Searches Part II
My last post about the recent Supreme Court ruling received some interesting responses. I figured that it would. Anytime a cop starts talking about how they use the law to make their job easier, it tends to bring out the wingnuts in droves. I won't bore you with the details of some of the emails I received but I will say that the Nazis were brought up several times.
Instead, I will answer one of the questions posed in the comments section. Sgt B asked about inventories of vehicles: "Why do police have the right to do that? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the towing company? How does that work anyway? Do you inventory it w/ the person there to see the inventory being conducted? Do you inventory it w/ the operator of the tow truck driver who then signs for it?
I have been taught that we conduct an inventory of the vehicle to prevent the owner from claiming that we stole stuff from the car. Since the car goes into our custody the moment the driver is placed under arrest, it is our responsiblity prior to handing it over to the tow truck driver. We typically inventory it in front of a video camera that has been running since the stop was first initiated. This is usually enough to prevent any bogus theft claims.
Mad Jack wrote, "You know JL, you could have written this a little more diplomatically."
I have to say that at first I had no idea what he was talking about. After I thought about it for a minute, I realized that my post about "getting around" the court decision may have sounded a bit disconcerting to the non-cop reader. The way I wrote that post was the exact same language used when I discussed the issue with a room full of other cops hours earlier. I think it is just a different way of looking at things. I didn't see any reason to be more "diplomatic" because there isn't anything wrong with using legal means to discover evidence.
The way I (and all cops) see it is that our job is to put bad guys in jail by using the options given to us by the courts. If I stop a dude that I think is a gang member and street dealer and I end up arresting him for traffic warrants, there is no way in heck that I am going to let that car go if I have a legal means of searching it. If I have the option of turning the car over to the baby's moma of my prisoner and not searching it versus impounding the car and going through it as part of my inventory of its contents, well that is a no-brainer.
I think to let that car just go on down the road would be poor police work. I am paid to go out and shake the bushes and kick over rocks looking for trouble. That's what the public pays me for. Another example that may shock ACLU types is the pre-text stop. I frequently receive tips from the public or informants about people who are drug dealers. When I get these I usually set up surveillance on the subject until I see them driving around.
Now I don't have enough evidence to stop them just based on the my tip. Instead, I follow them until I see them commit a traffic offense. I then pull them over for that. So I am legally pulling them over for running a red light (or whatever) but my real reason for pulling them over is to dig a little deeper into what their business is. The key is that there has to be a specific violation that I am using as the reason for the stop.
Some people tend to be real offended by the concept of pre-text stops. I say to them, so what? I have been on the stand and had lawyers ask me, "Officer Law, isn't it true that while you say you pulled me client over for not signaling, your real motive was to search his car for drugs?" Of course I'm always honest and answer that he is 100% correct about my motives. The courts has ruled that this is perfectly fine but I am sure that I will still be accused of trampling all over the 4th amendment. Honestly I see no ethical diffence between pre-textual stops or impounding a car and inventory/searching it in leu of turning it over to another party in the hope of finding more evidence.
Anyways, that is how cops see it. I am sure that some of you out there think differently.
6 bits of radio chatter:
That's all well and good, but let's be honest here. Most cops are not acting on "tips" as pre-text to stop a car and request a search. Maybe you and your friends act professionally, but I see folks I know well with no tickets, no records, valid paperwork, and federal security clearances are getting routinely stopped and prompted for searches because their cars are beat up or they have long hair, it's really hard to be upset with these rulings.
"I have been taught that we conduct an inventory of the vehicle to prevent the owner from claiming that we stole stuff from the car."
So, would it be possible for someone, after being stopped, to waive a claim against the PD in exchange for not having their vehicle inventoried? Where does the assumption that, after being arrested, the car becomes the responsibility of the police come from?
"Since the car goes into our custody the moment the driver is placed under arrest, it is our responsiblity prior to handing it over to the tow truck driver." So, even if there are passengers who would be able to drive the vehicle, you'd still tow and impound the vehicle? Or is that what will be happening now since the police have lost some ability to search the vehicle at their leisure when prior to this SC decision you'd have searched it and let the people go on their way if nothing was found?
