LEOs "trained" to ignore 4th amendment!!

[Rob Pincus]

Okay, I guess that got your attention...

Yes, it is me, "Rob".....

For the past two days I have sat in a class being lectured on 4th amendment issues by an assistant district attorney. Yesterday, she asked a question about frisks and was greeted with a chorus of answers, most of which included the phrase "officer safety."

She explained to the class of mostly non-experienced new-hire LEOs that the law makes no allowance for searches or frisks on the basis of "officer safety." She conceded that most judges will accept the argument, but that there was no basis (at least in VA or Federal law) for it.

THEN, she went on to say that she would just as soon have LEOs conduct searches and/or frisks if there was any reasonable suspicion (lower level than Probable Cause) that it could result in a safer situation for the officer. She stated very clearly that it was better to violate the fourth amendment, possibly ruining a potential case, than to risk having an LEO hurt.

My gut feeling was "hurrah for her!", a DA who regarded the cops safety over a prosectution was okay by me. then she made a similar comment later in the day. Today, she again reiteratd at least twice that "on the street" we should conduct frisks and searches "as necessary" and "so what if you find a gun or dope that is not admissable, at least you are safe and you got some drugs off the street." EEGADS! My mind finally revolted when I realized what she was saying and who she was saying it to.
Here was a DA, appointed by the state to instruct a class of newbie LEOs in the 4th Amendment and how it relates to cop-work and she was telling us, repeatedly, to feel free to ignore it. Of course, che stressed that "for testing purposes" this rule and that case apply to this or that circumstance. Meanwhile, her advice was that in practice basically everyone gets patted down and every car gets searched, if you can stretch ANY rule to get it done.

This really bothered me, and I made a couple attempts to get things back on track in the class. I have taken on the role of the radical libertarian (can you imagine that??!) and I think I made my point, with a little help from some other more experienced/intelligent members of the class.

At the end of the day, she gave us about an hour to "ask the DA anything" and I hit her with a question about CCW Permits, specifically:

"Has ****** county ever prosecuted a CCW permit holder for using/brandishing his weapon?"

she said not that she was aware of, commentiung that she was "very surprised." I asked her what she thought of the permits, knowing that she disaproved, and she made it clear.

I asked her again if there were any incidents of abuse that she knew of, this time statewide, and she again said she didn;t know of any.

so, I slammed the door:

"If there have been no cases of abuse, and no prosecutions for use, why do you still think they are bad?"

She had no answer, except to repeat that she "didn't think that everyone needs to carry a gun." I explained, letting some of my frustration show, that it never ceases to amaze me that an intelligent person can have an opinion so clearly contrary to their experience and knowledge of the facts.
I don't think she really grasped the full scope of my comment.

(Did I mention that our instructors have absolutely no input into our grades? the tests are scantron type, administered by the academy staff after the guest instructors leave, so I really had nothing to lose by confronting her...)


OTOH, it was made very Clear that the refusal of a CONSENTUAL search (do you mind if I look through your car?) is NOT, no way, not-even-close-to, Probably Cause to excercise any other type of search. So, feel free to tell the nice troopers that you do, in fact, mind if they look through your car. BUt, please do it politely.

------------------
-Essayons

 

[Coinneach]

Yow. Remind me not to get pulled over in that county. Sounds like that ADA is looking to climb to the top spot on the backs of innocents.

As far as politely refusing a search, does that mean "Shove it up your @$$, pig-boy!" is not recommended?

Good info, Rob. Thanks for standing up for... uh, what's that thing called again? Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights. Almost forgot.

------------------
"Taking a long view of history, we may say that
anyone who lays down his arms deserves whatever he gets."
--Jeff Cooper

 

[Rob Pincus]

Let me stress that she was teaching at a regional academy and that her point was ANTI-career. Rather than stressing that LEOs should build strong cases and stay within the law, she was telling us that it was okay to risk losing evidence. She clearly said officer safety ranks higher than getting prosecutions. Again, I have mixed feelings about a DA who has this attitude. Locally, I love it, BUT I don't think She should be teaching new recruits 4th Amendment Law!!!!

(BTW, This academy trains basic officers and deputies from all over Northern Virginia. Including Winchester, Tappahannock, Colonial Beach, Fredericksburg and deputies from counties including Orange, Prince George, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Frederick, Hanover, Stafford. Also several sate school LEOs attend RRCJA, so it is a really wide ranging influence.....)

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Go Rob!

Stick to your guns on this. We know it's a dangerous job. But these guys accept that when they take it on. Some limits to Officer Safety have to be imposed in order to protect Citizen Rights.

We all want you to be safe...but not at the expense of being strip searched for a traffic stop. Seems to me that a person should be frisked only after they've been arrested or in the rare case where situation and/or demeanor clearly causes the cop some concern. In the second case, all production from the search should be inadmissable.

Who was it that said: "Better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man"?
Rich

 

[Dennis]

If an officer stops me, I usually let him look into anything he asks to. But I worry about my kids. LEOs can bully them into almost anything and, by leading the conversation, probably could get them to say something admissable in court indicating they kidnapped the Lindbergh baby!

I worry that I taught them to respect the law a little too much (too blindly).

Crime, taxes, and San Antonio Police were three of the reasons we moved out. Eleven years later, I am convinced we did the right thing.
-------

Rob,
It must be difficult seeing how far afield some of the instructors and students have gone, are going, and are willing to go.

Hang in there. Your maturity and experience will tell you as much (in some cases) as your instructors. I'd bet on it.

 

[Jeff White]

Rob,
Hasn't she ever heard of Terry vs Ohio. The Supreme Court case that gave rise to the term stop and frisk? Or doesn't the US Supreme Court hold sway in her county?

I'm sorry, but there is a lot of case law permitting a "pat down" type search for weapons. This is not an invasive search, you can't go into pockets etc. You can do this with anyone you come into contact with. I usually say "Excuse me sir, but before we talk further do you mind if I check to see that you're not carrying any weapons, for both your safety and mine." usually I try to be a little funny about, asking if they have any handgrenades or unregistered thermonuclear devices on them.

I'm amazed they are teaching there is no case law at an accredited academy.
Jeff

 

[Ed Brunner]

OK Rob you Libertarian whatever. Good job!!
If I were on the street I would have to consider my safety too. Which is why I wouldnt stop anyone without a very good reason.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

 

[George Hill]

Rob... You make us all proud!
Keep up the good work!

------------------
"The rage is relentless... We need a movement with a quickness.
You are a witness of change and to counteract - We gotta take the power back!"

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac

 

[Ipecac]

Rob, Good job on this. I bet you never expected to hear that from me .

I do have a question on this topic for the LEOs. What would be the most likely response from an LEO if I refuse to be "patted down" or otherwise submit to a search in a situation where I am not under arrest?

------------------
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." Henry St. George Tucker

 

[Art Eatman]

Good show, Rob!

I was reading somewhere that when after-raid debriefings are discussed, there is a scoring system as to the effectiveness of the raid.

The article stated that if nothing resulted from the raid insofar as its objective, but no officer was hurt, the score was 60 (%). It would seem to me, then, that the concept of officer safety, and its priority in the scheme of things, is heading toward our country's notion of warfare. That is, since we did not lose any pilots to Serb SAMs, we must have succeeded in the mission (whatever it was).

Oh, well. Keep up the good work, Rob...

Art

 

[DC]

Interesting...

So a DA promotes routine violation of the 4th, even though the case will be thrown out.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but whether or not the case is thrown out, Constitutional rights are being violated and that is a Federal crime. Typical of these Socialists...do it anyway...the rule of law only applies to the cattle. This way we can condition them...very Pavlovian. Very Marxist

I do hope someone keeps track of the number of violations in these jurisdictions and then a case of officialn systematic & consistent Constitutional violation can be prosecuted against the DA's office and the Academy.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[SKN]

Have to agree with Jeff. There is case law establishing the right of a LEO to conduct a pat search where there is articulable reasonable suspicion of a weapon.

Ipecac: if the stop were permissive and you could not be talked into cooperating, the LEO would have to let you walk. If it were effected for any type of offense you might very well be arrested for that and pat searched incidental to the arrest which might then be adjudicated via citation in the field.

 

[Hal]

Rob,
How many classes are conducted where you are at each year? I ask because, like the sheep story, and the dog, you can't be at every one to ask the questions you asked.

Chilling thought.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http:/www.ofcc.net

 

[Gene Beasley]

Way to go Rob. Hope things are going well.

By any chance, does the academy solicit evaluations for the guest instructors? I'm sure she's making a fair amount for two days instructing. Perhaps some well-phrased concern on her course content or knowledge of the subject would be in order.


------------------
Aye an' a bit of Mackeral settler rack and ruin Ran it doon by the haim, 'ma place. Well I slapped me and I slapped it doon in the side and I cried, cried, cried.

The fear a fallen down taken never back the raize and then Craig Marion, get out wi' ye Claymore out mi pocket a' ran doon, doon the middin stain picking the fiery horde that was fallen around ma feet.

Never he cried, never shall it ye get me alive ye rotten hound of the burnie crew. Well I snatched fer the blade. O my Claymore cut and thrust and I fell doon before him round his feet.

Aye! A roar he cried frae the bottom of his heart that I would nay fall but as dead, dead as 'a can be by his feet; de ya ken?...and the wind cried back.

Thank you.

 

[Mike in VA]

Very enlightening. I have to agree with DC's point, that if cases are getting bounced, they violated someone's rights, and as a VA taxpayer, I resent the hell out of paying for someone's sloppy work or outright stupidity, not to mention subsidizing a pattern of abuse if it's an ongoing practice.

OTOH, I'm all for officer safety, but if I had my druthers, I'd rather they be safe, be thorough, take the time to do it right, and make the bust stick. Illegal searches do nothing but erode respect for the law and the cops while wasting time, money and other resources. Maybe the dingdong ADA should find work in the private sector.
Take care, M2

 

[Rob Pincus]

The Terry v. Ohio has been ruled to cover "reasonable Suspicion" cases. This DA was advocating the following:

If you are alone at night, and you get them out odf their car, and you feel better having them handcuffed while you look through it, go ahead...
Or, if you want to frisk someone but don't really have a reason, do it.. If you find a gun, at least your safe, so what if we can;t use it in court....

Niether of those cases are covered by Terry v. Ohio, because in neither case does the officer have articulable reasonable suspicion. BEFORE, the argument starts, let me be very clear that she was NOT advocating that we creatively come up with some Reasonable Suspicion and claim Terry v. Ohio... she was blatantly telling us to "do what we had to do.. so what if the evidence can't be used."

This academy is teaching case law, and several of us who are more experienced know when and where case law is applicable.. she was addressing situations which (at least in her mind) were clearly not covered by any Search Warrant Exception. sorry if I did not make that clear.

To answer DC's point:

No, I don't think she was at all concerned with the civil or criminal ramifications of the actions that she was endorseing. At one point when she was questioned on that angle, her comment was the predictable: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


Let me again stress that I really would like to work for a DA with this attitude. Officer Safety should be int he forefront of the minds of everyone in LE, but I think I am smart enough to "follow the rules", while some of the people she may be addressing are not and may take her position the wrong way. I think that the person the academy brings in to cover the 4th Amendment should HAMMER the students with the letter of the law and try to choke them back a little. Let the patrol procedures or defensive tactics instructors handle officer safety issues, IMHO.


As for the reviews, she got trashed in them. Mostly because she failed to cover several topics on the Standardized test we had to take after her two days. The class average went plummeting .. My string of 100's even fell to a 93 on this test.... Oh well...
Several other students besides me also commented on her disregard for the topic of her block of instruction.

------------------
-Essayons

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Interesting indeed. Rob, we're fortunate to have LEO's like yourself and your responsible, intelligent classmates.

Regarding officer safety - how is taking drugs off a 'suspect' enhancing officer safety? Sounds like more bogus 'drug war' logic to me.

I don't have any problem at all with officers knowing a 'suspect' is armed with a weapon - if I was an LEO, I'd sure want to know if someone is armed. And, if they seem like a potential threat, I would want to separate them from that weapon during the stop. I would have a problem if an officer pulls me over, I inform him / her I have a firearm, and then they take it to their car to record the serial number. It seems honest for them to want to know what you have and where it is. With no other factor present, it seems unreasonable for them to automatically disarm a citizen.

 

[HankL]

Good to see you back Rob.
The ADA started off on the proper course by saying that the law made no provisions for searches involving only officer safety then reality hit the fan. That's why me must have LEOs who can think on their feet, remain safe and make arrest.
The way things have gotten, we need to smell the roses and insure that we have the best street officers possible. The scumbags already have more rights than the average joe. If you are a good guy and you know that the LEO who just pulled you over is a good guy everything should come out well but...
Officer safety is very important to me and being safe should never involve any form of harrasment by the officer. When pulled over by the LEO while responding to an alarm call at my business I told the officer that I would happily let him inspect my Colt Officers ACP after he backed me up at my destination. "It was on my hip and we are a concealed carry state" no problem. Only problem was when we arrived the first city LEO on the scene ,4'10"-85 lb. female, "sorry
good female friends" Ran up and said "Sorry mister hank, he ran across the railroad tracks and I just couldn't get up with him!" Don't get me wrong, this LEO is a good person and I like her and I do know most of the officers in the area where my business is located. Fact is, this young woman is either going to learn to be a bully or be killed on the job PERIOD!!
My 1/2 cent, Hi Rob!
Hank

 

[Jeff White]

Rob,
Regarding your example about being more comfortable with them in handcuffs while you went through their car. In what context was she referring to the search of the vehicle?
Incident to arrest (in which case you already have a reason to pat them down and cuff them) or consensual?

Never search a vehicle alone, wait for backup. If you don't have reason to detain them long enough for backup to arrive, LET THEM GO, get 'em another day. Even with the subjects cuffed, you can't watch them and search the car too.

You're right about her focus, she should be telling you guys to follow the letter of the law and bring her cases she can win. I think she's probably trying to impress you guys with how in tune to your needs she is. She should also be hinting at official misconduct charges if you do go out and run roughshod over the public. I don't think she understands which part of the system she works in.

Good luck and Stay Safe!
Jeff

 

[Rob Pincus]

Jeff,

Unfortunately, many of the guys I am in the class with could have to wait quite a while for back up in the rural counties. Unfortunately, sometimes we are on our own...

As for the type of search, there are times when you can search a vehicle without an arrest taking place and without the driver being arrested or giving consent. They fall under probable cause type exceptions.