pulled over for vaping

[THE]

I'm not the one who decided to lecture people on what is proper and not police procedure... You did.

You are clearly NOT an expert.

I am a police officer, and I spend too much of my FREE time biting my tongue here seeing misinformation/distortions of actual events/etc. Stuff that could not/ did not happen the way portrayed/ and/or have been explained away already.

Too bad this forum gets polluted with people more intent on grinding an ax, hammering out grudges than just being real. You might not like cops, but I'm here too trying to help people. I'll never bow down to BS though.

If you don't agree.. use this OPEN FORUM to say so.. vague statements and attacking someones character doesn't do you or any other officer ONE BIT of good. Not a bit.

If you do not agree with anything I've said, use the quote button and sound off.. I'd love to hear anything you have to say. If I'm wrong about something, I am a reasonable person. But you have to LET ME KNOW.

Thank you.

 

[THE]

It was your post in #131 that set the tone for me.

I didn't jump to anything I'm not trained to jump to, LOL. And all I ask is that you and others do the same. People really do not understand law enforcement. Oftentimes all they know is "call 911" with no idea all that goes into the response, the training, the reasons for those things, etc. Coupled with "don't hurt/shoot/TASE/spray" him...even though the call was generated by someone who couldn't stop the threat he/she called about, but they think they are experts as to how the call should have been handled.

Having said that, happy vaping. Common sense goes a long way.

There are certain citizens/subjects I wish you were allowed to go after. I know your hands are tied many times when they should not be. It's the price we pay to ensure that every idiot has the same protection. We believe it's better to also afford it to scum than to deprive a good person of it. Just the way it is here.

I don't see how anything you're talking about relates to this discussion.
If someone is wrong about something, especially if I am, let them/me know.
I am open to absolutely anything you have to say. Period. If I have something wrong and you don't say so, don't complain about it, you never gave me a chance.

 

[THE]

It was only legal because consent was given. But that consent was given only under duress. Legal and fair are the differences we are discussing. Just because it was technically legal, doesn't mean the officers actions were fair. If the FDA bans e-cigs, it would technically be legal, but that doesn't mean that it is fair. Does it?

I didn't know the FDA could make criminal law.
I thought that they made recommendations?
Interesting.

 

[THE]

You must be part of the approaching 0% that support Obama..seriously your level of misdirection is fatiguing. I need to hit the hay.

By the way, consent given under duress is not "legal." Time for you to get some sleep too, LOL.

It's always about political party, isn't it.
I would never be a repub or a dem. Period. Not if you burned me alive.

 

[THE]

Actually, not to split hairs here, but the search WAS legal and no consent would be required. Seeing the vapor clouds, and no cigarettes, it's a logical conclusion that the OP would be using .......... That is probable cause, and no consent is needed in that instance.

If you read the OP's original post, the officer didn't ask for permission to search, they stated "I have reason to believe you are driving under the influence of ............. please step our of your vehicle so I can search it." At that point the OP explained what the PV was, and the cop performed the search. I don't see that there's an issue here. You can't believe everyone's story that you pulled over, or you'll never get anything done because EVERYONE has an excuse for everything.

After the officer completed his LEGAL investigation, he returned the PV and sent the OP on the way. The only issue that I would have with this stop depends on the officer's tone when they told the OP "You can be on your way now but in the future, avoid using this thing while driving if you wish to have no further issues such as this. Have a nice day."

If it was meant as a "Hey, you didn't do anything illegal but it's hard to tell that in the split second that we have to make a determination as you drive by. If you want to make sure you aren't pulled over again then I wouldn't use that in the car in the future." then I have no problem with it. If, however, the officer said it in a "Don't use that again, you've been warned" tone, then he overstepped his boundaries there.

Edit: This reasoning was supplied to me by a good friend of mine who happens to be an excellent police officer.

Great .. but what if the reason for the stop is a toy pistol on the dash .. the officer takes control of it and finds it to be a plastic toy .. is the plastic toy now probable cause to search my vehicle for weapons?

Why is the PV still cause after it's shown to be an innocent device... ??

 

[THE]

I'll let him know that some guy on the internet says he's doing it wrong.

