Criminal Justice System reform.

[McDad]

huff posted this in another thread:

The FBI has always been like this. You guys think it's political, and maybe it is, but this is how they operate. My college roommate's Dad got arrested by the FBI at his house with a big show of force in broad daylight in front of all his neighbors. He hadn't even done anything wrong. It wasn't political. It was a misunderstanding. All they had to do was contact him and he would've voluntarily brought himself in.

I always think back to this one story of an old retired codger in Texas who had a green thumb as a hobby. The FBI raided his house because they thought he was trying to import drugs. They were 100% wrong and it was gonna be a big black eye for the FBI, but to save face they charged him with conspiracy to import an illegal orchid which he did not actually import or know was illegal. He just sent an email inquiry to somebody about it, which they found on his confiscated computer. They mortgaged their house to pay for his failed defense. He did 8 years. This is a true story. This is the FBI.

His post reminded me of a convo I've had recently.

There needs to be a way to reset the consequences of over reach by LEOs and other government agents. The constitution gives rights which protects from over reach. But there is also the game inside the game so to speak between LEOs/GAs and detainees, suspects, etc. Example, if I were stopped for a traffic violation and the LEO wanted to search my car, I could refuse. But the truth is I would be delayed for a long time while we waited for K9. If K9 alerted, I am put in custody and car taken to impound for further investigation. All of those things would be legal even though I have constitutional rights. And I would have no recourse when no contraband was found.
On a grander scale, things like Huff is pointing out....where charges are brought and cases defended with great expense.

Proposal, shouldn't the government have to reimburse you for your time as well as legal defense when its agents do what is allowed but not abiding by the spirit of your constitutional rights?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Example, if I were stopped for a traffic violation and the LEO wanted to search my car, I could refuse. But the truth is I would be delayed for a long time while we waited for K9. If K9 alerted, I am put in custody and car taken to impound for further investigation. All of those things would be legal even though I have constitutional rights. And I would have no recourse when no contraband was found.

And risk them planting some evidence or sprinkling some reefer/coke in the car to build a case in the manner that huff was talking about.

I understand that we (are supposed to) have rights, but holding court on the highway with these psychopaths with a badge and a gun (esp. at night) is not going to work in your favor too often.

I knew a white guy driving on US-64 between Pulaski and Lawrenceburg that got pulled over with his wife and kids in his truck around midnight and were held for over an hour because of something that was allegedly wrong with his cattle trailer (or at least, that was the original excuse for the stop). They ended up letting him go, but the traffic stop was a obviously a fishing expedition if it took them an hour to realize they didn't have anything.

 

[hog88]

I've mentioned this before, I think that if you are charged with a crime (felony) by state or federal authorities you should be afforded the same monetary resources for your defense as the government plans to spend on convicting you. As it is now a prosecutor can bankrupt a person by simply delaying a case with motions to the point the defendant will accept a plea because they can't afford to pay for their defense.

That and anyone found not guilty who was held in pre-trial confinement should be reimbursed for wages lost.

 

[McDad]

And risk them planting some evidence or sprinkling some reefer/coke in the car to build a case in the manner that huff was talking about.

I understand that we (are supposed to) have rights, but holding court on the highway with these psychopaths with a badge and a gun (esp. at night) is not going to work in your favor too often.

I knew a white guy driving on US-64 between Pulaski and Lawrenceburg that got pulled over with his wife and kids in his truck around midnight and were held for over an hour because of something that was allegedly wrong with his cattle trailer (or at least, that was the original excuse for the stop). They ended up letting him go, but the traffic stop was a obviously a fishing expedition if it took them an hour to realize they didn't have anything.

Truth is they can plant evidence anytime. There are more cameras and people involved back at the impound lot or evidence garage than out on the highway.

I am not talking about a perfect system. I am talking about improving the imperfect systems man can develop.

 

[McDad]

I've mentioned this before, I think that if you are charged with a crime (felony) by state or federal authorities you should be afforded the same monetary resources for your defense as the government plans to spend on convicting you. As it is now a prosecutor can bankrupt a person by simply delaying a case with motions to the point the defendant will accept a plea because they can't afford to pay for their defense.

That and anyone found not guilty who was held in pre-trial confinement should be reimbursed for wages lost.

Agreed on all points.

 

[RockyTop85]

huff posted this in another thread:


His post reminded me of a convo I've had recently.

There needs to be a way to reset the consequences of over reach by LEOs and other government agents. The constitution gives rights which protects from over reach. But there is also the game inside the game so to speak between LEOs/GAs and detainees, suspects, etc. Example, if I were stopped for a traffic violation and the LEO wanted to search my car, I could refuse. But the truth is I would be delayed for a long time while we waited for K9. If K9 alerted, I am put in custody and car taken to impound for further investigation. All of those things would be legal even though I have constitutional rights. And I would have no recourse when no contraband was found.
On a grander scale, things like Huff is pointing out....where charges are brought and cases defended with great expense.

