# Cops Pull Over Uber Driver & Passenger, Conduct Illegal Search, Lie Multiple Times To Driver.



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

Cops pull over and Uber driver and his passenger, claim the passenger went into and then came back out of a known drug house. Cops admit there is no traffic violation. Driver does not consent to search, police claim probably cause and search anyway with K9 Unit. Cop demands driver not film him, claim it is against the law, and threaten driver with jail if he doesn't stop filming him. Driver also claims to be a lawyer and offers to present Bar Association card to officer, who ignores him.

Cops claim passenger had drugs, claim dog signals on car.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

I love webcams and cell phone cameras they are awesome.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

What happened to the old days ?

Where they announce " look what i found in your car".

While reaching into their pocket, to throw something in your car, in front of you . . .


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

That's a perfectly legal search. Mr. Bright is either NOT really an attorney, or he's not very "bright." If he's an attorney, he should know better.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

So you're an attorney with expertise on Fourth Amendment matters?

*Probable cause* is a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime. For *probable cause* to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime. *The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.*


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Not an attorney, but I do have a good deal of experience with Fourth Amendment issues. And honestly, this is just a very basic scenario that happens a thousand times a day.

We're only seeing one tiny bit of one side of the story here, and it's an edited video to boot. The driver did a pickup at a location the officers say was a known drug house -- they are conducting a narcotics investigation, not a traffic stop.

Immediately after stopping the Uber, the officers take the pax out and handcuff him. That should tell us something. Either they had a warrant for his arrest, had ample probable cause to arrest him, or an undercover or informant had just purchased drugs from the guy. You don't just stop a car and handcuff people right away. They knew that pax and they stopped the Uber to arrest him.

They ask for a consent search, and the Uber driver rightfully declines. He is well within his Fourth Amendment rights.

They have just taken someone out of the car who apparently had drugs in his possession, so they have "reasonable suspicion" to detain the vehicle long enough to bring in a K-9 to check the car. That's a reasonable next step that does not unduly detain the driver. The dog immediately alerts on both sides of the car. Now they have plenty of probable cause to search the car under the Carroll Doctrine.

The officers actually have two choices -- search the car on the scene, or impound the car and get a search warrant. If they were trying to jerk the driver around, they would have impounded the car and thoroughly searched it. They have abundant probable cause for a search warrant if they want to go that route.

We also don't know the outcome here. We're just shown the part the poster wants us to see. Maybe they searched the car, found drugs, established that they belonged to the pax and not the driver, and let the driver go. Who knows?


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Driver has drugs on him too lol.


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

That happened in Wilmington, NC. The driver is a lawyer and I believe the officer was fired.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

pengduck said:


> That happened in Wilmington, NC. The driver is a lawyer and I believe the officer was fired.


But why would they fire a police officer for executing a perfectly legal search?


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

PrestonT said:


> But why would they fire a police officer for executing a perfectly legal search?


He lied by stating it was illegal to film him. As well as his whole attitude.


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

He wasn't fired, he was demoted for lying to the driver about the legality of recording police.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article141723114.html


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

pengduck said:


> He lied by stating it was illegal to film him. As well as his whole attitude.


That little emoticon with the sunglasses is as close as I could come to denoting sarcasm in my post.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JimKE said:


> Immediately after stopping the Uber, the officers take the pax out and handcuff him. That should tell us something. Either they had a warrant for his arrest, had ample probable cause to arrest him, or an undercover or informant had just purchased drugs from the guy. You don't just stop a car and handcuff people right away.


Maybe in theory. I've been forced out of my car and searched just for napping in my car back when I used to nap in the backseat rather than the trunk.

On other occasions while on bicycle or on foot, I've had police handcuff me and even point guns at me, yet in none of these circumstances was I ultimately charged with any offense.

Usually it is just vague suspicion they use as a reason, not even articulable as to what crime it is they suspect me of.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Maybe in theory. I've been forced out of my car and searched just for napping in my car back when I used to nap in the backseat rather than the trunk.
> 
> On other occasions while on bicycle or on foot, I've had police handcuff me and even point guns at me, yet in none of these circumstances was I ultimately charged with any offense.
> 
> Usually it is just vague suspicion they use as a reason, not even articulable as to what crime it is they suspect me of.


