FAQs: General Law; Arrests and Interrogations; Searches and Seizures

D

Dakeva

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 11, 2000
Messages
2,268
FAQ: Arrests and Interrogations.

UNITED STATES LAW

Arrests and Interrogations FAQ
An arrest occurs when a police officer armed with an arrest warrant utters the magic words "you're under arrest," or when a police officer significantly restrains your freedom of motion. The restraint must be more than a mere detention on the street (discussed above). Although in most situations the police will take you to the police station for booking (photographs and fingerprinting), it is also possible for an officer to arrest and book you at the crime scene, and then release you when you give a written promise to appear in court at a later time.
After the police arrest you, they will often question you in order to find out more about the crime, your role in it and whether there may be other suspects. There are several Constitutional protections that you may invoke during police interrogations.

When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?
As long as the police have good reason (called "probable cause") to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person they want to arrest committed the crime, they can, with just one exception, make an arrest without asking a judge for a warrant.
The exception? There are few places where the adage "a man's home is his castle" still applies, and an arrest at home is one of them. The police must have a warrant to arrest a person at home if the arrest is for a nonserious offense-such as a simple assault-and there is no fear that the person they want to arrest will destroy evidence or cause harm to the public.

How do the police obtain an arrest warrant?
An officer must present sworn evidence to a judge that a crime has occurred and that the police have probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by the person they want to arrest. If the judge agrees, she will issue a warrant. The police are then entitled to seize the person wherever they can find him.

If the police make an illegal arrest, is the arrested person set free?
No. But if a search of the person or her immediate surroundings is conducted during the arrest and turns up incriminating evidence, the evidence may be kept out of the person's trial on the grounds that it is "fruit of the poisonous tree"-that is, the evidence was found as the result of an improper arrest. Also, if the illegally arrested person makes any statements to the police after being arrested, the statements may not be used as evidence. This is true whether or not the arrested person was "read their rights." (See below.)

Can a person who is charged with a crime be forced to give bodily samples?
Yes. You might think that being forced to give bodily samples-such as blood, hair or fingernail clippings-is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's protection against self- incrimination, found in the Fifth Amendment. But the U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise. It has ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects communications only, and that bodily samples are physical evidence and therefore not covered by the Constitution.

If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights?"
No. Miranda rights as they have come to be known -- the right to remain silent and others -- only need to be read to you if you are in custody and questioned. They do NOT need be read for roadside questioning after a traffic stop. Your rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by T.V. police immediately upon arresting a suspect:
  • You have the right to remain silent.
  • If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
  • You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
  • If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
  • If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)
If you are not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question them about a recent crime and the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning. But remember you still have these rights, even if they have not been read to you by the police or a judge. Use them.

Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?
No. Many people mistakenly believe that a case will be thrown out of court if the police fail to give Miranda warnings to the arrested person. What Miranda actually says is that a warning is necessary if the police interrogate a suspect and want to use any of her responses as evidence. If the police fail to give you a Miranda warning, nothing you say in response to the questioning can be used as evidence to convict you. In addition, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial. For example, if you tell the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that you gave this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without your statements.

What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?
If you're taken into custody by the police, you don't have to use any magic words to let police officers know that you want to remain silent. You can simply say nothing in response to police questions. Or, after an officer gives you a Miranda warning, you can stop the questioning by saying something like:
  • I want to talk to an attorney.
  • I won't say anything until I talk to an attorney.
  • I don't have anything to say.
  • I don't want to talk to you anymore.
  • I claim my Miranda rights.
If the police continue to question you after you have asserted your right to remain silent, they have violated Miranda. As a result, anything you say after that point -- and any evidence gleaned from that conversation-will not be admissible at your trial.

