[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thank you very much for this story, Ray. I never thought "the good old days" would include highway robbery.

They weren't exactly the good old days. All the stores closed at 5 o'clock. Nothing was ever open on Sunday and if you got the munchies for pizza you either had to go to a store for the ingredients to make it yourself or go without till the next day. It was horrible. The cops were just piling on because they knew we didn't know any better.

[Sk8ordude]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Okay, let's go with this thought. Should being in the general vicinity of a suspected perp give the police probable cause to search everyone in that general vicinity? By search we mean detain up to forty people at gunpoint, cuff them, hold them for two hours, and "ask" for "permission" to search their vehicles (heck, why not homes as well) while they're cuffed and detained.

Suspects dont get no 4th amendment rights (thanks to precedents set by various wars on crime), and if the blip falls on you I guess that makes you a suspect. This is like one of those precedents in a way.

You should see what they do if you are suspected of harboring drugs, they storm in in the middle of the night, shoot your dog, shoot you, and rip your home to shreds. This can happen if somebody is emiting suspicious smells somewhere near your home.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Suspects dont get no 4th amendment rights (thanks to precedents set by various wars on crime), and if the blip falls on you I guess that makes you a suspect. This is like one of those precedents in a way.

Okay, let's run with that.

The class of people who are suspects is greater than the class of people who are actually criminals, right? That's pretty easy.

Next step.

If you're not a suspect, you have your 4th Amendment rights, but in that case, you really don't need them, right?

Okay.

But if you are a suspect, you have no 4th Amendment rights, except in that case you really do need them, because as a suspect who is not a criminal you may thereby be subject to unwarranted police harassment.

So....

Those who do get 4th Amendment rights don't need them and those who don't get them do need them.

So what's the whole point of a 4th Amendment then?

[Sk8ordude]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Okay, let's run with that. The class of people who are suspects is greater than the class of people who are actually criminals, right? That's pretty easy.

Yep, but they are less then those who make and enforce the rules, not on paper but in practice.

	Next step. If you're not a suspect, you have your 4th Amendment rights, but in that case, you really don't need them, right?

It at least makes it so that they need a reason, proximity to GPS blip is enough to get through this. If it was unlawful to search you for this reason, then they would have to throw that case out even when they caught the robber on the basis of the unlawful search. Thats obviously not the case.

	Okay. But if you are a suspect, you have no 4th Amendment rights, except in that case you really do need them, because as a suspect who is not a criminal you may thereby be subject to unwarranted police harassment. So.... Those who do get 4th Amendment rights don't need them and those who don't get them do need them. So what's the whole point of a 4th Amendment then?

Police need probable cause for searches, probable cause can be anything since its often left up to the officers discretion. Every once in a while people are able to prove that the search was not justified, but more often then not the cops word is all it takes.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Police need probable cause for searches, probable cause can be anything since its often left up to the officers discretion. Every once in a while people are able to prove that the search was not justified, but more often then not the cops word is all it takes.

If forty people are in the vicinity of the crime, do police have probable cause to search them all?

Originally Posted by wiki

The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[3] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

The police didn't believe that all forty persons had committed a crime. They were looking for only one. So the first definition isn't met.

What would the police be "reasonably suspicious" of in the second definition? That a criminal is in the area, yes, but not that any particular individual in that area was the criminal. If "reasonable suspicion" covers large groups of people none of whom are suspect for anything other than being in the vicinity, then that opens the door to large, wide-scale police intrusion whenever police "reasonably suspect" a criminal is in the area. A definition that broad is effectively the equivalent of the police having no standards or restrictions at all.

[Sk8ordude]

Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If forty people are in the vicinity of the crime, do police have probable cause to search them all? The police didn't believe that all forty persons had committed a crime. They were looking for only one. So the first definition isn't met. What would the police be "reasonably suspicious" of in the second definition? That a criminal is in the area, yes, but not that any particular individual in that area was the criminal. If "reasonable suspicion" covers large groups of people none of whom are suspect for anything other than being in the vicinity, then that opens the door to large, wide-scale police intrusion whenever police "reasonably suspect" a criminal is in the area. A definition that broad is effectively the equivalent of the police having no standards or restrictions at all.

Thats your definition and interpretation, but those people were on the blip (in my hypothetical and understanding of how banks do things). Wrong place wrong time, but suspects none the less.

Thats the direction this country has been taking since before they put Capone away.