I had no idea you're a person of color!


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

JimKE said:


> That's a perfectly legal search. Mr. Bright is either NOT really an attorney, or he's not very "bright." If he's an attorney, he should know better.


You have no idea what you are talking about. The search was in no way legal. I do not know if the driver was or was not a lawyer, but he did remove a card from his wallet and said "Would you like to see my Bar card" to the officer. So I'm willing to believe no one is stupid enough to pull out their subway sandwich card and say that.

As for, "he should know better" What should he know? Just to acquiesce to whatever someone in a uniform with a badge and a gun says? One must stand up for their rights or accept them being violated.

You are an ignorant coward.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

SarnXero said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. The search was in no way legal. I do not know if the driver was or was not a lawyer, but he did remove a card from his wallet and said "Would you like to see my Bar card" to the officer. So I'm willing to believe no one is stupid enough to pull out their subway sandwich card and say that.
> 
> As for, "he should know better" What should he know? Just to acquiesce to whatever someone in a uniform with a badge and a gun says? One must stand up for their rights or accept them being violated.
> 
> You are an ignorant coward.


Actually, I have 25 years experience in law enforcement and am intimately familiar with these issues -- including supervising the service of dozens of search warrants for narcotics and leading SWAT teams in serving search warrants for narcotics.

So he had a Bar card...so what? So he's a lawyer...so what? Lawyers pull that crap all the time to try to intimidate people. They do it to the police, to waitresses in restaurants, to people they meet at cocktail parties. That's just a baby lawyer running his mouth. I think they have a class on being an ass in law school.

But laws apply to lawyers too, and you'll notice that the officers were not the least bit impressed. Mr. Lawyer starts talking about his rights and one officer comes right back with "totality of the circumstances" -- which is a direct quote from several Supreme Court cases on probable cause. You'll notice that Mr. Lawyer stopped lecturing the officers on the law at that point.

None of us know what the outcome of this was.

The Uber driver did nothing wrong that I can see in the short, edited video. He had every right to decline a consent search. He had every right to question their objection to his videoing the interaction. _(I don't know if that's illegal in whatever state this occurred in or not. Some jurisdictions *do* have laws against videoing police investigations -- which I personally think might be on thin ice constitutionally, depending on the "totality of the circumstances.") _

But neither did the officers do anything wrong. They went ahead with their investigation despite Mr. Lawyer's objections, attempted intimidation, and recording of the incident. They progressed logically and legally from the initial stop, to probable cause, to a legal search despite the objections. Actually, the police could use this video as a textbook example for handling a refusal of a consent search.

Legal search, even if the lawyer posted it on YouTube to enjoy his 15 seconds of fame.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

The only ones I saw trying to intimidate were the LEOs. As evidenced in the article, there IS no law against video in that state and they lied through their teeth.

I can see coming from an enforcement background that you think you simply need to suspect something and you have the right to invade his private property, but neither the 4th nor case law is on your side on this one. You should know that the standard of evidence to warrant probable cause would be sufficient to convince a judge to issue a warrant if there were time to do so before the crime was committed. Picking up someone in front of a "known drug house is flimsy suspicion, not factual evidence, as indicated by the fact that the police found NOTHING on the pax or in the driver's car.

Acquiescence to unreasonable requests for search does nothing but hand over our rights. The rights of ALL of us, because cops start assuming we HAVE to let them search us, just like you do.


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> The only ones I saw trying to intimidate were the LEOs. As evidenced in the article, there IS no law against video in that state and they lied through their teeth.
> 
> I can see coming from an enforcement background that you think you simply need to suspect something and you have the right to invade his private property, but neither the 4th nor case law is on your side on this one. You should know that the standard of evidence to warrant probable cause would be sufficient to convince a judge to issue a warrant if there were time to do so before the crime was committed. Picking up someone in front of a "known drug house is flimsy suspicion, not factual evidence, as indicated by the fact that the police found NOTHING on the pax or in the driver's car.
> 
> Acquiescence to unreasonable requests for search does nothing but hand over our rights. The rights of ALL of us, because cops start assuming we HAVE to let them search us, just like you do.


