So I have a quick question with a situation I'm currently dealing with. So I was charged with a misdemeanor for theft under $500. The story behind it, isn't the issue. I've had a couple of cops tell me, the entire situation was bogus. Anyway back to the story, so I pretty much lost my apartment, had my car repossessed the same time the incident occurred. Well after getting out and being charged with the charge, I went to the meetings for two weeks, before my Squadron Commander received a text with my mugshot. Now I'm awaiting a board to decide if I can stay in or not. My squadron commander started this process because I didn't tell her right away. Well I told her my mind set wasn't that of CAP, just mainly attending on tuesday nights to get some work done. I don't know what to do and any advice anyone can give me would be appreciated. This may sound stupid, but at the time, I didn't know I was required to inform my commander of my arrest. Since I'm only on probation while I'm paying court cost, after I finish paying I'm done with everything.
A lost Lieutenant
So, if you're on probation and paying court costs the more accurate description of your situation is that you were convicted of misdemeanor theft, not just arrested for it. If the cops thought it was bogus why were you charged and convicted? You then knowingly left all this info out to your boss?
A board doesn't make the initial decision if you get to stay. If your commander wants you out, she should complete a form 2B for conduct unbecoming. At this point, your membership is terminated. You can then appeal to the next higher echelon, who will convene a review board. If the board and the echelon commander uphold the termination, then you're out for good, unless someone didn't follow procedure or the termination was retaliatory. Then you can appeal to the MARP. (Note: I'm doing this from memory, someone let me know if I missed a step here)
Assuming all the facts are here, and that you're an otherwise upstanding member, I wouldn't terminate you for a misdemeanor like that as long as it didn't involve CAP assets or money. I think the claim that the termination is because you didn't tell the CC is questionable.
If a commander wants to convene a board to make a recommendation about a potential 2B, that would be her option to do so. In fact, I think that's a prudent option before imposing such a sanction.
That would not change the fact that if termination is indicated, and the commander accepts that recommendation, that an appeal to Group would not also convene an appeal board, as at that level it's required by regulation.
Reading that small print is important:
"I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front
of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination."
You said "I didn't know I was required to inform my commander of my arrest", but you did affirm the above oath at one point.
Personally, I'd be much more understanding if a SM came up to me in private and said "here's the situation..." rather than finding it out on my own.
A misdemeanor doesn't affect membership eligibility, therefore, no notification is necessary by what you quoted.
Quote from: SAREXinNY on July 15, 2013, 07:07:43 PM
Reading that small print is important:
"I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front
of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination."
You said "I didn't know I was required to inform my commander of my arrest", but you did affirm the above oath at one point.
Personally, I'd be much more understanding if a SM came up to me in private and said "here's the situation..." rather than finding it out on my own.
You're assuming the opening post was made by a Senior Member?
98% chance it was.
I agree.
No mention of his parents' role in the story.
He mentions losing his apartment and having his car repossessed. This sounds like an adult's situation.
He had a mug shot released. I don't believe this happens in most jurisdictions to minors.
The "I lost my apartment" was the thing that let me to believe he was a Senior Member.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 15, 2013, 09:38:16 PM
98% chance it was.
I agree with your assessment as there is a chance that the poster is still a youngster. From the CAP web site: " Cadets who become members before their 19th birthday may retain their cadet status until they reach 21 years of age."
I have seen 18 to 21 years olds who have had apartments, cars, and were living on their own. Haven't you?
My only caution here is that we do not know if the poster is a Senior Member or not from his words.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 15, 2013, 07:24:05 PM
A misdemeanor doesn't affect membership eligibility, therefore, no notification is necessary by what you quoted.
Re-read the membership application. It says nothing about felony v misdemeanor. It says:
"List on a separate sheet, all arrests or charges regardless of age or whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or
otherwise stricken from the court records. You must also include all military courts martial or non judicial punishment (Article 15,
UCMJ or Captain's Mast). Failure to provide all required information may result in your membership application being denied.
(Note: You may exclude minor traffic violations unless drugs, alcohol or injury were involved.)
The OP's situation sounds a bit more complex than just a "minor traffic violation". But I do agree that I shouldn't ASSume it was a SM, although it sure sounds like that is the situation.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on July 15, 2013, 07:24:05 PM
A misdemeanor doesn't affect membership eligibility, therefore, no notification is necessary by what you quoted.
Misdemeanors show up on criminal history inquiries the same as felonies do. Although I'm not sure to what extent though, as CAP is required by FBI policy to have their background checks run under a different category than the ones I run at work, so the specific information may vary, but in general misdemeanors will show up as well, and therefore that constitutes a change of the information you agree to notify your commander of.
Many people confuse "misdemeanor" with "trivial" or "minor", and that's not always the case. The textbook definition
says that a misdemeanor is "lessor", there's plenty of bad behavior at the high end of "lessor" that involves things we don't
want or need in CAP.
Further to that, because of the nature of the court system these days, people accused of felony-level offenses may be
plead-out to a misdemeanor which clears the docket, but doesn't change what the person actually did to get arrested to start with.
That's why it's important for the Unit CC to know exactly what happened to make an informed decision that protects all parties,
but especially the corporation and its members.
Quote from: MacGruff on July 15, 2013, 11:48:00 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 15, 2013, 09:38:16 PM
98% chance it was.
I have seen 18 to 21 years olds who have had apartments, cars, and were living on their own. Haven't you?
I'm 23. Been living "on my own" since 18 1/2.
Regardless of the hair splitting by the individual and the magnitude of what ever charge, it is still the unit commander's prerogative to initiate a membership board and have his fitness as a member addressed. Given what was written here, which is probably half of the story, it's up to the member to prove his fitness for continued membership.
The board may rule in his favor. if not, there's always the appeal process.
Quote from: SAREXinNY on July 15, 2013, 07:07:43 PM
Reading that small print is important:
"I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front
of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination."
I had been trying to find something that spelled out an obligation to report arrests/convictions that occur after someone becomes a member, and there it is. That said, I doubt seriously that many members pay very close attention to that statement in the oath despite it telling us to "read carefully." I am not saying this excuses non-compliance, but since I doubt anyone is planning to commit crimes at the time they apply for membership, it probably doesn't really stand out to them. For relatively minor charges, unrelated to CAP, I can also believe that one may not think about possible consequences within our organization, and therefore might neglect to inform the commander as required. Again, not making excuses for people, but I think their thought process and intent are important factors for a commander to consider when determining if the act warrants membership termination.
Also of note is the following excerpt from CAPR39-2 regarding possible reasons one may be unsuitable for membership:
Reg. 39-2. 3-2 d.(2)
"A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence."
One conviction for misdemeanor larceny/theft does not a pattern make. Going solely off of the membership application, CAPR 39-2, and the information provided by the OP (and if I buy the explanation for not reporting), I wouldn't initiate membership termination. This gets a little more complicated if you read the causes for membership termination in CAPR 35-3. Several of the listed offenses can be rather subjective in nature. It sounds like the OP has been having a difficult time lately. If this conviction is only one piece of a much larger performance/suitability issue, it must be addressed.
As others have stated, it really boils down to the discretion of the commander. The commander is free to interpret these regulations and apply them to a situation as necessary to make a decision. That commander is also free to impanel a board to advise him/ her on a course of action.
Quote from: mwewing on July 16, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
Reg. 39-2. 3-2 d.(2)
"A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence."
You don't need to even go that far down the list:
"(1) Conduct involving moral turpitude."
Moral turpitude is not some reference to sexual morals, but a much more general category of behaviour. Theft is defined by the federal government as a "crime involving moral turpitude", along with others like fraud, perjury, bribery, and tax evasion (among a host of others).
The bottom line is that for all of us this is a moot issue without knowing the actual charges or the circumstances around them. It is between this individual and his chain of command.
As a legal-type guy, I find this kind of "real world vs. CAP Regulations" interaction interesting.
And just like in most CAPTalk threads, the answer one gets depends on the way the question is asked.
For example, if we were to ask "May a senior member be terminated for cause for a single misdemeanor theft confiction?", I think the answer is clearly "yes." Paragraph B4(b)(1) of CAPR 35-3 (Membership Termination) seems clear enough. Seniors may be terminated for even a single incident of "conduct involving moral turpitude." And theft is a classic example of moral turpitude. It is worth noting that it does not appear that a single conviction for petty theft would require termination, but it is plainly within a commander's discretion to do so.
On the other hand, if the question is "Must a senior member report an arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor theft conviction?", I think the answer is less clear.
Argument A: "The F12 itself says so." As others have noted, the current F12 does require prospective members to list "all arrests or charges . . . " on a separate sheet of paper to accompany the application. And contained within the oath of membership on the reverse of the form is a promise to "notify Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes to the information on the front of this form."
Laying aside the technicality that arrests are required to be listed on a separate sheet and therefore an new arrest is not a "change to information on the front of the form," is the more fundamental question of whether a form has any sort of regulatory authority. Normally we would want to see a policy or regulation that requires us to do or not do something, rather than verbiage on a form. We can certainly terminate folks for violating regulations, but it is less clear (at least to me) that we can terminate someone for violating a form.
Argument B. "CAPR 39-2 (Membership) says so." Paragraph 3-3(b) contains the following: "All senior members must notify the National Headquarters Screening Division (NHQ/PMM)of changes in the information originally submitted on their CAPF12 within 30 days of any change that might make the member ineligible for initial membership, (i.e. changes in residency status, military status, arrests, etc.)."
While it certainly talks about arrests having to be reported within 30 days, it appears only to address arrests that would make the member ineligible for initial membership. That just refers us back to "suitability" criteria in paragragh 3-2(b) that talks about any felony or "a pattern of arrests and convictions . . . including . . . dishonesty." As others have noted here, a single arrest by definition cannot arise to a "pattern of arrests" involving dishonesty. Thus, it is not clear to me that the 39-2 requires the report of an arrest for an offense that does not appear to affect initial membership eligibility.
(And in an example of less than clear draftsmanship, this requirement is buried in a paragragh that talks about rescreening. Most members would have no particular reason to be poking around in this paragraph to become aware of the requirment to report.)
Remember, I do not disagree that a senior member can be terminated for a single theft conviction, but it appears that a single petty theft conviction would not make an member ineligible for membership. Although that may seem somewhat inconsistent, it allows for someone to join who is leading a honest life despite a youthful mistake made years ago.
There may be other arguments supporting why a member may be required to report a petty theft arrest, but I can't find any others at the moment.
Finally, if the question is "Should we have a clear regulation that requires members to report arrests and/or convictions?" I would answer yes. That just seems like good policy for our Congressionally chartered 501c3 charitable corporation that has occasional Federal instrumentality status and an active cadet program training thousands of young people.
I've made a not to talk with the leadership about this. Maybe a minor regulation tweak is in order to make it clear that reporting arrests is required.
Quote from: Ned on July 16, 2013, 05:02:32 PM
Seniors may be terminated for even a single incident of "conduct involving moral turpitude." And theft is a classic example of moral turpitude.