How heavy handed can the police get when asking questions?
Information that you voluntarily disclose to a police officer (after you have been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial. The key word is "voluntary." Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get you to talk to them. The days of the rubber hose, protracted grilling under bright lights and severe sleep deprivation are pretty much over. If police officers obtain information through any of these illegal means, the information cannot be used by the prosecutor at trial. In addition, under the rule known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.
Defendants often claim that police officers coerced them into talking. And it's just as common for police officers to say that the defendants spoke voluntarily. If the police physically coerce a defendant into talking, the defendant can support his coercion claims with photos of marks and bruises. But actual police brutality is unusual, and a defendant cannot usually offer independent evidence to support his claims of psychological coercion. Judges, believing that defendants have a greater motivation to lie than do police officers, usually side with the police and conclude that no coercion took place.
Taken from: NOLO Law for All
[ 14 December 2001: Message edited by: FoX ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FAQ: Searches and Seizures

Searches and Seizures FAQ
Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It's the freedom to decide which details of your life are public and which are not. At the same time, most of us acknowledge that society is served when the police, in appropriate circumstances, are allowed to look for and seize contraband, stolen goods and evidence of a crime.
In an attempt to balance our desires for privacy against the legitimate needs of the police, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law officers. Generally, this means that the police may conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or any other property if:
  • the police can show that it is more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that if they are allowed to search, they will probably find evidence or contraband (this requirement is called "probable cause"), and
  • a judge agrees there is probable cause and issues a search warrant, or the police are permitted to search without a warrant because of the particular circumstances involved.
When is a police investigation considered a search?
A police investigation is not a search unless it intrudes on a person's privacy. In other words, if a person did not have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched, no "search" has occurred.
Courts ask two questions to determine whether a person had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
  • did the person expect some degree of privacy?
  • Is the person's expectation reasonable-that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects that no one will spy on her, and most people-including judges and juries-would consider that expectation to be reasonable. Therefore, if the police install a hidden video camera in a public restroom, the action is considered a search and must meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, if the police glance into a car and see a weapon on the front seat, it is not a search because it is unlikely that a person would think that the front seat of a car is a private place. And even if he did, society is not generally willing to extend the protections of privacy to the front seat of an automobile.
How Private Is Your Property?
Generally, if the police are able to view contraband or evidence on your property without actually entering it, they have not conducted a search. In other words, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area that can legitimately be seen from outside your property. This means that the police can use what they have seen as the basis for getting a warrant to come in and take a closer look. Or, if the situation calls for prompt action (the need to stop a drug deal, for instance), they may enter without a warrant.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to take aerial photographs or come close enough to overhear your conversations-these actions are not considered searches. On the other hand, without a warrant or an exception to the rule requiring a warrant, officers are probably not allowed to use sophisticated equipment to discover what is on your property or to eavesdrop on your conversations. In general, if the investigation method is highly artificial and high-tech, it's likely to be considered a search. Where the line is drawn, however, is not clear or consistent from state to state.
What is a search warrant?
A search warrant is a kind of permission slip, signed by a judge, that allows the police to enter private property to look for particular items. It is addressed to the owner of the property, and tells the owner that a judge has decided that it is reasonably likely that certain contraband, or evidence of criminal activities, will be found in specified locations on the property.
As a general rule, the police are supposed to apply for a warrant before conducting a search of private property; any search that is conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. This means that the police officers will later have to justify the search-and why a warrant wasn't obtained first-if the defendant challenges it in court.
What does it take to get a search warrant?
A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:
  • it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
  • items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.
To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant. The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. For example, a citizen's tip that someone regularly delivers drugs to a certain location would be corroborated if an officer observes the person's routine. But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past.
What are the police allowed to do after they obtain a search warrant?
Once the police have a search warrant, they are entitled to enter the designated property to search for the items listed on the warrant. Legally, the search is supposed to be confined to the specific areas described in the warrant. For example, if the search warrant includes only the living room, the search should not extend into the kitchen, bathroom or bedroom. But there are exceptions to this limitation which are frequently used to justify broader searches. For example, the police may search beyond the terms of the warrant in order to:
  • ensure their safety and the safety of others
  • prevent the destruction of evidence
  • discover more about possible evidence or contraband that is in plain view elsewhere on the property, or
  • hunt for evidence or contraband that, as a result of their initial search, they believe exists in another location on the property.
For instance, although a warrant might be issued for the search of a house, the sound of a shotgun being loaded in the backyard would justify expanding the search to the yard in order to protect the officers; similarly, a search limited to the ground floor might legitimately expand to the upstairs if the police, searching for illegal drugs, hear toilets being flushed above. And the police can always seize evidence or illegal items if they are in plain view or are discovered while the officers are searching for the items listed in the warrant.
Do the police always need a warrant to conduct a search?
No. In many situations, police may legally conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant.
  • Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant.
  • Searches that accompany an arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft.
  • Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members.
  • Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search.
  • "Hot pursuit" searches. Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime.
Can my roommate -- or my landlord -- give the police permission to search my apartment?
The police may search your apartment if the person in charge of the premises gives permission. If you and your roommate share common areas (such as the kitchen and living room), your roommate can authorize a search of those areas. But your roommate cannot give permission to search your separate bedroom.
Similarly, your landlord cannot give permission to search your apartment. Although the landlord owns the property, your monthly check guarantees your privacy at home. This is true even if you are behind in your rent or your landlord has sued to evict you. Until the landlord has a court order that permits him to enter and retake the premises, he cannot enter without your permission. (But keep in mind that many states allow a landlord to enter for inspections, which usually require advance notice of a day or two.) If the police can point to circumstances that would justify immediate entry, however -- such as the sound of a ferocious fight or the smell of burning marijuana -- they may enter without permission from anyone.
Taken from: NOLO Law for All

