How to avoid getting caught

[Banquo]

i'm pretty sure you're mistaken.

my understanding is that the police can not conduct frisks for the purpose of discovering evidence other than weapons.

further, the supreme court ruled that suspicious items other than weapons are protected by the fourth amendment during a pat-down. if a leo claims that objects in your pocket feel like drugs, the objects cannot be further investigated without your consent.

can somebody with a legal grounding confirm this?

alasdair

Terry patdowns are done for the purpose of finding weapons -- but where other types of contraband (e.g. drugs) are immediately apparent during a Terry patdown, these items may be seized.

From BL's own Terry FAQ:

If the police find something else on me besides a weapon may it be admitted as evidence against me?

It depends. If the item is contraband, like drugs, then the police officer can seize it only if its contents are immediately apparent. The officer performing the Terry patdown must immediately recognize the object as contraband in order for it to be consistent with the "immediately apparent" standard for plain view established in Arizona v. Hicks. It should be noted that there are plenty of cases where a cop claims he was able to feel something like a gram bag of coke through a pair of denim jeans, and judge or jury has laughed him out of court.

It is worth noting that this standard can be LIMITED (but not enlarged) by state law.

 

[euphoria]

so shitty! i know people who have had small shit crotched and in the bra, and the cops made them pull it all out, then charged them for the drugs.

 

[alasdairm]

immediately apparent

thanks for looking at this, banquo.

given that a bag of pot could easily be a bag of almost any vegetable matter, i don't think the police could argue that was 'immediately' apparent it was pot? hence consent (in this case) would be required for a legal search?

alasdair

 

[psychetool]

The cops don't give a FUCK about your rules and will lie/cheat/ do whatever to get you busted. Don't think for a fucking MINUTE they won't break the rules or lie under oath to get you busted.

 

[rocklobster]

thanks for looking at this, banquo.

given that a bag of pot could easily be a bag of almost any vegetable matter, i don't think the police could argue that was 'immediately' apparent it was pot? hence consent (in this case) would be required for a legal search?

alasdair

"As he turned around, the baggie fell out of his pocket. The overwhelming smell of the evil nigger-weed was immediately apparent, and he was thus booked into custody for possession."

 

[phr]

The cops don't give a FUCK about your rules and will lie/cheat/ do whatever to get you busted. Don't think for a fucking MINUTE they won't break the rules or lie under oath to get you busted.

Exactly. Don't assume that cops will follow the law.

 

[Helios.]

"Look what that slick sh*t brought you: a first-class ticket to Lucifer, real name [withheld]."

 

[alasdairm]

Exactly. Don't assume that cops will follow the law.

and don't assume that all cops will break the law either. they're equally stupid positions.

alasdair

 

[rocklobster]

^ Huh? When you are trusted with enforcing the law, you are in a position where it is much easier for you to break it and get away with it, so of course you will get a lot more abusers, especially when it makes their jobs easier. You sound like a secluded kid or just someone who has never dealt with law enforcement in a big city or on any other comparable scale.

 

[wesmdow]

and don't assume that all cops will break the law either. they're equally stupid positions.

alasdair

i disagree. trusting a crooked cop can land you in jail or worse.... whereas taking the proper precautions, EVEN with a straight cop, will save you a WORLD of trouble legally.

police are a breed of people best not trusted unless youre 100% in the clear legally speaking.... and many people who frequent this board are... "less than legal?"

 

[alasdairm]

^ i guess, on reflection, that taking an "only the paranoid survive" approach makes sense in this case. i was just trying to point out the silliness of both extremes.

^ Huh? When you are trusted with enforcing the law, you are in a position where it is much easier for you to break it and get away with it, so of course you will get a lot more abusers...

"a lot more" is very, very different from "all".

You sound like a secluded kid or just someone who has never dealt with law enforcement in a big city or on any other comparable scale.

wow. you're uncanny. you nailed it.



alasdair

 

[swifty]

You sound like a secluded kid or just someone who has never dealt with law enforcement in a big city or on any other comparable scale.

god you're a clown at times, complete with big floppy shoes and curly red wig 8) 8)

 

[phr]

Alasdairm,
It's not being paranoid, its doing exactly what wesmdow said. Taking the right odds. Call it cynical, if you want. And its certainly not a stupid position when you've seen it done over and over again...

 

[alasdairm]

my point was simply one of the silliness of extremes. perhaps i didn't make it very clear: it's as silly to say no cops will break the law as it is to say all cops will break the law.

alasdair

 

[psychetool]

Fuck that, cops lie to get convictions because they beleive they are DOING THE RIGHT THING. Cops break/bend the law, FREQUENTLY, I have seen it again and again and again. Illegal searches, outright lieing in police reports, increasing the amount of drugs they 'found' (ie charging you for 1/2 oz when you only had a 1/4), letting friends off without DUIs, fuck - letting ME off when they found a small amount of drugs because my family knows people in the force. They are corrupt as all hell and you would be an absolute FOOL to beleive anything different.

Seriously you can't be so naieve. You really think cops, even clean ones, would throw away procured drug evidence because it was an illegal search ? Yeah fucking right! How about if they KNEW this was the guy who murdered 10 children but they search was illegal. What would YOU do ? You think that you would let the dude go because you didn't remember to read him his rights or you did an illegal search to get the HARD EVIDENCE required for conviction?

Thats one of the main reason we have lawyers, to keep these pigs in fucking check. Even then you have to be lucky (or rich enough) to get off!

The only thing I give police respect for is keeping drunk drivers off the road, and hunting down serial killers and shit.

Maybe in canada or britan or wherever you hail from its different, but in the good old US of A they JUST DON'T GIVE A FUCK. They do what THEY think is right.

 

[swifty]

I've had my fair share of run ins with the cops and say that they have definitely bent the rules on the occasions I've dealt with them, sometimes for me, mostly against me ...

 

[rm-rf]

the key to being a successfull drug dealer:

dont fucking ever mention anything to anyone, anytime, anyplace, ever, about being a successfull drug dealer

 

[alasdairm]

Fuck that, cops lie to get convictions because they beleive they are DOING THE RIGHT THING. Cops break/bend the law, FREQUENTLY, I have seen it again and again and again. Illegal searches, outright lieing in police reports, increasing the amount of drugs they 'found' (ie charging you for 1/2 oz when you only had a 1/4), letting friends off without DUIs, fuck - letting ME off when they found a small amount of drugs because my family knows people in the force. They are corrupt as all hell and you would be an absolute FOOL to beleive anything different.

while i don't think there's any need for the ad-hom, i agree - some cops behave the way you describe.

perhaps i didn't make it very clear the second time: it's as silly to say no cops will break the law as it is to say all cops will break the law.

if you contend, as you seem to, that absolutely every single cop behaves illegally, then i'm going to have to ask you to back that up with something beyond an emotional rant. will you?

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

three friends are traveling on a train in a foreign country. as they are watching the countryside go by, they pass a field in which they spot a blue cow. the first guy remarks “the cows here are blue!”. the second guy says “you can’t really say that for sure. all you can say, for sure, is that at least one cow here is blue.”. the third guy – let’s call him a naive fool – says “you can’t even be that sure. all you can say for sure is that one side of one cow here is blue!”



alasdair

 

[phr]

my point was simply one of the silliness of extremes. perhaps i didn't make it very clear: it's as silly to say no cops will break the law as it is to say all cops will break the law.

alasdair

I know what you said, but when did I say all?