Proposal, shouldn't the government have to reimburse you for your time as well as legal defense when its agents do what is allowed but not abiding by the spirit of your constitutional rights?

Not sure that all of this scenario is actually “legal,” but the point that you have no recourse is accurate, which makes that a distinction without a difference.

There was an oral argument in the 5th circuit last week based on the case of an independent journalist who was jailed for obtaining and publishing information from the government because she went through back channels to get the information, instead of going through the El Paso police department’s established procedure and public information officer. She was jailed under a Texas law that criminalized her actions. She was jailed for basic journalism. A federal court isn't sure if that's unconstitutional.

The original 5th circuit panel held that there was not qualified immunity for the government in this situation, but then it was taken up en banc, which at least gives some indication that the case may come out differently.

These situations would be fixed by a law that establishes qualified immunity but sets a lower bar for plaintiffs than the one courts have so far adopted on their own.

I think that’s the answer. We shouldn’t want cops and others scared to do anything, but we obviously don’t want them enabled to do absolutely everything, either.

 

[McDad]

@RockyTop85
I don't want cops scared to do anything. But I also don't want them to use legal tactics as defacto circumnavigation around protected rights.

The original convo was with my college aged son who said he would refuse a search of his car. My reply to him was you can refuse, you have a right to do so, but they will hold you there for as long as necessary to bring in the K9s.

Easier just to consent to the search. And even though that is my advice to him, I don't think that is the spirit our framers intended when they sought to protect our liberty.

 

[RockyTop85]

@RockyTop85
I don't want cops scared to do anything. But I also don't want them to use legal tactics as defacto circumnavigation around protected rights.

The original convo was with my college aged son who said he would refuse a search of his car. My reply to him was you can refuse, you have a right to do so, but they will hold you there for as long as necessary to bring in the K9s.

Easier just to consent to the search. And even though that is my advice to him, I don't think that is the spirit our framers intended when they sought to protect our liberty.

The part about them holding you to bring the K9 is the part that stood out to me as unlikely to fly, at least in Tennessee, insofar as using any found evidence against you.*

But again I think your point stands: assuming they still do these things out of overzealousness, maliciousness, or ignorance, and then don’t find anything, you’re out a lot of time and at the very least you’re looking at lengthy, low probability litigation to do anything about it.*

* - These are just generalized statements and should not be taken as legal advice.

 

[VOLS INC.]

I think I’ve identified the problem.




FEDERAL
^^^^^^^^^^


Bureau of
Investigation

 

[McDad]

The part about them holding you to bring the K9 is the part that stood out to me as unlikely to fly, at least in Tennessee, insofar as using any found evidence against you.*

But again I think your point stands: assuming they still do these things out of overzealousness, maliciousness, or ignorance, and then don’t find anything, you’re out a lot of time and at the very least you’re looking at lengthy, low probability litigation to do anything about it.*

* - These are just generalized statements and should not be taken as legal advice.

The comment on detaining for K9 in Tennessee is interesting. I thought it was legal for a LEO to have a suspicion, or catch whiff of an odor and hold you on the side of the road for the dog to come.

This applies to me because I buy salvage cars. The one I'm driving now is a recovered theft. It was used as a hot box. And even though the aroma is gone to the point where a person cannot detect, I have no doubt a dog would alert if given a chance to sniff.

 

[hog88]

The comment on detaining for K9 in Tennessee is interesting. I thought it was legal for a LEO to have a suspicion, or catch whiff of an odor and hold you on the side of the road for the dog to come.

This applies to me because I buy salvage cars. The one I'm driving now is a recovered theft. It was used as a hot box. And even though the aroma is gone to the point where a person cannot detect, I have no doubt a dog would alert if given a chance to sniff.

Police K-9s are trained to alert on command.

 

[VolStrom]

The comment on detaining for K9 in Tennessee is interesting. I thought it was legal for a LEO to have a suspicion, or catch whiff of an odor and hold you on the side of the road for the dog to come.

This applies to me because I buy salvage cars. The one I'm driving now is a recovered theft. It was used as a hot box. And even though the aroma is gone to the point where a person cannot detect, I have no doubt a dog would alert if given a chance to sniff.

What's a "hot box" for us non druggies?

 

[McDad]

Police K-9s are trained to alert on command.

I've heard that rumor, too.

Has that been proven afayk?

 

[McDad]

What's a "hot box" for us non druggies?

Smoking marijuana in a car with doors and windows closed.

 

[RockyTop85]

The comment on detaining for K9 in Tennessee is interesting. I thought it was legal for a LEO to have a suspicion, or catch whiff of an odor and hold you on the side of the road for the dog to come.

This applies to me because I buy salvage cars. The one I'm driving now is a recovered theft. It was used as a hot box. And even though the aroma is gone to the point where a person cannot detect, I have no doubt a dog would alert if given a chance to sniff.

Like I said, it’s generalized.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015)

This is a 2015 SCOTUS case where the court held that a stop may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stop…Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.”

Tennessee already has a cite and release statute, I don’t think it has been repealed so that helps a bit in applying that case.

The disclaimer comes in because it often comes down to “reasonably should have been…” or whether some other reason to extend the stop has arisen and that’s all pretty judge/fact dependent.

Generally speaking, if they smell enough to justify waiting for the K9, they can search based on that.

(Personally, I think the K9s are hit or miss. It seems like at least half of them are just puppies that are thrilled to get out of the car and the officer is just testifying to whatever he needs to justify the search.)

 

[hog88]

I've heard that rumor, too.

Has that been proven afayk?

IDK about proven all I know is that is what an old HS friend who was a K-9 cop for years showed me with his dog.

 

[hog88]

Smoking marijuana in a car with doors and windows closed.

That sounds unsafe.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Smoking marijuana in a car with doors and windows closed.

AKA clam bake.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

That sounds unsafe.

You get really high though.

 

[McDad]

Like I said, it’s generalized.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015)

This is a 2015 SCOTUS case where the court held that a stop may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stop…Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.”

Tennessee already has a cite and release statute, I don’t think it has been repealed so that helps a bit in applying that case.

The disclaimer comes in because it often comes down to “reasonably should have been…” or whether some other reason to extend the stop has arisen and that’s all pretty judge/fact dependent.

Generally speaking, if they smell enough to justify waiting for the K9, they can search based on that.

(Personally, I think the K9s are hit or miss. It seems like at least half of them are just puppies that are thrilled to get out of the car and the officer is just testifying to whatever he needs to justify the search.)

I can appreciate that laws cannot be written so precisely that they can cover all the variables. But those ambiguous or discretionary phrases are where the "game inside a game" behaviors are fostered.

I certainly cannot leave the stop after I think it has been a reasonable amount of time.

 

[McDad]

That sounds unsafe.

I don't know. I've heard the higher you ride, the better visibility you have.

 

[RockyTop85]

I can appreciate that laws cannot be written so precisely that they can cover all the variables. But those ambiguous or discretionary phrases are where the "game inside a game" behaviors are fostered.

I certainly cannot leave the stop after I think it has been a reasonable amount of time.

I mean, I agree and it’s annoying to lose one of those suppression motions where the officer says the stop wasn’t complete but has no reasonable explanation for how long it takes or how long it should have taken and the judge just doesn’t want to second guess them, but I don’t really see a workable bright line rule in that scenario.

 

[VolStrom]

I don't know. I've heard the higher you ride, the better visibility you have.

I think PEPPERJAX can answer that for you.

 

[LouderVol]

I am wondering if a revamped Miranda Rights are needed. The cops should have to state these rights in order to detain you more than X minutes, or it invalidates their.detainment and anything they find or do. And hopefully in these Miranda rights is the state law about detainment, and that point Rocky made about the initial stop. I had a similar situation as what Ras talked about happen to me, and I had no clue how to act except to comply and hope for the best.

Another thing that would be right at the top of my list of things to be fixed is "resisting arrest". Wayyyy too broad, gets applied way too easily, and even though it eventually gets thrown out I have known people who got jailed and nothing else is listed beyond "resisting arrest" in their booking. It's an easy one to slap on you while they go digging for more.

 

[InVOLuntary]

huff posted this in another thread:


His post reminded me of a convo I've had recently.

There needs to be a way to reset the consequences of over reach by LEOs and other government agents. The constitution gives rights which protects from over reach. But there is also the game inside the game so to speak between LEOs/GAs and detainees, suspects, etc. Example, if I were stopped for a traffic violation and the LEO wanted to search my car, I could refuse. But the truth is I would be delayed for a long time while we waited for K9. If K9 alerted, I am put in custody and car taken to impound for further investigation. All of those things would be legal even though I have constitutional rights. And I would have no recourse when no contraband was found.
On a grander scale, things like Huff is pointing out....where charges are brought and cases defended with great expense.

Proposal, shouldn't the government have to reimburse you for your time as well as legal defense when its agents do what is allowed but not abiding by the spirit of your constitutional rights?

We should be able to sue the government for actions that are in error. We should be able to sue them personally for wrongful acts. Judges should also be held personally accountable for wrongful actions.