Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 92

Thread: Pastor Illegally seized

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Blacksburg/Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    A pastor from arizona was travelling home from california when he was stopped at a check point of sorts. He was asked if his car could be searched, to which he denied the officers' permission. They then insisted he go to a second area to talk to other officers to which he insisted he wanted to just be on his way. The officers then brought a dog out and it sniffed around and, according to the pastor, did nothing. However, the officers said the dog had made some motion to show there were drugs or a body in the trunk of the car and that they now had probable cause to search the car without the pastor's permission. He asked them to show what the dog had done but they refused. The pastor refused to exit his vehicle and the cops eventually tased him to get him out of the car. An obvious case of illegal search and seizure, something all OC'ers should look out for and fight. The pastor's personal account of the event is posted below. Note: the first video is his oral account of what happened. The second video is footage he took while being detained.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    RoisinDubh wrote:
    A pastor from arizona was travelling home from california when he was stopped at a check point of sorts. He was asked if his car could be searched, to which he denied the officers' permission. They then insisted he go to a second area to talk to other officers to which he insisted he wanted to just be on his way. The officers then brought a dog out and it sniffed around and, according to the pastor, did nothing. However, the officers said the dog had made some motion to show there were drugs or a body in the trunk of the car and that they now had probable cause to search the car without the pastor's permission. He asked them to show what the dog had done but they refused. The pastor refused to exit his vehicle and the cops eventually tased him to get him out of the car. An obvious case of illegal search and seizure, something all OC'ers should look out for and fight. The pastor's personal account of the event is posted below. Note: the first video is his oral account of what happened. The second video is footage he took while being detained.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A
    Why is this in the Virginia Forum?


  3. #3
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    Dispatcher wrote:
    Why is this in the Virginia Forum?
    Because we Virginians like to peruse important subjects before letting the rest of the nation see them??? Makes me feel special :^).

    Edit: But agreed it should be in "Hot Topics" or "News and Political Alerts". He's a newby and may not have known. Good find though! I hadn't heard of this incident and actually may not have except for the fact you posted it in the VA section :^).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    Dispatcher wrote:
    Why is this in the Virginia Forum?
    Yeh, I have mixed emotions about non-VA stuff here. I have to watch myself sometimes, because of the narrow focus of the groups here.

    But we all need to protect each other's rights nationwide, and learn from their experiences as well.

    And if we were STRICTLY VA stuff, I would not have had the opportunity to contribute to buy space on a Texas billboard to support Open Carry legislation there.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Did you read some of the comments... sheeeeesh, idiots. The reason we are in deep kimchee in this country are the poltroons without brains who infest the nation.

    :X


    Dang... misspelled poltroons...:shock: thats embarrassing...

    Fixed it.



    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    Freeflight wrote:
    Did you read some of the comments... sheeeeesh, idiots. The reason we are in deep kimchee in this country are the paltroons without brains who infest the nation.

    :X
    Paltroon? Man that's a great word. I'm going to have to mix that into my normal vocabulary now!

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    OK, I think the BP overstepped their bounds here, but this guy is anti-police and frequently out to draw these types of reactions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=queM4c-W048

    I still think he is on the right side of the issue in this case.
    Find businesses that are pro gun...and those that aren't. Friend or Foe - Version 2 is online!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Blacksburg/Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    I'm sorry for posting this particular story in the Virginia forum... I knew a few people would ask why it was here, or that it would probably be moved, but I put it here simply because I know I'm much more likely to read up on a story posted in the VA forum than any of the other areas, including General Discussion and Hot Topics. Virginians do tend to have the most discussion on this site tho (remember we just passed 10K posts recently). So yeah, I'm sorry. Just found it an interesting piece worth discussion on here.

    RoisinDubh

    P.S. Hey, don't call me a noob Neplus I may not post much but I'm no noob.

  9. #9
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    bnkrazy wrote:
    OK, I think the BP overstepped their bounds here, but this guy is anti-police and frequently out to draw these types of reactions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=queM4c-W048

    I still think he is on the right side of the issue in this case.
    He is anti-police, he is anti-1984. None of his videos are anti-police, just anti-unlawful activity which may happen to be acted by law enforcement.

    He is completely correct in how he is acting and how he has acted. He is doing exactly what a GOOD rights enthusiast would do. This is what Free Staters of NH do, this is what I personally do, and is the correct course of action.

    What the DPS did was disgraceful, disrespectful, shows the specific people(LE) looking for a problem or trying to create one.

    Personally, I carry NO ID on me while open carrying unless I'm in Homer since the officers at the PD know me.

    He is completely in his rights, while someone might think he is begging for attention, one has to realize he is posting clips from his tapes which may be encounters.