Edited to make sticky. ~Mariposa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FAQ Criminal Law (U.S.)

FAQ Criminal Law (U.S.)
[*]Criminal Law: An Overview
[*]If You Are Questioned by the Police:http://www2.bluelight.ru/ubb/Forum42/HTML/000042.html?reload=0
[*]Arrests and Interrogations
[*]Bail
[*]Search and Seizure:
[*]Criminal Defense Lawyers and Public Defenders
[*]How Sentencing Works
[*]Appeals and the Writ of Habeas Corpus
-------------------------------------
CONTENTS

I. Criminal Law: An Overview
  • Who decides how the criminal justice system works?
  • What's the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
  • How can I tell from reading a criminal statute whether I'm guilty of the crime it defines?
  • What is the "presumption of innocence?"
  • What does it mean to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
  • If I'm accused of a crime, am I guaranteed a trial by a jury?
  • Can a jury acquit me even if I broke the law?
  • If I do not have any witnesses who will testify on my behalf, can I still win at trial?
  • I am confused about why a defendant would choose to not testify. If I were innocent, why wouldn't I want to take the stand and tell my story?
  • What is self-defense -- and how can a defendant prove it?
  • When can a defendant win an acquittal on grounds of insanity?
  • What happens if a defendant is judged "incompetent to stand trial?"
  • Can a defendant go free because he was drunk or high on drugs when he committed a crime?
II. Dealing with the Police:

