• 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.

Never, ever fall for the "Columbo gambit" during a traffic stop

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Another success for the Columbo gambit
Another success for the Columbo gambit (see here, too), although the court does not call it that. See LaFave, The “Routine Traffic Stop” from Start to Finish: Too Much “Routine,” Not Enough Fourth Amendment, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1843, 1898 (2004) (argues officers can “obviate any and all time and scope limitations” by performing “the well-known Lt. Columbo gambit [‘one more thing ...’]”; State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P. 3d 1015, 1027 (2007); Brown v. State, 182 P.3d 624, 632 (Alaska App. 2008).

Beware of police officers saying “I just need to complete my report” or “The boys downtown require it.”
If any LEO asks for "a few more questions" ask one of your own:
[align=center]Am I free to leave?
[/align]If his answer is yes, LEAVE now or forever hold your peace!

And another thing: Shut up!
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3104.asp

Arizona Appeals Court Denies Drug Search Without Cause
Asserting constitutional rights is not a justification for detention and search, the Arizona Appeals Court ruled.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled last week that asserting one's constitutional rights does not give police sufficient cause for detention and search. The ruling treated a January 8, 2008 incident in which Alvin J. Sweeney was pulled over for allegedly following a car too closely. Arizona state police Officer Mace Craft claimed that he had timed the gap between Sweeney's car and the vehicle in front of him at 0.88 seconds. Sweeney had a Canadian driver's license and was driving a rental car with the appropriate paperwork. This, and Sweeney's nervousness, aroused Craft's suspicion.

Craft directed Sweeney out of the car and began an interrogation about where the man was headed and what he was doing in Arizona. Sweeney said he drove from New York to find a vintage Camaro, but Craft did not believe anyone could drive so far just to buy a car. Craft wrote Sweeney a warning ticket, told him to have a safe trip, but then asked for permission to search the rental car.

"No, you can't, 'cause I don't think it's in (the law), is it?" Sweeney responded.

Craft asked asked if he could have a drug dog sniff the car. Sweeney again said no and began walking away. Craft grabbed Sweeney and said he was being detained. Craft then proceeded to have the dog perform a search of the car, eventually finding a bag filled with cocaine in the trunk. The court considered whether the police officer was justified in initiating the search.

Although the court found little credibility in the precise 0.88 second timing for the following-too-closely allegation, the evidence appeared sufficient for the initial traffic stop. After Officer Craft presented the warning citation, however, the situation became less clear.

"Officer Craft used physical force to detain appellant when he grabbed his arm and ordered him to stand in front of the patrol car," Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann wrote. "There was nothing consensual about the encounter at the time it occurred... the continued detention of appellant after he declined to allow the search was an additional seizure under the Fourth Amendment... The Fourth Amendment requires that an officer have some minimal, objective justification for the detention."
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

Not that I want to see a drug dealer get away, but I am glad that there is now an Appellate Court ruling upholding the issuance of a citation ends the contact. And that asserting our Rights does not satisfy probable cause for anything!

Sounds like Mace needs to bone up on his laws and legal proceedures!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

okboomer wrote:
Not that I want to see a drug dealer get away, but I am glad that there is now an Appellate Court ruling upholding the issuance of a citation ends the contact. And that asserting our Rights does not satisfy probable cause for anything!

Sounds like Mace needs to bone up on his laws and legal proceedures!
I had the same reaction. The drug dealer needs to be busted. But, the rest of us need protection from overzealous LEOs more.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

eye95 wrote:
okboomer wrote:
Not that I want to see a drug dealer get away, but I am glad that there is now an Appellate Court ruling upholding the issuance of a citation ends the contact. And that asserting our Rights does not satisfy probable cause for anything!

Sounds like Mace needs to bone up on his laws and legal proceedures!
I had the same reaction. The drug dealer needs to be busted. But, the rest of us need protection from overzealous LEOs more.
I have no problem with the drug dealer going free if it means we retain more measures of our liberty.
 