He's a cop so he's right no matter what
Is that it

That's a sick sick way to think

Instead of saying that, answer the question.

 

[THE]

Rhanston, the argument isn't whether a particular behavior happens or not, its about how the officer conducted the investigation. While observing the OP vape certainly gives the officer the right to pull them over and conduct an investigation, nothing in that preliminary investigation gave probable cause to conduct a warrant-less search. Had there been probable cause the officer wouldn't need consent, could detain the operator, and proceed with the search. The officer obviously realized there wasn't enough evidence to warrant it and proceeded to obtain consent for the search, but the manner in which he did it was back handed. If he had directly asked the person if they would consent to a search, ie. "would you mind if I search your vehicle real quick?" it would be one thing, however, the officer said "please step out of your vehicle so I can search it." By stepping out of the vehicle the OP implied consent and the officer then had all he needed to conduct the search. It is not the job of LEO's to coerce people into waiving their rights so they can make more arrests. While probable cause and reasonable suspicion aren't black and white, they are not blankets they can use to search you for little reason, or scare you into letting them do it.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned what I call "mixing questions". Two questions in one. Made to sound like a command.

 

[THE]

Police use trickery all the time as part of their jobs, and the U.S. Supreme Court has given its okay. For example, when interrogating suspects, police can lie about what evidence they have, or whatever, in order to get the suspect to confess.

Police often use psychological manipulation tactics to obtain consent for searches when they don't have warrants or probable cause. They are trained for this. And the U.S. Supreme Court gives police a LOT of "wiggle room" before they are prepared to rule consent invalid due to "intimidation."

But is this really a bad thing? About 90% of suspects that are "tricked" are guilty of crimes, often serious ones. As a member of society, I want murderers, rapists, and drug dealers to go to jail even if they are tricked into hanging themselves.

As a lawyer, however, it is my job to advise clients on their rights under the law. Yes, a police officer has the right to seek consent to search if he or she has no probable cause, and the person of interest has the right to refuse. That doesn't make either one the "good guy" or "bad guy," it's just how the system works. Since I deal with it all the time, for me it's sort of a game.

RadicalJD

Yeah, there are alot of criminals out there I want leaned on. Hard. If possible I'd like them to be .. The officers have GOOD training .. They're amazingly good at getting things out of people, especially once they have them isolated.

 

[THE]

Ok, just talked to my friend again, and I apparently misquoted him. He doesn't think there was PC for a search, but the gap between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is narrower than a lot of people think. The fact that according to the OP, the officer did not ask to perform a search tells him it's possible the officer thought he'd satisfied probable cause. Remember that you don't need an assurance of guilt to have probable cause, just a reasonable expectation that a crime has been committed. It might have been thrown out in court, it depends on the judge. Some here would agree with the officer, some wouldn't and would throw any evidence found out.

My buddy did agree to NEVER giver consent to do a search. JD's advice is spot on. Always deny consent and ask if you're being detained. If the officer says no, then you're free to go. If an officer tells you that he's going to search your car, and you don't tell them that you do not consent to a search, then it can be considered implied consent since you didn't object. He said that's pretty shady, but some cops will do things like that.

This post is much more useful.
It is a relevant response.

 

[THE]

Well, implied consent is not as simple as failing to object. There must be some affirmative response on the part of the searchee. Most officers don't say, "will you give me your consent to search your car?" they are more heavy-handed, like "you don't have a problem with me taking a look around inside your car, do you?" And while saying that, the officer gives a glare that would make the typical person assume that it's not really a request, more of a command. Consent could be just a wave of the hand or some gesture that woul mean to an average person, "Yeah, go ahead."

Thus, the best way to avoid any doubt that no consent exists is to clearly state, "I do not consent to a search."

One thing to remember, if the officer is searching despite your objections, never do anything to attempt to interfere. That could raise other problems.

RadicalJD

LoL .. I think anyone you have to advise to not interfere with an officer physically is too hopeless to know how to read anyway .. but it's nice of you

 

[THE]

As an aside, I know what in the I'm talking about or I don't open my mouth or bang any keys. I've not seen anyone refute anything or even challenge much I've said, yet. If I'm wrong about anything, I appreciate being set straight, so have at me.