    If you watch all his videos, he constantly brings up or shows clips which are geared towards anti-1984. note this does not mean anti-police. There is a difference between big brother vs police. This is a anti-big brother, not a anti-police.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    bnkrazy wrote:
    OK, I think the BP overstepped their bounds here, but this guy is anti-police and frequently out to draw these types of reactions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=queM4c-W048

    I still think he is on the right side of the issue in this case.
    He is anti-police, he is anti-1984. None of his videos are anti-police, just anti-unlawful activity which may happen to be acted by law enforcement.
    ...
    If you watch all his videos, he constantly brings up or shows clips which are geared towards anti-1984. note this does not mean anti-police. There is a difference between big brother vs police. This is a anti-big brother, not a anti-police.
    That's the only one I watched, and he went back and forth between the police and the 1984 big brother warnings.

    He also mentions and quotes a Bible passage that he interprets to mean we are not supposed to have police. That the citizens should maintain law and order, which I happen to believe would improve things.

    Again, I support his actions in this case and think he's well within his rights. The BP/DPS is clearly in the wrong here.
    Find businesses that are pro gun...and those that aren't. Friend or Foe - Version 2 is online!

  11. #11
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Looking at the preacher's new videos, he is very hard core on the law.

    I've never seen such a knowledgeable preacher.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    This guy is an idiot.

    He shouldn't have resisted the search at ALL. There is no legal right to resist a search if the police say they have probable cause to perform a search. You have to deal with the legal right to search later, via a formal complaint and/or a lawsuit. He should have just said "You search my car, I take your house." If that didn't work, then he should have just let them do it and then sued the officers later under 1983.

    Chances are good the dog was being taped by their cruiser so if it really did nothing then he should win the suit. Also, he could probably get the cops to testify in court as to how fantastic and capable the dog is, and how many arrests it helped get. Then he would be able to use the fact that they found nothing illegal to show that they were lying, because if the dog is that accurate at finding contraband it clearly didn't give a signal since there was no contraband to be found in the first place. In effect the officers would end up testifying against themselves if he had a good enough lawyer.



  13. #13
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    This guy is an idiot.

    He shouldn't have resisted the search at ALL. There is no legal right to resist a search if the police say they have probable cause to perform a search. You have to deal with the legal right to search later, via a formal complaint and/or a lawsuit. He should have just said "You search my car, I take your house." If that didn't work, then he should have just let them do it and then sued the officers later under 1983.

    You must like your rights violated. The guy is smart, you're the idiot. One doesn't need to give in to unlawful orders else it is CONSENSUAL! If you CONSENT, get out of the car and allow the cop to search, then the act is not UNLAWFUL, GET IT?!

    Okay then, please learn the law and the basics.

    If you do get out of the car, lock the car and close it. The cop will still not search, and shouldn't search your person either else the act is consented.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I believe the courts have consistently held that the police may compel you to get out of your car during a stop, apart from the question of the legality of the search they were undertaking. So, he did screw up by refusing to exit. Still, the police response was apparently excessive, and I am in complete sympathy with the guy. His being a minister is irrelevant - they ought not to treat anyone like that unless they are responding in kind to violence.

    -ljp

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    This guy is an idiot.

    He shouldn't have resisted the search at ALL. There is no legal right to resist a search if the police say they have probable cause to perform a search. You have to deal with the legal right to search later, via a formal complaint and/or a lawsuit. He should have just said "You search my car, I take your house." If that didn't work, then he should have just let them do it and then sued the officers later under 1983.

    Chances are good the dog was being taped by their cruiser so if it really did nothing then he should win the suit. Also, he could probably get the cops to testify in court as to how fantastic and capable the dog is, and how many arrests it helped get. Then he would be able to use the fact that they found nothing illegal to show that they were lying, because if the dog is that accurate at finding contraband it clearly didn't give a signal since there was no contraband to be found in the first place. In effect the officers would end up testifying against themselves if he had a good enough lawyer.

    I'm sorry, but a dog "sniffing" or scratching it's butt the right way, without giving ME proof that it happened, I'm not going to concent either, now if the dog is barking and scratching and raising hell over something in my car, yeah I'll comply, but refusing to prove a "signal" is fishy at best.

    I've been told by a few cops the word games and more they play and they try ANYTHING to get into your car to search if they even THINK that something is in your car. Refusing to concent to search is your RIGHT, just because a police officer tells you to do something does not give him authority over you, you have rights in the united states, this isn't the USSR it's the USA

  16. #16
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    I believe the courts have consistently held that the police may compel you to get out of your car during a stop, apart from the question of the legality of the search they were undertaking. So, he did screw up by refusing to exit. Still, the police response was apparently excessive, and I am in complete sympathy with the guy. His being a minister is irrelevant - they ought not to treat anyone like that unless they are responding in kind to violence.

