Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1

    Exclamation My Fourth Amendment Rights Were Violated - What Can I Do About It

    My question involves police conduct in the State of: Minnesota

    I will include a link to youtube so you can watch the violation and read the pdf files like police report and judges ruling. What can be done about this I want this officer fired and Id like my 6 thousand dollars back?


    I was pulled out of a locked bathroom because of dark window tint after leaving a bar. Please read police reports and watch the video. I would appreciate any direction anyone may have.



    http://youtu.be/BO0NBIK87as


    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d1_1344971844

    Thanks in advanced for any help anyone may provide.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    OH10
    Posts
    17,019

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    Use the blind luck you had in this situation as a warning to not end up on America's Dumbest Criminals.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    officer fired? for what? If you believe you can sustain a civil rights violation against him, sue him. Have you filed a complaint with his superiors?

    as to the $6k. Is that what they took out of your shoe or what?

    granted the judge ruled as he did. I don't agree but my vote doesn't count. When you speak loudly enough in a public setting, you give up your right to privacy, at least to the oral statements. While the stall door was locked, the main door to the restroom wasn't. Since anybody could have walked into the restroom and overheard you, as I see it, you had no argument your rights concerning your verbal communications were violated.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    641

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    $6k is the amount he paid counsel.

    You got lucky. Don't push your luck next time. I agree the reason for pulling you over was shady. The report was also shady based on how he wrote it. Your actions were shady. You look like an arrogant jackass on the video.

    The cop was wrong. But so were you. Than your lucky stars the cop didn't wait for you exit and then pull you over. He looked young and impatient and it backfired on him.

    Don't drive drunk.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    Quote Quoting bam!
    View Post
    $6k is the amount he paid counsel.

    You got lucky. Don't push your luck next time. I agree the reason for pulling you over was shady. The report was also shady based on how he wrote it. Your actions were shady. You look like an arrogant jackass on the video.

    The cop was wrong. But so were you. Than your lucky stars the cop didn't wait for you exit and then pull you over. He looked young and impatient and it backfired on him.

    Don't drive drunk.

    he was not pulled over. It would have come to that if the OP kept driving instead of dodging into the quickie mart but that is irrelevant. A cop can make contact with an individual outside of his vehicle and it not invoke the rules required to make a traffic stop since, well, it isn't a traffic stop.



    and yes, I figured the money was for his lawyer. If he wants that, he is going to have to pay another lawyer and sue the cop. If the OP wasn't actually guilty of the DUI, he might find assistance in places like the ACLU or some similar entity but I suspect they would not be all excited about defending the OP in such an issue due to his actual guilt. It makes it look like they are defending guilty people.

    The thing I find odd is that there was no mention of the cop obtaining key to the stall and unlocking it. I would have thought that would be the basis for the rights violation and not simply overhearing a conversation that, to me, was not covered under their right to privacy as it was hear outside of the stall. Anybody that walked into the apparent multiple user facility could have heard that. Like I said before, I disagree with the decision.

    I also do not see why all evidence was suppressed. Since the cop was intending on making contact with the OP, even with the statement suppressed, the cop would have independently discovered the intoxication, or at least reasonable suspicion to continue an investigation once he was aware of the fact the OP had been drinking due to the odor emanating from the OP and quite possibly his lack of stability.

  6. #6

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    Thanks for your opinion! The officer violated my reasonable expectation of privacy!! That’s why he should be fired! We can't violate people’s rights and keep our jobs!!!

    The main issue is he states in the first paragraph of his police report that he couldn't identify any occupants in the vehicle. So how could he or you or anyone for that matter say I was even the driver there is still the possibility that the female passenger and I could have switched! In addition to all of that the judge also states that the officer NEVER witnessed any driving behavior that would lead him to believe the driver was under the influence of an intoxicant. Last IT WAS NOT A TRAFFIC STOP! So how can he remove me from said "saloon type" stall and right away make me submit to a sobriety test?!?!?!? The judge also states that the WHOLE bathroom even the main area was not open to the officer to go in to "investigate"! But lets talk main area the first time the officer goes into the main area of the bathroom and he immediately crouches down, These is investigative actions are illegal so no matter what he claims he heard can't be admissible. So lets talk verbal rights lets say that I "really" say such that still isn't reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was committed and if your unaware that’s a far less standard then even probable cause!! Thanks for you’re input again but unless your willing too look at the FACTS of the case rather then state your opinion please move on! I am looking for someone who can point me in the direction of a Law Firm who still believes that breaking the law to up hold it is no excuse!!! Last I will add that I did have a friend picking me up from the gas station so after leaving the bathroom I should have been legally free to go!!!