If You Are Questioned by the Police:http://www2.bluelight.ru/ubb/Forum42/HTML/000042.html?reload=0http://www2.bluelight.ru/ubb/Forum42/HTML/000042.html?reload=0
  • If an officer wants to stop me while I'm walking on the street and I know I've done nothing wrong, should I comply?
  • If I am legally stopped by a police officer on the street, can he search me?
  • Can a frisk turn into a full-blown search?
  • If I am questioned by a police officer after being stopped on the street, do I have to respond to the questions?
Arrests and Interrogations
  • Can a person who is charged with a crime be forced to give bodily samples?
  • When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?
  • How do the police obtain an arrest warrant?
  • If the police make an illegal arrest, is the arrested person set free?
  • If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights?"
  • Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?
  • What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?
  • How heavy handed can the police get when asking questions?
Bail
  • What does it mean to "post bail?"
  • Who decides how much bail I have to pay?
  • Are there are restrictions on how high my bail can be?
  • What can I do if I can't afford to pay the bail listed on the bail schedule?
  • How soon can I appear before a judge?
  • How do I pay for bail?
  • Is it true that a defendant who proves his reliability can get out of jail on his word alone?
III. Search and Seizure:
  • When is a police investigation considered a search?
  • What is a search warrant?
  • What does it take to get a search warrant?
  • What are the police allowed to do after they obtain a search warrant?
  • Do the police always need a warrant to conduct a search?
  • Can my roommate-or my landlord-give the police permission to search my apartment?
IV.Criminal Defense Lawyers and Public Defenders
  • Should I expect a lawyer to guarantee a good result?
  • How can I get a court to appoint a lawyer for me?
  • Do I need a lawyer at my arraignment?
  • If I'm poor, will a judge appoint a public defender to represent me?
  • My county doesn't have a public defender's office. How will the court provide an attorney for me?
  • Do public defenders provide the same quality of representation as regular lawyers?
  • How can I get a second opinion on my public defender's advice?
  • How can I find a private defense lawyer?
  • What is a private lawyer likely to cost?
  • Can I arrange for a contingency fee in a criminal case?
  • Can I change lawyers if I'm unhappy with the one I hired?
  • What if I'm not happy with my court-appointed lawyer? Can I get a new one?
  • Why do some defendants choose to represent themselves?
  • How can I tell whether I should represent myself or not?
  • How can I find out what my punishment is likely to be?
  • Can I represent myself and pay a lawyer to advise me as I go?
V.Trials, Sentencing, Punishment and Appeals
How Sentencing Works
  • Who determines what punishment a convicted defendant receives?
  • Where can the prescribed punishment for crimes be found?
  • Do people convicted of the same or similar crimes receive similar sentences?
  • What factors do judges use in determining sentences?
Appeals and the Writ of Habeas Corpus
  • What is an appeal?
  • What are the chances that my conviction will be reversed?
  • What is a writ?
  • What's the difference between a writ and an appeal?
  • What is a writ of habeas corpus?
Taken from:
NOLO Law for All
[This message has been edited by dakeva (edited 29 November 2001).]
 
Others might not agree, but let me add some of my opinions regarding how police can behave during an interrogation. These comments are only offered to prevent innocent people from unwarranted legal problems, not to help criminals elude detection.
Police can "embellish" their evidence when they are questioning you. They can say they have an (imaginary) eyewitness who saw you commit the crime. The police can scare people into confessing with "hypothetical" DNA evidence. They can also cite actual evidence that could never be admitted at trial (although as a layman, you would not know this) to induce a confession.
If you decide to voluntarily answer their questions....only answer those questions ONCE! If they start repeating their questions to see if you give different answers, ask for your lawyer immediately....even if you are completely innocent! You won't be able to "explain" your innocence to their satisfaction, so it is in your best interests to stop trying.
____
EDIT: I read all the FAQs and kudos for putting them together. But I wonder if the "When you are questioned by the police" one can be combined with this FAQ. Or if maybe part of this FAQ could be added to the other. Just my opinion....
[This message has been edited by Catch-22 (edited 30 November 2001).]
 
I put these together pretty much as a found them (so I can’t take much more credit then for that doing a little research and ubb coding for a nice format) but thanks.
smile.gif

I knew some of this information could be debated when I posted it. I actually really liked that fact this forum has been a bit slow and figured a) it’s a nice start reference and b) that it might spark some interesting discussion.
I also posted it like this so that the individual issues could be addressed in discussion without other being drowned out. I as well complied a master FAQ of all this data and posted it in the FAQ forum.
You can check it out here: Legal FAQ
 
There are two scenarios that I'd like to pose to try and get some clearer answers....
Scenario 1:
An officer performs an ordinary pat-down to ensure that you are not carrying a concealed weapon. The legality of this pat-down is based upon the presumption that you could be carrying such an item and this pat-down is supposed to be restricted only to weapons. Now, during the pat-down, say an officer feels what appears to be a pill or a baggy or something else which could "conceivably" be drugs but is by no means "definitively" drugs. What rights do you have at this point and what is the legality of him checking your pockets to ascertain the identity of this item? If asked by the officer what the contents are, what right do you have to refuse this question? Or, alternatively, what is the proper response? Should you simply respond with an indirect answer, "I have no weapons on me" or something to the effect?
Scenario 2:
You are in a club. This club has uniformed office, undercover officers, and club security inside. You are patted down when entering the club by club staff. Once inside, what is the legality of random searches of the person by club security? I realize that both the uniformed and under cover cops would still be bound by the probably cause aspects...are the club security bound to this as well or do they not have to follow this because you are in their private establishment? If you refuse a search of the person by a club security guard, do they have the right to throw you out, citing that you are not abiding by their rules (which could theoretically state you are subject to searches at any time)?
 