Faceplant

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Arlington, Washington, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Sweeney had a Canadian driver's license and was driving a rental car with the appropriate paperwork. This, and Sweeney's nervousness, aroused Craft's suspicion.
I am far from a legal professional but I am wondering if he was actually an american citizen. If not, does the constitution apply to him?
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

According to the Obama administration, yes, they do ... that is why Gitmo detainees are going to be tried in NYC (maybe).

Other than that,IDK IANAL ...
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

The Constitution must apply to everyone. What happens if it didn't? The cops could stop anyone for any reason and demand papers proving you're a citizen.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Constitutional protections should be afforded to everyone in the U.S. who is dealing with law enforcement, Americans or no.

In another vein, since it isn't (or, at least, shouldn't be) a law enforcement issue, constitutional legal protections don't necessarily apply to those making war on the U.S. Prisoners taken during war, can be held until the end of hostilities without a trial. If the government chooses to make the combatant's actions a law enforcement issue (for example, if a prison term or the death penalty is sought), then the prisoner will receive due process protections similar to those residents get.

IIRC, six Germans were tried, convicted, and hanged within about six months of arriving in the U.S. to do some nefarious stuff without the benefit of uniform. Almost all other Germans captured during WWII were held in prisons, without trial, for the duration of the war. Of course, some real nasties were tried as war criminals after the war was over, but that was not in our jurisdiction.
 

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
270
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
okboomer wrote:
Not that I want to see a drug dealer get away, but I am glad that there is now an Appellate Court ruling upholding the issuance of a citation ends the contact. And that asserting our Rights does not satisfy probable cause for anything!

Sounds like Mace needs to bone up on his laws and legal proceedures!
I had the same reaction. The drug dealer needs to be busted. But, the rest of us need protection from overzealous LEOs more.
+ 1
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Craft asked asked if he could have a drug dog sniff the car. Sweeney again said no and began walking away. Craft grabbed Sweeney and said he was being detained. Craft then proceeded to have the dog perform a search of the car, eventually finding a bag filled with cocaine in the trunk. The court considered whether the police officer was justified in initiating the search.

Although the court found little credibility in the precise 0.88 second timing for the following-too-closely allegation, the evidence appeared sufficient for the initial traffic stop. After Officer Craft presented the warning citation, however, the situation became less clear.

"Officer Craft used physical force to detain appellant when he grabbed his arm and ordered him to stand in front of the patrol car," Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann wrote. "There was nothing consensual about the encounter at the time it occurred... the continued detention of appellant after he declined to allow the search was an additional seizure under the Fourth Amendment... The Fourth Amendment requires that an officer have some minimal, objective justification for the detention."
What is it about"No" that Officer Craft didn't understand?


Craft either:

a) didn't understand the 4th Amendment, or

b) didn't care about the 4th Amendment.

He needs retraining.

Does an officer who makes such a blatant mistake ever get some grief/career damage for doing so? Will Craft have to pay any significant price for his error? Anybody know?
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
eye95 wrote:
okboomer wrote:
Not that I want to see a drug dealer get away, but I am glad that there is now an Appellate Court ruling upholding the issuance of a citation ends the contact. And that asserting our Rights does not satisfy probable cause for anything!

Sounds like Mace needs to bone up on his laws and legal proceedures!
I had the same reaction. The drug dealer needs to be busted. But, the rest of us need protection from overzealous LEOs more.
I have no problem with the drug dealer going free if it means we retain more measures of our liberty.

Exactly!

