Police caught on tape threatening to destroy and invent evidence

Originally posted by HectorRmz
A person has standing (the right) to contest the stop of his car and the search of his person or car. That means you can ask what you did wrong, and they have to tell you the "specific" reason.

Actually you don’t really have the right to contest anything. The police can arrest you while you’re driving for absolutely any reason (and that is in the law). They then have to prove it was legitimate in court. In court is where you get your chance to contest the officers claims. They do not call out a judge or lawyer to the scene where you are arrested to figure out who is right or wrong.

This particular case involves what is called a “Terry Stop”, and in a “Terry Stop” the officer has the right to ask you certain questions if he feels a crime either has been, or is about to be, committed. They are not allowed to interrogate you, but they do have the right to certain information and to pat you down. A traffic stop is a sort of a subset of the “Terry Stop”.

Originally posted by Squatch

Your best bet is to not say anything and not to have any attitude what so ever. Basically you have to act reasonable or should I say "Grown up".

Just answer them back simply by saying "I was driving home from work" or "Going to taco bell" so on.

I would agree with being polite, but just remember, that asking "what is wrong" is your right that he has to respect too. That's why there is a law for that:"a person has standing (the right) to contest the stop of his car and the search of his person or car." He cannot arrest you for that. Now, if you are or have committed a crime, be super friendly! Otherwise, there is no reason for you to be afraid if you have done nothing wrong. The cop in the video knows that. So, he threatens "to come up with stuff." The kid had broken no laws and was breaking no laws for asking what was wrong so the cop had to invent an offense.

Originally posted by Perplexed
If this cop did know it was B.S. do you think he would have ripped it all out? I think he would have and that is a scary thought no matter what this "perps" motives were.

I think that it would have disappeared or shown up broken at the impound lot. However, I am not sure that the tape would have been of any use in court anyway. The tape does not show the officer as he is saying these things, and it would most likely be brought up by the prosecution that it could have been dubbed.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by HectorRmz
A person has standing (the right) to contest the stop of his car and the search of his person or car. That means you can ask what you did wrong, and they have to tell you the "specific" reason.

Actually you don’t really have the right to contest anything. The police can arrest you while you’re driving for absolutely any reason (and that is in the law). They then have to prove it was legitimate in court. In court is where you get your chance to contest the officers claims. They do not call out a judge or lawyer to the scene where you are arrested to figure out who is right or wrong.

This particular case involves what is called a “Terry Stop”, and in a “Terry Stop” the officer has the right to ask you certain questions if he feels a crime either has been, or is about to be, committed. They are not allowed to interrogate you, but they do have the right to certain information and to pat you down. A traffic stop is a sort of a subset of the “Terry Stop”.

Actually, yes you can contest. And yes, the officer can still arrest you. And yes, it's up to you to fight it in the court. It is called a "defence to the prosecution." An officer can at any time arrest anyone for any reason, but it is the laws that in the end make things right. Hence forth, the term an illegal arrest. However, that comes way later after it goes to court. If you stand up to the cop, he may decide it's not worth it at all since it is your right. Besides, what cop wants to have "illegal arrests" on his record? Hehe, let me guess wikipedia.LOL

Originally posted by defcon5
The tape does not show the officer as he is saying these things, and it would most likely be brought up by the prosecution that it could have been dubbed.

I agree, but the cops cannot access their own tapes. That is were more cases get their evidence from.

Originally posted by scientist
like what? Did he break the law somehow? The police had the right to ask for ID, license and run a check. After that, nothing.

Exactly the things I stated. If you listen close after the second cop shows up and they realize that they are being filmed, the one cools down some, and the other notices the scanner. He then mentions that he is going to arrest him for “tools of burglary”, he actually says he is going to arrest him, pats him down, but then lets him go for some reason. Most likely because the second cop did not realize how bad the first cop lost his cool, and he stopped the arrest. Not because he would have gotten in a lot of trouble for it, but simply because it would get press then and look bad.

I don’t care for the law “tools of burglary”, but it is a law. It basically states that you cannot carry any tools beyond what you require to change a tire, and you can be arrested for suspicion otherwise. A scanner in you car can be used to test police response timing, and therefore falls under that criteria. Normally this law is strictly a “fishing law”, and it works well for the police, as normally Doctors driving in their BMW’s don’t carry a bunch of tools with them. It’s the poorer folks who have frequent car trouble or do manual labor that requires tools, that is their target audience for this law.

