THE LAW and how to avoid the Coppers! and other ranting

[Grappler13]

I posted this in another thread where I was asking about getting gear tested at a lab often mentioned here. Anyway...here is some legal opining about getting your gear tested. Additionally, I've added some advise at the end to stay out of hte way of the POLICE!

Also, in order to avoid the feds, use 1) a secure email address and instead of your name, use a number. Besides, even if you send the lab your name, the Feds would 1) have to have an existing warrant to be monitoring the lab's receipts, 2) actually secure a warrant based upon what amounts to hearsay evidence (like your having sent the sample int he first place, and 3) even if the lab told the feds, they probably wouldn't care and even if they did, they would still have to get a warrant and just because the lab says you sent them a sample is probably not going to fly with the federal magistrate isssuing warrants. In order for a warant to be issued, the officer seekeing the warrant must show probable cause (see the 4th Amendment to the Constitution) and the warrant must be plead with particularity. For example, 1ml of test-e sent to a lab would probably not support a warrant in that the officer would not be able to plead particularity: He's got "some" test-e at his house is not even close to sufficient to support a warrant.

Now, if you sent 200 samples of test-e.......that's a different story but the 4th A. only allows searches of persons homes/ cars/ and places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy with probable cause and that standard is pretty high.

Now, I've hijacked my own damned thread so I'll continue lest fellow bros think they can get careless. 1) Police may search cars, motorcycles and YOU incident to lawful arrest so if you get a DUI, the cops can adn may search your car without a warrant. 2) Reasonable suspicion gives an officer the right to subject you to a "Terrry" frisk which will let him pat you down to check for weapons and if he feels a big fat vial of test then you're busted. Reasonable Suspicion is only present where an officer can articulate circumstances that lead him to reasonably believe that a crime is being committed or has just been committed....so keep your pins in your bag!

[guns626]

Interesting read

[Grappler13]

Interesting read

If the bros have legal questions about search and seizure, maybe I could put together a cheat sheet to keep on hand.

[MotorBoatin' SOB]

sure do it.

[binny]

thanx for the info

[doghunter]

and is there any truth to the fact that u can not get busted for raw hormone before its converted into a compound gear , i heard this a while back .

[IBdmfkr]

That's false.

[doghunter]

so there is just no way around it once u get caght with it huh

[Grappler13]

so there is just no way around it once u get caght with it huh

No offense to our men in blue however 1) they normally have better things to do than bust a guy with a personal stash of gear and 2) they typically **** up a search everytime they do one UNLESS........you consent. Never, never, never consent to a search. If the cop says "well, I'll just have to call in for a warrant," you reply "yes sir/ma'am that's what you'll need to search my car/house/boat/dog/purse/gymbag/etc......

You've been warned so no whining if you allow a cop to search you sans warrant.

[ludakris9]

I agree with that thread bro!

[Grappler13]

Friend just got an order in the mail today and he called me from his car to tell me about it. I know it's exciting but keep that shit wrapped up until you get home.

[monstercojones]

No offense to our men in blue however 1) they normally have better things to do than bust a guy with a personal stash of gear and 2) they typically **** up a search everytime they do one UNLESS........you consent. Never, never, never consent to a search. If the cop says "well, I'll just have to call in for a warrant," you reply "yes sir/ma'am that's what you'll need to search my car/house/boat/dog/purse/gymbag/etc......

You've been warned so no whining if you allow a cop to search you sans warrant.

smart. NEVER consent to a search. even if you have nothing to hide, don't make their job any easier. relinquishing your rights is the easiest and quickest way to be pinched.