I have a remarkable ability to not see things with any bias. My eyes are dead centered, period.

 

[imtheshane]

He's a cop so he's right no matter what
Is that it

That's a sick sick way to think

Instead of saying that, answer the question.

Well, since there was no question posed in the post that I was replying to, I'm not sure how exactly I'm supposed to answer it.

I don't think that just because someone is a cop that they're right no matter what. That's quite a leap of logic, isn't it? My reply was merely meant to be a semi-humorous way of saying that I'll take the word of my friend, who is a cop and therefore deals with things like this as his job, over someone on the internet who seems to have an axe to grind against law enforcement.

Notice that later I did clarify a few things and make another post, and stated in that post that JD's advice was spot on. I admitted my error, but also warned everyone that it's really dependent on how the judge presiding the case views probable cause. You're really at the mercy of the judge on this issue. Two judges can hear the exact same case and render different verdicts. I tried to present an alternate viewpoint that could be seen as valid in the eyes of a judge.

 

[THE]

Well, since there was no question posed in the post that I was replying to, I'm not sure how exactly I'm supposed to answer it.

I don't think that just because someone is a cop that they're right no matter what. That's quite a leap of logic, isn't it? My reply was merely meant to be a semi-humorous way of saying that I'll take the word of my friend, who is a cop and therefore deals with things like this as his job, over someone on the internet who seems to have an axe to grind against law enforcement.

Notice that later I did clarify a few things and make another post, and stated in that post that JD's advice was spot on. I admitted my error, but also warned everyone that it's really dependent on how the judge presiding the case views probable cause. You're really at the mercy of the judge on this issue. Two judges can hear the exact same case and render different verdicts. I tried to present an alternate viewpoint that could be seen as valid in the eyes of a judge.

Also notice that I acknowledged the fact that you had indeed posted a relevant response (in a later post I made).. I have a bad habit of quoting in a new window as I'm reading through pages.. If not to say, answer the question, I should have said something more like ... respond to what the guy said .. that is what I meant. When you said you trusted the friend over some guy on the internet, without putting any logic into it or responding to what was said, I didn't like that. That's all.

No big deal man .. sorry if I offended you, you don't seem like a bad guy or anything.

 

[imtheshane]

No big deal man .. sorry if I offended you, you don't seem like a bad guy or anything.

I didn't mean to come off as offended. Talk it up to being a 5 A.M. post. No offense taken.

 

[Saintscruiser]

It's always about political party, isn't it.
I would never be a repub or a dem. Period. Not if you burned me alive.

It should always be about the Constitution and the laws and freedoms on which this country was founded.....but, alas, it has come down to a political party tinkling contest. I am weary of it as well. Context and integrity matters.....say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm old fashioned.....your word should be your bond.

 

[jiveman]

i'm glad i took someone's advice and kept my joye510 manual in my car, i just got pulled over myself. I work overnights and vape at red lights, windows up.

This has caused me to get pulled over twice in the last 4 months in my area. first time was a bit of a hassle as I had to convince the cop of what it was. This time was fairly quick. haha

 

[STB]

Unfortunately, the police officer's lack of understanding is what constitutes his "probable cause", which is exactly why more education is necessary.

 

[THE]

It should always be about the Constitution and the laws and freedoms on which this country was founded.....but, alas, it has come down to a political party tinkling contest. I am weary of it as well. Context and integrity matters.....say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm old fashioned.....your word should be your bond.

Agreed. Everything is political. I do NOT affiliate with any party.

 

[brandon555]

This. How stupid would a person have to be to be toking on some sort of drug pipe at a red light? How often has he seen someone doing that in his policing career?

Also, being a cop, you would think he could tell the difference between someone who's under the influence of something, and someone who's not. I can, and I'm not a cop. I'm just moderately aware of my surroundings..

Seriously, I don't get why he pulled you over. I agree with the above suggestion to go to your police station and do some educatin'.

I was in highschool once and I'm pretty sure your statement isn't true... However these activities mostly took place on the country roads

 

[radicaljd]

Agreed. Everything is political. I do NOT affiliate with any party.

The only party I'll join is a keg party.