[PovertyPenalty]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you think being detained for 2 hours sucked, spending a few days in jail for refusing to cooperate and paying hundreds/thousands in court costs/fines would really rattle your cage hah

A few days in jail? Unless this happened on a Friday, it would be overnight at the most. If they didn't find anything then I wouldn't be spending anything in court costs or fines. Refusing a search is not a crime.

	Originally Posted by Doomination To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure if you would argue with them if you had a gun in your face. I'm pretty sure we'd all shut up and let them search.

If they shoot me, then I guess they shoot me. If they arrest me for whatever reason they come up with then they get to search my car. I'm more valuable to them alive then I am dead.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People that aren't afraid of cops or tell you to "stand up for your rights" have probably never been searched, or arrested, or really ever dealt with the police.

I've been Terry patted a handful of times, searched, and detained for about a half hour while a K9 came to smell my car (everybody wasted their time that day).

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets follow this line of logic. You are giving the cops a hard time for searching you when they are trying to catch a robber. You admit they lie, cheat and steal... 'Well well boys. Looky what we got here. No wonder you were so adamant about us not searching your vehicle sir. Please stand up and put your hands on the hood of your car and spread your legs. You have the right...' Later... "Sir, do you honestly want me to believe that decorated officer Macke here would lie about finding younameit in your car? Him and the other officers there all say you were acting agitated and suspicious. Nobody else seems to have had a problem cooperating with the authorities."

I don't give cops a "hard time." I'm capable of arguing without acting like a jackass.

Yeah, you're right: cops have been known to plant evidence. But, how can the cops plant my fingerprints on things?

[raimius]

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thats your definition and interpretation, but those people were on the blip (in my hypothetical and understanding of how banks do things). Wrong place wrong time, but suspects none the less.

Negative. The fact that a criminal is somewhere in the vicinity does not provide a "reasonable suspicion" to detain every person in a half-block radius. The police need a reasonable suspicion for the individuals they detain.

[Frosted]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If military members can use "drop weapons" to cover up crimes, no hard stretch of the imagination for officers to plant evidence. That's why I plan to equip my vehicle with a video recorder, one for out and one for in.

Dude I have the same plan. Some micro cams and a 5TB DVR recording 24/7. After it fills it will start recording over the older stuff. All of the equipment would have to be in very inconspicuous locations. I don't fucking trust cops.

[Paul Siraisi]

Sometimes the subway breaks down, and we're all stuck.
Sometimes other people break down, and we're all stuck.

It happens.

They caught the perpetrators.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Paul Siraisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sometimes other people break down, and we're all stuck.

Cops have too much power to break down. The power needs to be removed. I treat every LEO I meet with the careful calculation I would treat any gangster with, but more so, since in most places you can't fight back (Indiana has moved in the right direction on this front). These things ought not so to be.

[Sk8ordude]

	Originally Posted by raimius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Negative. The fact that a criminal is somewhere in the vicinity does not provide a "reasonable suspicion" to detain every person in a half-block radius. The police need a reasonable suspicion for the individuals they detain.

Anybody in the blip could have been the criminal so they were all suspected criminals. If the tracker were more accurate less would have been reasonably suspected. On paper maybe you have a point, but in the gray area cops can temporarily detain and suspect you for any reason, such as poor eye contact. Also there is a difference between taking you to jail and detaining you in the vicinity for search.

[raimius]

Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anybody in the blip could have been the criminal so they were all suspected criminals. If the tracker were more accurate less would have been reasonably suspected. On paper maybe you have a point, but in the gray area cops can temporarily detain and suspect you for any reason, such as poor eye contact. Also there is a difference between taking you to jail and detaining you in the vicinity for search.

Which court case allows the police to cuff you for multiple hours because you had poor eye contact? I'd like to see the ruling.

"We know there is a criminal in the area" is NOT, I repeat NOT, probable cause to detain an individual.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Frosted To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Dude I have the same plan. Some micro cams and a 5TB DVR recording 24/7. After it fills it will start recording over the older stuff. All of the equipment would have to be in very inconspicuous locations. I don't fucking trust cops.

Wow! 5TB! That's very thorough! I prefer to activate it at will, but that'll do just fine!

It also has just occurred to me that placing fake cameras on key places of your home would also serve a useful deterrence against crooked cops as well...while acting as decoys for the real cameras of course. Hee hee!