[Tren Bull]

damn, i thought you were talking about physically running from the cops. ive got some input on that. creeping around parked cars as 5-0 rolls past you works wonders. and if you know there are lots of cops in the area looking for you, its best to hide somewhere for an hour or two until they give up. and most importantly, if you are stuck without a ride in an area where cops are looknig for you, do not walk down the main road. creep through residential areas, always staying near cover cause you never know when those damn cops will roll up on you. its VERY important to be aware of your surroundings... never venture far away from good cover, unless you want to get handcuffed and thrown in the back of a squad car

[sooners04]

Be aware of the small violations that will warrant a cop to legally search your car. Ex: In my state no proof of insurance is a misdemeanor crime as is having only one headlight working. Therefore the officer can and will search your car if he chooses to cite you. Just because you don't go to jail doesn't mean the police cannot search you or your property. A citation can be in leiu of an arrest. Meaning that you could just get a citation for a misdemeanor but the officer still has the right to search incident to arrest. Each state is different so know your traffic laws especially, those are the ones that will getcha everytime. Also be careful with your cell phones in your pockets. We (Police) have seen cell phones that have been converted to knives and guns. Now that we know that we can feel or see a cell phone and articulate that it could be a weapon, now we have reasonable suspicion to search. K-9's DO NOT and CANNOT sniff AAS. Most police officers do not know what steroids look like or the names of them unless they have used or studied them for some reason. Most street cops aren't that educated on AAS.

[sooners04]

[QUOTE=Grappler13] Also, in order to avoid the feds, use 1) a secure email address and instead of your name, use a number. Besides, even if you send the lab your name, the Feds would 1) have to have an existing warrant to be monitoring the lab's receipts, TRUE 2) actually secure a warrant based upon what amounts to hearsay evidence (like your having sent the sample int he first place, and 3) even if the lab told the feds, they probably wouldn't care TRUE and even if they did, they would still have to get a warrant and just because the lab says you sent them a sample is probably not going to fly with the federal magistrate isssuing warrants. NOT NECCESSARLY TRUE In order for a warant to be issued, the officer seekeing the warrant must show probable cause (PROBABLE CAUSE MEANS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE XXXX) (see the 4th Amendment to the Constitution) and the warrant must be plead with particularity. For example, 1ml of test-e sent to a lab would probably not support a warrant in that the officer would not be able to plead particularity: He's got "some" test-e at his house is not even close to sufficient to support a warrant. FALSE, ALL THE OFFICER NEEDS TO PROVE IS THAT IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT PERSON XXXX HAS TEST-E AT HIS HOUSE. THE OFFICER WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO LOOK WHEREVER A REASONABLE PLACE TEST-E COULD BE.
Now, if you sent 200 samples of test-e.......that's a different story but the 4th A. only allows searches of persons homes/ cars/ and places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy with probable cause and that standard is pretty high. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RESOANBOLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AT A LAB, SO IF THE LAB GETS BUSTED YOU CAN TOO.[QUOTE]

[Grappler13]

Be aware of the small violations that will warrant a cop to legally search your car. Ex: In my state no proof of insurance is a misdemeanor crime as is having only one headlight working. Therefore the officer can and will search your car if he chooses to cite you. Just because you don't go to jail doesn't mean the police cannot search you or your property. A citation can be in leiu of an arrest. Meaning that you could just get a citation for a misdemeanor but the officer still has the right to search incident to arrest. Each state is different so know your traffic laws especially, those are the ones that will getcha everytime. Also be careful with your cell phones in your pockets. We (Police) have seen cell phones that have been converted to knives and guns. Now that we know that we can feel or see a cell phone and articulate that it could be a weapon, now we have reasonable suspicion to search. K-9's DO NOT and CANNOT sniff AAS. Most police officers do not know what steroids look like or the names of them unless they have used or studied them for some reason. Most street cops aren't that educated on AAS.

Search and seizure law is not state deteminative but rather stems from the 4th amendment to the constitution. Jurisprudence is VERY CLEAR on search and seizure and differing opinions between federal districts are almost always reviewd to provide the populous with standard across the board rules for search. A search incident to arrest must accompany an arrest: PURE AND SIMPLE. Just be cause he could arrest you does NOT give the cop a right to search your car. HE must arrest you to search your car and you are right as to a misdemeanor being arrestable, but again, just because he could arrest you does not give him the right to search your car. PERIOD. Unless he places you under arest, he MAY NOT search your car without a warrant supported by probable cause or incident to arrest.

