Westfield PD Extreme Traffic Stop- Teens

[J_Wales]

"If not for stupid stops, I'd have no stops at all."
-LEO, WPD

 

[cobber]

Let's be clear that even the Founders did not state in the warrant clause that a warrant shall issue only upon a showing of absolute certainty.

The Founders were not really committed to our liberties, were they? Or maybe they really meant AC in the 4th A.? While we're rewriting original intent, why don't we re-visit the 2nd A. too?

If AC were the standard you would practically never have searches. Or even arrests. Unless an officer witnesses a crime, can s/he be absolutely certain that the suspect is guilty beyond any real doubt?

It would be an interesting standard.

It would mean an end to trials, since a person arrested would already be metaphysically guilty. So we wouldn't need judges or juries, just executioners.

 

[griffin]

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

Not if he was lying about really smelling pot, which I believe he was.

 

[dross]

Not if he was lying about really smelling pot, which I believe he was.

If the law requires you to tell the truth about something, but there's no way to test that truth, it's the same as saying that you don't need to tell the truth.

He says he smelled pot. He is the only person who knows whether he did or didn't. If the law says that him smelling pot is the only hurdle he must jump, then he is following the law exactly as long as he continues to say he smelled pot.

If the fix for this is that people shouldn't lie, that's the same as no fix at all.

So whether he smelled pot or didn't smell pot is irrelevant according to the law. All that matters is that he says he smelled pot.

 

[griffin]

He says he smelled pot. He is the only person who knows whether he did or didn't.

I wouldn't expect a 17 year old to know or do this, but one remedy would have been to ask (demand) the shift supervisor. There is no way the smell of burnt marijuana could not be detected in the car or on the smokers had they really been smoking.

 

[dross]

I wouldn't expect a 17 year old to know or do this, but one remedy would have been to ask (demand) the shift supervisor. There is no way the smell of burnt marijuana could not be detected in the car or on the smokers had they really been smoking.

So they weren't smoking? So what? That doesn't change that the cop said he smelled it.

 

[wally05]

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.

My company has a saying... "perception is reality"... that is especially true for public safety. Some of the comments on this forum paint a picture that SOME LEOs don't have a problem with it.... that is a horrifying idea.

What a lot on here have a problem with is the ability to make up PC... like saying "I could smell marijuana as they drove by". Your illustration of a stop is legitimate and your PC can be backed up by looking at the facts. I'm not trying to be an *******. I've worked at a dept and did traffic, I understand what you're saying. If you realized you were wrong when by the vehicle, you can apologize for the stop and move on with life, not continue on. But, what is scary is the way that LE has somewhat of a free reign to detain with no repercussions by doing some of the crap that the OP describes.

IF it went down as the OP describes, I don't see how an officer can defend those actions fully.

 

[wally05]

Let's be clear that even the Founders did not state in the warrant clause that a warrant shall issue only upon a showing of absolute certainty.

The Founders were not really committed to our liberties, were they? Or maybe they really meant AC in the 4th A.? While we're rewriting original intent, why don't we re-visit the 2nd A. too?

If AC were the standard you would practically never have searches. Or even arrests. Unless an officer witnesses a crime, can s/he be absolutely certain that the suspect is guilty beyond any real doubt?

It would be an interesting standard.

It would mean an end to trials, since a person arrested would already be metaphysically guilty. So we wouldn't need judges or juries, just executioners.

True, but the fact that a stop was done because the officer thought he smelled pot as a car drove by is pretty loose standard. Follow the car and get a reason for a traffic stop. It's a standard that does not allow anyone to ever really verify if there was an actual reason for the stop, leaving the "suspect" without a foot to stand on. That kind of goes against our constitution.

 

[griffin]

So they weren't smoking? So what? That doesn't change that the cop said he smelled it.

I disagree. Cop obviously had the wrong car, yet he keeps pressing these kids. That changes the dynamic. Get a shift supervisor there, then follow up with a discussion with the police chief.

Defend yourself and then take the offense. JMO.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

I would be even less charitable about it. I believe it not to be a spirit vs. letter of the law issue so much as deliberately finding ways to use subterfuge to manipulate the law. I doubt that willful dishonesty is in fact sanctioned by the law.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I would be even less charitable about it. I believe it not to be a spirit vs. letter of the law issue so much as deliberately finding ways to use subterfuge to manipulate the law. I doubt that willful dishonesty is in fact sanctioned by the law.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!

That's a good one. I needed that.

 

[bobzilla]

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

Spread out over 10 years? Yeah, I remember every detail of every stop. I do remember their attitudes at the time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Spread out over 10 years? Yeah, I remember every detail of every stop. I do remember their attitudes at the time.

TEN years? Meh, nevermind then....

 

[bobzilla]

TEN years? Meh, nevermind then....

Yep. I've been working on the cusp of Carmel for 10 years now. I consider myself lucky to have been here this long and only been harassed 4 times.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yep. I've been working on the cusp of Carmel for 10 years now. I consider myself lucky to have been here this long and only been harassed 4 times.

Stop driving hoopties

 

[Dirtebiker]

Get them both drug tested now. If they were smoking pot on the night in question, metabolites are in their system still. If not, then the officer was metaphysically wrong. Oops.


The case law is that you can search a stopped vehicle based on the odor of burnt or raw MJ.

Or maybe..... Trust your kid, and your own nose!
And to the o.p..... Tell the kids to refuse a search next time!

 

[ATOMonkey]

Refuse a search = go to jail.

I'm sure someone will be "resisting arrest" at some point.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Uh, Denny is 100% correct, there is no issue, legally, with a road officer searching a female.
And FYI, a lot of people are making assumptions here. OP makes no indication as to the sex of the officer that searched the female. Further we have no idea how old the "young" female is.

In the original post, the o.p. says that both kids are 17 years old, and refers to the officer as HIM!

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Stop driving hoopties

Oh no! Im in for it. I better pull the 24" rims of of my rusty, smoking, 1981 mettalic lime green buick le saber that you need a tetnus shot just to walk past.

 

[cobber]

Or maybe..... Trust your kid, and your own nose!
And to the o.p..... Tell the kids to refuse a search next time!

Trust your kid is fine. But if you want to file a complaint (or maybe bring a suit), you'd better secure some evidence now. As in, how is it MJ was emanating from the vehicle, but neither occupant had metabolites in their urine/blood.

Of course, if the screens were to come back positive...