Busted, to tell or not to tell?

I was watching cops today and these 2 guys got pulled over. They gave the cop all the info and was really nice and complient. The passanger was asked to get out of the car and present Id. He drops some stuff (id and crap) the cop pats him down to make sure he doesn't have weapons. He asks the driver if there any weapons. The driver points to a pocket knife, "only this." He asks the driver to get out and pats him down for other weapons, finding no weapons but rather 10 grams worth of coke. Of course the guy freaks, hes going back to jail and his "life is over."
So really, you can be nice as shit, doesn't matter. I have tried being super nice and still go a ticket, and then other times I got off easier than I could have. Once got out of having my ticket doubled for speeding in a construction zone because I was going to the hospital, I really was, but that wasn't the reason for speeding. The only time I totally got out of it was I broke down crying and I was shaking so hard I could hardly sign the ticket, I was a pretty freaking bad day.

Ok, long winded, but I don't think it matters how nice you are or what you do, if you have drugs, you're screwed. You might be able to get away with it if its in the car and you don't give them any reason at all for searching it, but then again they could just make one up if they really wanted to.
 
dtugg said:
Really? Thats not what I have experienced. I consented to a search when I was holding once. I consented because because the shit was hidden extremely well and I was damn near positive that they wouldn't find it. I don't know if they would have actually called a drug dog if I refused, but it was definetly possible. To me, the chances that the would get the dog, in which has I would have been fucked were much higher than them finding my stuff. I think I made the right decision. They searched for maybe five minutes, apologized for the inconvinence, and let me go on my way. Probably one of the happiest moments of my life.
Click to expand...

I also had a similar experience with well hidden drugs. They actually radioed and canceled the K9 UNIT because I gave them permission. They didn't find anything and let me go. When they canceled the K9 unit I was so relieved it was amazing.

I also had to fight back a grin for the rest of the search. :)
 
tobala said:
Quantum Mechanics meets Law Enforcement, Fausty? ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Some of this likely has to do with the quantity you're carrying. If it is weighed in pounds or more, you best know the laws on probable cause very, very well. If it's a few grams, well. . . I don't know, never played in that league myself.

It can be a chess match: the temptation is to say "ok, boss, I'll be nice and maybe I can go home tonite." That's unreasonable if you have quantity in the car. Instead, you're angling for the best legal position when you plead out or (highly unlikely) go to trial. So the question isn't any longer "getting away with it," but how much time you're going to do. There's a tendency to avoid facing that truth, and hope that some magic wand will appear and save you.

It won't.

Peace,

Fausty
 
Fausty, I have a question for you, something I believe we've discussed in another thread a while back.

Say someone is carrying in a vehicle a quantity of contraband that would net them an extremely long prison sentence. Of course this person is going to obey all traffic laws, not be drinking or smoking MJ in the car, etc.--in essence doing nothing to attract the attention that would get them pulled over and searched. That would be stoopid, right? 8)

Now some of this thread implies that "cops can make shit up," so that when the plea bargaining and/or trial take(s) place, the cops just say the defendant was doing something that warranted a stop--even though he wasn't because people carrying quantity don't do such things.

Could the defendant's lawyer hypothetically argue that his client would not smoke weed in the car while carrying 5 kg of meth?. And certainly not consent to a search. That his client has an IQ of 120, knows probable cause as applied to vehicle stops, and would never do something that stupid?

I believe the context in which we discussed this before was that the defendant was the target of a Confidential Informant, and the police did not want to compromise this source of (arguably) "dirty" information. Therefore they will make up probable cause as to make it appear that the defendant is so dumb as to create said cause while carrying said quantity.

Can defense lawyers make such arguments, or are judges "implicit" in silently acknowledging that a CI was used to make the arrest and allow a trial to proceed in spite of the fact that no rational person would risk 40 - life and drive 90 MPH while carrying such quantity? :\
 
Well I'm bothered by the whole pretext idea. For example, one would think that an individual carrying a large load would leave nothing to chance. Driving @ the speed limit, signaling all turns, checking the vehicle (lights, mirrors, etc.) before leaving, paper work in order, etc. etc.