My experience, dealing with people in general, very few people who have not encountered the legal definition of "moral turpitude" would ever relate theft to moral turpitude...I know it because I'm very careful how I fill out US government forms, and one of the questions on the immigration paperwork was "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime involving moral turpitude?"
Now, I've never been arrested or convicted of any crime (OK, I've got some speeding tickets in my past...but not criminal matters), but I was curious about what I was answering, so I researched it, and it has nothing to do with "moral" issues (most people I ask think it deals with prostitution or other such crimes), not theft, larceny, bribery, etc.
According to 9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.2, "[t]he most common elements involving moral turpitude are:
(1) Fraud;
(2) Larceny; and
(3) Intent to harm persons or things."
USLegal.com (http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-turpitude/) provides additional examples of crimes of moral turpitude:
■ murder;
■ voluntary manslaughter;
■ rape;
■ statutory rape;
■ domestic violence;
■ prostitution;
■ fraud and crimes where fraud is an element
■ all theft offenses (but see receipt of stolen property below);
■ blackmail;
■ malicious destruction of property;
■ arson;
■ alien smuggling;
■ harboring a fugitive;
■ bribery;
■ perjury
Once upon a time, an 18 year old cadet got into some trouble over some airsoft toys. He wasn't arrested, but the police did the typical "X can try to press charges regardless" thing.
He told his chain of command. They told him he was an idiot. Nothing ever came of it legally, but the CoC knew.
Quote from: Ned on July 16, 2013, 05:02:32 PM
Finally, if the question is "Should we have a clear regulation that requires members to report arrests and/or convictions?" I would answer yes. That just seems like good policy for our Congressionally chartered 501c3 charitable corporation that has occasional Federal instrumentality status and an active cadet program training thousands of young people.
I've made a not to talk with the leadership about this. Maybe a minor regulation tweak is in order to make it clear that reporting arrests is required.
If I could make a suggestion, this should be a requirement to report convictions or at least a restriction that a mere arrest is not grounds for dismissal. CAP is probably under no obligation to follow it, but the basis of our legal system is a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. As a Congressionaly chartered 501c3 corporation, there might be a legitimate argument that CAP operates under the color of government authority and therefore is required to use the basis of the legal system. I'm not sure I like where that leads, so I'd rather avoid the issue all together.
Today an arrest is not even an accusation and I'm not at all comfortable with an arrest being a justification for a commander to dismiss someone. There was an item in the news this morning where a bona-fide journalist was arrested for video taping a police arrest, I think in Detroit. Eventually the journalist was released without a charge, but under what you're proposing, if that person were a CAP member, they would have to report the arrest to their commander and could potentially be dismissed for it.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 16, 2013, 02:35:45 PM
Quote from: mwewing on July 16, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
Reg. 39-2. 3-2 d.(2)
"A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence."
You don't need to even go that far down the list:
"(1) Conduct involving moral turpitude."
Moral turpitude is not some reference to sexual morals, but a much more general category of behaviour. Theft is defined by the federal government as a "crime involving moral turpitude", along with others like fraud, perjury, bribery, and tax evasion (among a host of others).
I saw that as well and I agree with your statement. I chose to focus on the language that specifically mentioned arrests/convictions because the OP stated he was arrested. You are correct about the definition of moral turpitude, and if I were terminating someone for a single act, I would likely use that as my basis for the 2B.
Quote from: Ned on July 16, 2013, 05:02:32 PM
Finally, if the question is "Should we have a clear regulation that requires members to report arrests and/or convictions?" I would answer yes. That just seems like good policy for our Congressionally chartered 501c3 charitable corporation that has occasional Federal instrumentality status and an active cadet program training thousands of young people.
I've made a not to talk with the leadership about this. Maybe a minor regulation tweak is in order to make it clear that reporting arrests is required.
Quote from: bflynn on July 17, 2013, 01:09:33 PM
If I could make a suggestion, this should be a requirement to report convictions or at least a restriction that a mere arrest is not grounds for dismissal. CAP is probably under no obligation to follow it, but the basis of our legal system is a presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. As a Congressionaly chartered 501c3 corporation, there might be a legitimate argument that CAP operates under the color of government authority and therefore is required to use the basis of the legal system. I'm not sure I like where that leads, so I'd rather avoid the issue all together.
Today an arrest is not even an accusation and I'm not at all comfortable with an arrest being a justification for a commander to dismiss someone. There was an item in the news this morning where a bona-fide journalist was arrested for video taping a police arrest, I think in Detroit. Eventually the journalist was released without a charge, but under what you're proposing, if that person were a CAP member, they would have to report the arrest to their commander and could potentially be dismissed for it.
I agree that we need a clear regulation that spells out this requirement. I also agree with Bflynn that we should be careful including arrests in the requirement. I have seen many people arrested and not charged with a crime, or arrested and found not guilty of a crime. I don't think it is responsible to terminate membership of people based only on an alleged criminal act, just to later find out they were acquitted or not charged at all. Of course if the membership termination is based on a number of factors (the arrest/alleged crime being only one) then termination may still be the best course of action. I just would not suggest citing criminal activity for which there is no conviction.
A question for Ned or other "legal-types"... If we terminate a membership based only on an arrest, do we open open ourselves up to any legal issues if that person is not formally charged, or is acquitted of the charges? If so, would we be better advised to include regulations that allow for "suspension" or "leave" of some kind while the judicial process unfolds? A suspension would probably be best applied to more serious charges, where we see a need to protect our membership or the integrity of our organization by limiting participation until a matter is resolved.
I think it is important that we hold our members to high standards, and we certainly have an obligation to protect our membership - especially cadets. I just also think we owe it to our members to wait until they are found guilty of a crime before we punish them for it.
There seems to be an assumption here that reporting an arrest equals an automatic, or highly likely, termination, which I don't see.
However as a commander, I want to know immediately that someone was arrested, especially if it involves abuse or anything else that
would put the membership or organization in harm's way.
At a protest and get arrested but not charged? No issue with membership, but the CC should know.
Get charged and on bond? Membership suspended until you are cleared. Someone would have to look hard
at traffic tickets, because at a certain level they are, effectively bond. DUI arrests should certainly get a member suspended.
The way the courts are these days, you can be arrested for some pretty bad things, and spend a fair amount of time on bond while your
lawyer sorts things out. Do we really want members who are on bond involved with cadets, airplanes, or assets? I don't.
Being "arrested", doesn't mean much, however being charged certainly does. I'd say a statement or clause that suspends membership
until any legal situation that would lead to incarceration is adjudicated and closed is fair and appropriate.
I don't think there much legal issue here since membership is wholly voluntary and "at will".
I'd have to weigh in that we shouldn't even include blanket rules for convictions (not just arrests). Leaving it to the commander's discretion can be a good thing.
I say that because even in the case of a conviction, I wouldn't say that necessarily implies the person isn't capable and worthy of fulfilling their CAP roles and being an upstanding member of society. It really depends not only on the crime/conviction, but the circumstances thereof. I don't know the OP's situation, but is it plausible the theft could be because of the foreclosure? I submit the following made up example:
Capt Cappy loses his house for some non-criminal reason such as a foreclosure or eviction for safety reasons. He had borrowed neighbor Bob's leaflower, which was in the garage at the time. When Capt Cappy is eventually allowed to return, the belongings have already been auctioned off. Bob wants the $300 blower back, and claims Capt Cappy owes him for it. Capt Cappy has no money and the possessions have been sold. Capt Cappy had no legal rights to sell something that wasn't his, so Bob presses charges for petty theft.
Now the above is just an example, and as I'm no lawyer, I admit it may not even be a realistic situation. But the point is, should we as CAP punish Capt Cappy just because he was convicted for theft? The circumstances of the conviction to me don't violate "moral turpitude" as there was no intentional crime, and the CC should have the leeway to puruse a 2B only if he/she feels the need to- not because of some reg written with no regard for circumstance of something that by its very nature has a lot of gray area.
Quote from: mwewing on July 17, 2013, 02:57:09 PM
A question for Ned or other "legal-types"... If we terminate a membership based only on an arrest, do we open open ourselves up to any legal issues if that person is not formally charged, or is acquitted of the charges? If so, would we be better advised to include regulations that allow for "suspension" or "leave" of some kind while the judicial process unfolds? A suspension would probably be best applied to more serious charges, where we see a need to protect our membership or the integrity of our organization by limiting participation until a matter is resolved.
I think it is important that we hold our members to high standards, and we certainly have an obligation to protect our membership - especially cadets. I just also think we owe it to our members to wait until they are found guilty of a crime before we punish them for it.
Nothing wrong with that, as that would be a matter of policy choice and not law. As long as it doesn't violate our internal non-discrimination policy then just because someone is acquitted in a criminal case doesn't mean we can't pursue internal discipline, same as you can be found not guilty in a criminal case but still found liable in a civil suit arising from the same. If it's laid out clearly enough it won't be a problem. Here's what we have in place with my employer:
QuoteAn employee arrested, charged or indicted for a violation of Federal or State law which adversely reflects on his suitability for continued employment or which causes adverse publicity against the department may be suspended immediately pending final disposition by the courts or further investigation by the department. If the employee is exonerated or charges are dismissed by the court, the employee may be eligible for reinstatement with back pay. The department, however, may conduct its own investigation and take disciplinary action based upon its own findings. That is, the department is not bound to reinstate an employee simply because criminal charges are dismissed or withdrawn or because an employee is acquitted at trial.
Bear in mind it is a law enforcement agency ;)
Honestly, you don't even need an arrest or a police action of any kind to invoke the "moral turpitude" removal authority.
Say Capt. Bagodonuts steals something from Maj Coffeepot. The good Captain has engaged "Conduct involving moral turpitude." The fact that Maj Coffeepot decides not to pursue charges on the matter does not change that fact, and the Unit/CC can initiate a termination based upon the event, depending on the seriousness of the event.
Quote from: UH60guy on July 17, 2013, 03:21:33 PM
Now the above is just an example, and as I'm no lawyer, I admit it may not even be a realistic situation. But the point is, should we as CAP punish Capt Cappy just because he was convicted for theft? The circumstances of the conviction to me don't violate "moral turpitude" as there was no intentional crime, and the CC should have the leeway to puruse a 2B only if he/she feels the need to- not because of some reg written with no regard for circumstance of something that by its very nature has a lot of gray area.
In your example, "Capt Cappy" wouldn't be charged with "petty theft", since this is a civil matter. If "neighbor Bob" wants to recoup his loses, he can sue; no criminal charges can be filed for this.
Now, I do understand your point that there may be extenuating circumstances where someone may be charged (even convicted), but the person can still be a productive CAP member. I think those situations need to be evaluated in a case by case basis and, at the end, the needs and wellbeing of the organization need to be placed ahead of the desire of one member to volunteer and serve his/her community through CAP.
Perhaps the regulation could require notification for both criminal charges and convictions, instead of arrests. I might further suggest it specify misdemeanor and felony charges to eliminate any confusion regarding minor traffic violations and other civil infractions.