[Grappler13]

[QUOTE=sooners04][QUOTE=Grappler13] Also, in order to avoid the feds, use 1) a secure email address and instead of your name, use a number. Besides, even if you send the lab your name, the Feds would 1) have to have an existing warrant to be monitoring the lab's receipts, TRUE 2) actually secure a warrant based upon what amounts to hearsay evidence (like your having sent the sample int he first place, and 3) even if the lab told the feds, they probably wouldn't care TRUE and even if they did, they would still have to get a warrant and just because the lab says you sent them a sample is probably not going to fly with the federal magistrate isssuing warrants. NOT NECCESSARLY TRUE In order for a warant to be issued, the officer seekeing the warrant must show probable cause (PROBABLE CAUSE MEANS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE XXXX) Actually Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed (see the 4th Amendment to the Constitution) and the warrant must be plead with particularity. For example, 1ml of test-e sent to a lab would probably not support a warrant in that the officer would not be able to plead particularity: He's got "some" test-e at his house is not even close to sufficient to support a warrant. [B]FALSE, ALL THE OFFICER NEEDS TO PROVE IS THAT IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT PERSON XXXX HAS TEST-E AT HIS HOUSE. THE OFFICER WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO LOOK WHEREVER A REASONABLE PLACE TEST-E COULD BE.[/B] Why is a lab telling a plice officer that you sent him a sample of test-e make it reasonable that you have the rest at your house. Your house is not whatsoever associated with the sample and your sole residence at a particular place does not tie you to hearsay evidence. Even if the warrant were issued and the cops did find the test-e, a 1L could beat it in court.
Now, if you sent 200 samples of test-e.......that's a different story but the 4th A. only allows searches of persons homes/ cars/ and places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy with probable cause and that standard is pretty high. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RESOANBOLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AT A LAB, SO IF THE LAB GETS BUSTED YOU CAN TOO. That's why you use a # and a secure email.

[stee]

YOu guys should live over here you done need to worry about any of that shit.
yeah GH is a no no but if you do have it they can only do you for posession if it is under a certain ammount. the ammount you need to be charged for possession with intent to supply is pretty big so even a hardcore user is pretty safe.

[stee]

and warrants are a little bit more complex here too.
its kinda interesting for the guy who looks to dealing and stuff because i have a mate in work who is a magistrate and he was telling me the guidlenes they have to follow to issue a warrant. and their is other las that do not allow the police to use any video or audio eveidence in court, including phone taps etc, they can only use them to aid their research in issuing a warrant

[sooners04]

Search and seizure law is not state deteminative but rather stems from the 4th amendment to the constitution. Jurisprudence is VERY CLEAR on search and seizure and differing opinions between federal districts are almost always reviewd to provide the populous with standard across the board rules for search. A search incident to arrest must accompany an arrest: PURE AND SIMPLE. Just be cause he could arrest you does NOT give the cop a right to search your car. HE must arrest you to search your car and you are right as to a misdemeanor being arrestable, but again, just because he could arrest you does not give him the right to search your car. PERIOD. Unless he places you under arest, FALSE FALSE FALSE he MAY NOT search your car without a warrant supported by probable cause or incident to arrest. A POLICE OFFICER CAN SEARCH YOUR CAR WHEN ISSUING A CITAITON FOR A MISDEMEANOR CRIME THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY WARRANT GOING TO JAIL. I HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR OVER 3 YEARS NOW AND NOT ONE TIME HAS A CASE BEEN DROPPED OR HAVE I HAD A CIVIL LAWSUIT FOR VIOLATION OF SOMEONES 4TH AMENDMENT.

Just to clarify that, I am a police officer and deal with the 4th Amendment EVERYDAY at work.

[BARLOW]

heres another way , just keep to yourself lol.....

put that shit in your personal file and dont talk bout it. only for you to know...

but good info on the legal facts non the less

[Grappler13]

Just to clarify that, I am a police officer and deal with the 4th Amendment EVERYDAY at work.

PO's often use terms like "make PC" or the such. WHilst you may have been doing the searches without arresting your perps, you are in violation of the Constitution. Either your perps have shitty attorneys or your judiciary is lax or is just ignorant of the law as it exists. You're a PO, I'm a Constitutional lawyer who disagrees with our nations drug policy.

Definition of incident: Something contingent on or related to something else. YOU MAY NOT LEGALLY SEARCH ONE'S CAR UNLESS YOU ARREST THEM. PERIOD. IF YOU DO IT, ANYTHING YOU FIND IS TAINTED AND INADMISSABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. More power to you but if you cited me for a misdemeanor and searched my car, I'd have your badge. I want you to keep up the good work but I'd be careful: as a PO, you are responsible for knowing the law as you enforce it. Stay safe out there and get the bad guys........not the perpetrators of victiless crimes.

[IBdmfkr]

Grappler.. You are saying you must be arrested and then they search your car for it to be admissable in court?

[sooners04]

Like I said me and thousands of PO's in this state do it EVERYDAY and NEVER once has any civil suit been brought about it. If I cite someone for Driving Under Suspension which is a misdemeanor, I will search their person and property and vehicle (incident to arrest) but not take them to jail. It is called citation in lieu of arrest. My dispostion of my traffic stop would be, I'm in service with an ARREST street released. I find it hard to believe that you are a lawyer since you are terribly mistaken about arrest search and seizure.

[thegodfather]

Like I said me and thousands of PO's in this state do it EVERYDAY and NEVER once has any civil suit been brought about it. If I cite someone for Driving Under Suspension which is a misdemeanor, I will search their person and property and vehicle (incident to arrest) but not take them to jail. It is called citation in lieu of arrest. My dispostion of my traffic stop would be, I'm in service with an ARREST street released. I find it hard to believe that you are a lawyer since you are terribly mistaken about arrest search and seizure.

Well, I feel inclined to chime in since one, im a pre-law student, and two, i've been harassed by police on several occasions and filed numerous internal affairs complaints.

Its the police officer's job to try and bend the law, or toe the line as much as he possibly can. They often use peoples ignorance of their rights or the law in order to strong arm them to get the desired results. For instance, on a motor vehicle stop, the officer can ask the driver to step out of the vehicle for his safety, regardless of ANY probably cause. He, however, cannot ask any of the passengers to step out of the car without a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or that his safety is in danger. Once the driver is removed, the cop is then entitled to do a patty search, which is a basic pat down of driver but the officer may not enter any pockets on the drivers garments, unless, he feels something that could resemble a weapon or drugs/drug paraphanalia.

Now, as far as warrants being issued. The criteria for which warrants are issued are revised EVERY SINGLE DAY. Everytime that a judge issues a warrant a new prescedent is set. This means the criteria is constantly being revised, however, if the representing attorney feels the warrant was issued un-constitutionally, he can challenge the grounds for which it was issued on and have everything resulting from the warrant thrown out in court (fruit from the tainted tree, like you spoke about earlier). This means, that the grounds for issuing a warrant can subsequently get revised in the opposite direction as well. So the police, judges/magistrates,& defense attorneys are all walking a fine line and all trying to push for their own interests.

Now, in some ways, being pulled over can be considered an arrest. Although while being pulled over you are not actually under arrest by the officer, you are NOT free to go. So technically by the standards of the law, you are being detained and denied your freedom at that time. You are however, not officially under arrest of the officer until you are in handcuffs or marandized.

[thegodfather]

PO's often use terms like "make PC" or the such. WHilst you may have been doing the searches without arresting your perps, you are in violation of the Constitution. Either your perps have shitty attorneys or your judiciary is lax or is just ignorant of the law as it exists. You're a PO, I'm a Constitutional lawyer who disagrees with our nations drug policy.

Definition of incident: Something contingent on or related to something else. YOU MAY NOT LEGALLY SEARCH ONE'S CAR UNLESS YOU ARREST THEM. PERIOD. IF YOU DO IT, ANYTHING YOU FIND IS TAINTED AND INADMISSABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. More power to you but if you cited me for a misdemeanor and searched my car, I'd have your badge. I want you to keep up the good work but I'd be careful: as a PO, you are responsible for knowing the law as you enforce it. Stay safe out there and get the bad guys........not the perpetrators of victiless crimes.

This is not always true. In some places, they bend the law such that, they may search your vehicle any place that you could REASONABLY, access a weapon to harm the officer. Therefore, your entire front passenger area, and you backseat, since you could easily access that for a weapon. However, if you are driving an SUV with a 3rd row, it would not be concievable your arms could reach back that far, therefore, the search is limited to the 2nd row where you could reach for a weapon. Also, locked compartments or containers in the vehicle are excluded from the search, as well as the glove compartment if locked, and the trunk of the vehicle. Now, if anything ELSE is found during the search for a possible weapon, that can in fact be used against you, and anything in plain sight can also be used against you, but that is a whole other topic all together.

[sooners04]

True but we do have to be able to articulate WHY we think they would or do have a weapon there.

[Grappler13]

Grappler.. You are saying you must be arrested and then they search your car for it to be admissable in court?

It is called "Search Incident to Arrest," not search in anticipation of finding something upon which to base an arrest. If there is probable cause, which we have defined earlier, then an arrest may be made and a search of the car be made. Remember, all of this is subject to review for Constitutionality after the fact. Your atty will argue that no PC existed and then EVERYTHING is inadmissible unless you say something....shut up!@

[Grappler13]

Like I said me and thousands of PO's in this state do it EVERYDAY and NEVER once has any civil suit been brought about it. If I cite someone for Driving Under Suspension which is a misdemeanor, I will search their person and property and vehicle (incident to arrest) but not take them to jail. It is called citation in lieu of arrest. My dispostion of my traffic stop would be, I'm in service with an ARREST street released. I find it hard to believe that you are a lawyer since you are terribly mistaken about arrest search and seizure.

Thanks for the thoughts although 1) redress would not lie in civil court (if you screw up a search, I probably cannot sue you personally nor the department because of 11th Amendment jurisprudence. Who cares about the civil suit, I'm talking about fruit of the poisonous tree. A warrantless search is allowed incident to arrest and the law gives officers a right to search every arrestee who will be taken into custody See United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 US 218, 235 ["A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification."]; New York v. Belton (1981) 453 US 454, 459.

Further, you as a PO know that if you cannot demonstrate PC after the fact, all of your finds are out. I know that PO's do this every day and you may also legally lie to persons to get approval for a search however, the underpinning of the search incident to arrest presupposes that the arrestee will be taken into custody, not temporarily restrained. Finally, you mention persons who are dricing with a suspended license. You can search the person incident to the arrest, and may search the car if you impound it....we're talking about two separate actions. However, if you ask a dude to step out of his car for speeding 60 in a 55 and he refuses consent, YOU MAY NOT LEGALLY SEARCH HIS VEHICLE! IF you do it and find a ton of coke, he's off scott free. Any 1L kknows this.

All in all, I'm on you side when it comes to search but I HATED looking like a hippy and having cops pull me over and tell me that if I didn't allow them to search my car, they would "call in a warrant." Today, I'd be tempted to tell them to go for it.......I'd be waiting in my car until that warrant arrived.

[sooners04]

I never said I would search with out consent. The only argument I have with you is that I DO NOT have to take someone to jail to search incident to arrest. I can issue them a ciation in leiu of an arrest (MIP, Open container etc...) then search them and their car and send them on their way home with a court date to appear and plead guilty, not guilty etc....

[thegodfather]

So just to clarify, and I'll let each of you answer this. Denying the officers request to search is NOT probable cause to get a warrant to search, correct? For instance, the officer can not just presume that you are doing something wrong, with no evidence to the contrary and then say he has probable cause to search just because you refuse. From the things I've read this is sort of a gray area.

[sooners04]

That is true. The officer does have a REASONABLE amout of time for maybe a K-9 if the officer has some RAS (REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION), but no judge will approve a warrant without some serious evidence.

[Texsun]

I think we as police officers have to use innovative ways to do our jobs, but within the confines of the law. If it takes using somebody's ignorance to search their vehicle (like i said WITHIN the confines of the law), then so be it. I think there are too many restrictions placed on us by liberal ACLU types, and it seems to be getting worse year by year.