So hypothetically, with the exception of a public roadblock checking, for example, every ten cars (nonrandom), there should be absolutely no reason to do the pretext stop. In other words, when a transporter is completely prepared, LE is going to have to lie about the pretext stop. No way around it, they had no business pulling the vehicle over without outing the CI.

Of course, if LE is prepared, they will--as you said--already have the K-9 in the car. That's fine, at this point the transporter will be busted and they will be able to keep the CI under wraps, but the pretext lie is going to have to follow along with everything else that's to come.

Now I realize that it's pretty simple to make up the pretext, e.g., "weaving" or some other kind of nonsense. So I wonder if a slick lawyer could subpoena the arrest records of a particular drug unit and see if they keep using the same pretext to pull over their arrestees' vehicles.

For example, in 80% of the highway busts made in the last 2 years by drug unit X, the stop was made for "broken taillight," or "weaving." Further, with the advent of video cams in the police cruisers, there may now be ways to challenge the pretext of the stop as being a complete lie (such an argument may not sway the first judge sitting on the case, but I'd bet that at the appellate stage, the higher courts might be willing to scrutinize such data more closely).

My point is, if the pretext can't be challenged, even if it's a complete lie, then it essentially means that vehicles can be pulled over and searched for no reason, a notion the courts would probably have an issue with considering they have in the past ruled against random stops during roadblock operations.
 
tobala said:
Well I'm bothered by the whole pretext idea. For example, one would think that an individual carrying a large load would leave nothing to chance. Driving @ the speed limit, signaling all turns, checking the vehicle (lights, mirrors, etc.) before leaving, paper work in order, etc. etc.

So hypothetically, with the exception of a public roadblock checking, for example, every ten cars (nonrandom), there should be absolutely no reason to do the pretext stop. In other words, when a transporter is completely prepared, LE is going to have to lie about the pretext stop. No way around it, they had no business pulling the vehicle over without outing the CI.

Of course, if LE is prepared, they will--as you said--already have the K-9 in the car. That's fine, at this point the transporter will be busted and they will be able to keep the CI under wraps, but the pretext lie is going to have to follow along with everything else that's to come.

Now I realize that it's pretty simple to make up the pretext, e.g., "weaving" or some other kind of nonsense. So I wonder if a slick lawyer could subpoena the arrest records of a particular drug unit and see if they keep using the same pretext to pull over their arrestees' vehicles.

For example, in 80% of the highway busts made in the last 2 years by drug unit X, the stop was made for "broken taillight," or "weaving." Further, with the advent of video cams in the police cruisers, there may now be ways to challenge the pretext of the stop as being a complete lie (such an argument may not sway the first judge sitting on the case, but I'd bet that at the appellate stage, the higher courts might be willing to scrutinize such data more closely).

My point is, if the pretext can't be challenged, even if it's a complete lie, then it essentially means that vehicles can be pulled over and searched for no reason, a notion the courts would probably have an issue with considering they have in the past ruled against random stops during roadblock operations.
Click to expand...


The thing is, many people are very stupid and will break traffic laws and/or not have proper documentation while carrying large loads. I've read a bunch of cases this is happened. You would think that someone carrying hundreds of pounds of weed wouldn't be speeding, but this is not always the case.

Also, if a cop knows the traffic laws well enough, he can almost always find a reason to pull you over no matter what. The tiniest mistake and you can be pulled over and it will be legal in the eyes of the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dtugg said:
The thing is, many people are very stupid and will break traffic laws and/or not have proper documentation while carrying large loads. I've read a bunch of cases this is happened. You would think that someone carrying hundreds of pounds of weed wouldn't be speeding, but this is not always the case.
Click to expand...
Well that's the thing that Fausty and I have discussed over the course of the last several months:

Every time you read about a guy carrying 100 pounds of pot and being stopped for speeding, you go, "How dumb can a fucker be?" And that's just it--he wasn't speeding. That part was the lie LE had to make up to cover their informant's ass. Because only the most demented individual would not treat that carry with the utmost seriousness. And only teenagers with a bag of weed light up and then thoughtlessly go blazing down the highway. In all but the rarest of cases I would hypothesize that to be true.

Re the search: if there's a dog in the car, then they will have their probable cause for free. The dog gets them around the unreasonable search provisions by inventing probable cause based on a canine's olfactory abilities. Now the courts have ruled that a "sniff" is not a search. So it is only my opinion when I disagree.
 
^I'm not putting it past LE to lie about it, but how do you know that these people weren't just idiots and broke obvious traffic laws while carrying large amounts of drugs? I don't think that you can say "well they would have known better than to do that" and that be any kind of proof.

Besides, it doesn't have to take something obvious like speeding for someone to be pulled over. They way that traffic laws are in most states, someone could easily break one and not even know it. I can't find it now (I will look some more) but I remeber reading about a cop talking about how because of the huge amounts of traffic laws in existence, a LEO well versed in them can find a reason to pull pretty much anybody over.

I think that pretext stops are bullshit, but I'm just trying to show how they are justified in the eyes of the law.
 
PC Probable cause?

PC probable cause definition being?
Sudden movements,crossing solid lines,being considered traffic control devices.
Supposedly if it's not on a pole/post or above the road surface it's not a legal traffic control device.
Improper use/non-use of turn signals.
Has anybody else noticed the rampant non-use of directional signals until just as the traffic light does turn to green?whatare the flashers too loud?
Brake light, tail light and/or license plate lamps unlit.
Anything on your dashboard or hanging from the rearview mirror can be considered to be impeding or obscuring drivers view.
Even animals/pets need to be secured in place for yours and their safety.
just from my expierienceand and police school.

Rule of thumb from my expieience it's always been yes sir no sir thank you sir.
After all their the ones with badges and guns
peace/respect
dawg,
 
You really have to feel out the situation and decide what is best.

The general rule of thumb.....NEVER say anything and never consent to the search. If they are going to find it anyways, then make them work for it. Never make their job any easier.
 
If I was pulled over by the police and had two joints on me I would not tell the police that I had them. Rule of thumb is to never give the police any information to use against you. You deny everything.
The second suggestion I'd give anybody is that you have a right to remain silent, so do it. Also if they do take you down to the police station the smartest thing you can do is lawyer up.
Never answer any questions that the police ask without a lawyer present.
Always remember the police are there to punish not to protect. And no matter how much they tell you that they're there to help you there not they're there to screw you.
 
Why have I been stopped?:
"Hello good day officer, what seems to be the problem?"

I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH:
"Im sorry but Im late for an appointment and I do not consent to a search as it would cause me to miss and the dentists office charges $50.00 for missed appointments."

Officer asks why your eyes are red:
"I have terrible hay fever officer"

Tips to avoid being pulled over:
1. Do not use drugs in your car especially when they create an odor.
2. Try not to ever drive with illegal substances if you can avoid it.
3. Do not drive while intoxicated on anything at all!
4. Obey all traffic laws.
5. Keep your car clean and in good order.
6. Make sure your registration is up to date.
 
^ Excellent list of tips.

But I wonder whether lying about the reason for not consenting to a search can come back to haunt you later.

Why not just say you don't consent and leave it at that? If the officer asks for the reason, why not just state, "I believe in exercising all the rights that I'm entitled to, officer."?
 
Hi Bushdoctah,

Agreed with the preventative measures outlined at the end of your post.

But with regard to refusing consent. etc., I think these "Flex Your Rights" websites are a little optimistic about the way some of these interactions can go.

Certainly in most cases it won't hurt to refuse consent, but I don't think people should get the impression that this will always guarantee a good outcome where they happily go about their business while the cop heads back to the donut shop with tail tucked between his legs... :\
 
tobala, i believe you may be right on refusing consent being no guarantee of a good outcome, but what do you expect might happen if you refuse consent and it doesn't end there?
 
^i think in most cases they call for backup and try and get a k9 out to the scene.

tobala, u bring up a good point about the flex your rights sites, yea you can say whatever you want but if that cop has some suspicion you have ilegal drugs in the car, he /she will find a way to search even if it isnt legal.
 
medicine cabinet said:
...i think in most cases they call for backup and try and get a k9 out to the scene...
Click to expand...
To start, there's been an increasing trend of sending K9's out with the traffic patrol--there's no wait for the dog because he's already there!