According to the article, the probable cause was justified by the K9 dogs indicating drugs detected, which is valid probable cause in every jurisdiction that I am aware of.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Even pulling in Drug dogs without sufficient cause is suspect. And as mentioned, they can be trained to false report. The cops found NOTHING.

Here's a good article regarding drug dog sniffs.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=33819


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> Even pulling in Drug dogs without sufficient cause is suspect. And as mentioned, they can be trained to false report. The cops found NOTHING.
> 
> Here's a good article regarding drug dog sniffs.
> 
> https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=33819


Do we have any verifiable proof that they didn't find anything? Do we know (as stated previously) that perhaps he had sold to/bought from an undercover officer, or that they were actively performing a stakeout on the house and had evidence (such as A/V recordings) showing that the pax had purchased drugs there?


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

wb6vpm said:


> Do we have any verifiable proof that they didn't find anything? Do we know (as stated previously) that perhaps he had sold to/bought from an undercover officer, or that they were actively performing a stakeout on the house and had evidence (such as A/V recordings) showing that the pax had purchased drugs there?


The news article states that both driver and pax were released after the search.


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> The news article states that both driver and pax were released after the search.


Fair enough, somehow, I had missed that the first round of reading the article


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Anybody can be Google Smart!


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

JimKE said:


> Actually, I have 25 years experience in law enforcement and am intimately familiar with these issues -- including supervising the service of dozens of search warrants for narcotics and leading SWAT teams in serving search warrants for narcotics.


So your claim to authority is you are as knowledgeable as the pigs in the video. I smell bacon. The cops didn't know the law, why would you?



> So he had a Bar card...so what? So he's a lawyer...so what?


So what? you said he wasn't. Thats what.



> Lawyers pull that crap all the time to try to intimidate people.


You pronounced the word cops incorrectly. Cops pull this crap all the time.



> They do it to the police, to waitresses in restaurants, to people they meet at cocktail parties. That's just a baby lawyer running his mouth. I think they have a class on being an ass in law school.


They definitely have a class on being an asshole in the academy. Its between choke holds and planting evidence.



> But laws apply to lawyers too,


The law applies to cops too



> and you'll notice that the officers were not the least bit impressed.


 meaningless. I'm sure the ones reprimanded and demoted aren't as smug now.



> Mr. Lawyer starts talking about his rights and one officer comes right back with "totality of the circumstances"


Which is a meaningless statement in this circumstance. It is copspeak to try to force compliance. The officer is not concerned with legality, right and wrong, or the driver's civil rights. He wants compliance and will say anything.



> which is a direct quote from several Supreme Court cases on probable cause. You'll notice that Mr. Lawyer stopped lecturing the officers on the law at that point.


https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=98481

The Aguilar-Spinelli test requires the police to inform a magistrate of the circumstances supporting the informant's allegation of criminal activity. It further requires the police to demonstrate that the informant is credible or that his information is reliable. In 'Gates,' Justice Rehnquist, in speaking for the majority, stated that the totality-of-the-circumstances test is more consistent with the Court's prior treatment of probable cause than the Aguilar-Spinelli test. Although rigid, the Aguilar-Spinelli standards assisted magistrates' determinations of probable cause by ensuring warrants were issued only on the basis of reliable informant information. The totality-of-circumstances test requires magistrates to consider all the information in the affidavit, including the informer's reliability, credibility, and basis of knowledge. The test, however, provides no practical guidance on the relative weights to be assigned to any of these considerations. The 'Gates' decision also held that 'innocent' activity (as opposed to law-breaking activity) by the suspects can corroborate informant information to establish the probable cause sufficient for a search warrant. *To establish probable cause, corroborated details should involve criminal activity, since the informant may have willfully or mistakenly interpreted the innocent activity as a sign of nonexistent, unobserved criminal activity. A total of 103 footnotes are provided.*​You really have no idea what you are talking about.



