• 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.

The most unprofesional, uneducated, tyrant of a police officer ever caught on tape!

L

Liberitarian

New member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23
Location
, ,
imported post

It is a possibility he is not a real police officer but his behaviour doesnt seem far fetched considering the ignorance of the law SOME police exibit.
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

I not going to defend his (mis) demeanor/language, but so long as he has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed in his presents(loud party complaint andsome code prohibiting the activity) he can force entryto detain/warn/cite/arrest the offenders provided he has evidence of a crime in progress (this evidence can be gathered by the officer's sences (sight, sound, smell, etc...). A crime in progress is an exemption to the 4th Amendment. Sorry no cite to back up my post. I'll look it up later...got to run...and break up a party!!!
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
cato wrote:
ted in his presents (loud party complaint andsome code prohibiting the activity) he can force entryto detain/warn/cite/arrest the offenders provided he has evidence of a crime in progress...
Click to expand...

Isn't that only for felonies?
Click to expand...



http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.--Arrests are subject
to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have
followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to
take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause
to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has
committed a misdemeanor in their presence.\6\ The probable cause is, of
course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an
arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to
the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to
establish retroactively reasonable cause.\7\ There are, however,
instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by
someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a
person under arrest will be lacking.\8\ In Terry v. Ohio,\9\ the Court
almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police
officer which involved ``patting down'' the subject of the investigation
for weapons.

\6\United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). See supra,
p.1209.
\7\Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); Johnson v. United
States, 333 U.S. 10, 16-17 (1948); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62-
63 (1968).
\8\``The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion but only on
`probable cause.''' Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 454 (1957).
\9\392 U.S. 1 (1968). Only Justice Douglas dissented. Id. at 35.



I'm going to back away from my statement that the officer can make a forced entry without a warrant at the party. It (the loud party) doesn't appear tohave an exigent circumstance (suspect escaping, destroying evidence, or life in danger) so I'm leaning in favor of needing a warrant. Unlessthe failure to identify the suspect and arrest him qualifies as an exigent circumstance.



Application of this balancing test, because of the Court's
weighing in of law enforcement investigative needs\49\ and the Court's
subjective evaluation of privacy needs, has led to the creation of a
two-tier or sliding-tier scale of privacy interests. The privacy test
was originally designed to permit a determination that a Fourth
Amendment protected interest had been invaded.\50\ If it had been, then
ordinarily a warrant was required, subject only to the narrowly defined
exceptions, and the scope of the search under those exceptions was
``strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its
initiation permissible.''\51\ But the Court now uses the test to
determine whether the interest invaded is important or persuasive enough
so that a warrant is required to justify it;\52\ if the individual has a
lesser expectation of privacy, then the invasion may be justified,
absent a warrant, by the reasonableness of the intrusion.\53\ Exceptions
to the warrant requirement are no

[[Page 1209]]
longer evaluated solely by the justifications for the exception, e.g.,
exigent circumstances, and the scope of the search is no longer tied to
and limited by the justification for the exception.\54\ The result has
been a considerable expansion, beyond what existed prior to Katz, of the
power of police and other authorities to conduct searches.

\49\E.g., Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 429, 433-34
(1981) (Justice Powell concurring), quoted approvingly in United States
v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 815-16 & n.21 (1982).
\50\Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351-52 (1967).
\51\Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).
\52\The prime example is the home, so that for entries either to
search or to arrest, ``the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the
entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may
not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.'' Payton v. New York, 445
U.S. 573, 590 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212
(1981). And see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

HankT wrote:
10987654321 wrote:
It is a possibility he is not a real police officer but his behaviour doesnt seem far fetched considering the ignorance of the law SOME police exibit.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

If it is a fake officer or a fake video, then the thing is useless as an example of anything other than fake video making.

The video looks real to me, so I commented on it. But if it were found to be a gag, thenit would be a waste of time to point to it for they reason you cite. One can't use a fake video to support a real point...
Click to expand...
Tawana Brawley?
 
G

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Holy crap. I thought I was looking at either the "popular" or "recent" page, but I was actually looking at a list of search results. Oopsie!

Sorry folks, nothing to see here, move along...
 
P

Prometheus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
248
Location
NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
imported post

Since no one posted it...

If you have a party make sure you keep the doors locked at all times!

In most states it's not a crime for a LEO to walk in a door if it's "open". In many states that means wide open, ajar or unlocked when responding to "9-1-1 call"... even if that call is only about loud music.

Remember you can always tell them no they can't come in, but you have to wait until they feel like leaving before they will go.

NEVER leave the doors open or unlocked. EVER!

Don't think so? Leave one round of ammo in the open and see if an anti-gun cop won't "clear the house" for his safety and "run the numbers" on every gun there... meanwhile the hours tick by and s/he's getting paid overtime to play JBT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top