If police dont pursue innocent people sometimes then why do w have a court system? Im not saying the cops allways do it on purpose but that they do use tactics against innocent people and if you aint watching out they will build a case around you and your innocent!!
lets go to a DUI stop.
the cops says
"do me a favor and step out of the vehicle so I can do a field sobriety test"
now we all know the tone he is using and we all know %80 of americans will say in their head, "He just TOLD me to get out of the car and we are doing this test" Not very many are so sure of there rights that they will strictly give name and ssn and DL and not incriminate themselves by not answering a single other question and say they would rather have a breath or blood test.
Isnt it true a cop will continue to ask a question UNTILL he gets a variation of the answer he can use?
Im not saying all cops are out to get innocent people, Im just saying that very many cops are so suspicious of EVERYONE and have a idea that everyone has violated atleast one law they forget who they are serving and protecting.
Which totally overlooks the probable cause for the stop in the first place (since contrary to public belief, they don't just randomly pull over any given vehicle just to sniff around - and while the burden for probable cause is very low, the officer must still be able to articulate a REASON for the stop; reasons typically linked to the questions the driver is asked, such as "have you been drinking tonight?").
#1 lesson: The only person who can give YOU legal advice is YOUR attorney
Apparently we sometimes forget what the police are paid to do ... to enforce the law. Part of this means intervening to prevent crime. The police are not there to sit in the office waiting for the guilty to come and confess. They are expected to go out and sniff out perpetrators. part of that is by asking questions, contacting people, and butting in to their business. When the police fail to prevent crimes, some members of the public scream, yell, and stomp their feet. But, when they go out and beat the bushes trying to prevent crime, those same people yell and stomp their feet that the police are abusing people's rights.
I recall that after the federal consent decree in Los Angeles, arrests suddenly required supervisor approval - in some cases from a lieutenant or higher. This but a damper on arrests. Then they also created a "where there is smoke, there is fire system" whereby every complaint - even those that were found to be "unfounded" (i.e. they did not happen) - counted against an officer. So, officers working high crime areas and special details - like CRASH - became far more passive and proactive contacts and activity dropped precipitously. As a result of officers returning to a largely reactive role, crime jumped, officers left the department, and morale plummeted. And, of course, some of the same groups that heralded the consent decree as the answer to their prayers then complained that the police were not protecting them. 'Twas the law of unintended consequences, I suppose.
The police are not out looking to railroad people. They are trying to do the job that they are paid to do. If a community wants a passive department that waits for confessions and does little else, they can lobby for that. In the meantime, police will do what they are expected to do - make contacts, search for crimes and criminals, and do what they can to keep their communities as safe as they can within the limits of the law and policy.
A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant
"Make mine a double mocha ...
And a croissant!"
Walk humbly with your God
-- Courageous, by Casting Crowns
You can educate dumb, but you can't fix stupid!
If guns kill people, then I blame my pen/pencil/keyboard for misspelled words!
I dont drink, I dont like to drink it does nothing for me, never really has, except for that 6 months Okinawa while in the USMC 13 years ago.
I used to go clubbing with my buddies all the time and it worked since I dont drink or do any drugs, prescription or not, I could be the DD and after losing a child and his mother to a drunk driver I feel I was doing my part to keep my friends safe.
I feel Im a good driver, I have had many driving courses in the military including high speed tacticle maneuvers, offroad control techniques, some evasive maneuver training conducted by the FBI and another one conductedby the CIA. I fel that I can handle myself on the road and that I dont swerve.
I dont know how many times I have been pulled over coming out of a clubs parking lot, see a bunch of military looking guys, in HI that means your white, in a car and they all look drunk. get pulled over and the cop starts asking questions, most times it was a cop I know and no problem, I allready no the games. Find a car full of military guys leaving a bar and chances are really high the driver is drunk, he may be just barely under the limit but if they pull him out in the street, face him towards traffic his eyes will say he is drunk, increase the tension or severity and when he is confused say he isnt comprehending, when you state all these things and let him know he is legally drunk by what you have observed, then ask him very sternly while letting him know it can only help him how many drinks he has had, if he doesnt say what you want to hear then let them know they are now lieing to the police and it wont look good, once they break and say then maybe they had a drink but they cant remember or it must have been slipped in there cola cause they dont remember drinking you have them dead to rights, fails test and now admits to drinking, slam dunk right?
I have never had a DUI but I was in charge of a Marine that got one, I know he doesnt drink, he was a momma's boy, very innocent and some would say slow but he just came from a small town and never had any reason to be skeptical of anyone and took what everyone said as truth. He talked kinda slow so people would ask him if he was drunk all the time BUT he was the best Marine one could ask for, did everything as if our lives depended on it and he would jump infront of a bullet for someone that just made fun of him.
He pulled out of a club after some Marines talked him into being their DD for the night, cop pulled him over and he was done. The only saving grace was that 3 hours later we had a blood test done and it showed he didnt have any alchohal or drugs.
IF he got convicted of a DUI, he would have been booted out of the Corps, in retro I wish he did, he died less then two years later in Iraq.
Scenario: You are approaching a DUI checkpoint where the police are randomly checking for drunk drivers, and of course anything else they can discover through this process. You pull up. They ask for your license, registration, and insurance proof. You hand it to them. "Have you had anything to drink, sir?" they ask. Now, if you had a beer three hours earlier should you tell them that? What about if you just had two beers but know you're below the legal limit? I'm 250 lbs, so two beers won't put me over the limit. But why in the world would I tell them if I've had anything at all to drink? Should I lie and say no? I should tell them that I have nothing to say.
"Do you have anything in the car with you that we should be aware of?" Answer, "I have nothing to say". "Do you mind if we look in your trunk"? "Unless you have a warrant, I have nothing to say".
There is nothing you can say in this situation that will help you. The officer is looking for any grounds that will allow him to make an arrest. Nothing you can say will deter him from that job. It's his job. Nothing you say will establish your innocence, but it could give him grounds to go further in his investigation. Admitting you had a couple of beers earlier in the day might be the truth, and it might be perfectly innocent, but telling him that is definitely not going to help you. There are countless examples I could give to illustrate this point.