• 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.

Pastor Illegally seized

RoisinDubh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
27
Location
Blacksburg/Richmond, VA, ,
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
 

Dispatcher

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
311
Location
Virginia, , USA
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?
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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 :^).
 

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
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.
 

eyesopened

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
731
Location
NOVA, Virginia, USA
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! :)
 

RoisinDubh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
27
Location
Blacksburg/Richmond, VA, ,
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 :cool: I may not post much but I'm no noob.
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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.
 

bnkrazy

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
404
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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.
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
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
 

Johnny_B

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
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
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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?
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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.
 

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
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
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
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"?
 
Top