In theory, I also agree with a suspension pending the resolution of a criminal charge. I am not sure I like it as a requirement, but this may be another area where commander discretion is the key. For example - A member is charged with a minor misdemeanor (unrelated to CAP) that would not require membership termination. The commander already knows that they want to keep the member, even if convicted. I don't see where the suspension accomplishes anything.
I am not in favor of any internal investigation into matters that are unrelated to CAP. If the member is acquitted or otherwise not convicted of a criminal charge unrelated to our organization, we should not use it as grounds for a termination.
A lot of talk has centered on felonies vs misdemeanors- but as previously stated, we are a non profit that runs a cadet program. What about a member who has received one or more tickets for marijuana possession? In Mass. this is decriminalized (and in other states) and is treated the same as a ticket. Does CAP have an obligation to address this? Ultimately, commanders need latitude.
Ciggarets are decriminalized for adults. So is Alcohol. Should SMs abstain from those as well?
Interesting that the OP has checked back several times but hasnt commented beyond the initial post unless I missed it.
I do like the part about " my mindset wasnt on CAP... just attending meetings and doing my work". Yeah Ok..... whatever. Dont act like you were attending meetings and not thinking about how your arrest was going to be handled once people found out the entire time you were there. You got hooked and booked and tried to get it behind you before anyone found out. Im sure you were embarrassed, angry and all of the above. I get it. As a commander I wouldnt necessarily boot you for the arrest depending on what it was. As a 16yr cop it sounds to me as if your issue may have been a borderline civil matter, but leaned more criminal. I dont know because I didnt see the details explained. Im on my tiny IPhone so maybe I missed it. Regardless, Id have issues with your continued membership because you did know CAP had regs dealing with criminal arrests but chose to lay low vs pulling your CC aside for a one on one. You could have potentially put your CC in a situation when the Group CC calls up and says "tell me about your member who is on probation" and she says "uhhhhhhh.... huh?"
I dont know if your situation is salvagable. Sounds like you need to throw yourself on your sword with your commander and beg for mercy.
So..... Maybe I should tell my Commander about my Speeding Ticket :-\ :angel:
Quote from: Devil Doc on July 20, 2013, 07:54:09 PM
So..... Maybe I should tell my Commander about my Speeding Ticket :-\ :angel:
Maybe you should - if you ever want a CAP driver's license, he'll know anyway.
I was going to get a CAP drivers license :( Oh well. 2nd Speeding ticket in 5 Years, well at least in this state anyway.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 20, 2013, 07:56:35 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on July 20, 2013, 07:54:09 PM
So..... Maybe I should tell my Commander about my Speeding Ticket :-\ :angel:
Maybe you should - if you ever want a CAP driver's license, he'll know anyway.
Sure..... Go ahead and tell your CC. At least your CC won't think you are a slouch for not getting a CAP DL and will know the reason behind you not getting one!
When I was a Squadron Commander and we had a van. I did not approved "everyone" for a CAP DL. Some people can not take care of their personal car so why would I let just anyone drive my corporate van? 8)
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 15, 2013, 05:18:49 AMThe story behind it, isn't the issue. I've had a couple of cops tell me, the entire situation was bogus.
Anyway back to the story, so I pretty much lost my apartment, had my car repossessed the same time the incident occurred.
#1, I have been a cop 30+ years and I hate it when other cops want to sugar coat things. A mug shot? You are in deep kimchi.
#2, you got much more important things in life to resolve than just having fun with CAP. I know several people who overlooked their day jobs to have fun or fly a mission in CAP. You got to be focused and good luck. 8)
Quote from: Flying Pig on July 20, 2013, 08:27:47 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 20, 2013, 07:56:35 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on July 20, 2013, 07:54:09 PM
So..... Maybe I should tell my Commander about my Speeding Ticket :-\ :angel:
Maybe you should - if you ever want a CAP driver's license, he'll know anyway.
Sure..... Go ahead and tell your CC. At least your CC won't think you are a slouch for not getting a CAP DL and will know the reason behind you not getting one!
haha... This just makes me think that we have members that can not drive a corporate vehicle because of their driving record. We'll still let them fly a plane though.
Regarding the "the form requires it" argument, I would wonder just what the membership application form looked like at the time the member joined. It changes over the years. I honestly don't know whether the form I signed said anything about it back in the late 1990s.
I also wouldn't have considered "theft" falling into a "moral turpitude" category.
I probably do think it wise to clarify the regulation and require that reports of any arrests be reported. I don't think I want a fellow arrested for murder serving in my squadron while out on bail. Allow for membership suspension until the case is resolved and act accordingly afterwards.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 21, 2013, 03:11:07 AM
Regarding the "the form requires it" argument, I would wonder just what the membership application form looked like at the time the member joined. It changes over the years. I honestly don't know whether the form I signed said anything about it back in the late 1990s.
I also wouldn't have considered "theft" falling into a "moral turpitude" category.
I probably do think it wise to clarify the regulation and require that reports of any arrests be reported. I don't think I want a fellow arrested for murder serving in my squadron while out on bail. Allow for membership suspension until the case is resolved and act accordingly afterwards.
What Type of Murder? 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree or Manslaughter :)
Alright, I appreciate all the advice and opinions that have been put out there. So you all know, I'm not a cadet but a SM. Yeah I know I'm up a creek without a paddle, so you don't have to keep saying it. I originally posted on here looking for advice and some ideas of what to take to the board with me. Ever since getting out of the military I've struggled and when I found CAP, I dove head first into it. So it was no surprise when I dealt with the issue of being thrown in jail for the first time ever, I not go to the one place I felt in control of sorts. I'm not saying it like I want power, but the fact that I was able to get some work done, clear my head and try to sort things out. I wasn't planning on hiding anything from my commander, but I wasn't in the best mindset either. So I would appreciate any idea's you guys have with the way the regs are written. Also this is what happened concerning the arrest. I was a volunteer firefighter and I had been living at the fire station for a few weeks. I had some scrap metal in the back of my car, and I was taking it to the Station Commanders house in the morning. Well the local cop shows up, and see's I have the scrap metal. Well he automatically assumes I'm stealing. When he tries to get a hold of the station commander and can't, the department chief on duty shows up. He assumes I'm lying and I get arrested. Nothing was stolen, nothing even left the property. But I was charged with theft under $500. So come Thursday I have my meeting and I'm trying to stay in CAP. So anything that might help I would appreciate.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 07:21:05 PM... Ever since getting out of the military I've struggled ...
You should check into local Veteran programs and your local American Legion Post. Good luck and thank you for your service.
So the big question is were you convicted? Arrested and charged, with the charges dropped is a lot different than arrested, tried, and convicted.
So during all of this, the arrest, the case running its course etc etc, the "station commander" never showed up to vouch that you were taking the stuff to his house?
No, I was left hanging high and dry because of the way it looked.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 07:21:05 PM
Alright, I appreciate all the advice and opinions that have been put out there. So you all know, I'm not a cadet but a SM. Yeah I know I'm up a creek without a paddle, so you don't have to keep saying it. I originally posted on here looking for advice and some ideas of what to take to the board with me. Ever since getting out of the military I've struggled and when I found CAP, I dove head first into it. So it was no surprise when I dealt with the issue of being thrown in jail for the first time ever, I not go to the one place I felt in control of sorts. I'm not saying it like I want power, but the fact that I was able to get some work done, clear my head and try to sort things out. I wasn't planning on hiding anything from my commander, but I wasn't in the best mindset either. So I would appreciate any idea's you guys have with the way the regs are written. Also this is what happened concerning the arrest. I was a volunteer firefighter and I had been living at the fire station for a few weeks. I had some scrap metal in the back of my car, and I was taking it to the Station Commanders house in the morning. Well the local cop shows up, and see's I have the scrap metal. Well he automatically assumes I'm stealing. When he tries to get a hold of the station commander and can't, the department chief on duty shows up. He assumes I'm lying and I get arrested. Nothing was stolen, nothing even left the property. But I was charged with theft under $500. So come Thursday I have my meeting and I'm trying to stay in CAP. So anything that might help I would appreciate.
On the CAP side (and I guess on the police side as well)....have the station commander come to the board meeting with you. Let him have a chance to vouch for you.
I am assuming that this is not a 2b appeals board....but a local board that the squadron commander cobbled together to figure out what to do with you.
If you WERE to be 2b'ed then there is an appeals process that you can use to try to resolve the issue.
Bottom line though......what does your commander believe to be true. If he does not think that need to be in his squadron or in CAP then it is his DUTY to 2b you. There are other routes he can take as well....but let's assume for the moment he does not think they are appropriate.
In that case once you have been formally notified you are 2b'ed, you are out of CAP....but you have 30 days (IIRC) to appeal to the next level of command (group/wing for a squadron 2b). The wing commander then must convene an appeals board to look at the issue. You have the right cross examine any witness brought against you and you have the right present your own witnesses.
If you fail at that level....your only recorse will be to appeal to the MARB.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 09:05:28 PM
No, I was left hanging high and dry because of the way it looked.
WOW, Sounds kinda Sketchy? Why wouldn't a "Fire Chief" vouch to get his "Comrade" out of trouble? Sounds like something else. If you have been convicted etc, and you havnt gone to court yet, then you should be ok.
Well my Commander didn't want to do a local board, she went and 2b'ed already. That meeting is on thurday night.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 11:32:43 PM
Well my Commander didn't want to do a local board, she went and 2b'ed already. That meeting is on thurday night.
Your commander is under no obligation to do a local board.
So, is Thursday your appeal with Group?
I know and yes it is.
I'm waiting for the punchline. I feel like there is an important piece of info missing.
Did you get convicted? If so, why wasn't the station commander called as a witness?
If you weren't convicted, there isn't really an issue, is there?
Are you no longer on the FD because of this incident? If not, there is more to this than you are letting on.
I'm paying court cost and everything yes. Also it didn't go to trial or anything. It was simply heard in front of a judge with my public defender. No I'm not with the department anymore and the court went completely off the officers report. The officer didn't show up to hearing either.
Quote from: SARDOC on July 21, 2013, 02:44:59 AMThis just makes me think that we have members that can not drive a corporate vehicle because of their driving record. We'll still let them fly a plane though.
We do and not necessarily.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 22, 2013, 03:03:49 AM
Also it didn't go to trial or anything. It was simply heard in front of a judge with my public defender.
So, you went before a judge, with a lawyer, and are paying court costs. Yup, that's very much "trail".
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 22, 2013, 03:03:49 AM
I'm paying court cost and everything yes. Also it didn't go to trial or anything. It was simply heard in front of a judge with my public defender. No I'm not with the department anymore and the court went completely off the officers report. The officer didn't show up to hearing either.
Ahhhhhh.....so you plead guilty then.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 22, 2013, 03:03:49 AM
I'm paying court cost and everything yes. Also it didn't go to trial or anything. It was simply heard in front of a judge with my public defender. No I'm not with the department anymore and the court went completely off the officers report. The officer didn't show up to hearing either.