If you don’t like the law, then I suggest you start a movement in your state to change it.

Originally posted by Squatch
I think I might be brainwashed... or apart of the system of everyday life. Just my experience though... every time I argued with a cop it never ended up good and the last couple times I cooperated an it ended up allot better. I am not a activist or seeking to uncover the corruption I really don't want to be bothered with any of it. All go for the people that stand up to the system. Good luck to you.
[edit on 11-9-2007 by Squatch]

That does tend to happen, but around here, we have Border Patrol to deal with as weel and their check points. Once you have identified yourself as a US citizen, you don't need to answer anything else. I don't see how knowing where I'm going and who I will be seeing is of any concern to them. I once told an officer I was meeting "Tom" when he asked me where I was going. I still remember the look he gave. LOL All he did was wave me through.

Originally posted by defcon5
I have sort of mixed feeling on what this guy is doing, its true that there needs to be some policing of the police, but I am not sure if he is going about it in the right way or not. Eventually he is going to end up in a lot of trouble as he gets bolder. Like I said the law is not in his favor in much of what he is doing, and the only reason the cop backed down is because he realized how bad he had lost it in the beginning. If the cop had been a cooler customer and kept his temper and mouth in check he might very well have been able to charge him with something and made it stick. Not that I agree with it, but those are the facts of the matter.

I too have mixed feeling about him, but I think the real issue is the cop and his actions. As far as charging him with something, that again sounds to me like "making stuff up." You have to break the law to actually get convicted(most of the time.)

Originally posted by HectorRmz
Hehe, let me guess wikipedia.LOL

No actually its the “Florida State Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook” I have sitting on my desk here. A police officer friend of mine gives me his old copy at the end of each year, as its what they operate out of. That and having spent way too much time around officers.

Originally posted by HectorRmz
Actually, yes you can contest.

The more you contest and protest, the more they are going to look for some reason or “fishing law” to arrest you on. About the only rights you have is to request they call a supervisor, and request a female officer if you’re a woman. If you start acting smart they will eventually hit you with a resisting charge or failing to obey a lawful order. Again the cards are stacked against us civilians at the moment, and it’s the laws that have been put in to protect police officers that have given them a major amount of excessive power.


[edit on 9/11/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by HectorRmz
I agree, but the cops cannot access their own tapes. That is were more cases get their evidence from.

But they can control the angle and the audible level of that recording. They can do this by physically controlling where they tell you to stand, how far you are from a microphone (if there is one), if their window is up or down, and door open or shut, or by placing something over the microphone.

Originally posted by HectorRmz
"making stuff up." You have to break the law to actually get convicted(most of the time.)

Again they had him on two things, "Failure to follow commands" and "tools of Burglary"

Possession of Burglary Tools
810.06 Possession of burglary tools.--Whoever has in his or her possession any tool, machine, or implement with intent to use the same, or allow the same to be used, to commit any burglary or trespass shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Here, I found a nice case where a lawyer showed up to argue at the scene of a traffic stop and got himself arrested as well.
This is actually pretty funny:

A Civil Liability Law Publication for Law Enforcement
Officer's arrest of an attorney, made during his protest of a state trooper's traffic stop of his client, was not unlawful retaliation for the attorney's exercise of his First Amendment rights. The lawyer's interference with the officer on the side of a busy interstate highway and his attempt to leave the scene after the trooper informed him that he was going to be issued tickets, gave the trooper probable cause to arrest him for his conduct, even if the trooper was "arguably brimming over with unconstitutional wrath."

An Illinois attorney left a courthouse one evening with his client. The attorney, stating that he was concerned about "potential police misconduct," told the client that he would follow him on the road back from Boone County to Chicago. Shortly after entering a tollway, the client's vehicle was stopped by state trooper, who exited his marked car and approached the client's car.

The attorney stopped his own car on the highway shoulder, backed up, parked in front of his client, exited his car and approached the trooper, identifying himself as his client's attorney and questioning the trooper's decision to pull the client's car over. The trooper explained that he was going to ticket the client for following too closely, having an obstructed windshield, and not wearing a seatbelt. He instructed the attorney to return to his vehicle and warned him that his failure to comply would result in the trooper also issuing tickets to him.

