Misdemeanor

[abdsp51]

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.

[Robborsari]

So what happened?  I guess it did not go well for the OP.

[jimmydeanno]

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?

[Grumpy]

When I was working the jails, I never met an inmate who was guilty.

[Private Investigator]

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   

[Mitchell 1969]

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.

[MSG Mac]

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.

[Flying Pig]

These aint my pants boss-man

[Mitchell 1969]

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.

[Flying Pig]

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.

[Devil Doc]

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

[Garibaldi]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Flying Pig]

Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread   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.  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

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. 

[JeffDG]

Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread   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.

[PHall]

Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread   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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[Flying Pig]

Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread   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

[JeffDG]

Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread   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.

[abdsp51]

Unless the officer already has PC..... but thats a whole 'nuther thread   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

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.