> None of us know what the outcome of this was.


All of the officers there were put on administrative leave, reprimanded, one was demoted. No charges were filed on the driver or the passenger.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.



> The Uber driver did nothing wrong that I can see in the short, edited video. He had every right to decline a consent search. He had every right to question their objection to his videoing the interaction.


Then why defend the cops, who were obviously wrong? Oink



> _(I don't know if that's illegal in whatever state this occurred in or not. Some jurisdictions _*do*_ have laws against videoing police investigations -- which I personally think might be on thin ice constitutionally, depending on the "totality of the circumstances.")_


Depending on the totality of circumstance LOL.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no situation, where in public, the police can lawfully order a citizen to stop video recording them or photographing them. You know your court rulings when it comes to bending the law in favor of the police.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ictory-for-the-right-to-record-police/533031/

The First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have also issued similar rulings, starting in 2011, to protect bystanders who record police actions. Their collective jurisdictions now amount to exactly half of U.S. states and roughly 60 percent of the American population. No federal appeals court has ruled to the contrary; the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the subject.​


> But neither did the officers do anything wrong.


Then why were they all reprimanded, no charged filed on either the passenger or driver, and one of them demoted?



> They went ahead with their investigation despite Mr. Lawyer's objections, attempted intimidation, and recording of the incident.


The scrawny, unarmed, lawyer intimidated the 5 police officers with guns. Yep. If thats the case, those cops are ****ing cowards.



> They progressed logically and legally from the initial stop, to probable cause, to a legal search despite the objections. *Actually, the police could use this video as a textbook example for handling a refusal of a consent search.*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're an idiot.



> Anybody can be Google Smart!


Apparently not you


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

You have two problems. Google is your brain and you believe everything you read.

And you're from New York.

Resolved.


----------



## Moneykick.72 (Jul 1, 2017)

pengduck said:


> That happened in Wilmington, NC. The driver is a lawyer and I believe the officer was fired.


Why his driving for Uber, my be his a pro bono lawyer or not enough chasing ambulances


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

JimKE said:


> You have two problems. Google is your brain and you believe everything you read.
> 
> And you're from New York.
> 
> Resolved.


I'm surprised you can read

I'm not surprised you can't do simple arithmatic, you named 3 things moron.

Lastly, you're wrong again. I read all your bullshit and didn't believe it.

You're probably old, can barely use a cellphone, and drive a piece a of shit car.

GG old man, you lose.

PS the Marlins suck so bad even the Mets can beat them.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

SarnXero said:


> I'm surprised you can read
> 
> I'm not surprised you can't do simple arithmatic, you named 3 things moron.
> 
> ...


Oh so you hate old people too. Careful sonny. You won't be young forever, unless you die young and what good will that do you?
Also since we're being such sticklers, it's spelled "arithmetic".
You are right that both the Mets and Marlins suck, but the Mets suck more right now according to the current standings.


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

RynoHawk said:


> Oh so you hate old people too.


Only ignorant old codgers who think they know everything and really dont.



> Also since we're being such sticklers, it's spelled "arithmetic".


he cud haf typd his rspns lik dis. an da only ting idve hd probs wit, is his lack of logic and misrepresentation of the facts. 
But ya caught me, I made a typo.



> You are right that both the Mets and Marlins suck, but the Mets suck more right now according to the current standings.


Not even a sportsball fan. Just takin a dig at his avatar


----------



## Grand Master B (Jun 5, 2017)

JimKE said:


> So he had a Bar card...so what? So he's a lawyer...so what? Lawyers pull that crap all the time to try to intimidate people. They do it to the police, to waitresses in restaurants, to people they meet at cocktail parties. That's just a baby lawyer running his mouth. I think they have a class on being an ass in law school.


u mean to say all those times when people would verbally express to a cop their intent in exercising their rights, it's total bs when cops would condescendingly ask, "what are ya, a lawyer?"

i'm just wondering why they'd ask if it didn't matter...hmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

This is probably JimKE, and why he isn't a cop anymore and now drives for Uber. Yay Floridaman!


----------



## empresstabitha (Aug 25, 2016)

So, uhm just a favor. Next time you record turn the phone sideways please. Thank you


----------



## brianboru (Nov 3, 2016)

JimKE said:


> But neither did the officers do anything wrong.


Except lie and bully their way into a search of his vehicle.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

This isn't the first time a piggy does this, people claiming this was legal should refect on why they are ubering today instead of practicing law or working on legal matters.

The cop:

Failed to acquire sufficient proof to warrant the search, probable cause does not cut it and everyone knows what happens when a judge approves a search warrant on a place in which they will not find anything, it goes to court for violation of the victims's rights.

Failed to differ investigative privacy from public recording or willingly lied about the case to stop the victim from recording.

All in all, that cop was double screwed when the driver claimed to be an attorney.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Here is a related question. I am sure the driver did not end the ride when the cops pulled him over. So did Uber charge the pax for the time the incident took and then pay the driver? If not, what recourse, if any, does the drive have to get paid for the time.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

My lawyer tells me that:
* Cops lie all the time, and it's legal. It is NOT however legal for me to lie to them. So, don't say ANYTHING.
* Cops commit perjury all the time, juries know it. 
* Cops can search without probable cause or a warrant, but if they do whatever they find is not admissible in court. So, never consent to a search - but, never resist or threaten. Let them do it, just be sure that they understand that they are doing it without your consent.

Name and address and STFU. 
Do what you are told, and STFU.
Oh, and, I almost forgot, and this is very important: STFU.


----------



## Hans GrUber (Apr 23, 2016)

I'd just like to say that it's an OUTRAGE that this could happen to one of our whitest drivers.


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> My lawyer tells me that:
> * Cops lie all the time, and it's legal. It is NOT however legal for me to lie to them. So, don't say ANYTHING.
> * Cops commit perjury all the time, juries know it.
> * Cops can search without probable cause or a warrant, but if they do whatever they find is not admissible in court. So, never consent to a search - but, never resist or threaten. Let them do it, just be sure that they understand that they are doing it without your consent.
> ...


We've all heard it 100 times on every cop show from _Dragnet_ on, but let's go over it one more time --

"You have the right to remain silent." - First seven words the LEO's say to you are advising you that you have the legal, constitutional, God-given right to STFU! Why on Earth would you want to do otherwise, considering that the next words are --
"If you give up the right to remain silent..." - If you're stupid enough to think you can talk your way out of this, then...
"...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." - "Can and WILL be used against you"! If you are stupid enough to open your cake hole, we're going to take anything and everything you say and use it against you!

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? It isn't quantum physics, theoretical algebra, or nuclear engineering, it's basic Life 101 - When in trouble, STFU!

Robert DeNiro said it best in _"Goodfellas" _- "Keep your mouth shut and don't rat on your friends."


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

When I lived in Michigan, I knew a guy.
He had a tattoo on his forearm of a monkey with his hands over his mouth.
I asked him what it was about.
He smiled and said, "It's one of the three monkeys. You know: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Ya know?"
"Yea," says I.
"Yer gunna see some evil chit in your life. You will hear some kind of evil in your life. Can't avoid it. It will happen."
I nodded.
"The one thing you have control over is your mouth. You shouldn't repeat what you see and hear. Keep your mouth shut. It's the most important monkey of the three. Ya know what I mean?"
I nodded.


----------



## Robertk (Jun 8, 2015)

JimKE said:


> You have two problems. Google is your brain and you believe everything you read.
> 
> And you're from New York.
> 
> Resolved.


dude- You got owned. pwned even.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

JimKE said:


> The driver did a pickup at a location the officers say was a known drug house -- they are conducting a narcotics investigation, not a traffic stop.


The driver actually drove the pax to the known drug house and waited only a very short time for the pax to enter the house and return to the vehicle. The police witnessed the incident and told the Uber driver they witnessed this and the driver did not deny. The police were conducting a criminal investigation based on their eye witnessed accounts. It appears the police found contraband on the pax. The police could have been real a*ssholes and arrested the driver on possession too. Would the charges against the driver stick? Probably not, but I'm sure the cops have dash cam footage of drivers vehicle pulling up to known drug house, one suspect enters dwelling, while driver stays in vehicle, only to return to the vehicle a short time later. Dash cam also shows officers finding dope on pax.


----------



## Robertk (Jun 8, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> The driver actually drove the pax to the known drug house and waited only a very short time for the pax to enter the house and return to the vehicle. The police witnessed the incident and told the Uber driver they witnessed this and the driver did not deny. The police were conducting a criminal investigation based on their eye witnessed accounts. *It appears the police found contraband on the pax. The police could have been real a*ssholes and arrested the driver on possession too.* Would the charges against the driver stick? Probably not, but I'm sure the cops have dash cam footage of drivers vehicle pulling up to known drug house, one suspect enters dwelling, while driver stays in vehicle, only to return to the vehicle a short time later. *Dash cam also shows officers finding dope on pax.*


this is not true.

_The officer called for a K-9 unit, and the officer and the unit both searched his vehicle. Bright also was searched, he said, before he and his passenger were told they were free to go. Law enforcement found nothing illegal in Bright's vehicle, he said, and he wasn't charged._​


----------



## GT500KR (Jan 30, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> My lawyer tells me that:
> * Cops lie all the time, and it's legal. It is NOT however legal for me to lie to them. So, don't say ANYTHING.
> * Cops commit perjury all the time, juries know it.
> * Cops can search without probable cause or a warrant, but if they do whatever they find is not admissible in court. So, never consent to a search - but, never resist or threaten. Let them do it, just be sure that they understand that they are doing it without your consent.
> ...


Recorded Inter actions with CHP officers should be required viewing for all Uber drivers1


----------



## Are you serious (Jul 16, 2016)

Cops, Lawyers and Passengers. The thought of interacting with any of them is nauseating let alone all at once.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Are you serious said:


> Cops, Lawyers and Passengers. The thought of interacting with any of them is nauseating let alone all at once.


Agree, nauseating. But, not difficult.

"My name is __________, my address is _____________. Am I under arrest? Am I free to go now?" And when appropriate: "You do not have my permission to search my vehicle or my person."


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

If the cops had good evidence of illegal activity in the house, get a warrant for the house. If they don't have good evidence of what's going on in the house, they don't have good evidence to establish probable cause for a stop, much less arrest. 

The war on drugs has been worse than a failure. It is immoral. As a country, we should have learned from prohibition during the 1920's. Seegrams and Jim Beam no longer battle in the streets for distribution rights. Criminals thrive, cops are bribed, and lives are lost in the current system. The cost to the typical citizen is enormous, not only in money but loss of freedoms and privacy. SWAT teams are formed to combat the worst possible crimes but are used against pot smokers. Laws prohibiting people from violating the rights of others are necessary. Laws prohibiting possession of anything are wrong. These laws do not make our society better, they make them more violent. These laws are tools to control the population. I'd rather read about a junkie who ruined his own life than a shootout of black market participants that has bullets spraying through a residential neighborhood. Educate instead of incarcerate. Stop the profit and stop the crime.

Public servants should serve the public, not their own interests.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

-Asking the pax to step out for search was LEGAL - they asked for consent and he gave it "do you mind if we search you for drugs?" "no"
-Filming police on duty is a right, and the court has held that to be true - the officer saying otherwise is a lie. Officers CAN lie, the court has also said so. If they forced him to stop recording it is illegal, but persuading him to is technically legal (though really underhanded).
-The dog did NOT indicate on the pax side of the car (can't see the driver side). As the dog comes around, you see the handler present the toy/towel - that is a training aid that smells like narcotics. It's used so the dog knows what it is looking for. You can see when it is presented the dog sits, so sitting is clearly its indicator. It plays with the toy for a second and then the sniff continues. The dog never sits while sniffing - it never indicated except when presented with its training aid. Not all dogs indicate by sitting, but this dog does based on its interaction with its training aid. Using the sniff as justification for the search is unjustified.
-Totality of the circumstances may justify search provided the police can articulate reasons why probable cause is met. The pax was arrested following the search of their person (well if that's true then that is key - news article later says he wasn't while the original post indicated he was) and the drug house circumstance probably gave them enough for probable cause without the dog indicating. They were probably hoping for the dog to give them some extra padding, but it didn't indicate. They knew they were gonna search either way, but the "I'm a lawyer" thing probably made them call the dog to try and get some 'extra insurance' in case they did find something - some CYA if you will. Extra note, the hurdles to search a car (except the trunk) is much lower than that of a house as the car is on a public street and there is much less expectation of privacy due to its open nature. Car searches like this are used to create a pattern to justify getting into the house they wanted.

All said and done, they had probable cause regardless of the K9 and the police didn't do anything wrong except the ONE guy who tried to make him stop filming (who was punished by the department for that, as someone linked an article explaining that). That's my 2 cents.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> What happened to the old days ?
> 
> Where they announce " look what i found in your car".
> 
> While reaching into their pocket, to throw something in your car, in front of you . . .


Cameras...


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Laws prohibiting possession of anything are wrong. These laws do not make our society better, they make them more violent. These laws are tools to control the population.


Would you care to retract or amend that statement?

There is a reason why you can't have a loggerhead sea turtle as a pet - and society is better as a result.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> My lawyer tells me that:
> * Cops lie all the time, and it's legal. It is NOT however legal for me to lie to them. So, don't say ANYTHING.
> * Cops commit perjury all the time, juries know it.
> * Cops can search without probable cause or a warrant, but if they do whatever they find is not admissible in court. So, never consent to a search - but, never resist or threaten. Let them do it, just be sure that they understand that they are doing it without your consent.
> ...


The cardinal rules:
-Never consent to anything (fruit of the poisonous tree goes away in court)
-Never volunteer information or confess anything (what you say is always admissible)
-You can ask questions and are free to request documentation (show me the warrant; I want a supervisor)
-Always follow orders when told (Physically resisting or otherwise obstructing can be charged even if the original issue is thrown out)
-Remain calm and have a cooperative and cordial attitude (sometimes, even when you are refusing consent, just having the right attitude can help get you out of trouble)
-Be persistent about knowing your status and act accordingly (Am I free to leave? Am I being Detained? Am I under Arrest? Why?) - do NOT challenge the status, simply make sure you understand what it is and why. Later in court when things were said or done becomes important and the rights you have at each point are different. They can't search you without consent if you're free to leave, but they can do a limited search when you are detained for example.

Summary: I do not consent. My name is XYZ and I will not answer any further questions without my lawyer. Am I free to leave right now? What am I being detained for?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Spotscat said:


> Would you care to retract or amend that statement?
> 
> There is a reason why you can't have a loggerhead sea turtle as a pet - and society is better as a result.


I will not retract or amend my statements. Some species are doomed to extinction, its the course of natural selection. Forcing me, ultimately at gun point, to pay for the investigation, prosecution and possible incarceration of an individual who was trying to save the species is immoral.

I reiterate, possession in and of itself is not the problem. What you do with the possession may or may not be a problem and that should be the issue.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

bsliv said:


> I will not retract or amend my statements. Some species are doomed to extinction, its the course of natural selection. Forcing me, ultimately at gun point, to pay for the investigation, prosecution and possible incarceration of an individual who was trying to save the species is immoral.
> 
> I reiterate, possession in and of itself is not the problem. What you do with the possession may or may not be a problem and that should be the issue.


Serious _NLR Syndrome_ appropriately placed.


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

Moneykick.72 said:


> Why his driving for Uber, my be his a pro bono lawyer or not enough chasing ambulances


to help pay off his student loans...



pengduck said:


> That happened in Wilmington, NC. The driver is a lawyer and I believe the officer was fired.


 Becker was demoted from sergeant to corporal and his pay dropped by $1.38 per hour.


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

Robertk said:


> dude- You got owned. pwned even.


All your are base are belong to us.


----------



## DirkDeadeye (Jul 28, 2017)

JimKE said:


> You have two problems. Google is your brain and you believe everything you read.
> 
> And you're from New York.
> 
> Resolved.


