• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

This LEO's 11 yrs as a cop should have recognized donut reside .. but instead

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Though I feel sympathy for this person he obviously is not aware of how to avoid jail.

1. He didn't stop completely. Hope he fixes that.
2. He did not obey the speed limits. Hope he drives more carefully.
3. He did not do a proper traffic stop where he opens his window just enough to get the documents exchanged.
3a. He did not keep his mouth shut.
3b. He volunteered to have the vehicle searched.
3c. He did not have a dash cam running.
3d. He did not keep the receipt for his donuts.
4. He did not have a lawyer on speed dial
5. He did not call for a sergeant to be brought to the scene when there was a request to search (everyone has this option).

Had he done those simple things, or even just item 3-5 he would not have been jailed and he would not have created work for the crime lab and he would not have called into question the actions of an 11 year veteran LEO.

Shame on him. I think he should give up the idea of suing, he brought this on himself and he should apologize to the officer and he should try to learn some lessons from this.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Though I feel sympathy for this person he obviously is not aware of how to avoid jail.

1. He didn't stop completely. Hope he fixes that.
2. He did not obey the speed limits. Hope he drives more carefully.
3. He did not do a proper traffic stop where he opens his window just enough to get the documents exchanged.
3a. He did not keep his mouth shut.
3b. He volunteered to have the vehicle searched.
3c. He did not have a dash cam running.
3d. He did not keep the receipt for his donuts.
4. He did not have a lawyer on speed dial
5. He did not call for a sergeant to be brought to the scene when there was a request to search (everyone has this option).

Had he done those simple things, or even just item 3-5 he would not have been jailed and he would not have created work for the crime lab and he would not have called into question the actions of an 11 year veteran LEO.

Shame on him. I think he should give up the idea of suing, he brought this on himself and he should apologize to the officer and he should try to learn some lessons from this.

maverick, sure the driver wasn't stopped cuz dispatch threw out an open call looking for OLDE drug dealers?

strip searching a 64 yo alleged drug dealer...ya i see where an 11 year veteran believes that is necessary...

nothing in the story does it say what happened to the driver's lawfully carried firearm...

ipse
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
What's really bad, is that if the state lab would have incorrectly found it positive for drugs this guy would be in prison.

I am now examining my state's crime lab test methods ... it does not look good for the lab.
I thought that crime labs where the places that evidence was manufactured.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Though I feel sympathy for this person he obviously is not aware of how to avoid jail.

1. He didn't stop completely. Hope he fixes that.
2. He did not obey the speed limits. Hope he drives more carefully.
3. He did not do a proper traffic stop where he opens his window just enough to get the documents exchanged.
3a. He did not keep his mouth shut.
3b. He volunteered to have the vehicle searched.
3c. He did not have a dash cam running.
3d. He did not keep the receipt for his donuts.
4. He did not have a lawyer on speed dial
5. He did not call for a sergeant to be brought to the scene when there was a request to search (everyone has this option).

Had he done those simple things, or even just item 3-5 he would not have been jailed and he would not have created work for the crime lab and he would not have called into question the actions of an 11 year veteran LEO.

Shame on him. I think he should give up the idea of suing, he brought this on himself and he should apologize to the officer and he should try to learn some lessons from this.
Sure comes across as blaming the female victim of rape for her being raped!

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
So what exactly is the "roadside test" that gave the hall monitors the "evidence" of meth possession so they could arrest him?
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Sure comes across as blaming the female victim of rape for her being raped!

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

That's a simple list of things everyone should know and do.

Unless you're saying the female cop raped him, lol.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
These two and the stop would (should?) not have happened.

Let's keep in mind the same officer who claimed doughnut residue was drug residue claimed the two traffic offenses. She may very well have lied about the roadside test results, if so she is a liar. I hope in court his attorneys demand a drug test using the same testing she used is performed before the judge. IF the tests come back that doughnut icing is not drugs she needs to go to jail.
 
Top