Groucho
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 933
- Location
- Pocono Mountains, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
When scheming defense attorney's get information suppressed or cases dismissed because one of the 6 times a bit of information was put on a one of several forms, a box next to the information on the form was not filled with ink, and thus, the information contained therein was suppressed and caused the case to be thrown out. Something like that.
Tell me Mr. Defense attorney, you've never used BS technicalities like that to "get your client off" with something that they knowingly and willingly did?
Its a true story, but there is no link because it was a lowly misdemeanor DWI charge I dealt with. I was not yet certified on Intox and thus had to have another officer be the "chemical analysis". He had ran like 12 tests that night and just failed to fill in a box mark next to the section about the Preventive Maintenance having been completed on the instrument. However, the officer DID fill in the information showing that the instrument had preventive maintenance done within the time period required by statute. The DA even offered to pull the maintenance record off the DHHS public website where the maintenance records of all instruments in the state of viewable by the public at no cost, proving that the information on the box was accurate. The judge dismissed the results of the intox test, and even though she agreed my field sobriety tests showed I had probable cause, she could not convict due to the fact that the tests were peformed on a slight uphill area (like I can literally move mountains at will) thus she had 'reasonable doubt" as to the full impairment of the individual.Seriously? You have examples of that actually happening? With a link? Not just some story?
I agree, if rights were violated then I see the reason for such defenses. Ive seen some of the stuff on your website about cases in the media, and I agree with those Ive read (reading the 'media' side of things that is) that those cases were not technicalities for the most part.Nope, never used BS technicalities. However yes I have gotten clients freed when the police broke the law by searching without a warrant or questioning them without a lawyer or filing the charges past the statute of limitations. See? No BS technicalities.
I believe the police should follow the law just like everyone. And when they don't, there should be consequences. I want bad guys caught and punished too -- I live here and don't like crime -- but I don't want to give up my rights to be crime-free.
If he didn't, he is pretty dumb.
Did you tell the officer to back off or you will file a complaint?
Just asking, were you guilty?
Silly Mike. People are rarely self admittedly guilty of anything.
Thats my beef with society as a whole, people feel that they have a right to "get off" with being charged for a crime that they willingly committed.
I'm confused. Okay, so you're TOLD that you 'have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you'. And the suspect SAYS something. This ruling just confirms that it can be used against them? Just seems redundant, or am I missing something?
Its a true story, but there is no link because it was a lowly misdemeanor DWI charge I dealt with. I was not yet certified on Intox and thus had to have another officer be the "chemical analysis". He had ran like 12 tests that night and just failed to fill in a box mark next to the section about the Preventive Maintenance having been completed on the instrument. However, the officer DID fill in the information showing that the instrument had preventive maintenance done within the time period required by statute. The DA even offered to pull the maintenance record off the DHHS public website where the maintenance records of all instruments in the state of viewable by the public at no cost, proving that the information on the box was accurate. The judge dismissed the results of the intox test, and even though she agreed my field sobriety tests showed I had probable cause, she could not convict due to the fact that the tests were peformed on a slight uphill area (like I can literally move mountains at will) thus she had 'reasonable doubt" as to the full impairment of the individual.
Well, I wasn't there and don't know what the laws are like where you are, but that would have something to do with it. If the local laws require certain procedures to be followed and they weren't, then that's not a "loophole."
That's something I debate a lot with people -- if the law says "X must be done" and X is not done, then how is that a loophole? We're just saying that everyone has to obey the law, even the police and DAs. If there were no consequences then there would be no reason for police to follow the rules. I think it works well as a "checks and balances" against potential abuse. Yes, sometimes the guilty may go free, but the other option -- police can do whatever they want -- is worse.
I had a case one time where an officer pulled over my client for having tinted windows. That's a $25 fine. My client was a black kid driving an expensive car (his Dad's, who was a businessman). The officer called for backup, made my client get out of the car, and then after giving him a ticket, did not let him know he could go but instead, while police lights are flashing and the kid (who had never been arrested before) was surrounded by police with guns, asked the kid "Oh, do you mind if I check your windows?" The kid, feeling as if he had no choice said yes and then the officer went into the car, took the keys, and searched the entire car, finding marijuana locked in the trunk.
Now come on. Yes, the kid was technically guilty, but do we want to allow police to do this sort of thing in America?
So yes, his charges were dropped. Some people would call that a "technicality" but since the Constitution requires probable cause before a search, I'd say it supports the law, not defeats it.
(There are, of course, always examples where this can go too far, just like there are examples where it can go too far in the other direction)
On one of the channels here are old episodes of COPS.
I see that on there all the time.
They stop the car for a license plate lamp out, which are not needed anymore, and they get the people out of the vehicle, search them and find something.
The attitude of the cops is you have to do everything they say without question and they can do what they want.
I am not saying people should be driving around with drugs on them but what probable cause did the officer have to search the individual for a license plate lamp out?
At the same time, my advice to everyone is this:
DO WHAT THE COPS WANT.
Let your lawyer argue about it afterward.
Be sure to say "I am not consenting to this search" but if they insist, don't give them a hard time, fight back, or otherwise make a scene, because that will only make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in the world as far as cops are concerned.
Cops and suspects.
Well, I wasn't there and don't know what the laws are like where you are, but that would have something to do with it. If the local laws require certain procedures to be followed and they weren't, then that's not a "loophole."
That's something I debate a lot with people -- if the law says "X must be done" and X is not done, then how is that a loophole? We're just saying that everyone has to obey the law, even the police and DAs. If there were no consequences then there would be no reason for police to follow the rules. I think it works well as a "checks and balances" against potential abuse. Yes, sometimes the guilty may go free, but the other option -- police can do whatever they want -- is worse.
I had a case one time where an officer pulled over my client for having tinted windows. That's a $25 fine. My client was a black kid driving an expensive car (his Dad's, who was a businessman). The officer called for backup, made my client get out of the car, and then after giving him a ticket, did not let him know he could go but instead, while police lights are flashing and the kid (who had never been arrested before) was surrounded by police with guns, asked the kid "Oh, do you mind if I check your windows?" The kid, feeling as if he had no choice said yes and then the officer went into the car, took the keys, and searched the entire car, finding marijuana locked in the trunk.
Now come on. Yes, the kid was technically guilty, but do we want to allow police to do this sort of thing in America?
So yes, his charges were dropped. Some people would call that a "technicality" but since the Constitution requires probable cause before a search, I'd say it supports the law, not defeats it.
(There are, of course, always examples where this can go too far, just like there are examples where it can go too far in the other direction)
On one of the channels here are old episodes of COPS.
I see that on there all the time.
They stop the car for a license plate lamp out, which are not needed anymore, and they get the people out of the vehicle, search them and find something.
The attitude of the cops is you have to do everything they say without question and they can do what they want.
I am not saying people should be driving around with drugs on them but what probable cause did the officer have to search the individual for a license plate lamp out?
LOL
This post says all I need to know.
License Plate Lights are not a federally regulated item. It varies from state. If its not required in your state, maybe it still was required in the state that the episode was being filmed in. As it is still required in NC.
And wtih your attitude you've displayed, sorry If I fail to believe everything you say regarding this, its very standard for cop haters to either not listen enough to know what is being said, or intentionally misconstrue what is being said.
So when a suspect leaves the scene of a crime via a vehicle on a dark street with no other vehicles arround, what illuminates the license plate then?My point about the license lamp not being needed is that plates are now reflectorized so the headlights of the patrol car light them up.
If you think I misunderstood what happened onthe show, look at a couple of old episodes yourself. It is common practice to bootstrap a minor violation into a search of the vehicle and person.
Yes cop hater. You have no idea what you are talking about.
So when a suspect leaves the scene of a crime via a vehicle on a dark street with no other vehicles arround, what illuminates the license plate then?
Oh, thats right, the state law required tag light.
Asking for consent to search is not boot straping anything into anything.
Some of the most heinous crimes have been solved via a consent search.
You are honestly saying a small bulb above the plate lights up the plate enough to see it clearly? I have had hundreds of cars and it license lamp has never thrown enough light to light up anything.
I didn't say in any of my posts the person was asked if the officer could search. They pull the driver out and search him for weapons then his car. No consent was given. Are you saying consent is needed to search????
So now its like uno?
If you dont say " I HAVE RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ALL YOU PEOPLE HERE DIDNT YOU GUYS TAKE HIGH-SCHOOL HISTORY?!" you have to draw 4 cards?
This is stupid and an attempt to ease us out of our rights as US citizens...
This is complete and utter BS
edit I might of misunderstood the subject here so if I did feel free to correct me ^^
So now its like uno?
If you dont say " I HAVE RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ALL YOU PEOPLE HERE DIDNT YOU GUYS TAKE HIGH-SCHOOL HISTORY?!" you have to draw 4 cards?
This is stupid and an attempt to ease us out of our rights as US citizens...
This is complete and utter BS
edit I might of misunderstood the subject here so if I did feel free to correct me ^^
Yes, that is a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The consent to search was limited to the windows.
Thats alot different than a box without ink it in, and a judges refusal to accept the actual documentation that backed up the deputy's information on said line that failed to have a box checked.
But like I said, it was a retard judge.
Technicalities are Law loopholes are such BS.
As a police officer, what are your thoughts on the various stringent laws that regulate searching?
Im missing what your asking here. The question is so broad as my response would require me to regurgitate the entire Search, Arrest, and Seizure manual.
To me, getting someone off "On a technicality" is a lawyer finding a situation where a cop made a minor and relatively inconsequential mistake or procedure not judgement, and manipulating that. A situation where a check box is forgotten to be marked once in a dozen times, however its redunandcy check (the actual maintence laog) is filled out. An instance where an officer may've got distracted while signing a number of papers that may be evidence or some such thing and in the middle of starting one he gets distracted by someone and ends up missing the signature on that...yet you can see every item prior to it and after it entered into the log is signed by him. Etc.
Essentially, Criminals getting off not because the officer was criminally negligent or was violating some kind of constitutional or even state law or doing something unethical....but because of simple and reasonable human error that can be reasonably double checked in another fashion and deemed as such with a reasonable amount of doubt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?