A further note on arrest and miranda warnings. After you are arrested, cops must give you a miranda warning BEFORE questioning you, or your answers (and any evidence they discovery based on your answers) can't be used in court.
So you see that the cops do not need to give you miranda warnings immediately upon arrest, if they are not in a hurry to question you.
As a caveat, I would argue that your miranda rights might kick in BEFORE the official arrest if a cop is questioning you and he already knows he is planning to arrest you. Essentially, the cop would be delaying the arrest so he can ask you questions without any miranda warnings. I'm pretty sure this is a no-no and a civil rights violation. You might have to convince the judge that the cop knew or should have known that he was going to arrest you when the questioning was taking place.
~psychoblast~
 
Answer to Scenario 1:
When a cop feels a baggie or pills during the Terry pat, that information goes into the totality of information that the cop is using to determine if you are committing a crime. From that totality (time, place, your appearance, your behavior, your demeanor and the feel of the baggie or pills) the cop may say he (1) reasonable suspects the stuff is drugs or contraband; (2) has probable cause to believe the stuff is drugs or contraband or (3) neither.
With neither, the cop cannot insist that you show him the stuff or answer questions about it. But he can still REQUEST you to. So he could ask you to show it to him (most people instinctively obey requests from cops as if they were commands) and he can still ask you questions about it. At this point, you can refuse to answer the questions or show him it. NOTE: This is an unlikely situation, since the cop will probably claim he had at least a reasonable suspicion the stuff was drugs.
With a reasonable suspicion, the cop has the right to insist you answer questions about the stuff. If your answers (or your demeanor during the answers) are bad, that may give him probable cause.
With probable cause, the cop has the right to reach in and look at it. Finding illegal drugs (if that's what it was) he can now arrest you. The goal is to force the cop to reach in for it if he wants to--you can then go to court and argue that he did not really have probable cause to think it was drugs (even if it was).
Answer to Scenario 2:
Club security have no right to search you at all, but if you refuse the search they DO have the right to refuse you entry or, if you are already in, to kick you out. If this happens after you paid a cover charge, you may be entitled to a refund (unless the entry ticket or conspicuous posting on the wall says that the club has the right to conduct spot searches as a condition of your continued presence in the club). But I don't know if the club will agree--and are you really going to sue them over a cover charge?
~psychoblast~
 
Miranda right's kick in during any "custodial" interogation. Arrest or not, doesn't really matter, the test for "custodial" is whether or not a reasonable person in similar circustance would have believed he was detained.
Miranda is actually falling into disfavor now, and the exclusionary rule as it relates to Miranda "violations" is ripe with exceptions, the cops can get away with a LOT these day. The last time the Supremes took up the Miranda issue, it barely survived being overturned.
I always tell clients to keep their mouths shut at all times and never bet on Miranda to save their butt if they open their mouths.
 
concerning mirandizing:
If you are merely being held (that is, you're free to go, whether or not you "feel" like it) everything you say is fair game in a trial. Since you're not under arrest, they have no need to inform you of your rights, but your words are still dangerous to yourself/others.
 
Just a few additions:
1) Vehicle. Vehicles are basically fair game. The passengers have no expectation of privacy, the driver (if (s)he is the owner) has a slightly greater but still not great one.
1b) Luggage/etc. in a car: Depends largely on if it is locked or not at the time the officer first reasonably suspects that a crime may have been committed in a car. (Personal advice: Lock everything and put it in the TRUNK, you've got better odds there.)
2) Purses. Believe it or not, but a woman's purse is damn near hallowed ground. (I wish I was a girl.) The reasonability of a search here needs greater cause than a search of your person, backpack, briefcase, etc...
 
MIRANDA RIGHTS APPLY DURING ANY "CUSTODIAL" INTEROGATION. It does not matter whether or not you are under arrest. The test for a custodial interogation is not subjective (IE: if "you" feel like you're not free to go), the test is OBJECTIVE (IE: would a resonable person believe they are not free to go).
 