Detention when free to go after refusal of consent unreasonable

The Lt. Columbo Gambit fails here, and the defendant refused to consent. The stop was over, and he was walking back to his car when the officer called out to him. After he refused consent, and started to walk back to his car, the officer grabbed his arm and detained him, and the officer called for a drug dog. The continuation of the stop was without reasonable suspicion. State v. Sweeney, 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 42 (March 30, 2010)*:
P14 In $404,905.00, the Eighth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated when an officer conducted a dog sniff of the defendant's vehicle after the traffic stop was completed but before the defendant's license had been returned to him. 182 F.3d at 648-49. There, the driver did not object to a sniff of his car's exterior. The court reasoned that a two-minute delay to complete a dog sniff was a de minimis intrusion on the defendant's liberty. Id. at 649. In Box, this court held that a brief post-traffic-stop detention to accommodate a dog sniff was de minimis. 205 Ariz. at 499, P 24, 73 P.3d at 630.

P15 We cannot conclude that the post-traffic-stop detention in this case was de minimis. Unlike in $404,905.00 and Box, Officer Craft waited until the arrival of a second officer (whose presence he had not requested until after Appellant declined to consent to a search) before conducting the sniff. Moreover, Officer Craft used physical force to detain Appellant when he grabbed his arm and ordered him to stand in front of the patrol car. And unlike $404,905.00 and Box, there was nothing consensual about the encounter at the time it occurred. Because we conclude that the intrusion was not de minimis, we turn our examination to whether the duration of the detention was reasonable.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Oh, I get it. We now have an additional level or standard with regard to the 4th Amendment: de minimus.

So, now it goes something like:

  • de minimus seizure
  • unreasonable
  • reasonable suspicion
  • probable cause
  • just cause we wanta
Or, perhaps I'm being a little redundant. Perhaps de minimus and just cause we wanta are really the same standard.

Anybody know where de minimus appears in the 4th Amendment? My copy doesn't mention it. What a pain it is to use an incomplete reference.
 

Faceplant

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Arlington, Washington, USA
imported post

Even if it is a rental there is the possession aspect about the drugs.

Rental vehicles are normally cleaned out before they get rented again.

In my experience anyway.
 

KansasKraut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
116
Location
Verona, WI
imported post

Yeah, if you're driving the vehicle, you are in possession of it and everything inside of it. So if you're renting a car, it's caveat emptor, I guess. How many times on Cops have you seen someone say "this isn't my car" and then the police find guns/drugs/gimp suit and arrest that person? I mean, 99 out of a hundred people who claim ignorance of something illegal in the car are full of "it," but I'm sure more than one person has been busted for being "in possession" of something they didn't even know was there.

For the record, I think this Canadian is one of the 99 out of a hundred, but once the citation was issued the stop should have ended.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Faceplant wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
Sweeney had a Canadian driver's license and was driving a rental car with the appropriate paperwork. This, and Sweeney's nervousness, aroused Craft's suspicion.
I am far from a legal professional but I am wondering if he was actually an american citizen. If not, does the constitution apply to him?
Yes, in our borders.



okboomer wrote:
According to the Obama administration, yes, they do ... that is why Gitmo detainees are going to be tried in NYC (maybe).

Other than that,IDK IANAL ...
Not "according to the Obama administration...."
According to SCOTUS. I will try and find the specific.
 

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Faceplant wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
Sweeney had a Canadian driver's license and was driving a rental car with the appropriate paperwork. This, and Sweeney's nervousness, aroused Craft's suspicion.
I am far from a legal professional but I am wondering if he was actually an american citizen. If not, does the constitution apply to him?

The Constitution applies to everyone legally within our boundries. Citizenship has never been a requirement.
 

LadyGreenEyes

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
35
Location
, ,
imported post

okboomer wrote:
Not that I want to see a drug dealer get away, but I am glad that there is now an Appellate Court ruling upholding the issuance of a citation ends the contact. And that asserting our Rights does not satisfy probable cause for anything!

Sounds like Mace needs to bone up on his laws and legal proceedures!
Not to mention, he might actually not have placed the drugs there. Sure, that's the most likely scenario, but it's possible another customer did, or even an employee of the rental car company. All it would take is a less_than-thorough cleaning for something to be missed. The way the drug laws are, the man could potentially lose property, all on an illegal search and seizure.
 
Top