If there were no drug laws, and no cops trying to enforce them, there'd be a lot less drug-related violence, as drugs would be cheaper, and not an underground market where drug dealers had to enforce rules with shootings.


I'm saying he seemed to be supporting racial profiling, as in "if you're black in a white neighborhood, or white in a black neighborhood, you're a suspicious character"

The issue is not that his car got searched. The issue is the manner they did so. No explanation, no request. The worst experience I had with the police was when I got pulled over for expired tags (yes i'm ******ed) right in front of my apartment. I got a rookie cop and he took 20 mins to run my info so I started cleaning my car... 10 minutes later there are 3 cars and i'm standing with my hands held behind my back while they search my car. Did they ask? Yes. Did he have reason? Maybe, he assumed I was trying to hide drugs. Lol at the cop thinking I was hiding drugs during a routine expired registration stop... But I still felt a little violated. And it was embarassing being physically restrained by a police officer 10 feet from my front door. I was a white boy living in a predominantly hispanic neighborhood so I assume my neighbors got a chuckle out of seeing me get hassled.

If they had reason they don't have to ask.

Exactly. They weren't looking for a guy that just committed X crime and looks like the OP, because the search was illegal and would be thrown out in court, and they know it. They were looking to rob him.

lol @ the story writers in this thread making up illusive banditos the cops 'must have' mistaken OP for. Where do you find pants for the giant ass you pull all this out of?

Its not writing a story really, Im much more inclined to think the cops are at fault if it was one uniformed policeman, but it wasnt it was three plainclothes, more than likely detectives due to having three in the car, it it being unmarked, and them not being in uniform, there was something "larger" going on in the area, cops just do not roll like this, and plainclothes cops dont pull people over for speeding.

Well If I were you I'd be a little ticked off as well. But you may have been in an area where a lot of drug deals go down etc. Maybe you looked like someone they're looking for, I dunno.

The bottom line is we live in a crappy world where real bad things happen, even to cops. Maybe they were just as worried about being shot or something themselves.

I just want to make sure I understand your concern. Are you saying your only problem is the law enforcement agency searching his car? Don't get me wrong I don't think it was right either. But the rest of it was fine IMO.

If this exact thing happened to me I wouldn't be thinking how much fun it was but I'd be thinking about how crappy it can be on a cop. I'd also be thinking if this was the way they had to be for my mother in the crappy neighborhood to be safer then I'm all for it.

That's pretty much what I dislike, the illegal search, yes.

But just to clarify, you'd be fine with cops cuffing your innocent mother on the hood of her car? Did I read that correctly?

Sorry, I'll be more specific, if the suspect had a warrant out for his arrest, I presume the car he's arrested in can be searched too.

In this case, I'm pretty sure the cops thought they had found someone they wanted to arrest, but when they found it wasn't him.

so the mindset wasn't: "**** the constitution I'm putting this guy away", it was "**** technicalities like waiting to see if we have the right guy i'm going to search 30 seconds earlier anyway". I mean, the later is bad and shouldn't happen, but it doesn't deserve a whole big spiel on how badly his civil rights were violated. Sure they were, but I think we should save our anger for cases with much more bull****, where the cops were thinking the former statement rather than the later.

Just my opinion, its kind of a pet peeve of mine to see people go ballistic and use stuff like this as some kind of proof of a 'police state' or something, its unacceptable but at the same time 1984 shouldn't be mentioned in this thread imo.

identity mistakes happen though, police don't have access to perfect information and if they have every reason to believe that your mother could be a dangerous maniac who has a warrant, they should follow procedure for that arrest. Obviously for a traffic stop its horribly unjustified.

Obviously in the OP's case, if they just pulled him over for the **** of it, that is terrible and unacceptable, but just with how the story went it seemed like the cops were after someone specific who was probably profiled as dangerous. I mean, it wastes their time to pull over guys like the OP, so I'd assume they had something to go on.

Alright. I feel like I have to chime in on this thread now. Obviously none of us can know what the cops were thinking when they instigated this contact with OP. But from my experience it seems that either his car, or he himself matched the description of someone who was thought to be in the area that they wanted to contact (either b/c they had a warrant for such individual, or some other reason to contact the "person of interest.") It's also my experience that plain-clothes cops don't pull people over randomly just to harrass them.

The search of the car was illegal. Period. If the were going to arrest OP then they could have searched the car "incident to (that) arrest." But to be able to arrest OP they would have needed probable cause (PC) which, according to OP, was clearly lacking here.

(Obviously the cops could have searched the car if they had OP's consent to do so, or if they had developed PC during the contact with OP, ie they look (plain view) into the car and see blood all over the seats, or a kilo of coke on the dash, or a baggie of pot on the floor, etc. However, according to OP, consent was not given (or even asked for) and no results of plain view lead to such PC.)

I'm a little surprised that so many posts in this thread think that the seach was ok. If the cops asked to search the car and OP says "no" that is it. They can't search. Now I'm not naive enough to think that always stops the cops from doing so, but it is the law nonetheless. No one's Constitutional rights "get waived" once they are considered a suspect, in fact, that is when 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment rights (and others) actually vest, ie., your right to remain silent doesn't vest unless and until the cops have you in custody and begin to question you.

