War on (some) drugs: the latest "gone too far"

[Bill of Rights]

Just read this story on yahoo:

Yahoo!

The conventional wisdom here is "don't talk to the police", and the reasons have been repeated many times. This guy, after he'd been arrested and cuffed, gave consent for them to search his car. They did, and found nothing as there was nothing to find.

Questions I'm left with:

• Did his consent matter? They were going to search anyway, weren't they?
• Should he have given it, or not? He was already arrested.
• Mention was made about damage to his car. When his property is damaged by the intentional acts of officers, is the city responsible for the damages in cases where there is no evidence of a crime having been committed? (I realize this happened in TX, and laws are different. I'm asking about how this would play in Indiana.)
• Mention was made about how aggressive the arresting officer was. Why? (Please, no snarky answers to this. I'm seeking genuine feedback as to why a suspicion of having committed an act like this that did not hurt any innocents would engender aggression. Officers (or anyone else) with a real answer, if you don't want to post publicly, PM me.)
• Would the use of a canine have minimized any damage?
• Last (at least the last I can think of right now) suppose this man had had a legitimate Rx from his doc for, say, Vicodin or Percocet, the right amount or less were missing (that is, his Rx was for up to 2 a day, it was filled last week for 28, and there're only, say, two pills missing.) and he was not showing any signs of impairment) Would this have sent him before a judge or had him released without consequence other than the lost time and the damage to his vehicle?

Again, please, no snark here. I'm looking for facts, because a simple act of kindness like this on the accused's part can be misconstrued and cause problems for any of us, and I don't, at present, see any way to avoid it, other than to not show kindness to others. (and that's not an option I'm willing to pursue.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fletch]

I do not consent to a search and I want a lawyer.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't have time to get into a detailed write up at the moment. But Bill, at the end of the video, the anchorman said the guy said the damage to the car was done when the dog was searching for the drugs.

 

[shibumiseeker]

There's nothing illegal in my car that I am aware of. But that doesn't mean I willingly give up my right to unreasonable search and seizure.

I also abhor unprofessional behavior by professionals. Yes, I will laugh at stupidity I encounter with patients. My partners and I will talk about it later over a meal or whatever, we'll joke about it in the crew room. But I do Not Ever do so where the patient or their friends/family can hear it. That is part of being a professional. Unnecessary aggression, laughing about a person's plight, causing unnecessary damage, is all unprofessional behavior.

Moreover, I have no idea what someone may have left in my car without me knowing. We just now had a case of someone leaving an AR15 in a rental car for the next patron to find. What if that had been an illegal weapon? What if my mom's prescription med fell out of her purse when I was giving her a ride?

I will fully comply with orders given by a LEO, but I will not grant consent. Ever.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Well, "everyone knows" that drug dealers are, to a man, a hyper-violent lot, and always armed to the teeth. Amirite?

Therefore, it logicly follows that any time a LEO is addressing a suspected drug dealer, prudence simply dictates that they address the suspect as if he is hyper-violent and armed to the teeth. After all, to do anything less is to virtually guarantee the officer to not return home safe and sound at the end of his shift, which is always the chief goal of all law enforcers. Therefore, with the War on Drugs, LEOs are given carte blanch to treat all suspected drug dealers as a hungry fat kid treats a Big Mac.

Once you accept that premise, you then have to realize that to law enforcement, everyone's a criminal; It's just a matter of proper time and place to discover a particular person's particular crime, and since drug dealing is such an easy crime to commit, it's the default assumption when conducting any interaction with a given resident of a jurisdiction. Why else would cops, after having written a citation for doing 66 in a 60, and with absolutely zero RAS of any other violations, always ask for consent from the speeding scofflaw, "Would you mind if I searched your vehicle for contraband?" If there's no belief of any type that contraband would likely be found, why would any officer waste their time tossing a car whose sole occupant committed the sole infraction of exceeding the posted speed limit?

"Do you have any drugs or weapons in the vehicle?" frequently comes before "License, registration, and proof of insurance." or even the RAS cat-and-mouse of "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

Now that we see that a large propertion of the LEO population views everyone as just a potential suspect, and that suspects are to be treated with the utmost suspicion, it's easy to see why so many feel not just empowered, but entitled, to treat those who they deal with in a direct and physical manner in the most aggressive fashion. A touchstone of police practice is "aggressive control of the scene". Literally, it's to intimidate even the most confident in their righteousness and the lawfulness of their actions from even a hint of resistance to the LEO's intents and desires.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

• Did his consent matter? They were going to search anyway, weren't they?

Yes.

Search it anyway? Based on what?

Should he have given it, or not? He was already arrested

No, he is already in hot water. Demand attorney and stop talking.

Mention was made about damage to his car. When his property is damaged by the intentional acts of officers, is the city responsible for the damages in cases where there is no evidence of a crime having been committed?

Maybe, that what the complaint was about.

Mention was made about how aggressive the arresting officer was. Why?

Other states are faaarrrr different than Indiana. 0 to 60 in a heartbeat in California, the South, etc.

