Fun with the 4th Amendment!

[john9001]

"temporarily detained " thats copspeak for "i'm gona handcuff you until i can find a reason to take you to jail because i know all you civilians have done something wrong"

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I don't really understand why it could be ruled either way.  However, I do know that the Coast Guard can stop any vessel on the water and perform a "Safety Inspection."  They do this to vessels they are pretty sure are performing illegal acts.


When, during this "Safety Inspection," they come across drugs or something like that, they then make an arrest for illegal activity.



How legal is this?  (honest question, not loaded at all)

Seeing as how I have been a Coast Guard boarding officer, I'll tell you.

14 USC 2 Established the Coast Guard

The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in maritime air surveillance or interdiction to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the laws of the United States; shall administer laws and promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department; shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to maritime navigation, ice-breaking facilities, and rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall, pursuant to international agreements, develop, establish, maintain, and operate icebreaking facilities on, under, and over waters other than the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in oceanographic research of the high seas and in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and shall maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war, including the fulfillment of Maritime Defense Zone command responsibilities..[1]

TITLE 14 - COAST GUARD
    PART I - REGULAR COAST GUARD
    CHAPTER 5 - FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

-HEAD-
    Sec. 89. Law enforcement

-STATUTE-
      (a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations,
    inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and
    waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the
    prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the
    United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty
    officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the
    jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States,
    address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents
    and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all
    necessary force to compel compliance. When from such inquiries,
    examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach of the
    laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is
    being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be
    arrested or, if escaping to shore, shall be immediately pursued and
    arrested on shore, or other lawful and appropriate action shall be
    taken; or, if it shall appear that a breach of the laws of the
    United States has been committed so as to render such vessel, or
    the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of, or brought into
    the United States by, such vessel, liable to forfeiture, or so as
    to render such vessel liable to a fine or penalty and if necessary
    to secure such fine or penalty, such vessel or such merchandise, or
    both, shall be seized.
      (b) The officers of the Coast Guard insofar as they are engaged,
    pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforcing
    any law of the United States shall:
        (1) be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular
      executive department or independent establishment charged with
      the administration of the particular law; and
        (2) be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by
      such department or independent establishment with respect to the
      enforcement of that law.

      (c) The provisions of this section are in addition to any powers
    conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any
    powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers
    of the United States.

So yes we CAN go onboard any US flagged vessel or any vessel in US waters anytime we want with NO probable cause and conduct searches, seize illegal contrband, and arrest violators all without a warrant.

Been there, done that, and have a couple dozen t-shirts.

[LTARokit]

Originally posted by john9001
the state police stopped me once for a inop turn signal, all the cop did was hand me a postcard that said i had 30 days to fix the light and have the mech that did the repair sign it and mail it to the state.

thats the way a minor infraction should be handled, no hand cuffs, no body searches, no car searches, no background checks, no drug sniffing dogs, no DUI tests, no fine, or whatever else they could think up.

too many cops want to use a minor traffic stop as a fishing expedition. Maybe they are bored, behind on their quota, over zealous, had a bad day, wanabe barny fifes, whatever.

Yea, I agree give em a ticket and maintain a BLIND eye, who cares what slips through  


-----------------------------------------
too many cops want to use a minor traffic stop as a fishing expedition. Maybe they are bored, behind on their quota, over zealous, had a bad day, wanabe barny fifes, whatever.
-----------------------------------------

OR---------maybe, just maybe........they're doing their job

(PS: Sry Toad for getting off topic (badge part of me came out lol) )

[Toad]

I'm thinking most of you guys would be lousy SC judges.

War stories are nice but that really wasn't what I intended when I started the thread. I was making a bet with myself that we can have a serious discussion in the OC without it breaking down into a mud slinging deathmatch.

I think I've only seen one verdict and I haven't really seen any discussion of the case. We're going seriously off topic here.

C'mon... put on the judicial robes.

For myself, I've read through that link twice and I'm still undecided. I can see it both ways. I'm going to do more research.

