Read this guy (and my Tweets)

It's the coolest thing when I come across a blog that I like. Usually I will get a cup of coffee and try to read everything on it up to the last posting. That way I can be caught up. I started reading this new blog and am hooked. I really like this guy's style and I can relate to alot of what he says. The title "Pepper Spray Me" says it all. Go check it out. I just want to know how he got his site to look so freaking cool.

Also, I am trying out this whole Twitter thing. I created an account called JohnnyLawChron. If you are into that stuff, follow me and I will try to post some interesting updates. It may be a bit slow this week because I have some personal stuff going on but I will hit the ground running next week.

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.

Speaking of vehicle searches...

The Supreme Court passed down a pretty major ruling the other day about vehicle searches. Until now if a police officer arrests the driver of a car, the officer had the right to search the entire passenger compartment of that car incidental to the arrest. It was a pretty effect tool and the ability to make that search go me a ton of arrests. There are many people in jail today that got arrested for DWI and forgot about that coke in the glovebox.

The recent decision takes that right to search away from the police. Now there are still multiple ways to search that car though. One way is if the car is impounded. Police have the right to conduct an inventory of the vehicle prior to it getting towed. This is the easiest way to get around this decision. In the past I used to let a prisoner call someone to pick up the car to save them the tow fees but now I am just going to impound it so that I can conduct my search..uh I mean inventory.

Another way to get in there is through probable cause. Many people (including cops) don't know this but if a vehicle is operable and you have probable cause to think there is something in there, you do not need to get a search warrant. It's called the automobile exception and it is a wonderful thing. What constitutes probable cause? If I smell any weed on you, I can search the entire car. The same thing applies if I search you and find any drugs on your person. That is also enough to search the entire car.

A drug canine is also going to become a much more valuable tool. One hit on a car by a drug dog and you have immediate probable cause to search. Of course you can always just ask for consent to search if nothing else works.

There was a lot of crying at my work about how this new ruling is going to really hinder police. I think it will get rid of some things such searching a car after arresting an occupant and then releasing the car to another party. Police are going to have to articulate things a little better and be a little more inventive but I think we can usually still accomplish our goal. If the court ever strikes down the inventory clause or the automobile exception, I think we will be in big trouble though.

A major league D-Bag

I came across a video put up by this instigator. The Border Patrol is just doing their job trying to stop the flow of drugs and illegals into this country and this jackass thinks he is being clever with his video camera. I think the agents were very calm and patient with him for much longer than I would have.

It would have taken just a couple of times for me to tell him to get out of the car before I would have broken that glass and dragged him out by his ears. Just like what happened the second time he pulled this stunt.

This guy apparently gets off on this stuff. Check out his other video on Youtube.

I laughed until I cried

Sweet vindication

It really got me worked up when I first read about the New Orleans officer who was fired for not shooting at an armed suspect. I have always thought it was bad enough that we get fired and sued for using deadly force againt the bad guys no matter what the circumstance is.

The fear of being second guessed is so bad that most officers are more afraid of being sued than being killed in the line of duty. We are conditioned to be this way because of spineless management, naive liberals who have no idea what life is like outside the university, and the media. Now we are going to be fired for not taking a shot at a suspect? I figured it was about time to promote and take that desk job now.

Well it looks like that NOPD officer is getting his job back. I am not sure that I would want it at that agency anymore but I am glad that the right thing happened.

The New Orleans Civil Service Commission ordered the New Orleans Police Department this week to reinstate an officer fired last year for failing to react aggressively enough to a shooting.

Stephen Neveaux was cited in September for cowardice and neglect of duty, fired by the NOPD and called gutless by some colleagues. But after examining his appeal and studying testimony from a grievance hearing, the commission rendered its decision Thursday, granting Neveaux's appeal and ordering the department to restore all lost back wages and benefits.

Welcome back buddy but watch yourself. I bet management will be looking for another reason to discipline him down the road. They tend to be vindictive like that.

Trigger control. They teach it for a reason.

I recently had a reader send me the this story and asked my take on it.

I think it is a damn shame and am glad the guy who got shot wasn't killed. Accidental discharges are a real danger when you are in a high stress situation. The reason we have to keep our fingers off the trigger is because in moments of high stress, you don't want to send a stray round downrange.

Written guidelines for Ruffini's agency, MCOLES, said an officer meets safety rules when he or she "places finger in the trigger guard only when intending to pull the trigger to prevent an involuntary discharge caused by loss of balance, startle effect or sympathetic contractions, etc."

I remember we did a scenario in our academy where they really got you pumped up about being on the lookout for a wanted violent criminal. The instructors set the scenario so that you encountered the actor/bad guy as you were walking up to him from behind. Everyone pulled their gun and started giving the guy commands to get on the ground. Pretty standard arrest stuff.

The interesting part was when the bad guy started acting squirrelly and making the cadet repeat himself multiple times. The bad guy would wait until he could tell that the cadet was getting frustrated or stressed and then the bad guy would suddenly run away from the cadet.

About 50% of the time, if the cadet has his finger on the trigger, he would be startled by the sudden movement and accidentally shoot the bad guy in the back. If the cadet had proper finger placement (along the frame), hardly anyone ever accidentally shot the dude.

I had my finger along the frame but still almost shot the guy when he startled me. The only thing that stopped me was that my pistol had a double action first shot. If I had been carrying a Glock, I am pretty sure it would have gone off.

It's been close to 10 years and I still remember that scenario as clear as day. It sure taught me a lesson about having good trigger control. Here is something else that taught me the same lession:

Phase Line Green

I just finished reading an advance copy of the book Phase Line Green by James McGee and I was asked to give a little review of it.

The book talks about the experiences of the author while he was a member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). It goes into detail about the unit's selection process, it's capabilities, and it's training but the main focus is HRT's participation in retaking the federal prison in Talladega in 1991 after Cuban deportees rioted and took over.

I thought it was a good book and an interesting subject. If you have an interest in going into a special operations unit such as HRT or SWAT, you will find this book to be very interesting. The author goes into great detail when describing how a raid goes down and what happens during those few seconds of action. I admit that I thought he went into too much detail and I found myself skipping ahead. Of course, I have done between 50 and 100 real building assaults so most of the tactics described are routine to me. I will say that the author knows his stuff and his descriptions are very accurate. If you don't do it for a living, it should be fascinating stuff.

The FBI HRT sounds like a very impressive unit but I think the author may be drinking a little too much of the FBI Kool Aid for my taste. I'm sure that they are good at what they do but I doubt they are any more skilled than most big city SWAT teams. I also doubt that they are in the same league as Delta Force or Seal Team 6.

Lines like "I knew why I became a member of the HRT. This was my niche in life. God put me on earth to be an operator," seemed a little thick to me but demonstrated how much the author loved his job. I can understand that because nothing is more satisfying in life than being a part of a team that rushes into danger together. Once that part of your life is over, you always feel like something is missing. Hell, I may write a book myself when all my adventures are over.

All in all, it was a good read, especially if you are wanting to learn more about the world of law enforcement special ops. If you want to hear about crawling around in the jungle slitting throats, go read a Tom Clancy novel. This guy is talking about the real deal.

You can pre-order it through Amazon here.

The debate rages

I recently had someone ask me what I thought about LEAP. That stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. They are a bunch of cops (current and former) who are for legalizing drugs.

If it was any other group, I would probably dismiss them as a bunch of cop-hating dope smoking kooks. However these are a bunch of veteran drug warriors who have seen that the "war on drugs" seems unwinnable and want to change the way we do things in this country. Their experience makes it hard to blow them off.

Honestly, I don't know what I think about the issue anymore. I came into this job ready to enforce the law and throw all those damn druggies in jail where they belong. Through the years I have seen things that have disturbed me though.

I used to be in a unit that did operations called "reversals". This is when police dress as dealers and sell actual crack to people on the street. Once we sell to them, arrest teams jump out and take them for possession of narcotics. The idea is that if we do this enough times in an area, addicts will be afraid to come back to that area and crime will drop. It makes perfect sense but it never works. When you are dealing with addicts, they will do anything for a fix. It didn't matter how often we did it or how many we arrested, those areas would only change for a couple of days and then go right back to normal.

The result is no effect on the drug trade and felony charges on a bunch of pathetic bottom of society crack addicts. Everyone involved knew it was a waste of time but we would only whisper it under our breath.

On the other hand, I think arresting the dealers is a good thing. While it doesn't affect the supply side that much (someone always takes their place), most dealers have a violent criminal history. Arresting them gives us the side benefit of taking violent criminals off the street. There are also the times when we raid notorious drug houses and the neighbors come up to us and thank us for cleaning out the neighborhood. It isn't so much because of the dealing but because of the crime that comes with it. Prostitution, fights, shootings, and everything else seems to follow the drug trade.

I've put people away on drug charges that are members of violent street gangs and have previous convictions for murder, robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Whenever those types go away, it is indeed a good day for society.

On the other hand, for every dozen or so hard core gang members we catch, there are other more tragic people that get caught up in our net. I remember a 60 yr old woman with cancer selling coke to help fund her chemo. There was the middle-aged auto worker who lost his job and started selling marijuana to keep his house. Then the 20 yr old high school dropout mother of two whose illegal alien boyfriend couldn't work. They sold powder cocaine to help pay bills and didn't have many other options. We put all these people in jail too.

I'm not saying they are totally innocent and if drugs were legal, many of them would have done something else illegal to get by. Who knows?

Would making it legal and out in the open make things better? I don't know. I was in Amsterdam and other than the smell of piss and vomit, everything seemed calm in the Red Light District. Of course, hard drugs are still illegal there as well so that isn't a perfect example of legalization.

My biggest fear is that legalization would make us into an even bigger society of addicts, especially due to the addictive nature of crack and heroin. How many people would try it on a lark (since it's legal) and become hooked? For the majority of the population, a heafty prison sentence is still a pretty darn good deterence.

I guess until we figure out something better, we will have to continue to hold the line as best we can. Sometimes I think we're barely hanging on by our fingertips but I don't know of any realistic alternative.