You can't argue with Google/Wikipedia university graduates man. They will just go back to imright.com and throw more 'sources' at you.


----------



## Bpr2 (Feb 21, 2017)

pengduck said:


> That happened in Wilmington, NC. The driver is a lawyer and I believe the officer was fired.


----------



## bostonwolf (Mar 25, 2016)

JimKE said:


> That's a perfectly legal search. Mr. Bright is either NOT really an attorney, or he's not very "bright." If he's an attorney, he should know better.


Yet the police captain came out and said he had every right to videotape the encounter and that the officer was wrong for trying to stop him from doing son. 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/9/jesse-bright-attorney-who-doubles-as-uber-driver-p/


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

bostonwolf said:


> Yet the police captain came out and said he had every right to videotape the encounter and that the officer was wrong for trying to stop him from doing son.
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/9/jesse-bright-attorney-who-doubles-as-uber-driver-p/


It's not an illegal search until a judge says its an illegal search.
If no judge has said so, then it is a legal search.
Never give consent to a search -- it gives your lawyer a chance to argue that it was an illegal search. If you give consent, YOU make it legal and your lawyer can't argue different.

Identify yourself. STFU
Make it clear that you do NOT consent to a search of your vehicle or person. Then STFU.
Follow orders, do not resist. Keep saying that you do NOT consent to a search. Then STFU.
Do not answer questions. STFU.
Ask if you are under arrest. Request to be allowed to leave. STFU
Do not answer questions.
Make it clear that you do NOT consent to a search. STFU.


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

prop said:


> All said and done, they had probable cause regardless of the K9 and the police didn't do anything wrong except the ONE guy who tried to make him stop filming (who was punished by the department for that, as someone linked an article explaining that). That's my 2 cents.


Entering and exiting a house where criminal activity has occurred in the past is insufficient for probable cause.



DirkDeadeye said:


> You can't argue with Google/Wikipedia university graduates man. They will just go back to imright.com and throw more 'sources' at you.


So you are anti-evidence?



UberBastid said:


> It's not an illegal search until a judge says its an illegal search.


Thats like saying its not an illegal assault until a judge says its an illegal assault. 
By that logic, its not murder until a judge says it is murder too.



UberBastid said:


> If no judge has said so, then it is a legal search.


Absolutely untrue. You are saying facts are not facts until judged in court. That is some dystopian view of the world dude.

everything else you said in that post is valid tho


----------



## DirkDeadeye (Jul 28, 2017)

SarnXero said:


> So you are anti-evidence?


No, I'm pro critical thinking, and pro not getting involved with conversations I have absolutely no experience in.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

SarnXero said:


> Entering and exiting a house where criminal activity has occurred in the past is insufficient for probable cause.


Your Cherry picked quote is cherry picked.



prop said:


> -Totality of the circumstances may justify search provided the police can articulate reasons why probable cause is met. The pax was arrested following the search of their person (well if that's true then that is key - news article later says he wasn't while the original post indicated he was) and the drug house circumstance probably gave them enough for probable cause without the dog indicating.


----------



## Jurisinceptor (Dec 27, 2016)

SarnXero said:


> Cops pull over and Uber driver and his passenger, claim the passenger went into and then came back out of a known drug house. Cops admit there is no traffic violation. Driver does not consent to search, police claim probably cause and search anyway with K9 Unit. Cop demands driver not film him, claim it is against the law, and threaten driver with jail if he doesn't stop filming him. Driver also claims to be a lawyer and offers to present Bar Association card to officer, who ignores him.
> 
> Cops claim passenger had drugs, claim dog signals on car.


Outrageous police behavior. Pure abuse by lying police who don't know the law and don't want to be filmed. I HOPE the driver pursues a civil action or a Federal Civil Rights case. I am ALSO an attorney and would be more than happy to provide help.



PrestonT said:


> But why would they fire a police officer for executing a perfectly legal search?


It was NOT a legal search.


----------



## SarnXero (Jun 28, 2017)

prop said:


> Your Cherry picked quote is cherry picked.


Anything you say can be used against you.


----------