Sgt B wrote, "So, would it be possible for someone, after being stopped, to waive a claim against the PD in exchange for not having their vehicle inventoried?"
Nope. We don't give out waivers.
"So, even if there are passengers who would be able to drive the vehicle, you'd still tow and impound the vehicle?"
It depends on the department. In my department it is discretionary if we want to turn the vehicle over to a passenger or not.
"Or is that what will be happening now since the police have lost some ability to search the vehicle at their leisure when prior to this SC decision you'd have searched it and let the people go on their way if nothing was found?"
Yep. That is what I expect will happen.
I still haven't had time to sit down and read the entire thing. I hope to study the decision more closely after my current shift cycle. I did find it interesting that the decision was 4-1-4. That's gotta tell you that it will come up again, sooner rather than later, and the Supremes will have to clarify.
Once I can study the decision I'll have to see how it reconciles with Chimel, the Carrol Doctrine, Ross, Labron, Johns and Ludwig precedents.
I'm no lawyer (could have been, but I have a conscience) but I do love to study the little twists and turns of Constitutional Law. I'm guessing that the conflict between other existing precedent and this latest decision will lead to some interesting maneuvering.
This does, however, resolve one of my pet peeves. My officers have the ability to use their discretion. I encourage it and don't usually question it. I do have a problem with arresting a person for, say, Driving Under Suspension, then calling a licensed driver to pick up the vehicle. Why?? Yeah, I know, waiting for a wrecker is a pain in the butt, but sending it home with a licensed driver only to have it waiting there for the arrestee when he gets out of jail just pisses me off.
For those that have problems with vehicle inventories prior to towing: Inventories are done to protect the officer, the wrecker driver, the arrestee and they are done according to Departmental policies.
//the Nazis were brought up several times//
Would those be the infamous Cheetos Nazis? Because those guys are just wrong, wrong, wrong.
From JL: The way I (and all cops) see it is that our job is to put bad guys in jail by using the options given to us by the courts. The trouble with this is that while vast majority of cops may believe this to be an accurate job description, not all cops have a good work ethic, meaning that they don’t keep the main function of their job at the top of their own list of priorities. Some police may believe that their first priority, putting the criminals in jail, takes precedence over the civil rights of the non-criminal. Then there are other police who give lip service, at best, to civil rights but who never give these rights any other thought in their search for the next arrest. There are police in the US who will stop a car and claim a moving violation, then interrogate the driver and force a search of the car and trunk.
The Supreme Court Of The United States, in its infinite wisdom, has proclaimed that the Constitutional Rights of the populace are not violated by a pretexted traffic stop. I neither agree nor disagree with this. The part that I object to occurs after the pretexted stop, which is when the cop uses intimidation, threats and abuse of authority to coerce someone into permitting what would otherwise be a non-consensual search.
From JL: Honestly I see no ethical difference between pre-textual stops or impounding a car and inventory/searching it in lieu of turning it over to another party in the hope of finding more evidence.Well, JL, there is an ethical difference whether you see it or not. If you stop a car full of people for a moving violation and find a bench warrant on the driver you are allowed to impound the car. I don’t know about your State, but in the State of Florida a bench warrant can be issued for a bounced check – screw up your checking account for five dollars and there’s a bench warrant with your name on it. The driver is going to jail, but one of the passengers could drive the car away and save the owner a towing charge and an impound/storage fee. Of course, if the arresting officer is allowed to search the car first, then there is every chance in the world that one of the passengers could drive the car away. But if not, well… towing and storage might come to as much as $400, which will have to be paid before the car can be retrieved from the impound lot. And that’s the part that is just plain wrong.
Everyone tends to relate to the rest of the world from inside their own mind, so to speak. Although I don’t know you or anyone else who has a police blog personally, I imagine that there are a whole host of things you wouldn’t do in the course of law enforcement, such as falsify evidence or statements, beat a confession out of a criminal, accept a bribe or murder a child molesting wife beater even if you knew for stone cold truth that you could get away with it. Not everyone is like you.
Post a Comment