Video of Bad stop of CCW holder in Ohio

[Fishslayer]

What about it? You look at the video and you assume the driver is guilty of SOMETHING, yet absent any valid proof (not just a hunch), he is supposed to be presumed INNOCENT.

You obviously don't get it. The guy was illegally parked!
Don't know how they do things in your neck of the woods but that'll get ya a caved in skull, 10 to the chest and future harrassment in Canton, OH. They take their parking enforcement right seriously, they do.

 

[OIF2]

You obviously don't get it. The guy was illegally parked!
Don't know how they do things in your neck of the woods but that'll get ya a caved in skull, 10 to the chest and future harrassment in Canton, OH. They take their parking enforcement right seriously, they do.

I've seen worse in Los Angeles.
Bob

 

[cshoff]

OK, not to get into a pee-pee contest here, but again, you're wrong, brother.

Just exactly what is it you are saying I am wrong about? Are you saying that a LEO does NOT have to meet established RAS or PC standards when conducting searches, seizures, detainment, and arrests? I'm not sure where you worked, but the departments in my state generally don't tolerate "make it up as you go" law enforcement by their officers for very long. Those officers usually end up having to find a new career in short order.

How many people have you stopped, or arrested? I did it every day for 24 years, in both plainclothes and uniform. And I was in court almost daily for mostly preliminary hearings on stuff you know not much about (probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc), in a very liberal state with mostly VERY rights-friendly judges. Cops work on what they see and find, and the court system either backs that up or dismisses the case. Happens all the time. Good cops are suspicious, look for PC, make the stop and arrest, then articulate what was found in an arrest report. The DA reviews the case, and it MAY go for a prelim, if the arrest was within the law. That's how it works.

I'm not sure who said it didn't? You are so quick to try to point out that you are right, and anyone who isn't or hasn't been a LEO is wrong, that I don't really think you bother reading what has been posted. I stated a fact, ie: RAS and PC are actual legal standards that have been established by courts. I stated another fact, ie: absent facts that support RAS or PC, the inquiry is legally over (whether the LEO chooses to terminate it or not).

Of course, this requires an informed citizen. At the point that the inquiry turns into a fishing expedition, a citizen with a shred of common sense would shut up and exercise his/her 5th Amendment rights and refuse to consent to any searches of person or effects. A person who will NOT exercise his/her rights (to keep his/her mouth shut) should expect a LEO to continue the inquiry, and will most likely incriminate him/herself at some point. And I don't begrudge the LEO for sticking with it if that happens.

All this swirls around Officer Safety, another thing that enters into what the street copper does. Like others have said, sometimes you KNOW the bad guy is dirty, but you lety him go, because there isn't enough to arrest. But you let him know you're watching. Would you REALLY want that citizen in your club?

I am well aware of the concept of "officer safety" and the extraordinary measures an officer can take under that guise. I have no problem with that as long as it isn't abused. I am also well aware that officers routinely have to let someone go who they "know" is dirty, but don't have enough on to make an arrest (oops, there are those pesky old legal standards I was talking about above - looks like you finally acknowledged that they do, indeed, exist).

As far as that Ohio cop goes, I stated 2 or 3 times he was out of control and would pay a price (probably firing and a lawsuit). What else do you want? Shouldn't he have the same rights as everyone else?
Bob

Yes, he should. And yes, he does. Unfortunately for him, there is irrefutable evidence against him. It isn't hearsay, it isn't speculation, and it isn't a fabrication. The same cannot be said for the driver (at this point).

 

[OIF2]

I'm retired now from the LAPD; I'm really enjoying my retirement (back on active duty in the US Army). Two combat tours down, one more to go. As far as my being right, well yes, I am. I did the court thing daily, under scrutiny, challenged by defense lawyers and a judge. My reports and arrests were looked at by an LAPD Watch Commander, Investigating Detective, DA and defense. Later in my career I looked at younger coppers' reports and rejected some for poor reasonable suspicion or PC, as a Supervising Detective. I think I know what I'm talking about; you don't. Again, the Ohio cop was wrong; no one argues that point. A guy trolling for whores and dope (you don't need "proof" on a car stop; illegal parking, the area and the time of day, etc are all you need to investigate) isn't what I think is a stellar citizen. Maybe I'm old fashioned on that. Let's get back to talking about S&W revolvers.
Bob

 

[7003006]

Oh yeah, I think I saw the Jobs Fair poster on the telephone pole I always go looking for work on dark streets at night.