    -ljp
    Reference to a court case?
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  17. #17
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    I believe the courts have consistently held that the police may compel you to get out of your car during a stop, apart from the question of the legality of the search they were undertaking. So, he did screw up by refusing to exit. Still, the police response was apparently excessive, and I am in complete sympathy with the guy. His being a minister is irrelevant - they ought not to treat anyone like that unless they are responding in kind to violence.

    -ljp
    You might be referencing this ruling...
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html

    "Held:
    1. The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety."

    If a person is stopped unlawfully, then I don't expect the person to follow anything the officer says, same if I'm stopped for open carrying in the city of Pittsburgh.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    I wonder if this will set precedence on future such events based upon the unreliability of the dog, or the unreliability of the interpretation of the dog's signals.

    You can't get around the law by walking a dog around and claiming that he signaled "drugs," when none were present. at least not after the first time you pull this.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    This guy is an idiot.

    He shouldn't have resisted the search at ALL. There is no legal right to resist a search if the police say they have probable cause to perform a search. You have to deal with the legal right to search later, via a formal complaint and/or a lawsuit. He should have just said "You search my car, I take your house." If that didn't work, then he should have just let them do it and then sued the officers later under 1983.

    Chances are good the dog was being taped by their cruiser so if it really did nothing then he should win the suit. Also, he could probably get the cops to testify in court as to how fantastic and capable the dog is, and how many arrests it helped get. Then he would be able to use the fact that they found nothing illegal to show that they were lying, because if the dog is that accurate at finding contraband it clearly didn't give a signal since there was no contraband to be found in the first place. In effect the officers would end up testifying against themselves if he had a good enough lawyer.

    double post--sorry

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    This guy is an idiot.

    He shouldn't have resisted the search at ALL. There is no legal right to resist a search if the police say they have probable cause to perform a search. You have to deal with the legal right to search later, via a formal complaint and/or a lawsuit. He should have just said "You search my car, I take your house." If that didn't work, then he should have just let them do it and then sued the officers later under 1983.

    Chances are good the dog was being taped by their cruiser so if it really did nothing then he should win the suit. Also, he could probably get the cops to testify in court as to how fantastic and capable the dog is, and how many arrests it helped get. Then he would be able to use the fact that they found nothing illegal to show that they were lying, because if the dog is that accurate at finding contraband it clearly didn't give a signal since there was no contraband to be found in the first place. In effect the officers would end up testifying against themselves if he had a good enough lawyer.

    Comrade, he is not an idiot--you have the right--at least in theory anyway, to refuse to allow the police to search your person or belongings without PC or RAS. The Border patrol--or as I euphemistically call them--homeland insecurity, simply did not like being told NO, you may not search me. You have the RIGHT under the 4th Amendment to "be free from unreasonable searches and seizures"...unless of course we woke up in China this morning or in 1980s Russia where we can hear the words "comrade, your papers please--no comrade, your papers are not in order, so it is off to Lubyanka Prison with you for "cordial" questioning..."The American version of the KGB does not like being told no....

    just out of curiousity--do you like having your rights violated? Do your rights mean so little to you that you are willing to surrender them in the name of feeling some false sense of state provided "security" or "safety"?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    I believe the courts have consistently held that the police may compel you to get out of your car during a stop, apart from the question of the legality of the search they were undertaking. So, he did screw up by refusing to exit. Still, the police response was apparently excessive, and I am in complete sympathy with the guy. His being a minister is irrelevant - they ought not to treat anyone like that unless they are responding in kind to violence.

    -ljp
    You might be referencing this ruling...
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html

    "Held:
    1. The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety."

    If a person is stopped unlawfully, then I don't expect the person to follow anything the officer says, same if I'm stopped for open carrying in the city of Pittsburgh.
    so if they tell you to get out--simply LOCK your doors and take your keys with you, but don't let them in your car...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    , this isn't the USSR it's the USA
    Are you sure about that anymore?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    , this isn't the USSR it's the USA
    Are you sure about that anymore?
    just call it the USSA and get used to goosestepping and calling each other comrade and to hearing the words "your papers comrade are not in order"...



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    , this isn't the USSR it's the USA
    Are you sure about that anymore?
    All I can say is that's a good question :? but I don't think we'll be there for a while

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    MuellerBadener wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    , this isn't the USSR it's the USA
    Are you sure about that anymore?
    All I can say is that's a good question :? but I don't think we'll be there for a while
    we're already there to a large extent..

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •