looking through their things or other, considered, intrusive measures that are required. All people, guilty or innocent, want respect and I do my darned to extend it to both.

 

[dross]

It's entirely unreasonable to have a standard that something must be found in order for the search to have been legit.

It's also entirely unreasonable that it appears to be very easy to treat probable cause as a minor obstacle that can be easily worked around.

I think one of the disconnects here is that the average honest citizen thinks of his rights in terms of philosophy, and a lot of law enforcement folks - DAs included - seem to think that rights are purely a legal matter.

So, I feel violated if a cop makes up a story that I was weaving, and then gets a dog involved and hides it from the camera while it alerts, and then searches my vehicle which it appears was going to happen no matter what.

The cop says, "Hey, I didn't violate anyone's rights, I followed the law exactly."

Call it the spirit of the law vs. the letter. I don't think rights should be something that can be taken away just because someone knows how to get around the spirit of the law by technically following the letter of the law.