Were the cops engaged in racial profiling? Who knows? Is racial profiling illegal? Probably, but is anyone really naive enough to think that law enforcement doesn't use it as a "tool" in their anti-crime arsenal?

I'm sorry about what happened to Watchmaker, it certainly wasn't right. But this kind of thing happens all the time, and sometimes it leads to the aprehension of dangerous people. That doesn't make it right, but it is reality.

This is correct afaik, but only applies when you're actually talking about the suspect. Not someone who isn't the suspect.

Making sure you're arresting the right person is a 'technicality"?...

"Mr. Mayor, I just spent the night in jail because your officer arrested me and I'm not who he thought I was!!"
Mayor: "Well, your identity is just a technicality, can't really blame the officer!"

I don't think we should let civil servants get away with any wrong doing. Ever. I refuse to pay people to violate other's rights, and call it moral or not a big deal.

If you'll go back and read that again, you'll see that I wasn't referring to this situation, but rather to your defense of this situation, which was, essentially "Well, if a crime gets committed in your neighborhood, you should be subject to searches and lose your rights" - if that isn't Orwellian, I don't know what is.

Did anyone catch the part of the story where the cops didn't ever ask for identification?

"I told him my wallet was in my right pocket (suggesting that he might want my ID)- he looked surprised and asked why he would want my wallet, like maybe I was trying to bribe him I told him. "My ID".
He gets my wallet and searches it too."

Seems like(and I'm amazed this needs to be said)

1.) If the police see someone and they think it's a suspect requesting identification would be the best way to find out if it's him.

2.) Even if it weren't(and it absolutely is) how does searching his car and person prove or disprove anything? So let's say he's a suspect of something that would involve searching his car and person. They don't find anything so they proceed by
A.) Saying sorry and letting him go
B.) Putting him under arrest, bringing him to a station and questioning him about such things.

I have a hard time believing the police would have such a strong conviction they found a criminal that they'd bust in to his car and search him and then when they find nothing at all just say "my bad bro" and roll off.

yeah i seriously doubt that this is a mistaken ID stop by the cops. they keep asking him if he has something illegal and tossing his car, they obviously don't have anything in mind, they're fishing. sorry guys but this is standard operating procedure for cops in many places and if they had turned up something illegal they would either fabricate PC and make the arrest, try to get him to flip or maybe cut him loose with an appearance ticket depending on the locality if it was minor. a good lawyer might be able to get him off but it's not guarantee, it's his word against the cops. standard police tactics. those of you trying to come up with some excuse for this are pretty naive.

*sigh* but it was the belief of the police. One day in the future we'll all have microchips that will HUD our name above our heads and no one will make identity errors. Until that day, some stuff like this will happen


Sorry I missed where the OP was arrested and read his miranda rights, all I see is him being restrained forcefully and his ID taken. I'm also missing the part where this was anything but a minor inconvienience for him. Obviously being put in a holding cell overnight is totally unacceptable, but you're strawmanning here.

Only the search for a wrong doing, and its a pretty small one supposing it was only a fast one and could be justified IF the real suspect whom the police thought w

I mean, cops make mistakes, but what do you propose, sack police every time they mis-identify a guy?

Context matters, if the guy was who the cops thought he was, there wouldn't be a problem (I assume). My defense was never the above and it's a huge strawman, I think you're being entirely biased about the situation and losing all credability because of your inability to show perspective. Its not about the crime, its about a mis-identification. Its ironic that you deplore this non-perfect policing, asking that your 'civil servants' be perfect, when the basis or Orwell was that creating a perfect utopia where all information is known is where the danger is.

If you want cops to never, ever, ever make an identification error, you're going to need to implement some very real Orwellian policies. Like I said, I'm all about rights, justice, and why the government should stay the **** away. But lets not try and use some individuals sloppiness as a reason to go on a 1984 rant. Lets use cases of malice instead, which is what Orwell had in mind.

Right, the guy who claims that making sure you're arresting the right person is a 'technicality' is the one who is keeping his credibility.

I've had this happen to me before, and it started off with me being ordered at gunpoint to put my hands out the window. These guys were probably just part of some special drug unit or something.

Actually, the search timing is the technicality, if they had the rights to search the original suspect who they may have a warrant for. The right person is a mistake that should be kept to a very low percentage.

idiots,

stop talking about this as if it's a mistaken ID stop. it's not. you're coming up with elaborate reasoning to excuse what the cops did based on 1. flimsy logic and 2. a completely faulty assumption. cops did not behave like they had anything on this guy, their questions were not specific, they did not know who he was or what they were looking for. this is STANDARD for cops in certain areas and it's completely illegal but they get away with it because people don't know their rights and / or because police are smart enough to get away with it.

the willingness of otherwise intelligent people to keep giving cops the benefit of the doubt in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary never ceases to amaze me.

