Yes, but they are also allowed to call that behavior suspicious and ask you to pull over and bring a K9 by to sniff.
Itâs at a point where the only way to curb cops intimidation of people who know their rights is to have the cops wear a video camera. If the camera isnât recording and sending it back to a secure server where there actions can be reviewed then they arenât working and can be brought up on charges for impersonating a police officer. When they complain they can watch the hundreds of hours of police videos where the cops go over the line.
Like a gopro version of dashboard cams?
GoPro with data connection, ya. what else can we do to curb the overstepping?
It was certainly hard to watch. I had to break it down into bite-size aggravating chunks.
1 Like
This is true. It just depends on the cops you encounter. Iâve seen many videos of folks who simply refuse to speak to cops at DUI checkpoints who are, ultimately, waved on. But if youâre not carrying anything illegal, let the dog sniff away, I suppose!
[quote=âaikimo, post:106, topic:14643â]
But if youâre not carrying anything illegal, let the dog sniff away, I suppose![/quote]
Um, no. âNothing to hideâ is as awful an argument here as anywhere.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
1 Like
Didnât mean to imply that argument, which I donât subscribe to one bit.
I was only saying that if youâre not holding, doing something that might encourage them to bring out the dog wouldnât put you in any danger of arrest. If you are holding, then refusing to answer is still the right, legal thing to do, but that wonât matter if the cop you encounter is a dick.
Personally, I canât see this working. This is far from the first video showing despicable behavior by a police officer on duty. They know theyâre being filmed, they just donât care. Why should they?
Hmm, well, maybe itâs the language barrier, but it seems like that is exactly the argument youâre making.
My paraphrase of your post would be âIf you have something (ie, drugs) to hide then by all means hide, but if you donât have anything (ie drugs) to hide then just roll with it.â Which only requires a very short mental leap to âIf youâre hiding then it must be because you have something to hideâ, and an even shorter mental leap to âIf youâve nothing to hide, whatâs the problem?â
After seeing so much insanity going on in the USA I have partly given up caring.
The american people would rather fight for more guns or to ban abortion then to fix up their wasteland of a country.
To the many decent americans, get out of that place while you can, to the rest, you deserve exactly what you get.
1 Like
Because eventually a department will be sued and have to pay up.
The inverse can also be considered true:
I think a growing problem is cops being unreasonable to people because they can.
3 Likes
Unless the cops happen to âfindâ something while theyâve got you away from the vehicle.
1 Like
No, Iâm suggesting that Iâve run afoul of Poeâs Law
1 Like
Ah, gotcha.
So what youâre saying is, youâve run afoul of the law?
Iâm going to have to radio this in.
The cop was sarcastically jeering - it didnât restore my faith at all.
1 Like
But the cops are confused by someone standing up for their rights. This was a challenge to them. And they responded by overstepping their powers.
Clear, concise, and IMHO, exactly right. Iâve interacted with enough cops to know that when Johnny Law tells you to roll the window down, you roll the window down, because if you donât, then the beatdown (in whatever form it may chose to takeâŚand donât you dare say the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man) will most certainly be delivered. Good on the driver for keeping a level tone and sticking up for himselfâŚalthough the dog on the hood would have gotten me fairly riled up. In fact, Iâm somewhat baffled the cops would have any reason to get the dog up on the hood as it seems to open them up to liability damages.
Unfortunately it doesnât work that way.
The city or police dept insurance company will pay up. While this does translate to higher premiums in some cases, that cost is paid by tax money - in other words it isnât âthe policeâ who will pay up, it is the taxpayers. If the insurance company refuses payment, then settlements typically come out of the municipal general fund - again, tax funded.
Nor does a citizen have a realistic chance of ever winning a personal judgement against a police officer, regardless of how egregious the officers behavior is. The laws that exist to shield officers from lawsuits are damn near impenetrable.
Any way you slice it, neither an officer nor their department is going to face out-of-pocket costs due to malfeasance.
At some point there has to be civilian oversight, with the authority to discipline, demote, or terminate officers - and that system is extremely rare. Even where civilian oversight does exist it is typically âadvisoryâ only.
IANAL, but I know in the town where I live uniformed officers are legally obligated to show their badge, and give their badge number and name if asked. This is according to several officers on the force Iâve met, and itâs apparently a city ordinance. Before it was legislated, it was simply part of the department policy.
I donât know if itâs reinforcing state or federal law though, or if there is state or federal laws requiring police to identify themselves with proper ID.
