Illinois Cops Drag Man Out of Car for Recording and Remaining Silent

[Caine]

Just because a cop has probable cause to search someone or something does not preclude the need for a warrant if the subject of the search refuses to give permission (exercises their rights under the 4th Amendment). There is an exception for exigent circumstances but nothing in the video indicates that such and circumstance occurred.

You are confusing traffic stops with the rules for a residence.

Traffic stops do not require a warrant (although some (few) cities and maybe some states may put this restriction on their own officers, it isn't a requirement).

 

[Caine]

He never had to say anything. In reality the cop could have been standing there for the next twenty ****ing hours asking that question and the man would never be obligated to answer.

Not really. A traffic stop of that duration would be a violation of the occupants' 4th amendment rights.

 

[Caine]

I'm not at all surprised that someone such as yourself would sacrifice your rights for convenience.

What exactly do you win for "asserting your rights"?? (AKA Being a ****ing pain in the ass)

Play stupid games.... win stupid prizes.

 

[Caine]

Sure but the civil suit payoff will be greater if he jacks you up.

Crash for Cash.... Freddie Gray style huh?

 

[Kal'Stang]

A police officer can ask him to put a cell phone down at any time. Doesn't mean he has to comply.

I swear some people think police need probable cause to do anything. Those people would be wrong.

Correct. I didn't mean to imply that a cop can't ask someone to put a cell phone down. They just can't force a person to do so.

 

[Kal'Stang]

What exactly do you win for "asserting your rights"?? (AKA Being a ****ing pain in the ass)

Play stupid games.... win stupid prizes.

Liberty and freedom. :shrug: More and more bad cops are beginning to realize that they just can't bully people anymore. That with the ability to record them stops trumped up charges just so that they can "say" they had probable cause when they really didn't. And you really can't say that doesn't happen. There's evidence for it.

I understand your point about not wanting to be recorded due to people editing video's. But such editing can usually be determined (usually, but not always, quite easily). It's also one reason why I think all cops need to wear body cam's that they cannot turn off at all times while on duty.

 

[Thorgasm]

For some strange reason the "victim" in the video doesn't give us that information.

That's because the officer didn't say what crime he was investigating. He was fishing. He was profiling.

 

[Thorgasm]

You don't have to get a warrant to search a vehicle that was pulled over in transit. You just have to have probable cause.

Now to search a vehicle parked at a residence that you didn't pull over... you do.

Yep, and all you have to do is say you smelled something, even if you didn't, because you can't disprove that in court.

 

[Thorgasm]

A police officer can ask him to put a cell phone down at any time. Doesn't mean he has to comply.

I swear some people think police need probable cause to do anything. Those people would be wrong.

The thing is, in videos like this, the officer isn't asking, he is ordering.

 

[Thorgasm]

The difference is trying to forcefully stop someone from recording. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a police officer asking someone not to record. Hell, I didn't want to be recorded either. Not because I was doing something wrong, but I don't trust what they may do with that video these days with youtube. You saw how easy it was for NBC news to make Zimmerman out to be a racist by cleverly editing the 911 recording.

But when police officers go threatening, that is another problem.

I once had to explain to my own supervisor that I can't take people's phones from them while they were recording a house fire where a woman was inside burning alive while Firefighters tried to save her. (She died btw). Is it ****ing rude and disgusting of them to record? Yes. But can I take their phone? No.

You had to explain it to your supervisor? Did he blow someone to get his position? lol

 

[Lutherf]

That's because the officer didn't say what crime he was investigating. He was fishing. He was profiling.

Profiling? You mean like profiling people driving 15mph over the limit in residential areas?

 

[Caine]

Liberty and freedom. :shrug: More and more bad cops are beginning to realize that they just can't bully people anymore. That with the ability to record them stops trumped up charges just so that they can "say" they had probable cause when they really didn't. And you really can't say that doesn't happen. There's evidence for it.

I understand your point about not wanting to be recorded due to people editing video's. But such editing can usually be determined (usually, but not always, quite easily). It's also one reason why I think all cops need to wear body cam's that they cannot turn off at all times while on duty.

I disagree with body cams all the time....

Those videos would danger on voyeurism.

Police are human beings.. and have to piss and **** too.

 

[Caine]

You had to explain it to your supervisor? Did he blow someone to get his position? lol

It was a "she".

And "she" was quite oldschool. She would have been one of the police officers seen beating someone down over being recorded and got in trouble for it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I disagree with body cams all the time....

Those videos would danger on voyeurism.

Police are human beings.. and have to piss and **** too.

The cams are usually placed on the chest of a uniform, unless you're looking into a mirror it won't show anything. Besides, those parts can be edited out and disposed of. Not like a cop taking a **** or piss is actually going to be used for anything important.

 

[Thorgasm]

Profiling? You mean like profiling people driving 15mph over the limit in residential areas?

No, I am not saying the were stopped for DWB. I am saying that how they were treated was the profiling part.

 

[Thorgasm]

It was a "she".

And "she" was quite oldschool. She would have been one of the police officers seen beating someone down over being recorded and got in trouble for it.

I'm not so sure she would have gotten in trouble. lol

 

[SILVER SURFER]

You are getting the request for identification confused with the stop.

The STOP requires that the officer reasonably infer from the circumstances that the person is commiting about to commit or has commited an offense.

Its the difference between an investigatory detention and a voluntary contact.

During a voluntary contact, a citizen is free to walk away from an officer and free to refuse to identify themselves.

State law determines whether or not a passenger of a vehicle that was stopped (traffic stops also require reasonable suspicion) is required to identify themselves or not.

In the post you quoted, I was addressing only a refusal to provide identification. And yes, I used “probable cause” incorrectly. I already addressed that, and the reason for it, in post #44 (http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...ing-silent-post1065882793.html#post1065882793). Again, following is Illinois statute giving requirements for investigatory detention. Note that, in addition to reasonable inference, the officer must identify himself and the detention must be in a public place in the vicinity of the stop, and for a reasonable time.

(725 ILCS 5/107-14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-14)
Sec. 107-14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
(a) A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102-15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

You don't have to get a warrant to search a vehicle that was pulled over in transit. You just have to have probable cause.

Now to search a vehicle parked at a residence that you didn't pull over... you do.

Not even, just reasonable suspicion

Once it has been established that an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched or a thing to be seized, the Fourth Amendment's protections take hold, and the question then becomes what are the nature of those protections. Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion. Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion legal definition of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Crash for Cash.... Freddie Gray style huh?

Is that what happened in the OP? Duh...

 

[Caine]

The cams are usually placed on the chest of a uniform, unless you're looking into a mirror it won't show anything. Besides, those parts can be edited out and disposed of. Not like a cop taking a **** or piss is actually going to be used for anything important.

So then you are cool if businesses got the okay to put cameras in bathrooms, even if they can't see low enough to see your groin....

And if they do catch your junk... your okay with that being seen by the people who monitor it, and as long as it is edited out your okay with that too.

 

[Caine]

Not even, just reasonable suspicion



Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion legal definition of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

No... a search beyond a frisk for weapons requires probable cause.

A frisk of a VEHICLE for weapons under this statute is very sketchy, and must be very well documented with the reasons for it being conducted. An officer can't conduct a frisk for weapons on a vehicle driving in a low crime area occupied by an average citizen. An officer CAN conduct a frisk for weapons on a vehicle being driven by a known gang member (that is, he is known by the officer from prior encounters to be armed), or on a vehicle in a high crime area where there are known violent crimes. It involves the risk of there being a concealed weapon that can be a safety concern for the officer.

An actual search roadside requires probable cause. Like, the odor of marijuana, or visible signs of marijuana paraphernalia (corner baggies even if empty with a bowl commonly used to smoke marijuana for example).


I did this **** for 7 years for a living.. Im well versed in the subtle but important differences.

 

[Caine]

I'm not so sure she would have gotten in trouble. lol

Oh I am quite sure in the department we worked in she would have gotten in trouble.

I got a day suspension for driving just a bit over 80 for a few seconds in a 65mph zone on the interstate while not going to an emergency call.

 

[Caine]

Liberty and freedom. :shrug: More and more bad cops are beginning to realize that they just can't bully people anymore. That with the ability to record them stops trumped up charges just so that they can "say" they had probable cause when they really didn't. And you really can't say that doesn't happen. There's evidence for it.

I understand your point about not wanting to be recorded due to people editing video's. But such editing can usually be determined (usually, but not always, quite easily). It's also one reason why I think all cops need to wear body cam's that they cannot turn off at all times while on duty.

But the editing is usually determined well after the edited version has already caused peoples minds to be made up.

Think of how many people still considered Zimmerman a racist because of NBC's careful editing. And how quietly the apology and correction was made by them. And how people ignored it and stayed with their original opinion that he is a racist because of the carefully edited 911 call.


As far as your comments about cops "saying" they have probable cause when they really don't. There is an interesting thing when it comes to odors I would like to point out when potheads protest an officer saying they smell pot. The pothead who is around the stuff and smoked it suffers from "olfactory fatigue" in that they don't smell it because their nose has lost its sensitivity (albeit temporarily) to that odor. This is the same reason why smokers don't realize they smell like an ashtray at times. Or why a car full of drunk people don't smell the booze in the cabin of the car, which is strong enough to kill a mouse from alcohol poisoning.


There is also evidence for nearly all but a very small percentage of cases where an officer was entirely correct in his probable cause for a search. Yet people pretend like the exception is the rule.

 

[Caine]

Is that what happened in the OP? Duh...

No... but that is what you are referring to here....

Sure but the civil suit payoff will be greater if he jacks you up.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

I disagree with body cams all the time....

Those videos would danger on voyeurism.

Police are human beings.. and have to piss and **** too.

Your privacy concern is legitimate but I have no solution for it. I believe the vast majority of officers are good guys/gals. But the few bad apples have engendered distrust in the public along with the perception that police do not police themselves. Recording officers’ interactions with citizens would help restore trust as well as provide evidence for discipline of bad cops. But if the camera and the recording are under police control, they have less credibility. If people do not trust police, they will not trust police-controlled cameras and recordings.