The CA/police sgt.s told me (in the citizen's police academy) that if you are free to go (NOT in a custodial interrogation), regardless of wheteher or not a "reasonable" person would feel that way, then all statements are fair game.
 
This CA practicing criminal defense attorney has to disagree with the citizens police academy sgt. Sorry, but the reasonable person test for custodial interogations is still the law.
 
Good FAQ! Just wanted to elaborate on a certain point.
On the warrant, the police have to be very specific about not only where they expect to find the illegal items but also exactly what those items are.
So, if the police are looking for a kilo of coke, they aren't allowed to rummage through your medicine cabinet and look at your prescription pill bottles, because something that big would not fit in a medicine cabinet (and obviously not in a small container). If they're looking for a dead body (LoL) they can't poke through your dresser drawers. The areas they search within the rooms of your house have to correspond with the size of the items listed on their warrant.
But, if you are unfortunate enough to have them looking for something small (ex. a few pills) they can pretty much tear your house apart, or at least the rooms/locations listed on the warrant.
[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: Lane ]
 
Ok, a question about scenario 1 (the Terry search, or whatever) -- So the cop feels a baggie or a few pills, and asks you "What's this?". At this point, what should you say (presuming that what he found is illegal)? If you say something like "Oh, it's my medicine." and then he asks "What medicine, can I see?" can you say something like "Oh, I don't feel comfortable showing you my medicine, I don't like discussing my personal health." ? At this point, is there anything the cop can do to take the baggy/pills out or to force you to do so? Would it be WISE to say something along the lines of what I suggested? And if there is nothing else that he can take you in/arrest you for, can this assure that you get off without him finding any drugs on you?
 
although a warrant might be issued for the search of a house, the sound of a shotgun being loaded in the backyard would justify expanding the search to the yard in order to protect the officers
I gotta remember NOT to load my shot gun the next time the police are searching my house.
Dak: Good job on all the FAQa, I've already double my knownledge when it comes to police questioning, searches, seizures, etc.
Click to expand...
 
A few tips for white boys who like to go a bad part of town (the projects) to buy drugs:
If you actually have know someone there, or you are streetsmart then the people wont be the ones messing with you.
Of course you always keep an eye out for cops, but they can usually tell if you have legit business there or not, and they will be real quick to fuck with your head if you give them the chance.
Most of you know this, but i really want to spread the word on bounty hunters. These assholes usually have nothing better to do than to mess with people all night long. They dress and act like undercover cops, exept they dont have any authority. They are pretty good at intimidating people. At night, or while bent, it can be hard to them apart from real cops... just remember a couple things
1. they usually follow you around until you stop,
then they dash up and knock on your window, demanding that you step out of the car (for this they are called knockers).
2. they do not say who they are, because they want you to think that they are cops.
3. they make it a appear like they have a gun on them by making some kind of draw-like gesture...but they do not pull one out while telling you to get out of the car...because they cant force you out with a gun!
so if you ever encounter anything like this make sure that you ask for an ID!
they are not allowed say that they are the police.
These guys call he cops on you if they think that your up to something...so dont get stay there long enough to let the piggies get ya. Roll out!
 
DBuzzy, you idiot greenlighter - what the FUCK are you talking about bouty hunters for? No one is talking about that...
Also, bounty hunters are too busy hunting their skips, they don't hang out in the ghetto and fuck with drug dealers for shits and giggles.. last year I got my state certification as a fugitive recovery agent, and you can do jail time if you come off as law enforcement.. you can pose as anything you like but not a cop! Also, bounty hunters have a great deal of power - once the bonding agency gives us that contract, we can do a lot more then you think.. from pull REAL guns to boot down doors (of course there are a lot of rules about how, when, and why you can do this) .. but unless you're a fugitive that skipped out on bond you don't have to worry about it.. in fact, street sources can often be a priceless source of info - I wouldn't harass anyone, but rather make friends because they could point me in the direction of someone I was after..
Welcome to Bluelight, now please leave..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top