    PLEASE RE READ THE DOCUMENTS!!

    The statement wasn't suppressed the illegal evidence was!!! The breathalyzer was the illegal evidence that was suppressed!!


    AGAIN THANKS FOR YOUR OPINIONS.

    If someone can point me in the right direction for a Lawyer in MN that would be great. I will also add that I spent two years studying criminal justice and law enforcement and my professor has read all the documentation and his opinion is the only one besides a law firm that may represent me that I care about. LOOK AT THE FACTS HERE!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    The problem here was the officer made some conclusions based upon experience (conclusions that turned out to be correct), but was unable to properly articulate through the mention of objective facts in his report, and, I suspect, in his testimony.

    Since the original offense was a misdemeanor, the officer may have been better served waiting inside the convenience store and having a second unit respond to watch the suspect vehicle. Eventually, you would have had to leave the stall ... and if you did not, you would have created a situation where your stay would be unreasonable and the police might be asked to remove you - a trespasser - from the bathroom. At that point, you almost certainly would have been popped for the DUI in addition to any other offenses.

    Unfortunately (though it was fortunate for you), the officer lacked the patience or creativity to wait a few short minutes. This correctly resulted in the suppression of the evidence.

    Whether you have a cause of action against the officer (or, as he will likely be indemnified by his agency, the city) is something only an attorney in your state can evaluate. The standard tends to be whether an officer of similar training and experience would take a similar action. I suspect not. As such, I suspect the agency will settle out of court ... maybe for your attorney's costs, maybe more. Whether this is a matter that will attract any local attorneys' attentions or result in some statutory penalties/fines is something a local attorney can tell you. What you can NOT do is force the agency to FIRE the officer. A lawsuit is about money. If you sue, you want money to make you whole. Whether this is a case that will be worth the time and expense is something to speak to that attorney about.

    Now, if the officer is a problem in this is the latest in a long line of problems, then the officer might get fired ... assuming, of course, that you have made a complaint. But, if it is an isolated incident or he acted in a manner that was affirmed by his peers and supervisors, then it might be a matter of retraining and not personal liability.

    Yes, the officer was wrong. Yes, you were impaired. You got darn lucky. Hopefully you have also learned from this and will not drive impaired anymore. The life you say might be someone you care about.

  8. #8

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    Thank you for taking the time to reply using more FACTS then previous replies however your opinions are still your opinions!!! AGAIN Lets go with fact not conclusions not inferences just FACT!!! I have an inference that most cops do this crap all the time and with out a high profile lawyer like I paid he would have gotten away with it!!! Thats exactly what I mean its not a provable statement so lets get back to the FACTS!!!

    I do want to point out that the initial reason the officer had interest in my car was the dark window tint which in the state of Minnesota its a "petty misdemeanor" which is not an arrest able offense. Also note that the window tint on my car is for a medical reason from a previous cornea transplant so I possessed a properly written medical waiver. This is the main focus of this encounter with the officer because had he been more experienced in law and understood what a petty misdemeanor for window tint was and thats only a fix it ticket not something you can arrest someone for. Also your comment "the officer made some conclusions based upon experience". This was later covered by the judge "The officer's erroneous "inference"". ALL HE HAD WAS WINDOW TINT!!! NOTHING MORE!!

    The window tint under MN state law would not allow him to come remove me from a locked bathroom door and arrest me for dui! His ability to have me submit to a sobriety test was not present because there was NO traffic stop conducted!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    641

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    What I am saying is this.

    The cop was wrong and violated your rights.

    What he should have done is this.

    Saw you had dark tint which he believed over the limit. Saw that you went into the store and waited. When you came out, conducted a traffic stop.

    My theory is that you did see Him coming, you did evade him and you did hide in the bathroom like a scared kid. He did make mistakes and you did get off by hiring a lawyer.

    My question is, do you think everyone who makes mistakes at their job should be fired?

