What can the cops legally do?

[thebishopp]

bill of rights is short and white. even shorter if hes rolled up. not sure about the others. and hes been known to hang out with the constitution. be careful when those two get together they have been known to cause freedom.

Don't forget their buddy the declaration of independence.

 

[Olive Drab]

Ummm, no, they can in any state. In Indiana you cannot resist them if they do.

Barnes was not about police entry.

Ok, where was I?

Ummmm, yes, if they can enter your home without a warrant in any state, then they can enter your home in Indiana without a warrant. But I think you know what I meant. I was unaware that that my post was going to be subject to legal scrutiny. Business must be pretty slow if you feel the need to have to flex your "legal muscle" on this forum. But anyways, thank you for your concern. LOL

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

You only have to do what he tells you to if he is the voice in your head and not a real person.

 

[tommyj223]

police are always right

 

[Hammerhead]

He likes to sit on Capitol Hill.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Did the cop really admit you could not have been speeding? I have to hear the story.

IMPD pulled me over for 62 in a 50 on I-65. Says he used radar through a semi. Armor-piercing radar is the bee's knees.

IMPD later told prosecutor I could not have been speeding. Ticket dismissed.

I'll admit a highly complex defense--"the cop is fibbing".

OK, can someone tell me the fact pattern that is at issue here?

 

[qmikep]

The OP may want to check out the book "You & the Police" by Boston T. Party.

 

[ralphb72]

I am sitting on a bench in Downtown Lafayette Indiana mentally masturbating...

That's funny, never heard that one before. Is that kind of like a verbal blow job?

Chris rock vid: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8[/ame]

 

[boosteds13cc]

For some good advice check Chris Rock's public service video on You Tube.
"How to not get your a$$ kicked by the police."

"get a white friend, and shut the f*ck up!" haha the ones i remember off the top of my head

 

[Cat-Herder]

"What can the cops legally do?"

At this point in history, at least as far as I can see it, any damned thing they want, as long as in doing it, they don't happen to offend one another too much.

 

[lashicoN]

Take out your cell phone and dial 1-800-cops and it takes off your wanted level.

 

[Kick]

Well, without an exact situation, it's hard to answer your question. I hope that this is enough, along with the other posts, to get you started.

Basic reason "cops" can stop people comes from this:

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
392 U.S. 1

TERRY v. OHIO.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 67.
Argued December 12, 1967.
Decided June 10, 1968.

Why "cops" can pull you over:

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision[1] which "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."[2]

Some more good case law:

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reaffirmed the proposition that the Fourth Amendment required courts to analyze the reasonableness of a traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances instead of examining the plausibility of each reason an officer gives for stopping a motorist individually.

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been used to increase the scope of warrantless searches.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - No explanation needed

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)[1], is a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1969. In the case, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in their home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule relating to searches incident to a lawful arrest established in this case is known as the Chimel rule. ⋅





In Illinois, when it comes to making an arrest:

(720 ILCS 5/7-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-5)

Sec. 7-5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:

(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and

(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.

(Source: P.A. 84-1426.)

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

 

[sloughfoot]

My father-in-law. who retired from the Minnneapolis Police Dept in about 1970 after 25 years on the force told me, in absolute seriousness, that the S&W revolver was preferred to the Colt revolver because the Colt had an exposed ejector rod that frequently got bent when smacking a suspect with the revolver.

I have talked to lots of old time cops who tell stories about their days of ruling the streets. And that they always knew the difference between citizens and bad guys and the freedom given them to make on the spot decisions on how to resolve a situation.

I respect the old-timers and am not totally sure that we have made progress since we have shackled the police.

But what is, is. A nanny state full of whiners. And lawyers. And "out of control" seven year olds that require a police response.

I remember, and miss, the cop on the beat. Me and my buddies knew better than to mess with him. And he always seemed to know what we were up to. And we sure never wanted him to tell our fathers what he caught us doing...... Let the beating begin..

It seems like a general lack of respect for authority leads to threads like this.

 

[lumpy39us]

Ok it happened however, the courts have the say in determining what is to be the final decision.
On the streets it is up to us and our morals to act accordingly, why would you not want to stop might be a question that arises in minds.
Stop say hi, tell them it is a great day, go about your business.
It's not a crime until a crime has been committed.

 

[cqcn88]

It seems like a general lack of respect for authority leads to threads like this.

That assumes the police are an authority. I always though they were instruments of the authority. I have no respect for those that overstep their bounds and trample on people's rights. I know, it's not all of them, not even most of them, only some of them. I don't disrespect authority, I simply want to know what legal authority they actually have.

 

[lashicoN]

It seems like a general lack of respect for authority leads to threads like this.

Gee...I wonder why people have a general lack of respect for authority these days. They're doing such a wonderful job of running our country into the ground.

The way the "authorities" have been conducting themselves has lead to this lack of respect. Respect is earned, not beaten out by submission.

 

[thebishopp]

That assumes the police are an authority. I always though they were instruments of the authority. I have no respect for those that overstep their bounds and trample on people's rights. I know, it's not all of them, not even most of them, only some of them. I don't disrespect authority, I simply want to know what legal authority they actually have.

This is true, and IMO, what a lot of people (LEOs included), seem to forget.

LEOs are "instruments" of authority, NOT the authority themselves. Their "power" is granted to them by the people either directly through elections (like a Sheriff) or indirectly through their elected officials.

The "power" granted an "LEO" as an "instrument" of Authority can be taken away at any time by those in "Authority" because that is who gives it to them to begin with.

 

[GBuck]

If I'm not mistaken, if you are speaking speciffically about the charge "disobeying a lawful order", it only applies to traffic type situations.. I will search for the IC unless someone beats me to it.

 

[GBuck]

Found it!

Indiana Code 9-21-8-1

Failure to comply with lawful order or law enforcement
officer
Sec. 1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly fail to comply

with a lawful order or direction of a law enforcement officer invested by law
with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
As added by
P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

 

[VidGuy]

What the police are legally allowed to do, and what they can do are two different animals.

They legally are not allowed to enter your home without either a warrant or a reasonable suspicion that illegal activity is occurring at that moment within your home.

They may choose to ignore the law, and enter anyway. This is where it gets tricky for you. Even if it were not the law, I would not recommend resisting against police, because you will either end up hurt, dead, or in an enormous legal jam. Sure, you would be in the right, but at that point, it doesn't matter if you're right or not. The important thing is to prevent the situation from escalating into you or your family getting killed.

Once the smoke clears, and everyone is out of harm's way, THEN you can get a lawyer and sue the crap out of the PD.

Do I like that situation? No, but you have to be realistic. You shoot a cop in your home, and no matter what, you're doing time.