I believe he said something about a job "sweeping",possibly parking lots.When better to sweep a parking lot than in the middle of the night when they are empty?
The fact is while there is a chance he's lying there is also a chance events transpired exactly as he claimed...Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[ladder13]

I'm retired now from the LAPD; I'm really enjoying my retirement (back on active duty in the US Army). Two combat tours down, one more to go. As far as my being right, well yes, I am. I did the court thing daily, under scrutiny, challenged by defense lawyers and a judge. My reports and arrests were looked at by an LAPD Watch Commander, Investigating Detective, DA and defense. Later in my career I looked at younger copper's reports and rejected some for poor reasonable suspicion or PC, as an Investigating Detective. I think I know what I'm talking about; you don't. Again, the Ohio cop was wrong; no one argues that point. A guy trolling for whores and dope (you don't need "proof" on a car stop; illegal parking, the area and the time of day, etc are all you need to investigate) isn't what I think is a stellar citizen. Maybe I'm old fashioned on that. Let's get back to talking about S&W revolvers.
Bob

Thank you for your service, stay safe.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I once saw a cop keep his cool when a beligerant person not paying her fare on the train really acted out of line.

My guess is that for every bad cop there are many good ones.

However, this video really stinks and I hope the department does the right thing.

 

[OIF2]

I once saw a cop keep his cool when a beligerant person not paying her fare on the train really acted out of line.

My guess is that for every bad cop there are many good ones.

However, this video really stinks and I hope the department does the right thing.

They will.
Bob

 

[Kanewpadle]

Ok you guys, how long are we going to beat this dead horse?

We all know and agree that the permit holder was suspicious and illegaly parked. And he was a dummy to put it nicely.

IF the cop would have gone about it the right way, he may have found another reason for an arrest. It wouldn't have only been about the permit.

The cop let his emotions and his temper dictate the direction of the stop. It went from bad to worse quickly. And it could have been worse for the two cops.

I don't care if you have reasonable cause, a suspicion, or a hunch. It doesn't matter what you may THINK. There is never a reason for any cop to act in this manner.

Even if the guy confessed to picking up a prostitute, he still doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

There is never an excuse for not doing the job right.

 

[cmort666]

Even if the guy confessed to picking up a prostitute, he still doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

The up side is that this is probably the stake through the heart of the notification requirement in Ohio.

 

[CelticSire]

They can frisk people, not vehicles.

While I agree with the rest of your post, this part is not true. Police officers are allowed to frisk vehicles. If documentation is needed, PM and I will provide. But Michigan v. Long is a good start.

 

[cshoff]

I'm retired now from the LAPD; I'm really enjoying my retirement (back on active duty in the US Army). Two combat tours down, one more to go. As far as my being right, well yes, I am. I did the court thing daily, under scrutiny, challenged by defense lawyers and a judge. My reports and arrests were looked at by an LAPD Watch Commander, Investigating Detective, DA and defense. Later in my career I looked at younger coppers' reports and rejected some for poor reasonable suspicion or PC, as a Supervising Detective. I think I know what I'm talking about; you don't.

I think that is the problem here. You *THINK* you know what you are talking about, but you can't even keep up with your own words. You argued that a "street cop" wasn't bound by the legal standards of RAS and/or PC (remember your "but again, you're wrong" statement?). Yet twice now, you have contradicted yourself on that statement.

I then stated in a subsequent post that RAS and PC are actual legal standards that have been established by courts and that absent facts that support RAS or PC, the inquiry is legally over (whether the LEO chooses to terminate it or not). You come back with this "I think I know what I am talking about; you don't" nonsense immediately after the sentence in which you yourself proved my point: "I looked at younger coppers' reports and rejected some for poor reasonable suspicion or PC". Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Take a minute and jump down off the horse, man. We actually agree on these points. I think you are trying so hard to interject your experience as an LEO into the picture to prove that you are somehow right and everyone else is wrong, that you're not willing to read what others are actually saying.

Again, the Ohio cop was wrong; no one argues that point. A guy trolling for whores and dope (you don't need "proof" on a car stop; illegal parking, the area and the time of day, etc are all you need to investigate) isn't what I think is a stellar citizen. Maybe I'm old fashioned on that. Let's get back to talking about S&W revolvers.
Bob

Again, I agree.

 

[jtpur]

While I agree with the rest of your post, this part is not true. Police officers are allowed to frisk vehicles. If documentation is needed, PM and I will provide. But Michigan v. Long is a good start.

Makes no sense to "frisk" a car with the occupant still inside and who has not been patted down for weapons. While everyone assumes the CCW guy was looking for drugs or prostitutes, here is one to ponder. Perhaps he was trying to set himself up for a robbery so he could use his new permit to rid the world of bad guys. Well if you want to assume he was looking for drugs you can assume this too. The issue here is simple. Did he notify the officer he was armed under Ohio Law.When is he obligated to Notify? I contend the cop was not even interested in the driver until some 5-6 minutes into this stop.Again Im going to assert that the conduct of the citizen is not what we should focus on here. The conduct is on the actions of the police officer. His tactics were poor, and his personal conduct was outrageous.