???
So.....you were convicted? Yes/No?
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 07:21:05 PM
I had some scrap metal in the back of my car, and I was taking it to the Station Commanders house in the morning. Well the local cop shows up, and see's I have the scrap metal. Well he automatically assumes I'm stealing.
Where I come from, the police wouldn't be looking inside a fire fighter's truck when they stop by the station, and wouldn't automatically assume any scrap metal was stolen. I understand the relationship may be different where you live, but I find it hard to believe the officer arrested you based on his assumptions alone. I find it even more suspect that you were held, charged, and it seems convicted, based only on 1 officer's assumption.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 07:21:05 PM
When he tries to get a hold of the station commander and can't, the department chief on duty shows up. He assumes I'm lying and I get arrested. Nothing was stolen, nothing even left the property. But I was charged with theft under $500.
As others have asked, and you haven't answered: Why hasn't the station commander come to your aid? I am sure he would have been consulted prior to your termination from the fire department. I would think he would have been a valuable witness to bring during any court proceeding. In fact, I would think a prosecutor would have spoken with him prior to bringing a case against you. If what you are saying is true, this would have been cleared up almost immediately. It may not have prevented your arrest, but it should certainly have prevented any conviction or termination from the fire department.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 22, 2013, 03:03:49 AM
I'm paying court cost and everything yes. Also it didn't go to trial or anything. It was simply heard in front of a judge with my public defender. No I'm not with the department anymore and the court went completely off the officers report. The officer didn't show up to hearing either.
If you are paying court costs, and the case was heard by a judge... it sounds like a conviction to me. It sounds like your attorney suggested you plead guilty in exchange for a favorable sentence. Where I live, if you plead guilty, there is very little reason for the officer to testify. You may not have even seen him if your court has a private area for officers to wait while their cases are being handled.
Quote from: duffman1741 on July 21, 2013, 11:32:43 PM
Well my Commander didn't want to do a local board, she went and 2b'ed already. That meeting is on thurday night.
Your commander is under no obligation to hold a board before making her decision. Now it sounds like this Thursday night meeting is your appeal to the group/wing level. You seem to be looking for advice on what/how to present to this board on Thursday. Unfortunately, that is not possible based on the shoddy information you have given us thus far. You haven't even confirmed for anyone if you have been convicted or not... which is a key part of this whole situation. I must also be honest with you. I don't think you have given us a complete and true story here. While you are under no obligation to share the details with us, you need to understand that the caliber of our advice will only be as good as the information you share. I will also say that if you were this unhelpful when sharing information with your commander it is little wonder she chose a 2B action for you. I too will only give people so many opportunities to cooperate before making my decision based on the available facts.
There are many people here who can provide you excellent advice. Some have decades in the organization, some are commanders, some are lawyers, some have been part of a 2B process and/or appeal before. If you decide you want their advice, please start being honest and share complete information. Start by stating if you have been convicted. If you were convicted, explain why the stolen scrap metal was in your vehicle. If you didn't know it was stolen, explain why. Explain why the station commander didn't come to your aide during this process. Explain what basis was used for your termination from the fire department, or why you chose to resign in lieu of termination. Give more details regarding the 2B, including the specific things the commander used to justify it. If she 2Bed you for the conviction and you weren't convicted... there is your argument. If the 2B was a result of other factors not limited to this incident, that will be very important as well.
Based on what I gather from the bits of fact you have shared, I think you need to throw yourself on the mercy of your commander and this board on Thursday. You need to eat a big slice of humble pie, take ownership of your mistakes, share the complete truth, and beg for another chance. Its probably too late for that, but unless there are helpful facts you are withholding, I think its your only shot.
Good Luck!
Here is how I see it. You appeared before a judge with an attorney and you are paying fees/fines. Depending on your state you were tried and convicted. As far as your termination from CAP I would heed and follow the advice given to you here.
So what happened? I guess it did not go well for the OP.
Quote from: Robborsari on August 10, 2013, 01:22:22 AM
So what happened? I guess it did not go well for the OP.
I'm not even sure the OP knows what happened. "Wasn't doing anything wrong, next thing you know I'm pleading guilty and everyone who knew I was innocent and a good guy didn't stick up for me!"
Red: The wife-killin' banker.
Andy: How do you know that?
Red: I keep my ear to the ground. Why'd you do it?
Andy: I didn't, since you ask.
Red: Hell, you'll fit right in, then. Everyone's innocent in here, don't you know that? Heywood! What are you in for, boy?
Heywood: Didn't do it! Lawyer f------ me!
Red: See?
When I was working the jails, I never met an inmate who was guilty.
In 1989, the late Ike Turner was my trustee at the County Jail before we was sent off to State Prison. What a character indeed.
I liked working the Women's Jail. I had something like 187 girlfriends then ;)
The OP knows exactly what happened, but has chosen to deliberately make it a murky story. After spoon-feeding only selected facts, he asks for an answer that will make him feel better. It's only after he's asked questions regarding obvious holes in the story that he fills in any gaps. And even then, it's only some gaps.
That leaves us being asked to believe:
He was on duty at the firehouse, his truck parked at or near it. The back of the truck contains scrap metal from an unknown time and place, which he claims he was to deliver to his station commander's house. Nothing to show that the station commander had any claim on the scrap metal or what connection there may have been with the FD.
A police officer notices the scrap metal and arrests OP. Either the "alibi" was ignored or not even brought up, no story either way. And the station commander doesn't speak up about expecting delivery in the AM. Presumably, booking, charging and arraignment ensue.
OP paints a picture of simplicity at trial. He never admits to actually being convicted and tosses red herrings along the way. Such as other cops saying the charges were bogus and the arresting officer not shoeing up for court, and the proceedings relying entirely on the arrest report. Well, coincidentally, that's kind of how it happens when one pleads guilty or nolo contendre at arraignment. There's no need for the officer to appear to testify and no mechanism to get the station commander to do so. It's over. He is GUILTY, something which he has yet to admit, and is sentenced to his probation.
OP was hit with "consequence remorse." He now regrets at least the arrest and conviction proceedings, even though he is not admitting, here, to any wrongdoing, sticking to the unsupported "scrap metal... truck...boss...morning..." story.
Sorry if I appear to be cynical or unkind. But I used to conduct and later oversee police officer candidate background investigations. Stories like this showed up all the time complicated, elaborate, yet amazingly devoid of the unpleasant bits. ("Bad checks? No...that's not what happened...ya see, I've got this aunt in Salinas, and she lost both of her husbands in a flood...and I was there to..."). When we'd bounce those candidates, they'd still not admit why, telling friends that we were being unreasonable or didn't listen.
OP was given good and factual advice here by others. Squadron CC can terminate, he can appeal. That's it. But I'll add one further piece of advice: at the appeal, drop the whole approach of the complicated excuse story and simply lay out the whole and complete truth. A lot of things can be forgiven, but withholding the truth is rarely one of them.
If you were innocent of the charges:
1. Why didn't the Station Commander standup for you?
2. If the police thought it was bogus, why were you charged?
3. Why did you plead guilty? The Judge usually asks if you know the consequences when you do.
Bottom line is that you're a self-confessed thief.
These aint my pants boss-man
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 11, 2013, 01:47:44 AM
These aint my pants boss-man
Usually followed by "They're my brother's pants."
I had a guy once who tried to convince me "Those aren't my fingerprints." But he couldn't explain how we got them from the ends of his fingers.
I had that exact discussion once. Said he was an identical twin. Truth is, he was and his identical twin brother had died. To bad his deceased brothers prints were already on file too. "A" for effort, "F" for failure to coordintate details.
Officer: Is there anything in the car Illegal you should tell me about before I Search the Car
Suspect: No Officer
Officer: Again, just tell me know, is there anything in the car illegal that I should know about, be honest
Suspect: No Officer
Officer: looks in vehicle within 1 minute finds drugs
Suspect: I swear officer that Is not mine, if it was mine I would have told you, It might be my Buddies
Officer: Who Is your buddy
Suspect: Silent
Officer: Well, next time you wont let your "Buddy" rid in your car because it is being confiscated and your going to jail
Suspect: BUT OFFICER I SWEAR ITS NOT MINE!!!
Officer: Sure Buddy, See Ya Downtown
Once, in my heady youth, I was pulled over in a friend's car for a busted windshield. When the officer asked if I had been drinking, I volunteered that I had had a half a beer about an hour prior. He thanked me for my honesty, issued a fix-it ticket for the windshield, and I was let go. I also had a friend (please don't ask where I get my friends from) who was pulled over while transporting illegal substances, and was joking with the cop. He asked if she had anything illegal in the car, and she responded "just the two kilos of coke, but other than that, no" and was let go.
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 11, 2013, 03:59:40 PM
Officer: Is there anything in the car Illegal you should tell me about before I Search the Car
Motorist: I do not consent to any search of my car, Officer.
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway. If they declined then I showed my hand. If I asked for consent just based on a "hunch" and they refused, that was pretty much the end of it. If I didnt get you today, Ill get you tomorrow. Youd be surprised when I worked dope how many stops I did on cars leaving dope houses or dope areas that I knew were dealers making deliveries. Eventually their day comes. In the words of one fine young man whom I chased around for about 2 yrs "Officer, you caught me slippin'" I stopped him I dont know how many times for traffic violations and sent him on his way with a cite and a refusal to allow a search. One day...... I walked up, talked to him and during the conversation opened the door and pulled him out and cuffed him. He'd forgotten about the loaded meth pipe in his cup holder. >:D A search of the car dug up another ounce of meth in a paper bag in the trunk and 1/2 oz of heroin hidden in the airbag of the steering wheel. Hed removed the actual airbag and was transporting his dope in the steering wheel. But I wont tell you how I knew about that :-X
I would add.... this guy was not a user so he was never under the influence. But oh well. You still dont get to have dope in your car.
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
If the cop has PC, he's going to search with or without consent. Might as well make it without so you can challenge PC later anyway.
I'm not saying do anything to interfere, but simply say "I don't consent to any search, but will not interfere with you." and hold firm on it.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
If the cop has PC, he's going to search with or without consent. Might as well make it without so you can challenge PC later anyway.
I'm not saying do anything to interfere, but simply say "I don't consent to any search, but will not interfere with you." and hold firm on it.
I've heard the California Vehicle Code described as 687 pages of PC to pull you over.
Was pulled over for the first time in about 5 years today. Saw the cops, saw them turn after me, saw them pass from Franklin Park into Bensenville (being FP cops). Of course I work 1/4 mile into Bensenville, so as soon as I signaled my turn, they lit up. Pulled over across from the office, got DL, Insurance, and Printout of my payment for the Registration sticker that is, sadly, still in the mail, while I'm riding an 07/13 sticker on the plates...sigh.
Cop came up, greeted him nicely. Asked if it's about the registration sticker, and he said yes, so I give him the DL,Insurance, and the Printout explaining that I'm still waiting on the tag. Asked if my passenger could cross the street to go into the office (told him I work there obviously). He said sure thing, let me run everything just to make sure its good. Two minutes later, he hands me everything back, and I turn into my office parking lot.
No biggie. :)
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
If the cop has PC, he's going to search with or without consent. Might as well make it without so you can challenge PC later anyway.
I'm not saying do anything to interfere, but simply say "I don't consent to any search, but will not interfere with you." and hold firm on it.
That would be a pretty poor tactic. If I have consent, but also have PC, when I write the arrest report, my PC is documented along with your consent. Nothing to hide and doesnt allow for anything to come up later. The more facts the more solid the case. Its great when facts flow right along with my suspicions.
"While I was talking to the driver at his lowered drivers side window I saw a glass smoking pipe, consistent with the type used to smoke methamphetamine sitting in the center console cup holder in plain view. I could see that the pipe was "loaded", meaning that it had a white chrystalline susbstance caked to the inside of the pipe. It is common for methamphetamine users to pre-load the pipe with methamhetamine so they only have to carry the pipe itself vs carrying a pipe and a baggy. It also allows for quick disposal of any evidence when contacted by law enforcement.
I asked the driver if he had anything illegal in his car. He stated "No I dont." I asked "Would you care if I searched your car?" He stated, "Go ahead sir but you aint gonna find anything like usual. I dont have anything to hide." I ordered the driver from his vehicle and arrested him for possession of drug periphernalia. At that point, he stated, "I dont want you searching my car. You cant search my car if I say no." He was placed in the back seat of my patrol car while I continued the search.
Upon further search of the car, I located 1 oz. of methampetamine wrapped in individual 1/10th gram bindles in a paper bag in the trunk inside the spare tire and also located .5 oz of heroin packaged for sale inside the airbag compartment of the steering wheel where the airbag had been removed to make a hidden compartment.etc etc etc etc.
It really is that easy >:D
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
That would be a pretty poor tactic. If I have consent, but also have PC, when I write the arrest report, my PC is documented along with your consent. Nothing to hide and doesnt allow for anything to come up later. The more facts the more solid the case. Its great when facts flow right along with my suspicions.
Not saying you wouldn't document. But once the driver consents to search, he loses his right to contest whether you had PC or not, as a consensual search requires no PC.
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
If the cop has PC, he's going to search with or without consent. Might as well make it without so you can challenge PC later anyway.
I'm not saying do anything to interfere, but simply say "I don't consent to any search, but will not interfere with you." and hold firm on it.
That would be a pretty poor tactic. If I have consent, but also have PC, when I write the arrest report, my PC is documented along with your consent. Nothing to hide and doesnt allow for anything to come up later. The more facts the more solid the case. Its great when facts flow right along with my suspicions.
"While I was talking to the driver at his lowered drivers side window I saw a glass smoking pipe, consistent with the type used to smoke methamphetamine sitting in the center console cup holder in plain view. I could see that the pipe was "loaded", meaning that it had a white chrystalline susbstance caked to the inside of the pipe. It is common for methamphetamine users to pre-load the pipe with methamhetamine so they only have to carry the pipe itself vs carrying a pipe and a baggy. It also allows for quick disposal of any evidence when contacted by law enforcement.
I asked the driver if he had anything illegal in his car. He stated "No I dont." I asked "Would you care if I searched your car?" He stated, "Go ahead sir but you aint gonna find anything like usual. I dont have anything to hide." I ordered the driver from his vehicle and arrested him for possession of drug periphernalia. At that point, he stated, "I dont want you searching my car. You cant search my car if I say no." He was placed in the back seat of my patrol car while I continued the search.
Upon further search of the car, I located 1 oz. of methampetamine wrapped in individual 1/10th gram bindles in a paper bag in the trunk inside the spare tire and also located .5 oz of heroin packaged for sale inside the airbag compartment of the steering wheel where the airbag had been removed to make a hidden compartment.
etc etc etc etc.
It really is that easy >:D
Yup and at that point it became a search incident to arrest(apprehension for mil folks) so therefore no consent is needed anymore at that point.
PC? ???
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 12, 2013, 07:03:25 PM
PC? ???
Probable Cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause)
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
That would be a pretty poor tactic. If I have consent, but also have PC, when I write the arrest report, my PC is documented along with your consent. Nothing to hide and doesnt allow for anything to come up later. The more facts the more solid the case. Its great when facts flow right along with my suspicions.
Not saying you wouldn't document. But once the driver consents to search, he loses his right to contest whether you had PC or not, as a consensual search requires no PC.
They can deny consent at any time during the search as long as you havnt found anything. But yes, in the case of my report blurb, it was going to be a search incident to arrest regardless. Or if I had obtained consent, and then located it, same thing. But I have had many people give consent, and then after I find something, they think they can turn back the clock. Nope.
Devil Doc... PC= Probably Cause.
And don't forget, if the Officer asks "Do you have anything illegal in the car?" you don't have to answer. In fact, about the only question you have to answer is your name. In a car, you have to provide your license, registration and insurance, but you don't have to answer any questions whatsoever.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" There is no "good" answer to this. You answer "85" and you've admitted to speeding. If you say "No", then you're admitting to reckless driving, as you're not aware of the environment in which you're driving.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 07:15:02 PM
And don't forget, if the Officer asks "Do you have anything illegal in the car?" you don't have to answer. In fact, about the only question you have to answer is your name. In a car, you have to provide your license, registration and insurance, but you don't have to answer any questions whatsoever.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" There is no "good" answer to this. You answer "85" and you've admitted to speeding. If you say "No", then you're admitting to reckless driving, as you're not aware of the environment in which you're driving.
Naaaaaaah.... not true. Reckless driving involves a lot more than not knowing the speed you were traveling. As far as thee other stuff, you dont have to say anything other than provide the information you agreed to provide when you got your license.
But in reality.... do what you want. From personal experience, people sound like goof balls when they try and act like robots. But yes, Jeff is right.... Im not there to chit chat, there usually is a reason behind the questions Im asking. In many cases, if I ask someone how fast they were going, and they actually tell me the right answer, I rarely write a cite. But thats just me, however several other cops I know do the same thing. But again, Im not a traffic cop. I use traffic violations to catch bigger fish. If I decide you are just a guy or gal out living your life like a normal person, Im usually on my way.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 07:15:02 PM
"Do you know how fast you were going?" There is no "good" answer to this. You answer "85" and you've admitted to speeding. If you say "No", then you're admitting to reckless driving, as you're not aware of the environment in which you're driving.
No. Not at all. But I'll wait if you want to site an actual statute that so states. I just won't wait for long.
Quote from: PHall on August 12, 2013, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
If the cop has PC, he's going to search with or without consent. Might as well make it without so you can challenge PC later anyway.
I'm not saying do anything to interfere, but simply say "I don't consent to any search, but will not interfere with you." and hold firm on it.
I've heard the California Vehicle Code described as 687 pages of PC to pull you over.
Actually 40001 Sections I can cite you on, no pun intended sir 8)
Quote from: Grumpy on August 10, 2013, 04:09:29 AM
When I was working the jails, I never met an inmate who was guilty.
Worked with a Deputy whose favorite line was "That's Right, You're the first person in the History of the American Criminal Justice System who says they 'didn't do it'"
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 13, 2013, 01:54:36 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 12, 2013, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 12, 2013, 03:40:00 PM
Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread >:D Any time I had PC, I would always ask for consent anyway.
Yep. And if consent is given, then you don't have to bother showing PC later. If consent is refused, and you search, then I preserve the right to litigate PC later on.
If the cop has PC, he's going to search with or without consent. Might as well make it without so you can challenge PC later anyway.
I'm not saying do anything to interfere, but simply say "I don't consent to any search, but will not interfere with you." and hold firm on it.
I've heard the California Vehicle Code described as 687 pages of PC to pull you over.
Actually 40001 Sections I can cite you on, no pun intended sir 8)
Glib, but inaccurate. Your claim is that if someone states "I don't know how fast I was driving" then they're "...admitting to reckless driving." I say "BS."
I'm also saying that you can't cite a single Vehicle Code section that says anything close to "Failure to know driving speed when asked constitutes reckless driving."
Further - I'm also saying that it would not be a fun experience for a police officer trying to testify to "Your honor, I cited him for reckless driving because, when I stopped him, I asked him if he knew how fast he was going, but he couldn't tell me."
I seriously didnt know i was speeding when i got pulled over. I left work early because i was sick. I was just trying to drive home, the speeds he clocked me at though seemed a bit odd, because for my truck to do that speed musta been when going down hill. Anwyho, that remindes me Court Date is Sept 4th, and i have gotten nos lawyers yet. So... I cant miss work, so maybe i will pay it off, err, hire a lawyer soon?
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 13, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
I seriously didnt know i was speeding when i got pulled over. I left work early because i was sick. I was just trying to drive home, the speeds he clocked me at though seemed a bit odd, because for my truck to do that speed musta been when going down hill. Anwyho, that remindes me Court Date is Sept 4th, and i have gotten nos lawyers yet. So... I cant miss work, so maybe i will pay it off, err, hire a lawyer soon?
Is traffic school an option in your state?
In California on many tickets you can go to traffic school instead of paying the fine.
Completing the school will result in the ticket not appearing on your driving record.
Like I said, I don't know if they have this in your state.
Yeah but most times traffic school costs more than just paying the fine. And idk bout your county but in Solano you get a ticket you have the option of traffic school but you still have to pay the fine.
I believe the point of traffic school is to avoid court costs (to the gov), avoid points on DL (to the driver), and to, overall, make money on an automated, online system. :)
Pilots...beware of the easy out of "Traffic School" and remember that it's reportable on question 18v on your next 8500-8
QuoteHistory of (1) any arrest(s) and/or conviction(s) involving driving while intoxicated by, while impaired by, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or (2) history of any arrest(s), and/or conviction(s), and/or administrative action(s) involving an offense(s) which resulted in the denial, suspension, cancellation, or revocation of driving privileges or which resulted in attendance at an educational or a rehabilitation program.
If they dismiss the ticket for going to traffic school, that's an administrative action which resulted in attendance at an educational program.
Quote from: PHall on August 13, 2013, 05:35:43 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 13, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
I seriously didnt know i was speeding when i got pulled over. I left work early because i was sick. I was just trying to drive home, the speeds he clocked me at though seemed a bit odd, because for my truck to do that speed musta been when going down hill. Anwyho, that remindes me Court Date is Sept 4th, and i have gotten nos lawyers yet. So... I cant miss work, so maybe i will pay it off, err, hire a lawyer soon?
Is traffic school an option in your state?
In California on many tickets you can go to traffic school instead of paying the fine.
Completing the school will result in the ticket not appearing on your driving record.
Like I said, I don't know if they have this in your state.
That might have been true a long time ago, but it ain't that way now. BTDT!
In fact, the law recently changed regarding that. Now you accrue the points, even when you attend driver's school, but they are masked from inquiries from outside the DMV. Also, you pay the fine, and the driving school fee, and the admin fee assessed for attending driving school. BTDT!
Sure Dave, take the wind out of their sails. :-\
Traffic tickets are a real revenue generating machine for many jurisdictions. It is far more about cash flow than law and order. If you are a victim of a crime don't be surprised that local law enforcement doesn't have the personnel to investigate but they sure do seem to have plenty of personnel with the spare time to sit around waiting to pull you over to issue a traffic ticket. Investigating crimes costs money, writing ticket makes money. That is their game.
It's a "game" you do not have to play if, you know, you obey the law.
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 14, 2013, 02:10:10 AM
Traffic tickets are a real revenue generating machine for many jurisdictions. It is far more about cash flow than law and order. If you are a victim of a crime don't be surprised that local law enforcement doesn't have the personnel to investigate but they sure do seem to have plenty of personnel with the spare time to sit around waiting to pull you over to issue a traffic ticket. Investigating crimes costs money, writing ticket makes money. That is their game.
A lot of our local speeding enforcement is in areas that need the enforcement - long streets through 25 mph residential areas where folks like to do 40+, school zones, that kind of thing.
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 13, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
I seriously didnt know i was speeding when i got pulled over. I left work early because i was sick. I was just trying to drive home, the speeds he clocked me at though seemed a bit odd, because for my truck to do that speed musta been when going down hill. Anwyho, that remindes me Court Date is Sept 4th, and i have gotten nos lawyers yet. So... I cant miss work, so maybe i will pay it off, err, hire a lawyer soon?
Doc, you did not get the citation in Hickory did you? Anyways good luck ...
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 14, 2013, 02:10:10 AM
Traffic tickets are a real revenue generating machine for many jurisdictions. It is far more about cash flow than law and order. If you are a victim of a crime don't be surprised that local law enforcement doesn't have the personnel to investigate but they sure do seem to have plenty of personnel with the spare time to sit around waiting to pull you over to issue a traffic ticket. Investigating crimes costs money, writing ticket makes money. That is their game.
David, that is how it is. Every agency has an agenda and a budget. In a small town or county, the bean counters will tell you, your people need to write "x" number of tickets or we are laying off some people. It is what it is 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 14, 2013, 07:23:18 AM
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 13, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
I seriously didnt know i was speeding when i got pulled over. I left work early because i was sick. I was just trying to drive home, the speeds he clocked me at though seemed a bit odd, because for my truck to do that speed musta been when going down hill. Anwyho, that remindes me Court Date is Sept 4th, and i have gotten nos lawyers yet. So... I cant miss work, so maybe i will pay it off, err, hire a lawyer soon?
Doc, you did not get the citation in Hickory did you? Anyways good luck ...
LOL, what do you know about Hickory, NC. Didnt know you lived in NC. Actually i work in Salisbury, he got me coming home in Statesville :( Darn State Tropper? I understand he was doing hid job
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 14, 2013, 07:34:30 AM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 14, 2013, 02:10:10 AM
Traffic tickets are a real revenue generating machine for many jurisdictions. It is far more about cash flow than law and order. If you are a victim of a crime don't be surprised that local law enforcement doesn't have the personnel to investigate but they sure do seem to have plenty of personnel with the spare time to sit around waiting to pull you over to issue a traffic ticket. Investigating crimes costs money, writing ticket makes money. That is their game.
David, that is how it is. Every agency has an agenda and a budget. In a small town or county, the bean counters will tell you, your people need to write "x" number of tickets or we are laying off some people. It is what it is 8)
Interestingly, it can work both ways. Our traffic court has noted a huge drop in citations being filed. The fact that the officers in our largest city took a 10% pay cut and are a little unhappy is probably just a coincidence. Plus since there are fewer of them, they are much busier just responding to priority calls and have less time for proactive stuff like traffic enforcement.
OTOH, the Redflex cameras have absolutely crammed the court dockets here. Several jurisdictions in the area have dropped cameras as of late, but not the immediate one. I will say I do like how they turned it around and thumped them on the whole revenue sharing game and turned it into a simple cost center like the police officer costs X amount per month, writing tickets, filling out reports, or talking on the radio. Redflex gets a fixed amount per deployed device. Period.
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 14, 2013, 12:52:22 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 14, 2013, 07:23:18 AM
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 13, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
I seriously didnt know i was speeding when i got pulled over. I left work early because i was sick. I was just trying to drive home, the speeds he clocked me at though seemed a bit odd, because for my truck to do that speed musta been when going down hill. Anwyho, that remindes me Court Date is Sept 4th, and i have gotten nos lawyers yet. So... I cant miss work, so maybe i will pay it off, err, hire a lawyer soon?
Doc, you did not get the citation in Hickory did you? Anyways good luck ...
LOL, what do you know about Hickory, NC. Didnt know you lived in NC. Actually i work in Salisbury, he got me coming home in Statesville :( Darn State Tropper? I understand he was doing hid job
Back in my active duty days in Jacksonville, the girlfriend's parents lived in Hickory. He was retired MSgt, USMC. Beautiful country and did some hunting out that way. State Troopers is an impressive group. :clap:
Quote from: Ned on August 14, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on August 14, 2013, 07:34:30 AM
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 14, 2013, 02:10:10 AM
Traffic tickets are a real revenue generating machine for many jurisdictions. It is far more about cash flow than law and order. If you are a victim of a crime don't be surprised that local law enforcement doesn't have the personnel to investigate but they sure do seem to have plenty of personnel with the spare time to sit around waiting to pull you over to issue a traffic ticket. Investigating crimes costs money, writing ticket makes money. That is their game.
David, that is how it is. Every agency has an agenda and a budget. In a small town or county, the bean counters will tell you, your people need to write "x" number of tickets or we are laying off some people. It is what it is 8)
Interestingly, it can work both ways. Our traffic court has noted a huge drop in citations being filed. The fact that the officers in our largest city took a 10% pay cut and are a little unhappy is probably just a coincidence. Plus since there are fewer of them, they are much busier just responding to priority calls and have less time for proactive stuff like traffic enforcement.
Very true indeed sir.
Quote from: PHall on August 13, 2013, 05:35:43 PMIs traffic school an option in your state?
Usually not - North Carolina has a system where a NC citizen can basically have one minor incident forgiven every five years. It's called a Prayer for Justice (PFJ) and is kind of like getting probation for three years. Granting it is up to the DA and usually you wind up paying a small fine, but get no points on your license and therefore no insurance cost. But if you get stopped again in the next three years, then the first ticket comes back and you have to deal with both of them.
I'm probably not describing that right because it's been a really long time since I had to deal with that. Long enough ago that 55 was the max speed limit anywhere, even on hwy 70 between Kinston and New Bern.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 02:18:03 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 11, 2013, 03:59:40 PM
Officer: Is there anything in the car Illegal you should tell me about before I Search the Car
Motorist: I do not consent to any search of my car, Officer.
The only right answer to a jerk question. Anything else probably consititues consent in the officer's eyes. Actually to some officers, this answer probably constitutes probably cause...
Quote from: bflynn on August 24, 2013, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 02:18:03 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 11, 2013, 03:59:40 PM
Officer: Is there anything in the car Illegal you should tell me about before I Search the Car
Motorist: I do not consent to any search of my car, Officer.
The only right answer to a jerk question. Anything else probably consititues consent in the officer's eyes. Actually to some officers, this answer probably constitutes probably cause...
Do you have absolutely ANY idea how law enforcement works outside of CSI Miami or are you just making this up as you type? I usually prefer beating people with a 4' section of garden hose when they refuse my demands.
So very glad I live severial counties north of Flying Pig
There's always the option to just obey the law and not have anything illegal in your car, too...
Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2013, 02:23:31 PM
There's always the option to just obey the law and not have anything illegal in your car, too...
For a lot of folks, refusing a search is all about the principle of their rights than being afraid of what they do or don't have in the car.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 24, 2013, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2013, 02:23:31 PM
There's always the option to just obey the law and not have anything illegal in your car, too...
For a lot of folks, refusing a search is all about the principle of their rights than being afraid of what they do or don't have in the car.
Yep...the whole "If you're not doing anything wrong" line of thinking.
If you're not doing anything wrong, why not let the police go door to door and search houses at random?
For starters, that's not what they are doing, is it? So not relevent to the conversation.
Contrary to a number of people on YouTube, it is >not< a slippery slope between you getting pulled over with a
broken tail light and a .002 on your breath and the hob nails kicking in your front door.
Philosophical arguments look great on T-Shirts and tend to break down somewhat when you're leaning
forward on the hood of a police car in handcuffs.
I've had plenty of youthful folly-level contact with local law enforcement, plenty, in a town known for not
suffering fools by its police officers. Not exactly something to brag about, but there you go.
Two things:
1. I was never pulled over without violating the law (they all count, not just the ones you think are important).
2. Being a smarty pants or making the cop's job harder didn't make my evening go any smoother.
Quote from: BillB on August 24, 2013, 02:17:08 PM
So very glad I live severial counties north of Flying Pig
But didnt you know that all cops everywhere all know each other? I have this big spot light that I shine into the night sky thats shaped like a pig. Any officer that sees it calls me on a red phone I have and together we plot our devious scheme against the citizenry.
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 24, 2013, 02:38:59 PM
Quote from: BillB on August 24, 2013, 02:17:08 PM
So very glad I live severial counties north of Flying Pig
But didnt you know that all cops everywhere all know each other? I have this big spot light that I shine into the night sky thats shaped like a pig. Any officer that sees it calls me on a red phone I have and together we plot our devious scheme against the citizenry.
That or get a relative out of a ticket. Guaranteed to get a phone call at least once a week that starts like this:
Quote"Hi, my name is Debbie Dumbdriver and my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate is a cop in Boston, and I got a ticket down there in SC a few months ago, and I'm wondering if the Trooper that wrote me could help me out with it?"
Yea, ok, because that REALLY means SO MUCH in the realm of professional courtesy. -_-
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2013, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 24, 2013, 02:38:59 PM
Quote from: BillB on August 24, 2013, 02:17:08 PM
So very glad I live severial counties north of Flying Pig
But didnt you know that all cops everywhere all know each other? I have this big spot light that I shine into the night sky thats shaped like a pig. Any officer that sees it calls me on a red phone I have and together we plot our devious scheme against the citizenry.
That or get a relative out of a ticket. Guaranteed to get a phone call at least once a week that starts like this:
Quote"Hi, my name is Debbie Dumbdriver and my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate is a cop in Boston, and I got a ticket down there in SC a few months ago, and I'm wondering if the Trooper that wrote me could help me out with it?"
Yea, ok, because that REALLY means SO MUCH in the realm of professional courtesy. -_-
Its unfortunate that you feel that way. Because I wake up everyday completely willing to flush my 16 year career and my families way of life on a bad search, a civil rights violation or making a computer generated cite/case numbers just "disappear". You know... because Im just a bad person overall and whats authority if you cant abuse it. I know thousands of cops like me. Please mail back your Thin Blue Line card. You do have one dont you?
We were just having this conversation at work yesterday. And as I tell everyone and my math could be wrong as it is not a strong point for me, but 90% of all encounters people have with a LE agency regardless of which on it is was brought upon by the party. 90% of the time most people wind up talking themselves into a matching set of bracelets and going to jail.
Yes, there are plenty of people running around Youtube asserting their rights about search and seizures, open carry, filming the police and who knows what else. Most of these people assert their rights usually are going off of their interpretation of what the Constitution says and not any legal standing. Case in point there is a group here in Az that intentionally goes out and films CBP and attempts to escalate a confrontation with them as they are asserting their right that the CBP checkpoints are unconstitutional based on the 4th amendment. Nevermind that SCOTUS has ruled in 1979 that the temporary deprivation of rights is allowed and constitutional and that CBP checkpoints are considered border searches.
Bottom line if you don't do anything wrong don't throw the rights card and be polite and you'll be on your way. Be a clown about it and well now it will be dragged out.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 24, 2013, 04:42:19 PMCase in point there is a group here in Az that intentionally goes out and films CBP and attempts to escalate a confrontation with them as they are asserting their right that the CBP checkpoints are unconstitutional based on the 4th amendment. Nevermind that SCOTUS has ruled in 1979 that the temporary deprivation of rights is allowed and constitutional and that CBP checkpoints are considered border searches.
I've seen those nutjobs on the internet. Makes me wanna reach through the screen and smack all those jackwagons upside the head. Asserting your rights within the bounds of common sense is one thing, but being an inciteful jerk about it is totally different. The fringe elements on both sides of the aisle have apparently forgotten that us LE folks are humans just like them with kids and families we want to provide for and be able to go home to at the end of the day/night.
Quote from: bflynn on August 24, 2013, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 12, 2013, 02:18:03 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on August 11, 2013, 03:59:40 PM
Officer: Is there anything in the car Illegal you should tell me about before I Search the Car
Motorist: I do not consent to any search of my car, Officer.
The only right answer to a jerk question. Anything else probably consititues consent in the officer's eyes. Actually to some officers, this answer probably constitutes probably cause...
I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.
Ive asked that exact "jerk" question more times than I can count. Have yet to ever lose a case with that very quote in the report.
Many years ago, I made a sign to hang on the radio rack in my patrol car, in full view of any back seat guests. It contained an early version of "Ned's Rules."
1. A policeman is your friend.
2. It never helps to make me mad.
3. Driving is not a competitive sport.
4. Never argue with a computer. (If it says you have a warrant, you do.)
5. Just because I cannot find your dope legally does not mean you get to keep it.
When appropriate to a given conversation with a back-seat occupant, I could just point to the applicable rule. Saved a lot of time.
Of course, with many years of additional experience and wisdom, I would not display these rules today.
Quote from: Ned on August 24, 2013, 05:30:46 PM
Many years ago, I made a sign to hang on the radio rack in my patrol car, in full view of any back seat guests. It contained an early version of "Ned's Rules."
1. A policeman is your friend.
2. It never helps to make me mad.
3. Driving is not a competitive sport.
4. Never argue with a computer. (If it says you have a warrant, you do.)
5. Just because I cannot find your dope legally does not mean you get to keep it.
When appropriate to a given conversation with a back-seat occupant, I could just point to the applicable rule. Saved a lot of time.
Of course, with many years of additional experience and wisdom, I would not display these rules today.
Nah, it's much more effective to text them to them these days. >:D
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 24, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.
No, I didn't miss the point of the question.
It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer. Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't. If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.
At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment. Some won't.
I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 01:14:05 AM
It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer. Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't. If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.
At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment. Some won't.
You really don't get how the whole search thing works do you?
No..... he doesnt. Its pretty interesting to see how uninformed people believe it works.
But the question "If you don't have anything illegal in your car, it's OK if I take a look around, OK?" is like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no "good" answer to it.
If you say "No, go ahead", you've given consent to search, and you cannot later challenge the search on the grounds of lack of probable cause. It's a consensual search, and as such, probable cause is not relevant.
If you say, "Well, I might have something..." then you've given the officer probable cause, and now he can search absent consent.
The only answer that requires the officer to have previously established probable cause to search is no answer whatsoever. Which is your absolute right under the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision. The only answers you must give are identification. Anything else you are entirely at liberty to refuse to answer, and the police may not infer guilt or probable cause from your refusal to answer.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 25, 2013, 03:05:20 AM
But the question "If you don't have anything illegal in your car, it's OK if I take a look around, OK?" is like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no "good" answer to it.
If you say "No, go ahead", you've given consent to search, and you cannot later challenge the search on the grounds of lack of probable cause. It's a consensual search, and as such, probable cause is not relevant.
If you say, "Well, I might have something..." then you've given the officer probable cause, and now he can search absent consent.
The only answer that requires the officer to have previously established probable cause to search is no answer whatsoever. Which is your absolute right under the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision. The only answers you must give are identification. Anything else you are entirely at liberty to refuse to answer, and the police may not infer guilt or probable cause from your refusal to answer.
Wow, you definitely have no idea of how those amendments work by any means.
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 25, 2013, 03:06:37 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 25, 2013, 03:05:20 AM
But the question "If you don't have anything illegal in your car, it's OK if I take a look around, OK?" is like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no "good" answer to it.
If you say "No, go ahead", you've given consent to search, and you cannot later challenge the search on the grounds of lack of probable cause. It's a consensual search, and as such, probable cause is not relevant.
If you say, "Well, I might have something..." then you've given the officer probable cause, and now he can search absent consent.
The only answer that requires the officer to have previously established probable cause to search is no answer whatsoever. Which is your absolute right under the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision. The only answers you must give are identification. Anything else you are entirely at liberty to refuse to answer, and the police may not infer guilt or probable cause from your refusal to answer.
Wow, you definitely have no idea of how those amendments work by any means.
Then feel free to explain it to me.
Which would you like first?
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 01:14:05 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 24, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.
No, I didn't miss the point of the question.
It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer. Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't. If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.
At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment. Some won't.
I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.
Wow! Double Whammy! Missed the point AND don't understand how it works!
The answer doesn't constitute consent to search. Under the fact set given, the search is going to happen. And, failure to give consent to the search won't, alone, stop a search which is being driven by factors not requiring consent.
Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you think that CAP core values hold police officers to a higher standard.
I'm not sure there's a higher standard to be held, however, a greater expectation of "should know better" might be in order.
"It's okay if that schmuck does it.. but not the cop", doesn't make any sense at all.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 25, 2013, 06:13:52 AM
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 01:14:05 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 24, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.
No, I didn't miss the point of the question.
It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer. Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't. If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.
At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment. Some won't.
I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.
Wow! Double Whammy! Missed the point AND don't understand how it works!
The answer doesn't constitute consent to search. Under the fact set given, the search is going to happen. And, failure to give consent to the search won't, alone, stop a search which is being driven by factors not requiring consent.
Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you think that CAP core values hold police officers to a higher standard.
Under the facts that I'm starting from in this circumstance, there is neither probable cause nor consent, so the officer isn't going to be doing a search. If the officer has either consent or probable cause, they don't stand around having a friendly conversation about what they might find, they just start searching.
Suppose the officer asks "Before I start to search, do you have anything illegal"? Whether you answer Yes or No, you did not object to the officer searching. Consent has now been tacitly given. That is trickery because most people don't catch the implied consent in a No answer. Trickery is not honest. I hold police to the standard of being honest and restrained. Most are.
Are we starting from a different situation? If there is already consent or already probably cause, then the question means something entirely different and is largely irrelevant.
I don't know of any court or DA that believes in implied consent when it comes to a search. There has to be a clear and concise request for consent and consent given. As a matter of fact in my department we have a form. Not everyone uses if but I always do. It even explains on the form that they can withdraw consent at anytime. They sign it, I sign it. No trickery.
As far as asking if there's anything illegal in the car, I ask in every stop, whether or not I intend to search or not. That's not used for pc but to gauge their reaction to simple questions. Mine normally goes like this "do you have any drug, alcohol, guns, knives, nuclear bombs or anything else that's gonna piss me off in the car?"
Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2013, 02:38:25 PM
Two things:
1. I was never pulled over without violating the law (they all count, not just the ones you think are important).
2. Being a smarty pants or making the cop's job harder didn't make my evening go any smoother.
I was pulled over once without having done anything wrong or having a taillight out or the such. Well, technically *I* wasn't pulled over, but the friend driving me was. We were in his pickup truck and were driving from my house (west of a high-crime minority town) to his house (on the other side of that town). We were pulled over while going through because we and his truck apparently matched the description of a suspect vehicle in some unstated crime. We were polite and he was professional and we were quickly on our way. Bottom line: We got pulled over for being two white guys in a drug neighborhood. Reverse profiling! And you know what? I support that, as long as I don't get pulled over every time I drive somewhere.
One similar incident that stands out to me, I got pulled over passing a 7-Eleven in a "transient" part of town, (cops and school district actually have that area labeled as "transient" due the fact that it's four-plexes and rentals, which leases are rare, it's all mostly month to month). Cop didn't say much, just asked me for all the stuff, didn't tell me why, I could have asked. I know I didn't do anything. I just forked it all over.
About 45 seconds later, he comes back, practically "dumps" it back in my window. That said, if I my open hand was not there, I'm not sure if he would have just dropped it, or waited for me to take. "Have a nice day", and he left. I figure it was easier to cooperate at the time.
I did follow up on it shortly after, going to the police station and asking to speak to "someone in charge". I never got an a complete answer, but it was acknowledged that it should not have happened like that, but that perhaps at the heat of the moment they were looking for someone .. and I fit the bill.
About the oddest thing I had that day- RC Dark Cola in brown long neck bottles, in a six pack carrier on the passenger side floor, partially obscured by the hump. I looked over at that as I reached to get the registration .. and thought .. "that might not look like what it is.." and one bottle was open, in the holder, with the label facing away. I was definitely under-age at that time.
Quote from: stillamarine on August 25, 2013, 04:04:54 PM
I don't know of any court or DA that believes in implied consent when it comes to a search. There has to be a clear and concise request for consent and consent given. As a matter of fact in my department we have a form. Not everyone uses if but I always do. It even explains on the form that they can withdraw consent at anytime. They sign it, I sign it. No trickery.
As far as asking if there's anything illegal in the car, I ask in every stop, whether or not I intend to search or not. That's not used for pc but to gauge their reaction to simple questions. Mine normally goes like this "do you have any drug, alcohol, guns, knives, nuclear bombs or anything else that's gonna piss me off in the car?"
Excellent for your dept. Bad for the ones that don't.
Implied consent is there all the time. If the officer clearly states "I will search your vehicle now" and you don't object, haven't you given consent by not objecting? Regardless, is that going to stop some officers? When an officer asks a question and you respond, aren't you forfieting your 5th amendment right now to answer? Yet there is no statement, it's just implied by the fact that you answered.
My point of this is that the original question has but one answer - I do not consent to you searching my vehicle. Furthermore, if the officer has consent or probable cause and asks the question, then what's the point? So he knows to keep searching and ripping your carpet up and seats apart until he find it? Or is he going to be less dilligent in the search if you say there's nothing there?
Yes, I have had some negative experiences with officers in the past, including one local deputy at an airport doing an "airplane security check". He insisted that I had to have a written weight and balance computation before he would "allow" me to take off...he insisted it was an little know piece of the federal aviation regulations, at which point I pulled my dogeared FAR copy out of my flight bag and nicely asked him to teach me about that regulation.
Despite that I do still generally respect the honorable ones.
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Despite that I do still generally respect the honorable ones.
Only "generally"? Do they wear a special pin?
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stillamarine on August 25, 2013, 04:04:54 PM
I don't know of any court or DA that believes in implied consent when it comes to a search. There has to be a clear and concise request for consent and consent given. As a matter of fact in my department we have a form. Not everyone uses if but I always do. It even explains on the form that they can withdraw consent at anytime. They sign it, I sign it. No trickery.
As far as asking if there's anything illegal in the car, I ask in every stop, whether or not I intend to search or not. That's not used for pc but to gauge their reaction to simple questions. Mine normally goes like this "do you have any drug, alcohol, guns, knives, nuclear bombs or anything else that's gonna piss me off in the car?"
Excellent for your dept. Bad for the ones that don't.
Implied consent is there all the time. If the officer clearly states "I will search your vehicle now" and you don't object, haven't you given consent by not objecting? Regardless, is that going to stop some officers? When an officer asks a question and you respond, aren't you forfieting your 5th amendment right now to answer? Yet there is no statement, it's just implied by the fact that you answered.
Well any officer that searches under that statement and calls it a consensual search is likely to have his case tossed and open himself up to federal lawsuit charges. Are there bad cops that do that? Sure but like every single occupation out there (no exception) there are good and bad apples.
Best video ever about talking to police officers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)
Philosophical arguments have a place. By the side of the road on a traffic stop, especially if you aren't hiding anything, isn't one of them.
Just because you assert your constitutional rights, doesn't mean you will be patted on the head and sent on your way. It likely means the more rights you assert, the more supervisors will get involved, and the more attention you will bring to yourself. In the words of a PD friend of mine "People who choose to call attention to themselves, will get attention."
The majority of LEOs are simply trying to ascertain your "deal" and once done, have better things to do with their time then stand there while you read a card you printed from some rights web site. And as a taxpayer, I'd prefer he was available for that real work instead of wasting his time with your CCW discussions, and video taping them, and all the other crap that just piles up the courts even higher about things no one really cares about, and the people invovled don't really understand, anyway.
Do what you will, I need to get to clients / airport / CAP / home.
A couple of observations from someone who does a lot of suppression hearings:
The burden is always on the prosecution to show a knowing and voluntary waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. Acquiescence to authority is not consent. The subject whose consent is sought must be aware of their ability to refuse or decline the request.
If the prosecution cannot establish a knowing and voluntary consent, then the evidence is not going to come in, unless there is a search warrant or it comes in via some other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. (Search incident to arrest, border search, etc.) But as others have pointed out, if some other exception to the warrant requirement exists, normally the prosecutor does not normally bother with consent. Sometimes they do, if their other grounds are flaky, but it is unusual.
I have suppressed kilos of heroin, many firearms, and even a clown mask (used in a bank robbery) when the DA was unable to establish consent or another applicable exception. I have also been awakened countless times at "o dark thirty" to do telephonic search warrants. So I guess it all works out.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
bflynn..."Implied consent is there all the time!??" Where do you get this stuff? So in 16 years working patrol, narcs, FTO etc, I totally missed the fact that I can just tell people Im going to start searching and unless you stop me thats consent. Crazy!!! Think of all the criminals Ive just let drive away because they said I couldnt search. Darnnit.... Im mad now
Quote from: a2capt on August 25, 2013, 06:34:25 PM
One similar incident that stands out to me, I got pulled over passing a 7-Eleven in a "transient" part of town, (cops and school district actually have that area labeled as "transient" due the fact that it's four-plexes and rentals, which leases are rare, it's all mostly month to month). Cop didn't say much, just asked me for all the stuff, didn't tell me why, I could have asked. I know I didn't do anything. I just forked it all over.
About 45 seconds later, he comes back, practically "dumps" it back in my window. That said, if I my open hand was not there, I'm not sure if he would have just dropped it, or waited for me to take. "Have a nice day", and he left. I figure it was easier to cooperate at the time.
I did follow up on it shortly after, going to the police station and asking to speak to "someone in charge". I never got an a complete answer, but it was acknowledged that it should not have happened like that, but that perhaps at the heat of the moment they were looking for someone .. and I fit the bill.
About the oddest thing I had that day- RC Dark Cola in brown long neck bottles, in a six pack carrier on the passenger side floor, partially obscured by the hump. I looked over at that as I reached to get the registration .. and thought .. "that might not look like what it is.." and one bottle was open, in the holder, with the label facing away. I was definitely under-age at that time.
What I don't understand is how did RC Cola get into "Cokeman's" car. We're you sick?
Quote from: Grumpy on August 25, 2013, 09:56:01 PMWhat I don't understand is how did RC Cola get into "Cokeman's" car. We're you sick?
I was 16, didn't know better ;) But it was not Pepsi! Blech!
+1 RC was always considered a treat in my house when we got take out pizza, otherwise
Coke is it.
I got pulled over for eating a chicken sandwich once. Cop said he
thought I was smoking a joint. Considering I was only one or two
bites in, that joint would have been huge!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2013, 11:39:24 PMI got pulled over for eating a chicken sandwich once. Cop said he thought I was smoking a joint.
That whole car would have been smoking like a power plant. Cop must have had Cheech & Chong on his mind..
I still like RC now and then..
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2013, 11:39:24 PM
+1 RC was always considered a treat in my house when we got take out pizza, otherwise
Coke is it.
I got pulled over for eating a chicken sandwich once. Cop said he
thought I was smoking a joint. Considering I was only one or two
bites in, that joint would have been huge!
Now THAT was an example of bad probably cause!
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 03:44:11 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 25, 2013, 06:13:52 AM
Quote from: bflynn on August 25, 2013, 01:14:05 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 24, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
I think you've totally missed the point. Read the "jerk question" again. The cop isn't asking for permission to search anything at that point. S/he is asking a question that will help facilitate a search that WILL happen, permission granted or not. And, yes, there are such things.
No, I didn't miss the point of the question.
It is a dishonest way to begin a search, to ask a question that is normally answered yes or no and to get your way regardless of the answer. Whether you answer yes or no to it, your answer constitutes consent to search because the officer said they were going to search and you didn't tell them they couldn't. If an officer has probable cause already, they will not be asking you questions about what they'll find, they will just search.
At some point, I suspect some officers get hostile and raise the level of harassment. Some won't.
I hold law officers to a higher standard than this and I think CAP core values do too.
Wow! Double Whammy! Missed the point AND don't understand how it works!
The answer doesn't constitute consent to search. Under the fact set given, the search is going to happen. And, failure to give consent to the search won't, alone, stop a search which is being driven by factors not requiring consent.
Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you think that CAP core values hold police officers to a higher standard.
Under the facts that I'm starting from in this circumstance, there is neither probable cause nor consent, so the officer isn't going to be doing a search. If the officer has either consent or probable cause, they don't stand around having a friendly conversation about what they might find, they just start searching.
Suppose the officer asks "Before I start to search, do you have anything illegal"? Whether you answer Yes or No, you did not object to the officer searching. Consent has now been tacitly given. That is trickery because most people don't catch the implied consent in a No answer. Trickery is not honest. I hold police to the standard of being honest and restrained. Most are.
Are we starting from a different situation? If there is already consent or already probably cause, then the question means something entirely different and is largely irrelevant.
Wait a second - are you or have you been a cop? If not, how about not speculating about what the officer might or might not ask prior to starting a search? (Hint: it isn't one-size-fits-all; a lot of what is said and done is tailored to fit a whole range of circumstances and facts).
flynn....
Where are you getting this idea thats its an acceptable practice to trick or word game people into accidentally giving consent for a search? The examples you are citing show your complete lack of knowledge. Are you witnessing this type of thing happening regularly?
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 26, 2013, 12:27:40 PM
flynn....
Where are you getting this idea thats its an acceptable practice to trick or word game people into accidentally giving consent for a search? The examples you are citing show your complete lack of knowledge. Are you witnessing this type of thing happening regularly?
It's his typical MO of speaking about something or dynamics he has no experience or knowledge of .
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 26, 2013, 12:27:40 PM
flynn....
Where are you getting this idea thats its an acceptable practice to trick or word game people into accidentally giving consent for a search? The examples you are citing show your complete lack of knowledge. Are you witnessing this type of thing happening regularly?
Regularly? No, I suppose saying "all the time" is inaccurate. It doesn't happen regularly. I said that I've seen it happen. I've experienced it. There are enough news reports that show officers behaving badly to say that it happens. Whether it or not it can be questioned in court later is a different factor. Acceptable? An officer that searches without consent is certainly not going to admit it to anyone, they will say that they saw something through a window and had probable cause.
John and Martha King?
Robert Fleming?
Gabriel Silverstein?
Larry Gaines?
It happens and these are just recent famous aviation incidents. Fortunately, it is still rare.
The Kings had a plane that was in the system as stolen...the LEOs responded accordingly.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 30, 2013, 05:19:46 PMThe Kings had a plane with a registration # that was in the system as stolen...the LEOs responded accordingly.
..and the yes, the LEO's responded accordingly.
The snafu was sorted out, but to expect cops to know what a Cessna 150 vs. 172 looks like, when that's all the database says, and all they see is a 12" tall number?
Pardon me, we need to see the dataplate.
Yes, they acted proper given the circumstances and the information given them at the time, and just like a car with the wrong plate on it, for all they know there's smugglers using a number off another aircraft. Even if they did know it was supposed to be a 150, and they see it's a 172.
Quote from: a2capt on August 30, 2013, 05:50:29 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 30, 2013, 05:19:46 PMThe Kings had a plane with a registration # that was in the system as stolen...the LEOs responded accordingly.
..and the yes, the LEO's responded accordingly.
The snafu was sorted out, but to expect cops to know what a Cessna 150 vs. 172 looks like, when that's all the database says, and all they see is a 12" tall number?
Pardon me, we need to see the dataplate.
Yes, they acted proper given the circumstances and the information given them at the time, and just like a car with the wrong plate on it, for all they know there's smugglers using a number off another aircraft. Even if they did know it was supposed to be a 150, and they see it's a 172.
Thank you for the correction.
I think even in a group such as CAP, half the members wouldn't be able to tell a 150/172/182 apart. If it's not your interest/knowledge, then all they heard was "stolen plane".
HAAAA. you listed the Kings :). Thats a good one. Yeah... because John and Martha are household names. Got it.
Quote from: Flying Pig on August 30, 2013, 06:33:43 PM
HAAAA. you listed the Kings :). Thats a good one. Yeah... because John and Martha are household names. Got it.
They are if you hang out at airports! >:D