The attorney subsequently admitted that he refused to obey the trooper's orders, even though he was aware that it was being issued by a uniformed officer engaged in the performance of his duties, and even after the orders were repeated. The trooper then said that he was going to issue the attorney tickets--whereupon the attorney both "announced and manifested" his intent to flee in his vehicle. The trooper then found a knife in the attorney's car, which he put on the roof of the attorney's car. The attorney allegedly retrieved the weapon once the trooper returned to his squad car to call for backup.

While the attorney subsequently disputed that the trooper warned him not to touch the weapon, he admitted that he retrieved it moments after the trooper removed it from his reach and informed him that he was going to be arrested for the unlawful use of a weapon. The trooper then took the attorney into custody, charging him with obstructing an officer and resisting arrest, as well as two minor traffic offenses. He was ultimately found not guilty and sued the officer claiming malicious prosecution and unlawful retaliation against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the officer. It found that there was probable cause for the trooper to arrest the attorney for his conduct, which amounted to interference with the officer's traffic stop of his client along a busy highway. Further, if he believed that the trooper was improperly issuing him tickets, he could make his defense in court, and should not have attempted to flee the scene in an effort to avert the issuance of a citation.

While the appeals court acknowledged that it was possible that the trooper was "brimming over with unconstitutional wrath" at the attorney's statements and actions, this did not show that the arrest was "retaliation" for the attorney's exercise of his First Amendment rights. The attorney was arrested for his conduct, not for his speech, the court ruled.

Originally posted by badw0lf
I know that in Australia where we have no such rights under our constitution, if a police officer questioned me about my activities at 2am in an area known for criminal activity, and I refused to answer questions in regards to my intentions, I'd get a lot more than I'd bargain for...

Here you say you -know- in Australia that not answering questions such as these would get you 'something', can you find us the specifics?

I'm not questioning your veracity, just wondering what the legal status is.

For instance what if you had your lawyer in the car with you and he showed his credentials? Would you still be interrogated, charged, arrested, or what?

But, since Australia's laws are quite different, what would be the penalty for failing to disclose information politely, if you know? I don't mean arrest you on the spot for looking funny; any cop anywhere can do that.

What I'm wondering is what charge(s) he could make stick (in Australia)?


Anyway, the troubling part is not the LAW. It's that the cops can make 'junk charges' or threats at their discretion, and you end up in the legal system, maybe spend the night in jail, even though later the charges (unfair or non-lawful) may be dropped.

To me that's almost the same as having a criminal charge against you.

Now, they know who you are (singled out), your fingerprints are in the system, as is your mugshot and all your personal info, when in actuality you may have broken no laws.

In fact, one may even be able to sue the system and recover damages. Big deal. It's a huge hassle.

But you are still in the system. IOW, they don't remove your fingerprint records, the initial charges, (or the trauma of being in jail for that matter). Of course you're now ripe for retribution.

In addition, these things cascade. You get picked up but your car is left behind. Later it's broken into, or towed, or drugs are planted or left behind by indigents sleeping in the car, and next thing you know you're in jail for real (just an example).

This is why people are docile, not because they're 'sheeple'; they're able to look ahead and see that trouble only escalates.



[edit on 11-9-2007 by Badge01]

i think i'll be getting one of these camera deals for my cars....i tend to get the cops attention.

i was leaned on by two cops saturday at my sons football game, at a church cause some fat pig of a broad said i was following her around.....within 10 minutes they had cops at the field looking for me.

anyway, i am growing very tired of the general attitude problem of these cops. all i can speak for is in my area....they are like a gang...even they way they roll up on you...when i got popped on the 4th for the fireworks, dude rolled up like a ninja....NO lights on at all.....bushwacked us.


i think they profile....you black? sucks for you
got dead bears or pot leafs on your car? sucks for you
look like me? sucks for you

i answer them but only if my answer is not going to incriminate me and i don't usually go the yes sir no sir route....just yes or no..

why don't they call me sir? they work for me do they not.....they are here to protect and SERVE me, not the other way around.....i want them mofo's to call me sir....
i'm 30 years old and my views are changing.....gone are the days when i would get the jitters when the cops roll up.

i certainly don't want to go to jail but i don't do anything wrong, i'm not a bad guy so if jerk off cop wants to take me to jail for a day while he files his BS, lets do it.....

you know?...



since we all told stories, i remember about 20 years ago in st pete...this was a little section called 'kenneth city' where the cops are still known as being hard asses that will brace you for nothing.
we are driving home and my dad has a bunch of smoke in one of those harley oil cans....it was an old schol stash type box.....i don't know how much he had but it was a bit.
the cop found it and my dad started to get pissed and then the cop took the smoke, tossed the can back in the car and told us to get the hell out of there.

i still think about that to this day......
he ganked my dads stash....bwuahahahahahahah


the cops alwyas ask me(inclusing teh ones that leaned on me saturday) why i have so many tattoo's and ask me if i am a freak....they usually spend about 5 minutes making sure i know that they think my tattoos are 'whatever'....

tired of the fuzz

Originally posted by Perplexed
I think all cops should be forced to wear cameras and microphones at all times. They are small enough now to where they wouldn't hinder them in performing their job function and it would keep them from pulling crap like this.

that is a GREAT idea....a small camera and/or mic...i think even something that records sound would be good enough...

either way, lets say they wear a small camera on the left shoulder and a small mic on the right.....when they are in the car those devices are off but as soon as the officer steps out, the devices turn on and start streaming this info back to wherever...that way, from the very first moment of a conversation/confrontation, we got video and at the least audio.....it would protect the cop as much as it would protect citizens.....keep these cops honest..

i think it's a great idea.

Yeah, I don't really understand it.

People do stuff that's clearly illegal, there are witnesses, and the offense was not trivial and here's what you get:

"Sorry, sir, if we weren't there to see it there's nothing we can do".

Yet in your case (and others) they will do something, and depending on who reports it, they'll try to take action on something that's not illegal, or that you didn't do.

[rant]
If you want to get away with murder, just buy someone a bicycle and then run them over a few times. When the cops show up, sob and say 'he came out of nowhere', 'I didn't see him', and the best one of all:

"He didn't have a helmet on!!" OMGZ.

Yep, if you ride in the road, and don't wear a helmet (it's only mandatory for kids under 12-14, here) you deserve to be killed. This might sound like a joke, but people ACTUALLY believe this.
[/rant]

Originally posted by Badge01
Yeah, I don't really understand it.

People do stuff that's clearly illegal, there are witnesses, and the offense was not trivial and here's what you get:

"Sorry, sir, if we weren't there to see it there's nothing we can do".

yeah, that gets me too.
thats why i kinda laughed it off with a "damn, that broad is crazy" you know....i never would have thought that two cops would have showed up to brace me cause some woman said i was following her too closely...

it's insane....

every time you think you know how it works, something else happens that stirs it up again....

the cops exact words to me were
"whats with all this(made a gesture up and down my arms looking at all my ink). you some kind of tattooed freak?"

i pulled up my sleeve a bit where i have a tattoo that says 'freak out', showed him and said thats exactly what i am....he giggled and then we waited for the other cop to get there as i sat on the bike rack......

Originally posted by Boondock78

Originally posted by Perplexed
I think all cops should be forced to wear cameras and microphones at all times. They are small enough now to where they wouldn't hinder them in performing their job function and it would keep them from pulling crap like this.

that is a GREAT idea....a small camera and/or mic...i think even something that records sound would be good enough...

not in this case! without the video, there would have been no proof that the driver used his signal, and that he was not swerving.

reply to post by sp00n1
dude i live in oakville and my twin lives not even a quarter miles for where you were pulled over st.george is a small municipality and a notorioius speed trap spot you probably had prior knowledge of this and baited him and no i am not a cop

I would just like to remind everyone that Sgt. Keuhnline is innocent until proven guilty. He is entitled to a fair trial with a jury of his peers.

If he is guilty, he should not attempt to milk the system. He should resign, he should apologize, and he should make things right for any possible other times he has done this.

This incident is a wonderful example of citizen journalism interacting with web 2.0 features such as Digg, YouTube, and wikipedia. We have the power to make things right.

And on this hallowed day, i would appreciate if you could take a moment of quiet reflection to remember all of the good people that we lost 6 years ago. A number of them were police and firefighters that were willing to risk their lives helping others.

Let's face it, police and firefighters are under appreciated. They don't get paid well and they take a lot of BS that they dont deserve. On a day such as today i prefer to focus on the good in all of us, a message of hope and reconciliation.