Maybe they were working a project. Maybe just had prior arrests. Don't know. Speculation.

Would the use of a canine have minimized any damage?

Unknown and impossible to know.

See it both ways.

st (at least the last I can think of right now) suppose this man had had a legitimate Rx from his doc for, say, Vicodin or Percocet, the right amount or less were missing (that is, his Rx was for up to 2 a day, it was filled last week for 28, and there're only, say, two pills missing.) and he was not showing any signs of impairment) Would this have sent him before a judge or had him released without consequence other than the lost time and the damage to his vehicle?

Sent him before a judge? What's the charge, Sarge?

Don't know Texas law, but if he has not committed an offense I would think your answer is no.

 

[88GT]

I just read this article not five minutes before logging on INGO.

I don't have any answers to your questions, BoR, other than we should be prepared to resist (as in not grant consent) when these things happen. It won't really stop the abuse of power, but it will set the stage for proper follow-up at a later date. This incident only reinforces my belief that prohibition is a losing battle on all fronts, and that the PC/RAS standard still sucks.

 

[Kurr]

I'll play and take a swing

[*] Did his consent matter? They were going to search anyway, weren't they?

Yes it matters. If he didn't consent and they searched anyway and found anything incriminating and tried to charge him There is a chance that the Judge would have not allowed the evidense. Since he consented if they found ANYTHING that would have linked him to that investigation or any other he would have found himself in a tight spot faced with trying to counter fully presentable evidense.

[*]Should he have given it, or not? He was already arrested.

While he may have had his movements "arrested" he was techinically only detained.

[*]Mention was made about damage to his car. When his property is damaged by the intentional acts of officers, is the city responsible for the damages in cases where there is no evidence of a crime having been committed? (I realize this happened in TX, and laws are different. I'm asking about how this would play in Indiana.)

He is asserting the officers damaged his car. Without proof that intentional damage was commited, I don't see much coming of this.

[*]Mention was made about how aggressive the arresting officer was. Why? (Please, no snarky answers to this. I'm seeking genuine feedback as to why a suspicion of having committed an act like this that did not hurt any innocents would engender aggression. Officers (or anyone else) with a real answer, if you don't want to post publicly, PM me.)

IMO this would be an excess of the "authoritarian voice". Screaming at people causes many to stop thinking and comply or at least disrupts their thoughts or thought petterns. Kinda like why Drills yell at recruits. If you go into a crowded area and yell STOP many people will stop without thought. If you walk up to someone next to a chair and yell "SIT THE F^&* DOWN" a large portion will do just that without a thought. Kinda like traing a dog.

[*]Would the use of a canine have minimized any damage?

I'm guessing no. If they ran the dog through the vehicle, you have paw prints on seats. If it "hits" legitamtly or not, they will still dig or pull stuff apart to get to where they think it might be, in order to recover evidense.

[*]Last (at least the last I can think of right now) suppose this man had had a legitimate Rx from his doc for, say, Vicodin or Percocet, the right amount or less were missing (that is, his Rx was for up to 2 a day, it was filled last week for 28, and there're only, say, two pills missing.) and he was not showing any signs of impairment) Would this have sent him before a judge or had him released without consequence other than the lost time and the damage to his vehicle?

He might have been REALLY screwed then. They saw what they thought was a handoff of drugs. Finding a prescription bottle of narcotics would have to some degree substantiated that claim. Also he would have, I suspect, at least been taken for a blood draw as driving under the influence of vicodin is illegal, whether you have a prescription or not, you are still under the influance of a controlled substance.

I am not an officer or a lawyer, but these are my best gusses off the top of my head.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I think Kurr broke the Internet.

 

[Kurr]

I did, it was a problem with the "list" tag, seems I have righted it now.

 

[CathyInBlue]

IMO this would be an excess of the "authoritarian voice". Screaming at people causes many to stop thinking and comply or at least disrupts their thoughts or thought petterns.

Funny. They call it Disorderly Conduct when a mere citizen does it to a LEO. (Ask me how I know.)

Also he would have, I suspect, at least been taken for a blood draw as driving under the influence of vicodin is illegal, whether you have a prescription or not, you are still under the influance of a controlled substance.

My understanding is that even Vicodin has therapeutic levels below which it's hunky dorry to drive. Only if the level of Vicodin in the blood is in excess of therapeutic levels would a charge of Vicodin intoxication be levelled.

 

[eldirector]

My understanding is that even Vicodin has therapeutic levels below which it's hunky dorry to drive. Only if the level of Vicodin in the blood is in excess of therapeutic levels would a charge of Vicodin intoxication be levelled.

Mostly correct. The level is irrelevant. If it is "doctor's orders", then you have a defense.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title9/ar30/ch5.pdf

(c) A person who operates a vehicle with a controlled substancelisted in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the
person's body commits a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) It is a defense to subsection (c) that the accused person
consumed the controlled substance under a valid prescription or
order of a practitioner (as defined in IC 35-48-1) who acted in the
course of the practitioner's professional practice.