To the person who chided me for determining the cop was guilty until proven innocent. I don't get your point. I agree the cop is innocent of "Acting under color of Law to deprive of civil rights" until a jury convicts him of that charge. I agree he is innocent of "Making threats of violence" until proven guilty. He is innocent of "False imprisonment" until proven guilty. Actually he has not even been charged with those crimes......yet.....but police misconduct does not carry the same "innocent until proven guilty standard" and frankly I dont know what Canton's definition of "Conduct Unbecomming an Officer" might be, so until I hear their standards, I will assume those interdepartmental charges have not yet been proved.. But as "joe citizen" who watched this video and as a retired guy I am appalled.

 

[OIF2]

I think that is the problem here. You *THINK* you know what you are talking about, but you can't even keep up with your own words. You argued that a "street cop" wasn't bound by the legal standards of RAS and/or PC (remember your "but again, you're wrong" statement?). Yet twice now, you have contradicted yourself on that statement.

I then stated in a subsequent post that RAS and PC are actual legal standards that have been established by courts and that absent facts that support RAS or PC, the inquiry is legally over (whether the LEO chooses to terminate it or not). You come back with this "I think I know what I am talking about; you don't" nonsense immediately after the sentence in which you yourself proved my point: "I looked at younger coppers' reports and rejected some for poor reasonable suspicion or PC". Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Take a minute and jump down off the horse, man. We actually agree on these points. I think you are trying so hard to interject your experience as an LEO into the picture to prove that you are somehow right and everyone else is wrong, that you're not willing to read what others are actually saying.



Again, I agree.

Never argued that. I am right though, and I like the view from the horse. Never said cops weren't bound by RAS or PC. Guess you're too busy typing a response to read what I said about it. Hope your next traffic stop goes well.
Bob

 

[CelticSire]

Makes no sense to "frisk" a car with the occupant still inside and who has not been patted down for weapons.

And that would not be a vehicle frisk. And I didn't say it was. What I said was that police can frisk vehicles.

 

[redlevel]

While I agree with the rest of your post, this part is not true. Police officers are allowed to frisk vehicles. If documentation is needed, PM and I will provide. But Michigan v. Long is a good start.

But neither Terry v. Ohio or Michigan v. Long allows frisks without reasonable suspicion. It might not sound like much of a distinction, but it is what makes us different from Nazi Germany or Red China.

I don't have any problem with officers conducting legal searches, including Terry stops, and the extension of the Terry ruling in the case you mentioned. What I have problems with is officers going fishing, and particularly using the possession of a carry permit as a reason for the fishing trip. In GA the court has ruled that possession of a firearm does not meet the standard of reasonable articulable suspicion in order to conduct a search.

Here is a link to an interesting ruling from a US District Court in June, 2010. The Court pretty well defined what is not RAS, at least as it applied to this incident. An officer's hunch doesn't meet the standard. This is not the same Jones as the one in the Georgia case.

8th Circuit United States v. Jones - Firearms in Public and Reasonable Suspicion

 

[Lost Lake]

That's a good read Redlevel. Thanks!!!

 

[jtpur]

And that would not be a vehicle frisk. And I didn't say it was. What I said was that police can frisk vehicles.

I did not disagree that they could not, but what Im saying is that it makes no sense to "frisk" a car without removing the occupants first and frisking them....if they are clean it makes no sense to put them back into a vehicle that may hold a weapon unless you look for a weapon in the vehicle....but you have to consider that once they are out of the vehicle, you as an officer can prevent them from returing to it until you are finished with the stop if you ask them to retrievie something from the vehicle after the person was frisked it makes sense to check the easy reaches inside a car, but this car was "frisked" with an occupant in the front seat and that was a search not a frisk in my view....He searched the back seat and I did not see anyone get out of the back seat and it would have been real hard to reach under the back seat and retrieve a weapon from the front seat...Not impossible but damn hard.....

 

[bubbiesdad]

Maybe the angry oficer shouldn't be put completely out of work. They always need someone to clean the toilets at the jail.

 

[CelticSire]

They can frisk people, not vehicles.

I did not disagree that they could not,

Yes, you did. I'm not saying that what the officer did made sense, I'm not saying that it was a frisk, and I'm not saying that how he did what he did is logical by legal standards, officer safety standards, or any other standards. In fact, it wasn't a frisk under any standards that I can think of. However, the statement was made that police officers cannot frisk vehicles. I was simply clarifying that yes, police officers can and do legally frisk vehicles. In fact, putting, or intending to put, an individual back into the frisked vehicle is part of what constitutes a legal frisk, and yes, it has to be based on reasonable, articulable suspicion. And, no, the mere fact that the individual possesses a License to Carry, CHL, CWP, or any other LEGAL right to carry a weapon does not constitute that suspicion. In fact, in Texas, no permit is required to carry a firearm in a vehicle. So even the presence of a handgun BY ITSELF would most likely would not be considered reasonable suspicion.