Texas Court Throws 2nd, 4th Amendments Under The Bus

[August]

It seems that the cops are increasingly going to using no knock and SWAT teams as a first choice:

Today in America, SWAT teams are deployed about 100 to 150 times per day, or about 50,000 times per year -- a dramatic increase from the 3,000 or so annual deployments in the early 1980s, or the few hundred in the 1970s. The vast majority of today's deployments are to serve search warrants for drug crimes. But the use of SWAT tactics to enforce regulatory law also appears to be rising. This month, for example, a SWAT team raided the Garden of Eden, a sustainable growth farm in Arlington, Texas, supposedly to look for marijuana. The police found no pot, however, and the real intent of the raid appears to have been for code enforcement, as the officers came armed with an inspection notice for nuisance abatement.

The above is from an interesting article on the problem of police militarization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3749272.html

[Platapus]

This can be especially concerning if (when) the police try to serve the warrant on the wrong address. Things like this do happen.

There is a fine line that needs to be drawn between respecting the freedom of citizens and the safety of evidence and LE personnel.

I don't know where that line should be, but I do know that it needs to be decided very carefully and with full understanding of how to mitigate the risks when improperly implemented.

I also do know that giving the police almost unlimited power is a sure way to devolve away from civil rights and into a police state.

It is all well and good to give the police the authority to change the rules, on site, if the tactical aspects of the case warrant. But, then the police need to be held accountable if the wrong decision is made.

That's what concerns me the most is the growing state of immunity from any consequence resulting from the actions of the police.

In a free society, the police can not be immune from the consequences of their actions. As the governmental body most able to infringe on the civil rights of innocent citizens, the police need to be held to a high standard and accountability.

Power without accountability is what social scientists call a "bad thing".

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

the cops shoot you.

Example 4. The cops break in without warning and you shoot them. They might be able to try you for murder, but if they made no announcement at all you might get off with self defense. It has happened.

Still a sticky situation.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Leave matters to the moderators...predicting angst could have the effect of starting it.

Subscribing.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Example 4. The cops break in without warning and you shoot them. They might be able to try you for murder, but if they made no announcement at all you might get off with self defense. It has happened.

Still a sticky situation.

All the other cops have to do is say that they announced themselves. Who do you think the judge will side with? Unless the citizen records the audio....

How does a citizen prove that the police did not identify themselves?

Cops lie to protect other cops
Judges side with cops unless there is overwhelming evidence against them... and may still side with them.

Cops - presumed innocent
Citizen - presumed guilty

That's the type of country we have become.

I fear the police much more than I fear the federal government. And that is pretty sad.

The hypocrisy is that all this is in the name of "public safety".

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Unless the citizen records the audio....

Not a bad idea and increasingly affordable these days.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Example 4. The cops break in without warning and you shoot them. They might be able to try you for murder, but if they made no announcement at all you might get off with self defense. It has happened. Still a sticky situation.

Twice in the Bay area in the last 15 years: Two Richmond officers in DEA ski mask gear in the dark were killed by an apartment dweller with a .22 rifle(through their Kevlar) as they came up the stairs stealthily. No charges were preferred against the shooter, an elderly immigrant. The really bad one was in Contra Costa county: the PD on a bad drug warrant, arrived at the wrong high end abode and broke in. The gun owning home owner was shot and killed on his stair balcony taking on supposed intruders. No charges were preferred against the keystoners. It goes both ways. They don't call the Richmond district the Iron Triangle for nothing or California the wild west for nothing.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Today is Sunday, the day of rest and peace and I'm looking forward to that.

Ever QWERTYOUS on the Lord's day Sire!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Not a bad idea and increasingly affordable these days.

I know a few co-workers who keep a digital voice recorder in their cars for if they are pulled over. A very good idea

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I know a few co-workers who keep a digital voice recorder in their cars for if they are pulled over. A very good idea

The thing I am most leery of is my car/vehicle being searched.You have no way of knowing an honest cop from a crooked one that "finds" something illegal.Luckily I fairly rarely ever get pulled over and thus far I have never been asked.Thing is a rotten one can just make up a reason to both pull you over and search you.