    Side note, that police department is one of the most crooked in the country.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: My Fourth Amendment Was Violated What Can I Do About It

    PLEASE RE READ THE DOCUMENTS!!

    The statement wasn't suppressed the illegal evidence was!!! The breathalyzer was the illegal evidence that was suppressed!!
    If that was what all that was suppressed, you could have been convicted still. It does not require a BAC to prove DUI:

    169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.

    Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle.

    It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
    (1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
    (2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
    (3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
    (4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);
    (5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
    (6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or
    (7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.
    The main issue is he states in the first paragraph of his police report that he couldn't identify any occupants in the vehicle.
    so? he didn't say he did. He said he identified your shoes. Beyond that, unless there was somebody wearing the same clothing you were wearing, he could identify you by your clothing.

    Last IT WAS NOT A TRAFFIC STOP!
    I hear an echo. That's what I said.

    So how can he remove me from said "saloon type" stall and right away make me submit to a sobriety test?!?!?!?
    what does that have to do with whether it was or wasn't a traffic stop? Nothing. If you think the only time a cop can breathylize you is when there is a traffic stop, you are mistaken.

    169A.41 PRELIMINARY SCREENING TEST.

    Subdivision 1.When authorized.

    When a peace officer has reason to believe from the manner in which a person is driving, operating, controlling, or acting upon departure from a motor vehicle, or has driven, operated, or controlled a motor vehicle, that the driver may be violating or has violated section 169A.20(driving while impaired), 169A.31 (alcohol-related school bus or Head Start bus driving), or 169A.33 (underage drinking and driving), the officer may require the driver to provide a sample of the driver's breath for a preliminary screening test using a device approved by the commissioner for this purpose.
    The judge also states that the WHOLE bathroom even the main area was not open to the officer to go in to "investigate"!
    did you read something I didn't? If you read again, it was stated that by locking the STALL you established your expectation of privacy. It was said that by not responding to the officer outside the stall, you established your expectation of privacy. If it was based on the entire bathroom, the simple entry into the bathroom would have been adequate to prove the violation.




    But lets talk main area the first time the officer goes into the main area of the bathroom and he immediately crouches down, These is investigative actions are illegal so no matter what he claims he heard can't be admissible.
    and this is where I disagree. The officer overheard you from a legal vantage point. Had it not been for the crouch, I see nothing else that would have made his actions illegal, up to the point of opening the stall. an example: if a cop is outside of a building, in a legal vantage point and had no legal right to enter the building. if a male occupant is heard yelling: I'm going to kill you followed by a gunshot and then there is a subsequent entry where it was discovered there was a male with a gun standing over a female person with a gunshot, that utterance is admissible. Now, to adjust that to fit your situation.

    Same situation but the cops actually entered the building without warrant or PC prior to the gunshot. Did not see anybody. After they left and had gone to a point they were legally allowed to occupy, they heard a male yell: I'm going to kill you, followed by the rest. Why would that utterance be deemed not admissible? They surely violated any persons right in the building when the entered but the evidence was not discovered as a result of that illegal entry.

    Just as the statement that gave the cop, at least, reasonable suspicion in your case.


    If someone can point me in the right direction for a Lawyer in MN that would be great
    same as I tell anybody else: phonebook and the state bar.


    his opinion is the only one besides a law firm that may represent me that I care about.
    Oh, so your presence here is simply some ill conceived effort to gloat about your win?

    LOOK AT THE FACTS HERE!!!
    I did and if it mattered, I would hunt up support for my position but since you don't care about my opinion, I won't waste the time.


    Sure hope this isn't a normal area for you to be. I suspect that cop and probably some he works with will be watching for you only next time, they are going to be sure to do it by the book.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Search and Seizure: Violation of Fourth Amendment
    By kcinnc in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 09:13 PM
  2. Search and Seizure: Fourth Amendment Violation
    By jujubr in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-19-2008, 06:51 AM
  3. Search and Seizure: Wiretaps and the Fourth Amendment
    By person08 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 08:16 AM
  4. Fourth Amendment Rights
    By Rex39 in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-02-2007, 12:25 AM
  5. Search and Seizure: Fourth Amendment Rights
    By sfas in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-06-2005, 07:52 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources