This is why people don't trust the police, some lie

[littletommy]

One key question is: Why was the passenger arrested? I don't think he said on the video. If he had drugs...game over. The car, the driver, the passenger, everybody is being searched and detained as long as it takes. As far as the stop, RAS is debatable, but leaving a drug house under surveillance, one guy stays in the car while the other runs in for a minute, whatever else they articulate...probably good enough for RAS to stop them, but if they were smart they found an infraction to get PC. Not sure how the passenger was arrested or how they got there. So....But anyway, yeah the cops definitely do not know the law or they would have had both of those knuckleheads in cuffs while they searched the car....or conversely, avoided looking like retards to the world by not knowing what they are doing.

The article says both the driver and passenger were told they were free to go, and neither were charged with anything.

 

[jbombelli]

One key question is: Why was the passenger arrested? I don't think he said on the video. If he had drugs...game over. The car, the driver, the passenger, everybody is being searched and detained as long as it takes. As far as the stop, RAS is debatable, but leaving a drug house under surveillance, one guy stays in the car while the other runs in for a minute, whatever else they articulate...probably good enough for RAS to stop them, but if they were smart they found an infraction to get PC. Not sure how the passenger was arrested or how they got there. So....But anyway, yeah the cops definitely do not know the law or they would have had both of those knuckleheads in cuffs while they searched the car....or conversely, avoided looking like retards to the world by not knowing what they are doing.

Try reading the article again.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I am going to catch hell for this thread the next time I see him lol.....There's no way he'll go get me Indi's chicken wings ever again...

I tried to call the shop but you must have already closed.

Just throw some empty brass his direction... he is a cheap date.

True, you know me so well.

 

[rw496]

My bad; I just watched the video. So, ok really bad job then.

 

[gregr]

I believe what you are thinking of is this.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

But as stated below by BBI...





What? Where did you hear that? While they can't lie under oath, they can lie to you all they want. Heck they can fabricate "evidence" in an attempt to get you to confess or make some other statement. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/731/case.html for staters



The police don't generally need a warrant to search your vehicle, just probable cause.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/case.html
I do agree with the last part of your statement...

Negative. They need a warrant or my permission. It would be a mistake for any officer to try outside of those two parameters. I will not be passive.

 

[jbombelli]

Negative. They need a warrant or my permission. It would be a mistake for any officer to try outside of those two parameters. I will not be passive.

Good luck with that.

Probable cause + Resisting = Jail

 

[gregr]

Good luck with that.

Probable cause + Resisting = Jail

I`m not going to argue. Just know...it won`t happen.

 

[jbombelli]

Lol.

 

[gregr]

Lol.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

This thread has potential.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Negative. They need a warrant or my permission. It would be a mistake for any officer to try outside of those two parameters. I will not be passive.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/12028-7-exceptions-search-warrant-rule.html

You should peruse the first post in that thread. Vehicles are a little different because of their inherent mobility.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Negative. They need a warrant or my permission. It would be a mistake for any officer to try outside of those two parameters. I will not be passive.

I'm assuming you didn't read the case? 90+ yrs of case law from SCOTUS? While I may not agree with the decision, especially now with the tech that we have, it is still "the (case) law of the land"

Good luck with that.

Probable cause + Resisting = Jail

Actually I'm thinking it would be more along these lines PC + Assaulting an officer and/or resisting = jail = impound = at least an "inventory" but most likely a full blown search.

Lol.

I agree, I don't care how big and bad you are, there is always someone bigger and badder. And if not 2 or 3 or 10 combined will work.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

This thread has potential.

I agree.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/12028-7-exceptions-search-warrant-rule.html

You should peruse the first post in that thread. Vehicles are a little different because of their inherent mobility.

I cited for him the exact case Carroll v US...

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I cited for him the exact case Carroll v US...

Solid work.

 

[Vigilant]

This thread has potential.

Calm down man, put away the Kiwi, he's relatively a talker, so you shan't have to neck step him! I know this pains you, but I still owe you a burger from a previous thread, so, if you don't neck stomp him(without PC, RAS, creative report writing, etc.) let this one lie. Whaddya think, Twin Peaks on Wednesday!?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Calm down man, put away the Kiwi, he's relatively a talker, so you shan't have to neck step him! I know this pains you, but I still owe you a burger from a previous thread, so, if you don't neck stomp him(without PC, RAS, creative report writing, etc.) let this one lie. Whaddya think, Twin Peaks on Wednesday!?

I don't plan on being in his general vicinity, so no neck stepping from me. I'll send you a PM reference the burger thing.

 

[vitamink]

GREAT post. And I`d like to piggyback this post to say: because some of us will not accept rogue police, who lie and murder, does not make us anti-police. Not anymore than denouncing war crimes would make us anti-military. I don`t think anyone questions the understanding that the great majority of law-enforcement are giving, caring professionals who do an extremely difficult job, and most carry themselves extremely well. Police who act out, and terrorize citizens, who abuse their authority, while in the minority, are a concern for everyone, and should be for the good officers as well. Enough so, so that they would do their best to police their own ranks and root them out. Dirty police are unacceptable, and intolerable, period.

Great post and I'd like to piggyback this post to say: Because some of us will not accept rogue INGO members who lie murder and do not know the law, don't make cops anti INGO. Not anymore than denouncing war crimes would make them anti military. I don't think anyone questions that the great majority of INGO members eat bacon, go to work, buy bad ammo get stressed out, and yet carry themselves very well. INGO members who don't understand the law, preach their misunderstandings to their family, on the internet, and then threaten LE that even though they are acting correctly said member will not be passive and it will not go well for them (police) are a concern for everyone on INGO. INGO should police its own ranks.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This thread has potential.

Plenty

 

[KG1]

Good luck with that.

Probable cause + Resisting = Jail

Lol.

I'm assuming you didn't read the case? 90+ yrs of case law from SCOTUS? While I may not agree with the decision, especially now with the tech that we have, it is still "the (case) law of the land"



Actually I'm thinking it would be more along these lines PC + Assaulting an officer and/or resisting = jail = impound = at least an "inventory" but most likely a full blown search.



I agree, I don't care how big and bad you are, there is always someone bigger and badder. And if not 2 or 3 or 10 combined will work.

I agree.



I cited for him the exact case Carroll v US...

Great post and I'd like to piggyback this post to say: Because some of us will not accept rogue INGO members who lie murder and do not know the law, don't make cops anti INGO. Not anymore than denouncing war crimes would make them anti military. I don't think anyone questions that the great majority of INGO members eat bacon, go to work, buy bad ammo get stressed out, and yet carry themselves very well. INGO members who don't understand the law, preach their misunderstandings to their family, on the internet, and then threaten LE that even though they are acting correctly said member will not be passive and it will not go well for them (police) are a concern for everyone on INGO. INGO should police its own ranks.

Looks to me like Ingo is "policing" it's own ranks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Looks to me like Ingo is "policing" it's own ranks.

Indeed so. VitaminK makes my point, however: There are people who act shamefully on both the "LTCH" and on the "badge" side of the equation. GregR, I'm not calling you out or saying you're acting shamefully. What I am saying is that you've been given some good information here, with supporting case law. If it was just "some guy on the net" spewing info ("Bonjour!") I could see taking what he said with the proverbial block of salt, but you were given a means by which you could research it yourself.

How you act is your own decision. Once you've been made aware of information, though, you're responsible for it. (that's not "you" personally, but "you" as in anyone.) May I respectfully suggest you give the info a read and consider it with an open mind? You've said you're what they call a "God-fearing man", so I don't think it's out of line to suggest that trying to "win" on the side of the road, especially with the braggadocio you exhibit here, would amount to "suicide by cop".

I don't know you other than on the computer, but I don't want to see that happen.

Blessings,
Bill