[thegodfather]

I think we as police officers have to use innovative ways to do our jobs, but within the confines of the law. If it takes using somebody's ignorance to search their vehicle (like i said WITHIN the confines of the law), then so be it. I think there are too many restrictions placed on us by liberal ACLU types, and it seems to be getting worse year by year.

I disagree...Why dont you flip the script on yourself, would you like a police officer to have more freedom when attempting to circumvent your constiutional rights? It's a totally different feeling when its pointed back at you. I think the police have enough freedom to get what they need as it is, anymore and we might as well give up all our rights and call you guys the Guistapo.

[Grappler13]

I never said I would search with out consent. The only argument I have with you is that I DO NOT have to take someone to jail to search incident to arrest. I can issue them a ciation in leiu of an arrest (MIP, Open container etc...) then search them and their car and send them on their way home with a court date to appear and plead guilty, not guilty etc....

If you are doing this, anything you find should be excluded as poisoned fruit. I agree that you may Terry frisk the perp and search anywhere in the car that he/she may be able to reach (ie. to avoid destruction of evidence or getting a weapon). However, you cannot find a dude committing an arrestable offense, tell him to stand by, search his ENTIRE automobile, then let him go with a citation. The search incident to lawful arrest as it applies to searching cars is allowed to protect the officer from dangerous conditions that may present themselves in the impounding of the vehicle.\

Funny DC Cop story: Handguns are illegal in DC and the penalty is very high...higher than auto theft. I know a DC Cop who, when he pulls over a stolen car, will go up to the driver, get the door open and then, whilst questioning the perp will pull his sidearm out and pretend to have found it in the car. He'll hold it up and say "What do we have here?" He is very successful at getting spontaneous admissions regarding the stolen car: "We just took the car, I don't know anything about that gun!!!" Funny as hell.

[~fuelforfire~]

hahaha that is a funny story man, kind of pisses me off though thinking that they are doing that

[MMA]

some good info here. too add (at least in my state), they can't search a locked container in a trunk without a warrant. if you must travel with gear in your car, at least lock it in something.

and its not just searches incident to a lawful arrest, any excuse to tow a car (and there a LOT of them) will let them search your car.

[Grappler13]

some good info here. too add (at least in my state), they can't search a locked container in a trunk without a warrant. if you must travel with gear in your car, at least lock it in something.

and its not just searches incident to a lawful arrest, any excuse to tow a car (and there a LOT of them) will let them search your car.

Alot of coppers will tow to search but you can beat it in court with a good atty.

[sooners04]

[QUOTE=Grappler13]If you are doing this, anything you find should be excluded as poisoned fruit. I agree that you may Terry frisk the perp and search anywhere in the car that he/she may be able to reach (ie. to avoid destruction of evidence or getting a weapon). However, you cannot find a dude committing an arrestable offense, tell him to stand by, search his ENTIRE automobile, then let him go with a citation. The search incident to lawful arrest as it applies to searching cars is allowed to protect the officer from dangerous conditions that may present themselves in the impounding of the vehicle.\

Do it almost everyday and our prosecutors convict constantly. I have NEVER had a case dismissed because I search and didn't physically take him to jail.

[Grappler13]

[QUOTE=sooners04]

If you are doing this, anything you find should be excluded as poisoned fruit. I agree that you may Terry frisk the perp and search anywhere in the car that he/she may be able to reach (ie. to avoid destruction of evidence or getting a weapon). However, you cannot find a dude committing an arrestable offense, tell him to stand by, search his ENTIRE automobile, then let him go with a citation. The search incident to lawful arrest as it applies to searching cars is allowed to protect the officer from dangerous conditions that may present themselves in the impounding of the vehicle.\

Do it almost everyday and our prosecutors convict constantly. I have NEVER had a case dismissed because I search and didn't physically take him to jail.

Hard case Copper! I'd love to duke it out in court, what you do daily,but you look pretty impressive in your avatar so I'd like to keep it to the courtroom.

Nonetheless, I hope you wouldn't try and make PC for AAS. Keep safe. I still contend that if you search my car incident to an arrestable offense and choose not to lock me up, I'll hand it too you in court. Then, whoever loses can buy the other a drink!