Only issue with a voice recorder is it would not be admissible if any party being recorded was unaware so far as I understand things.So you'd have to say "This is being recorded for posterity".

All I know is I have a few friends that are in law enforcement and they all say that they would refuse a vehicle search.The whole consent thing is the law(cops) trying use the law against you.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The thing I am most leery of is my car/vehicle being searched.You have no way of knowing an honest cop from a crooked one that "finds" something illegal.Luckily I fairly rarely ever get pulled over and thus far I have never been asked.Thing is a rotten one can just make up a reason to both pull you over and search you.

Only issue with a voice recorder is it would not be admissible if any party being recorded was unaware so far as I understand things.So you'd have to say "This is being recorded for posterity".

All I know is I have a few friends that are in law enforcement and they all say that they would refuse a vehicle search.The whole consent thing is the law(cops) trying use the law against you.

I would say that refusing a search would be an exercise in futility and would only serve to make the officer suspicious. Better to be polite and not give your consent to a search. One can never know what might be found. Contraband left by a passenger will get you arrested. By not giving consent, anything found is not admissible as evidence against you if you didn't know it was there. Too many cops use the same one liner to give them probable cause to search your vehicle. "I smell Marijuana" Resist the urge for a snappy comeback like... " Gee Officer. You shouldn't smoke pot while on duty"

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Only issue with a voice recorder is it would not be admissible if any party being recorded was unaware so far as I understand things.So you'd have to say "This is being recorded for posterity".

But the police routinely record people during stops. Why is it OK for the police to have an audio record to help them in court, but a citizen is not allowed to record the same event so it can help the citizen in court?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

I would say that refusing a search would be an exercise in futility and would only serve to make the officer suspicious.

It might make them suspicious, but giving them permission to search your vehicle removes some of the protections you have. There are proper and appropriate procedures that the police need to follow. I find nothing objectionable with holding the police accountable for their own procedures.

I would never be rude or antagonistic to a police officer (I am always respectful) . But at the same time, I am not going to voluntarily waive my 4th amendment rights when there is no advantage to me.

Remember the six important words you need to respectfully ask a police officer: "Officer, am I free to go?"

If the answer is no, then you are under apprehension and there are rules and procedures and you have specific protections under the law.

If the answer is yes, you are not under apprehension. Anything you do/say/agree to is considered voluntary and you lose specific protections under the law.

If they refuse to give you an answer, respectfully ask again.

There are very few rules that prevent a citizen from voluntarily waiving any or all of their rights. Unfortunately, there are police officers who will strive to give you the impression you are under apprehension while you are not actually. Then anything you say or agree to is you voluntarily waiving your rights.

Once you voluntarily waive your rights, it is difficult to reclaim them.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

But the police routinely record people during stops. Why is it OK for the police to have an audio record to help them in court, but a citizen is not allowed to record the same event so it can help the citizen in court?

Don't ask me..... besides I am no legal expert I have no idea if you have to tell a cop that you are recoding/filming him I somewhat suspect not because if so people would be getting sued left and right for those youtube videos and it seems that this has not be occurring.

Honestly I have never thought to ask any of my friends the legality of the cops cameras of course those can serve more than one purpose they also are recording what the cops do and defendants have won based on police camera footage so the street goes both ways.Besides if a cop beat you or grossly violated the law I doubt they would make it inadmissible they used the camera footage filmed from across the street with the Rodney King beating.

@Wolfez you can still say "I have nothing to hide officer/sir/ma'am but I do not consent to searches".

The weed thing is just another attempt to get you to consent any time they ask for consent they lack probable cause and are trying to get your consent.It really is as simply as that.

[August]

How about a window sticker that says something along the lines of:

"Conversations with the driver of this vehicle are being recorded for quality assurance purposes."