|
Replies: 46
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Police report: Watkins consented to a search
May 4, 2012, 1:36 PM
|
|
Why would you *ever* consent to a search. Even if you know you have nothing on you.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1310]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 1540
Joined: 9/6/03
|
A lot of folks in his situation grow up scared of the police***
May 4, 2012, 1:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search
May 4, 2012, 1:55 PM
|
|
If they find cause to search you anyway, it's worse on you. Better to just let them do their job and cooperate. The judge will see it that way as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1249
Joined: 8/31/08
|
Performing illegal searches is not the job of the police.
May 4, 2012, 1:58 PM
|
|
In this case the guys were young, scared, and didn't know any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How was it an illegal search?
May 4, 2012, 3:02 PM
|
|
Cop had probable cause
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: How was it an illegal search?
May 4, 2012, 3:06 PM
|
|
No he didn't. Perceived odor is absolutely not probable cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How about the swerving and scraping the curb
May 4, 2012, 3:08 PM
|
|
while driving at night? Cop probably originally suspected drunk driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: How about the swerving and scraping the curb
May 4, 2012, 3:10 PM
|
|
That could potentially be probably cause for a sobriety test. Since he didn't get one, that obviously wasn't a concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
When he approached the vehicle and smelled the weed
May 4, 2012, 3:12 PM
|
|
then he probably suspected DUI. He didn't HAVE to search the car, but he ASKED, and SW agreed. So what, it was probably to his benefit that he cooperated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: When he approached the vehicle and smelled the weed
May 4, 2012, 3:24 PM
|
|
If he suspected DUI he would have field tested him and he didn't. Not sure what your point is here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How certain are you of that claim?
May 4, 2012, 3:27 PM
|
|
If he declined the search, what would have come next? a field test perhaps? We don't know. It would be nice to have an actual experienced officer chime in on their progressions during these sort of stops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: How certain are you of that claim?
May 4, 2012, 3:33 PM
|
|
He would have field tested regardless if he suspected DUI. You actually think a cop would let someone get away with DUI?
And so what if he gave him a field test? He still wouldn't have been given cause to search his car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search
May 4, 2012, 2:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search ] |
|
This is certainly not true. Also, they had no probable cause. Perceived odor does not fall under probable cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1446]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 3334
Joined: 11/27/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
Re: "If they find cause to search you anyway, it's worse on you"
May 4, 2012, 2:04 PM
|
|
Not recently
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1878]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 1864
Joined: 1/22/12
|
Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search
May 4, 2012, 2:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search ] |
|
It's not worse on you if they find something. You aren't punished for exercising your constitution rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5279
Joined: 8/24/11
|
Because the police in Clemson will STILL arrest you
May 4, 2012, 1:56 PM
|
|
Kids are arrested at parties for MIP even if they don't have a drink in their hands - if they won't take the breathalyzer
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1249
Joined: 8/31/08
|
An arrest is not a big deal. Sure the cops can arrest you
May 4, 2012, 2:00 PM
|
|
anytime they get the notion really, but if you haven't given them any rope with which to hang you, you will always walk.
By the way, arrests don't even count unless you get convicted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1446]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 3334
Joined: 11/27/06
|
Re: Because the police in Clemson will STILL arrest you
May 4, 2012, 2:07 PM
|
|
THEY will always find something to charge you with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: Because the police in Clemson will STILL arrest you
May 4, 2012, 2:10 PM
|
|
Only if you give them a reason. You must watch too much tv.
Everyone should watch the never talk to the police video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1446]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 3334
Joined: 11/27/06
|
Too much TV.....haha,funny.I've lived it partner....
May 4, 2012, 2:11 PM
|
|
Do Not Trust a COP any farther than you could throw him/her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5279
Joined: 8/24/11
|
Re: Because the police in Clemson will STILL arrest you
May 4, 2012, 2:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Because the police in Clemson will STILL arrest you ] |
|
You are right. They will use the smell or whatever to claim probable cause. And unless you have big bucks for an attorney you will lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 729
Joined: 10/11/10
|
if he doesn't consent... they still arrest him and have...
May 4, 2012, 2:04 PM
|
|
...his car impounded. once they do that, them they need to go through his car to "inventory" his possessions in which case they'll find what they're looking for. then you can also kiss any leniency goodbye for cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1249
Joined: 8/31/08
|
Re: if he doesn't consent... they still arrest him and have...
May 4, 2012, 2:11 PM
|
|
Arrest him for what? A broken tag light? Get real...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [398]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 183
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: if he doesn't consent... they still arrest him and have...
May 4, 2012, 2:16 PM
|
|
I've been pulled over because one of two tag lights were out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: if he doesn't consent... they still arrest him and have...
