Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Still not enough...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Still not enough...

    Ugh. Apparently Carroll AND Gant are still too "oppressive" for the NYC nanny-state.

    Under legislation being introduced Thursday, police officers would have to get consent for searches when they don’t have a warrant, aren’t making an arrest or don’t have probable cause.
    http://nypost.com/2014/11/12/new-bil...from-suspects/
    SCFC Dispatch Manager

  • #2
    The New York Civil Liberties Union argued at the time the bill was needed because people were unwittingly consenting to searches.
    Apparently they wouldn't be happy unless the police talk otherwise compliant suspects out of complying at all.

    "Sir, do I have your permission to search your car for weapons or contraband?"

    "Sure, I have nothing to hide."

    "Are you sure, sir? I mean, you really don't have to let me search it. You can just tell me 'no' right now and I'll walk away."

    "Well if you really don't want to, then, no."

    "Okay, sir, have a good day. Sorry about the inconvenience."
    "Screw that. We can make bullets faster than they can make terrorists. Kill them all. Every last one." -Interceptor

    Comment


    • #3
      How do you "unwittingly consent"?! It's a yes or no question....well that or an implied consent in some cases.
      SCFC Dispatch Manager

      Comment


      • #4
        How do you "unwittingly consent" either you consent or you don't.
        I yell "PIKACHU" before I tase someone.

        Comment


        • #5
          You can "unwittingly consent" by trying to be agreeable toward someone who holds the threat of force even though he is not explicitly brandishing such a threat.

          Comment


          • #6
            Why would anyone with anything to hide ever willingly and uncoercedly and without prior grant of prosecutorial immunity consent to a search the reasonableness of which is based solely on his having given his consent thereto?

            Pretty much no-one not stupid would do so without seeing a possible downside to not consenting.

            Persons who know themselves to be in possession of contraband or other inculpatory evidence nevertheless might consent to searches, perhaps because they're cajoled with suggestion of leniency while they're in anticipation that the authority requesting consent may have independent basis for search, or more likely because they're intimidated regarding foreseeable consequences of not consenting -- I think all search admissibility should be based on independent reasonableness -- never solely on confrontationally requested and thereby obtained consent.
            Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 11-14-2014, 05:37 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have some reservations regarding my proposed expansion of the exclusionary rule -- e.g. I don't think we should have to allow a person to spill his guts about the location of a kidnap victim of his and then stop the Prosecutor from getting him for it just because the pertinent facts were coerced or otherwise obtained from him while he was in Police custody -- the Police might well have found the victim and the pertinent facts anyway.

              Comment


              • #8
                just because the pertinent facts were coerced
                The idea is to prevent police from obtaining rubber-hose confessions.

                Something Conservators of the Peace likely don't worry about.

                ...and in the example you cite, a coerced confession doesn't prevent prosecution it merely prevents use of the confession and evidence arising from it. A prosecutor can argue inevitable discovery and get other evidence in that way. They didn't teach you that in "Conservator of the Peace Academy"?
                "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think we have other person who likes to use "them big words" since us "Poe-lice" have a hard time understanding anything over two syllables. Every time one comes on here spouting like they "know the law" they end up showing just how ignorant they are. Big words and typing like you wrote a legal manual doesn't mean you have a single grasp of actual law.

                  Go back to CopBlock, and your "Common law court" and watch out for the Straw Men lurking. Be sure to read up more on the Uniform Commercial Code and the Admiralty Maritime Law and you'll be doing good in no time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You are the same Steve that was involved in the "Salinas" topic right? The same Steve that was "hollering" about knowing your rights, exercising them and self-executing,etc? Just making sure since you just stated that you "are not sure it makes sense that the police should advise them in a non-custodial search". You are one hard person to understand.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In case you overlooked it in your rush to post something profound, Steve, Salinas is about the Fifth Amendment. You know, Miranda and all that custodial (plus) interrogation stuff.

                      For something more on-point, try Ohio v. Robinette, from back in 1996.

                      And yes, written or recorded consent to search is always a good thing, but it's not required under the Fourth Amendment, either.
                      Last edited by RR_Security; 11-14-2014, 11:40 PM.
                      --
                      Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        To make better use of a double post:
                        "The Court, however, has insisted that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the consent [Bumper v. North Carolina, 1968] . . . " <http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...-searches.html>

                        "Actual knowledge of the right to refuse consent is not essential to the issue of voluntariness, and therefore police are not required to acquaint a person with his rights, as through a Fourth Amendment version of Miranda warnings." (Web page above, referring to Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973).)

                        Also see U.S. v. Drayton, where the "totality of circumstances indicated that bus passenger consented to search even though officer did not explicitly state that passenger was free to refuse permission," also cited at the link above.
                        Last edited by RR_Security; 11-15-2014, 12:19 AM.
                        --
                        Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I really do not see the issue with this law. It is basically what we have had for my entire 17 years in my state.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tanksoldier
                            The idea is to prevent police from obtaining rubber-hose confessions.
                            If we're trying to save a kidnap victim from a person whom we KNOW is (or is in cahoots with) the kidnapper I don't care how the confession is obtained until AFTER we get the kidnap victim out of the clutches of the kidnapper.

                            Something Conservators of the Peace likely don't worry about.
                            I'm a Conservator of the Peace without being the Police. In my opinion anyone who puts himself at risk to save a kidnap victim is the same as anyone else who does so. And the Police here are Conservators of the Peace.

                            ...and in the example you cite, a coerced confession doesn't prevent prosecution it merely prevents use of the confession and evidence arising from it. A prosecutor can argue inevitable discovery and get other evidence in that way. They didn't teach you that in "Conservator of the Peace Academy"?
                            Please re-read my post -- I mentioned that ...

                            Originally posted by ME
                            I have some reservations regarding my proposed expansion of the exclusionary rule -- e.g. I don't think we should have to allow a person to spill his guts about the location of a kidnap victim of his and then stop the Prosecutor from getting him for it just because the pertinent facts were coerced or otherwise obtained from him while he was in Police custody -- the Police might well have found the victim and the pertinent facts anyway.
                            Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 12-21-2014, 05:27 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Geez, heee's back. More wisdom, bull****, nonsense, and noise from the Bat Cave. The Conservator of the Peace, self annointed, self ordained, and self certified has spoken. Tremble and obey.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2991 users online. 160 members and 2831 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X