Just Say 'No' to Police Searches

[John bench]

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

 

[MikeS]

Everyone read this!!! protect yourself!

 

[Got Juice]

thats pretty fucking sad 33% of all arrests made were for marijuana posession. unless you have an amount which could be mistaken for trafficking, you should pay a fine and be on your way. rediculous.

our system is fucked up. PERIOD

Later,

GJ

 

[mike man]

Good to keep in mind

Many people get so nervous, they forget about their rights and just try to hurry the situation along and over with. Although you do want any uncomfortable situation with the law to be over quickly, think before you speak.

 

[Coopie]

I always fiond it so funny when, on TV shows, the GUILTY people always invite the cops right in for coffee and cake.

But, that's the only way to turn the scenario into an hour-long TV show.

Bottom line, do as the site stats and never volunteer anything - innocent or otherwise.

Good looking out BENCH!

 

[russmeister]

this is

definitely a good read!! a lot of good info!

 

[Steak Helmet]

I know so many people that panic...the cops take classes on how to get you to say YES to a search...Just say no!!! NEvER give detail...NO is NO

 

[DOGMA]

Nothing positive will ever come from telling the cops "The Truth"...

 

[dragonfire101]

This is good advice, but in some instances not practical in some states. I have seen officers detain a person for not letting them search thier vehicle and then charge then with interferring with an officers duty by simply trying to exerise their right to say no.

 

[HanstheJedi]

I concur

I concur. The last people I'd call for help is the police in this country. I'm proud to be an American but police violence is increasing seemingly every day.

 

[IPGear]

Watched the video and thought everyone should watch it.

Then realized it was from 8 years ago!

Ha ha, we get a pass! We knew JB and Mike S. And probably watched it 8 years ago!

That was then, oh how everything has changed and nothing has changed.

The guy still looks high, but the information is still good.


IPG

 

[mchief101]

what if u have a nice clean car, say an accord 2011. do police suspect anything and want to search? on the other hand i only go over the speed limit by 5-10 just to be safe...it's not worth getting a ticket when you can use that money for bodybuilding!!!

 

[powerup]

thats pretty fucking sad 33% of all arrests made were for marijuana posession. unless you have an amount which could be mistaken for trafficking, you should pay a fine and be on your way. rediculous.

our system is fucked up. PERIOD

Later,

GJ

Its too fucked up to say the least. NEVER ADMIT TO ANYTHING i dont care if they saw u do it just say no i didnt

 

[antoniodasilva]

yah my philosophy with dealing with cops is
to always play dumb when they question you and always deny them searching any of your property.
Up here in Canada they cannot legally search you unless you give them permission or this is some kind of probably cause ( ie: rolling paper in your cup holder or some bullets on the floor or something)
I've been searched illegally before and it all got thrown out under illegal search and seizure.

 

[Performance Based]

Ok as someone who works with LE (No I am not a cop lol) very frequently his advice really is spot on. Ive said it PLENTY of times, for the most part our community is mostly educated professionals but it is scary how LITTLE most of us know about the law.... Hell we may be educated professionals but technically we are all felons!


A majority of the people I know stateside are either local/federal cops even then I know if there is EVER a situation in which I am being questioned... I will NEVER speak without a lawyer PERIOD. NEVER consent to a search.

Cops are NOT your friends PERIOD. They can threaten all they want, lie, etc... NEVER speak without a lawyer please.

 

[bubbafrombama]

Not sure WTF the conservative justices were thinking with this case below!

Supreme Court rules on illegal searches

By Mike Sherman
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the criminal conviction of an Alabama man even though the justices agreed the police search that produced incriminating evidence was illegal.

The high court's 7-2 ruling against Willie Gene Davis highlighted an unusual series of events. Between Davis' arrest and a federal appeals court ruling affirming his conviction, the Supreme Court put new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after a suspect is arrested.

The question for the justices in this case was whether to invoke the exclusionary rule that generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. In this case, the court said, the good-faith efforts of the officers overrode that concern.

Justice Samuel Alito explained in his majority opinion that the court upheld the conviction because the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.

Alito said that in a case where police followed the law as it existed when they conducted the search, "suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct."

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said it is unfair to Davis to acknowledge that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but leave him without a remedy. Breyer borrowed from Shakespeare in writing that the decision "'keeps the word of promise to our ear, but `breaks it to our hope." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's dissent.

Davis initially was arrested for giving police a false name after the car in which he was riding was pulled over during a routine traffic stop. The driver also was arrested on drunken driving charges. With Davis and the driver handcuffed and placed in the back of separate police cruisers, police searched the car and found a revolver in the pocket of Davis' jacket.

Davis already had a felony conviction on his record and was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

He challenged the conviction on the basis of the search. While the appeal was pending with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Arizona v. Gant.

The court said in that case that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers. Warrants are not needed when officers' safety may be in question or they are looking for evidence of the crime for which they have just made an arrest.

The 11th Circuit upheld Davis' conviction anyway, and the high court followed suit Thursday.

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2011 Associated Press


More:

Herring v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a 5-4 decision hewing to Leon and Evans, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Roberts affirmed the trial court and the 11th Circuit. While noting that there had not necessarily been a constitutional violation in the case, the court accepted for sake of argument Herring's contention that there had been. On that stipulation, the court held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to a search that resulted from isolated and attenuated police negligence: "To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system." Suppression was unwarranted because an error in record keeping - not flagrant or deliberate misconduct - led to Herring's arrest.[10] The court also warned that it was not "suggest[ing] that all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from the exclusionary rule. ... If the police have been shown to be reckless in maintaining a warrant system, or to have knowingly made false entries to lay the groundwork for future false arrests, exclusion would certainly be justified under our cases should such misconduct cause a Fourth Amendment violation." Nevertheless, in the case at bar, "the [police] conduct at issue was not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion." "[W]hen police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," the Chief Justice wrote, "any marginal deterrence does not 'pay its way.'"

Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. She wrote that "the exclusionary rule provides redress for Fourth Amendment violations by placing the government in the position it would have been in had there been no unconstitutional arrest and search. The rule thus strongly encourages police compliance with the Fourth Amendment in the future." The prosecution had contested the unlawful case in court because of contraband found on Herring's person and in his vehicle, but, Ginsburg wrote, narrowing the scope of the exclusionary rule would most typically hurt innocent persons who are wrongfully arrested.[11]