This immediately addresses a court's concern about "making a citizen wait longer than it would take to write a traffic ticket" for the dog to get there. A little quarterback sneak around protections against unreasonable search (and this point can certainly be argued: a sniff is not a search 8) )--so that LE can tear the car apart because your taillight was out... :\
 
fhbob said:
I was riding back from the beach about a year ago and we got pulled for speeding, my cousin who was driving was smoking weed the whole way. When the cop came to the window and shined the light on him, he could see residue and flakes on his pants so he pulled them out of the car. My cousin told the truth and was polite and all the cop did was make him take the weed out of his pocket and rub it into the ground with his shoe. He gave us a warning for speeding and let us go on our way, he didn't even smash my cousins bowl.

So I would say with some police honesty counts, but you don't have to conset to the search or admit guilt.
Click to expand...


Ditto. I've been let off completely for having less than a gram of some chronic and the stems from an ounce worth of some chronic. I don't know how much they weighed but I was transporting them with the intentions to make tea. When I got pulled over for speeding he asked me to step out because we were on a death trap highway.

I complied and left my window down. Let this be a lesson to you all when a cop asks this because the second he does this, he sticks his head inside my open window smelling pot. I was honest about everything and he gave my car an extremely thorough search. He was saying thing like 'Can you believe people hide drugs underneath the hood? " Then he pops the hood on cue; he was setting himself up for the big bust at every part of the search. He saw a bible from my required religion class and made some smug comment about marijuana and the bible?.... I got off with 3 tickets- speeding, paraphernalia, and license plate obstruction for a dealers license plate cover hiding the Texas logo.

But luckily I did not go to jail for all the stems and the gram of bud. Old deputy dan let me go for being honest
 
tobala said:
Hi Bushdoctah,

Agreed with the preventative measures outlined at the end of your post.

But with regard to refusing consent. etc., I think these "Flex Your Rights" websites are a little optimistic about the way some of these interactions can go.

Certainly in most cases it won't hurt to refuse consent, but I don't think people should get the impression that this will always guarantee a good outcome where they happily go about their business while the cop heads back to the donut shop with tail tucked between his legs... :\
Click to expand...


I didn't get this info from a website I got it from a great book by the anarchist lawyer katya Komisaruk, Its called "Beat The Heat" Look it up its a great book.
By "Flexing your rights" you will probably get searched and treated badly, by stating your rights in a polite nonchalant way, they will be more likely to let you go. Believe it or not cops are human beings too, you meet them on a human level, put your best face forward, and take some obvious precautions, more often then not they will let you go. Ive been let go nearly every time I was pulled over even for traffic tickets, because I was polite, and I had an explanation.

An example is I made a right turn on a red here in So Cal USA, and a motor cycle cop pulled me over. I said "Excuse me officer what seems to be the problem" He told me I made a right turn on a red and there was a sign that said I couldnt do that" I then explained that I was making a delivery of paintings to a customer (witch I was) and that I was lost didn't know the area well, apologized and asked him for directions. Immediately the officer lightened up his stern face melted away and he assisted me with directions. Never mind at the time I was stoned and had an ounce in my car ;]

Be polite, be semi honest and be human. That will go a long way. If you flat out say I do not consent to a search, the officer will be more likely to search you and will probably be pissed off, or suspicious. They can search you whether you consent or not. The fact you may have not broken the law and did not consent to a search can however help you with your case when it gos to court IF and Only IF you have a good lawyer!
 
when one consents to a search, typically how thorough is it? do they just look around and if everything appears kosher thats that? or have you had your compartments/trunk opened and looked in also?



MODs, it seems like you guys are reviewing what people post more seriously now than i remember from a ways back......if this question is out of line...please edit.

^splitSol, it's against the forum guidelines to ask a question about how to break the law; I edited your post so that it doesn't cross over this line. Thanks, Johnny1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top