May 4, 2012, 2:17 PM
|
|
What does that have to do with getting arrested?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7020]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12745
Joined: 11/21/99
|
Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search
May 4, 2012, 2:12 PM
|
|
thats one thing gun owners and carriers understand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [157]
TigerPulse: 51%
Posts: 189
Joined: 3/23/04
|
Smell of marijuana = probable cause, meaning they can search
May 4, 2012, 2:13 PM
|
|
I'm no criminal attorney or cop, so I won't claim to know all the ins and outs, but I am a Con. Law professor, and that's how the courts have interpreted your 4th Amendment search & seizure rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1249
Joined: 8/31/08
|
Smell of marijuana = reasonable suspicion, meaning they
May 4, 2012, 2:16 PM
|
|
still have to have your consent. A perceived odor is not enough for a search warrant. You may still get searched and arrested, but any attorney worth his salt will have it thrown out posthaste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: Smell of marijuana = reasonable suspicion, meaning they
May 4, 2012, 2:18 PM
|
|
He speaks the truth. There are plenty of court cases to back this up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80176
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Because if you don't, they bring the drug dogs to your car
May 4, 2012, 2:21 PM
|
|
and do a walk around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: Because if you don't, they bring the drug dogs to your car
May 4, 2012, 2:24 PM
|
|
They are not allowed to hold you for K9 units to arrive if you have done nothing wrong. Also a K9 alert still requires a warrant without consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1446]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 3334
Joined: 11/27/06
|
Try and tell "THEM" this.You have all the answers..
May 4, 2012, 2:27 PM
|
|
till it's you that gets pulled over.A Cop can do whatever they want to you...period
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80176
Joined: 11/29/99
|
I got stopped between Jville and Jekell Island once on
May 4, 2012, 2:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: Because if you don't, they bring the drug dogs to your car ] |
|
Super Bowl Sunday. I was still in Florida. I was driving to my in-laws so I wasn't holding but that's what they said when I asked what happens if I say no to a search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: I got stopped between Jville and Jekell Island once on
May 4, 2012, 2:44 PM
|
|
Of course they'll tell you that. They'll use any scare tactics they can. It's your responsibility to understand your own rights to protect yourself. They will deceive you anyway you can. If you carry I would strongly suggest you study up on the laws and your rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And they are constantly recorded during stops like that
May 4, 2012, 3:07 PM
|
|
If they were intentionally trying to deceive someone in such ways, don't you think there would be hell to pay if a lawyer "worth his salt" got a hold of the audio and video of the alleged incident?
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: And they are constantly recorded during stops like that
May 4, 2012, 3:34 PM
|
|
You sound like someone extremely ignorant of the law and the way these cases typically go down. I encourage you to study up on your right as a citizen so you can better protect your self and personal freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40950]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42964
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1878]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 1864
Joined: 1/22/12
|
Re: I have never and will never consent to a search
May 4, 2012, 2:33 PM
|
|
Even if you have something, you should NEVER consent to a search.
You're not going to get in more trouble by exercising your Bill of Rights in the constitution. If they have probably cause, they won't need to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: I have never and will never consent to a search
May 4, 2012, 2:45 PM
[ in reply to I have never and will never consent to a search ] |
|
Also, what happens if you consent and they find "residue" from a previous owner or passenger in your car? Yeah, you're equally ######.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Then burden of proof falls on the police to PROVE
May 4, 2012, 3:09 PM
|
|
the residue belongs to the current owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Re: Then burden of proof falls on the police to PROVE
May 4, 2012, 3:25 PM
|
|
You are severely misguided if you think this is how it works.
Tell that to all the guys in jail who tried the "I don't know how that got their, officer" excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2115]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3061
Joined: 6/19/10
|
Re: Then burden of proof falls on the police to PROVE
May 4, 2012, 4:20 PM
[ in reply to Then burden of proof falls on the police to PROVE ] |
|
If it was in Sammy's car and Sammy or the other passenger did not have "actual possesion" of the substance then he would be deemed to have 'constructive possession' and thus charged. The legality of the search would be the biggest factor here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [66]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/2/07
|
Re: Police report: Watkins consented to a search
May 4, 2012, 4:18 PM
|
|
The search itself was not illegal. It was consent....Like many have stated, he should have said no. They did have reasonable suspicion to believe that there were drugs involved which means they could've held him for a dog. If there's no reasonable suspicion then the police have to tell you that you are free to leave, but in this case there was enough evidence (the marijuana odor) that they could've held him for a dog especially because it's in Clemson and it would've taken five minutes or less to get a dog.
Search and arrest were both legal. If it was just marijuana he probably would've been let go, but the addition of the pills is what did him in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 46
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