No, you didn't read that correctly or at least I didn't mean for it to come out that way. I wouldn't mind it if a cop pulled me over and was semi rough with me until they found out I wasn't the bad guy they thought I might be, said they were sorry and to have a nice night.

If there's one thing I know it's that not every police officer is Mr./Mrs. polite. The first thing a police officer needs to do is to make sure a situation is under control. Sometimes that means to cuff someone and make sure they're safe.

Having said all that my mother has been arrested for carrying a loaded pistol through a checkpoint in an airport. So she might be on someones list and I guess I would have to understand.

These don't really help my argument :

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...eads-shooting/

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...mmons-cordova/

I meant 'good for a bad traffic stop'. You know what I mean.

That's why I introduced a premise and theory which seems to fit with the story. its like a programming IF statement, IF my premise for what happened is true, THEN blah blah blah what I said. I'm not trying argue my idea is 100% correct, I'm arguing that there is a plausible scenario which suggests police sloppiness and not maliciousness.

I have been personally asked to read this thread and respond and so I am. This was originally going to be a PM back to that person, but I decided to post this in this thread. I rarely read 2+2 anymore and most likely won't start increasing my traffic to this site as of lately. There is a very good chance that I probably won't respond in this thread again after this post, and it is very likely I may not read any comments that come after, so if you want to flame me, bash me, or judge me based on who I am, it will most likely not get through - and to be honest, I don't care.

So onto my post (which was going to be a PM):

I read most of the thread. I'm not really in the position to comment on that thread because the possibilities are endless why they would have done what they did. Most states (probably all) have differing procedures based on searches and seizures. Yes I know we all have constitutional rights, but to a certain extent, police in other states are much more free on what it is that they can do as far as reasonable suspicion on traffic stops and searches.

It's very likely these guys were on a detail in a neighborhood with increased crime. They may have been looking for a tiny reason to make a traffic stop and any very minute violation would make that stop justifiable. Any judge in the U.S. will agree that any area with increased crime and a proactive operation to curtail those crimes will call for increased measures of leniency based on any and all facts according to the totality of the circumstances. This can be related to DUI enforcement and/or roving checkpoints. Any sign of a drunk driver (even the smallest jerk of the wheel, or a headlight out) will warrant a stop to check on the driver and its occupants.

Maybe they thought he was someone they were looking for. If so, I believe they did the right thing. Given the size of the OP (as he said), they had to make sure to keep themselves safe. It's often noted as "tunnel vision" that when you see someone perceived as dangerous, and you are 99% sure that it is the person of interest, you will not stop and try to figure out if it "really" is that person. You will take all steps necessary to lessen the threat and then figure out the circumstances afterwards. Now, like I said about different states having differing procedures, a search of the vehicle in many states is not just protected by the search and seizure rights. It is mainly geared towards private property of those not involved in any police matters. For example, a police officer cannot just open your car door and start searching, or they cannot just enter your house because they "think" there is drug dealing going on. Other facts must be present. This traffic stop of the OP was most likely based on looking for a person of interest or suspect. A search of the vehicle was probably necessary to search for something they were looking for based on the perceived reason for making the stop.

Let me tell you a true story. Many of you have heard of the Bucky Phillips case who killed several police officers. We were on very high alert during the time that he was on the loose because he was so close to where I work. We often carried assault rifles, lessened our traffic stops to more major violations, and were constantly on the lookout for anything suspicious such as vehicles in random places. I was never a part of what usually went down, but I know of at least three times where we may have seen a vehicle that matched his, saw someone who looked like him, and conducted a felony traffic stop. Now, a felony traffic stop is not just a stop and then you walk up to the window and yank the person out of their car. This is balls-to-the-wall guns drawn, verbally have the person get out of their car with their hands in the air, get down on the ground, and handcuff them before you go and find out who it really is. And I'll tell you what, all three times, it was not him. We didn't try to find out who it was first and then tell them to move along. We got rid of the threat and asked questions later. I can personally tell you that I thought I saw him once, but it just turned out to be someone who looked like him, and the person I was working with knew it wasn't him.

So you guys and go back and forth all day like a bunch of politicians, but always remember you have no idea what it is like being a police officer. You're always on the outside looking in. You don't have to worry about that drug dealer on the corner because to him looking at an everyday person walking to the store, you're just that, an everyday person. As soon as you put on that uniform, you're a threat to them and they will do anything to not get caught.

And I can personally tell you from almost 3 years of experience. There are always 2 sides of the story and it is often the case that what you hear from one side is never all of the facts. They are often biased towards being in favor of the person who is writing it.

So like I said, whether you read this or not, agree or disagree, I'm only posting in this thread with my thoughts and will most likely not read anymore. I cannot speak for those officers who were there that night and I will not condone any of their actions as mine may have been different. I will also not tell you what I would have done because I don't know the facts and details. Every situation you run into as a police officer will always be different. Every situation you are called to or come upon can have hundreds of variables that need to be accounted for. If a police officer is not always on guard when dealing with those that he does not know, then that police officer should move onto other things because someday it will come back to haunt them.

gl convincing ppl who have actually had dealings with cops that they are not the profession most prone to douchebaggery