[lasersailor184]

Alright, I'm going to come to a decision.  Just like every other "Rights" decision ever decided, the COPs need to tell you your rights VERBALLY before they ever do anything.

The Police Officer needs to verbally say over his megaphone to the car that it is the passenger's right to leave and not comply if he so chooses.  By staying in the car, he'd be waving that right.  This needs to be said out loud, and understood.  


And because the officer in this case didn't say it at the time (even though he didn't know to say it), all evidence is found null and void.  



Then I'm going to go ahead and rule that the Coast Guard safety inspections are unconstitutional as well.  Or at least, in the process of doing a safety inspection, finding illegal substances (or other crimes).  If they do find illegal substances, they can't prosecute, but they won't have to give the stuff back either.

[Toad]

An interesting point in this case is that the traffic stop was bogus.

Sutter County Deputy Sheriff Robert Brokenbrough pulled over a brown 1993 Buick Regal with expired registration tags. Although he'd previously determined that it had temporary tags and a pending application for a new registration, Brokenbrough investigated further.

Sounds like it was a fishing expedition, doesn't it? I'm leaning towards the defendant right now.

Laser, thanks! That's more what I hoped to see.

[Toad]

An ever more descriptive narrative of the events here.

Justices Lasersailor, Hornet and GtoRA2 you may revisit your rulings in light of this new information.

[Halo]

If I were the judge, and applying common sense, I don't see how passengers could automatically be excluded from driver focus whether on a private or commercial conveyance.  Passengers surely at least would be witnesses to some degree what the problem was.  

Until the nature of the infraction is clarified, passengers should remain in or near the vehicle as the officer specifies.  For passengers to do anything but remain calm and cooperative would only aggravate the situation and possibly increase risk to the officer and themselves.  

Depending on the situation and passenger cooperation, incidental additional discoveries might occur.  If so, passengers should have no immunity if they are guilty of any part of the driving infraction or other crimes no matter how fortuitously discovered.  

It all comes down to probable cause.  Many times drivers exhibiting problem behavior are influenced to some degree by their passengers.  Often it takes awhile to sort out, but anyone near an unlawful scene should expect some scrutiny until the situation is resolved.

Innocents should have nothing to worry about.  Guilties should not escape on technicalities.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Halo
Innocents should have nothing to worry about.  Guilties should not escape on technicalities.

Some of us call those technicalities CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

Now granted the guy was obviously guilty but lets say for a minute he was not and this was simply a computer error.  That's how every case that comes before a court needs to be looked at.

[JB73]

this has got to be the trickiest thing I have heard of being debated since say oh "Miranda rights"


the topic of a house under warrant search, can anyone in the house at the time have their persons searched?

I'd say that is the heart of the argument.

A car is "similar" but not totally. say a bank robber running form the scene, in a high speed chase, a passenger in the car was NOT seen at the crime, and shown later by video surveillance to NOT be a part of the crime... are they detained and searched the same as the perp? that's a tricky one, but NOT as tricky as...


say you are visiting a friend who is behind your back doing something illegal, and the cops bust in with a warrant, and detain you for being there?

you had no part of whatever, only by your say so, but still...

I have a connection to the Balistrieri family in Milwaukee... and visit some times. younger I had no clue what was up, and visited as a child what I know now was a bosses house. if they raided it then was I able to be legally searched as not only a visitor but also as a minor?

I have a family member that I know uses pot. I do not, and abhor it, but what if visiting the police decided to "bust" them? I am only there to visit, and they can drug test me all they want with NO result, but does that still give them the right?




this has got to be handled very carefully, and I'd say can be of hot and huge debate for many years to come if brought to the proper light.




I personally have yet to have an official opinion on it, but there really is no clear definition in the constitution about being "on the premises" or similar.

[Shamus]

The driver is the one that may have broken a traffic law that caused the stop.

If the passenger exits the vehicle and asked if he was under arrest the officer would have to say either yes or no, if yes the 4th and Miranda applies, if no he walks away if he is smart. If he is not, he goes thu this.

shamus

[JB73]

Originally posted by Shamus
The driver is the one that may have broken a traffic law that caused the stop.

If the passenger exits the vehicle and asked if he was under arrest the officer would have to say either yes or no, if yes the 4th and Miranda applies, if no he walks away if he is smart. If he is not, he goes thu this.

shamus

that doesn't answer the question though.


what is the officer obliged to say?

what are the passengers rights at a "routine" traffic stop?

is it up to an officer to decide if the stop is NOT "routine"? (I have no problem with that, but what says in the future ALL stops don't become "non-routine" just in case?)

[x0847Marine]

The officer screwed up by stopping the car AFTER running the plate, thus the stop was illegal making the evidence fruits of the poison tree.... I agree it should be thrown out. The officer knew the vehicle was legally allowed to be on the road, yet stopped him anyway. IMO everything thereafter is garbage, especially when the officer was extensively trained, expected to do a competent professional job, and should know better.

A tag displaying expired registration is PC enough to pull someone over, had he ran the plate as he was stopping him, or after the stop... then its a good good pinch... a real lack of creativity and common sense on the officers part.

The suspect is a dimwit telling the officer his name, he should have responded "I choose not to answer you questions", followed by "and if I'm not under arrest, I would like to leave"...

The officers only concerns, with passengers who are in no way considered suspects, should be officer safety, and that they don't interfere with whatever business the officer has with the driver. Otherwise the state would be giving cops permission to treat people, who officers had no PC to contact, otherwise.

Edit: I could go into how stupid easy it is to generate much jucier PC for traffic stops using teletypes... this officer could have easily made a justified stop with just a little effort. But thats a whole other issue.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Shamus
The driver is the one that may have broken a traffic law that caused the stop.

If the passenger exits the vehicle and asked if he was under arrest the officer would have to say either yes or no, if yes the 4th and Miranda applies, if no he walks away if he is smart. If he is not, he goes thu this.

shamus

Actually the passenger cant just walk away that easily, there's another way the officers can go about it.

For officer safety reasons alone passengers can be asked to wait where they are and not to "interfere" with the officers business with the driver. Interfere is the key word here because under 148PC its a misdemeanor to "...interfere with an officer while in the performance of duty.."

So if asked "am I under arrest?", the officer can say "no you are not, but for my safety you should wait here, if you try to leave, move around excessively, or otherwise disrupt with this traffic stop before I'm done.. I'll arrest you for interfering with a peace officer"

At that point you are free to leave, but since the officer told you what he considers interference, he could take you to jail should you follow through.

[Dinger]

A) Hornet's missing the point, but we already knew that. The itechnical issue here is whether a passenger who is arrested after a traffic stop can challenge the basis of that traffic stop. In other words, when an officer pulls over a car, has he pulled over just the driver, or the passengers as well?

Arguing "just the driver," as the state does, would create a significant gap in legal definition and common-sense reality. When LEOs halt a conveyance, they are trained to treat all persons on that conveyance as potential threats; the traffic stop is a classic adversarial state-citizen situation. If passengers' involvement is incidental, and they are "free to walk away", why then would both parties agree that the LEO's next action would be to prevent the passenger from leaving the vehicle?

The practical consequences require that all passengers in the car be seized: on the one hand, LEO's would find their job much more dangerous, as passengers asserted their putative Fourth Amendment rights; on the other, this "loophole" would be used to seize drivers with no probable cause whatsoever purely to troll for infractions among the passengers. Laws that empower the state over the people and infringe on rights should be struck down. Rulings that do that, plus make things more dangerous for cops, should never have been made in the first place.

And for those of you who say the passenger should have just said "I'm exercising my Fourth Amendment righhts", see, this is why many people don't like cops. Cops are extensively trained in the legal niceties of how to arrest someone, and what constitutes a crime on paper and before the judge. Citizens might remember something from High School, but it's not their job. And, as we can see from even this discussion, there's a lot of confusion about what constitutes peoples' rights.
This is why we have attorneys. Their job is to know the legal system that is opposing the individual, and be able to engage it as a professional.
And this is why cops have to Mirandize arrestees: it makes the relationship very clear.