When are LEOs legally allowed to search you?????

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FliGuyRyan

Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
456
I've been wondering when a law enforcement officer is legally allowed to search you. And on what grounds do they have to be under when they conduct such a search?

Would they be able to search you for pulling you over for a ticket, or if they pulled me over on my motorcycle (and I was carrying my BM Auto-Stryker).

Also, what are the odds they would bring a person in for carrying one... and would the fact that I'm in the National Guard, and have no violent police record matter in such circumstance?

Thanks again,
Cleary
 
From what I understand, a LEO should have probable cause to search you. Not all LEO's follow the letter of the law though so it could go either way. I have been patted down and the cop heard a baggie crackling so he thought I had weed or something, you should have seen his face when I pulled it out and it was a bag of fruit snacks. After that he got very rude and frustrated rummaging through my pockets to find nothing.

As far as your non-violent record goes, the LEO wont know it until he checks it so it is in his best interests to assume you may be dangerous if he finds a knife on you. If they are a cool cop and you are very respectful you might not get locked up
 
You do need a reason to search, but an officer can and does make a "officer safety check " for a weapon on a person or within reasonable access in a car if he has what he believes is cause to conduct an investigation. The NYPD fills out hundreds of thousands of "stop and frisk" cards on people they stopped for an investigation not leading to an arrest. They fill this out giving a cause as to what the person did, or that they fit the description of a suspect , etc which gives cause for the frisk and detaining the person. A weapon turned up this way may lead to a valid arrest if the officer can detail the reason for his actions. I believe your status would help you with most officers. It is a rare arrest that has been made on simple knife possession, but it does happen. More often at the end of the month when numbers count.......carry only legal knives ......much better that way. Always remember that the DA will never think a auto is a tool, and I have seen DA's in court state that someone with a certain type of knife or gun was looking to use it based on design of the weapon reguardless of justication. There was a case where a home owner defended himself with a Remington 870 deer gun with a 20" barrel and full stock, yet the DA stated the home owner used s "barely legal shotgun to defend his home"....nice right...
 
Tom19176 has got it.

For US audiences only...

An officer can't search anyone "just because."

However, the possibility of a person carrying a weapon--or a person acting suspiciously--is enough cause to do so. He can't search you, however, because you "look" suspicious: there's scores of precedents where that's been thrown out...you have to act suspicious, or give the officer reason to think you might be concealing something. Anything discovered in the meanwhile can be used as evidence.

It's also largely true of vehicles: an officer can't pull you over to search your car without cause. But finding a reason to pull someone over is quite easy to do in all 50 states regardless of local legal differences (in some states, he can do it if you're not wearing a seatbelt; others, he can't...but it's easy to find another reason to do so (verification you're not driving a stolen car is a safe one, and I've been personally pulled over twice because the officer wanted to ensure my car and my identity had the same ownership!).

At this point, once he's pulled you over, he can generally search the vehicle quite thoroughly for weapons or illegal items--and again, anything else he finds can be held as evidence.

So while Constitutional law tends to be specific about when and where he can or can't... the reality is that it isn't hard to obey the law and search you or your vehicle whenever he needs to.
 
Realistically, a cop can do anything he wants to you and write a report to cover himself. The judge will believe the sworn LEO and you will be screwed.

It's all up to the cop. Is he decent or not? Did he argue with his wife before going on duty? Is he pissed about something? Would you risk being arrested and lose your right to ever buy a gun again and have a record and big legal expenses over a knife?

My .02.

Steve
 
I am detecting some cynicism about Police Officers and the searches they conduct, so I will try to explain the ways the system is supposed to work. My background is that I have been a Police Officer for just under 22 years. I am currently a Sergeant and the Shift Commander of my Department’s third shift (midnight to 0800hrs).

The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

Note that the constitution prohibits only “unreasonable” searches and seizures by government agencies. Generally a Police Officer needs to have probable cause to make a search before that search can be lawfully made. Probable cause means “Facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable, prudent, person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.” However, a Police Officer who has “articulable and reasonable suspicion” that you are armed can frisk you. This frisk or pat down is limited to only checking you for weapons that might harm the Officer or a 3rd person. Frisks are not considered searches. If you are found with an illegal weapon on your person, the weapon can be seized and you can be arrested. Some states also recognize a “plain feel” doctrine. This means that during the pat down the Officer feels something that he “immediately recognizes” as contraband. The states that allow this believe that if the Officer is legally frisking you he should not have to turn a blind eye to contraband that he inadvertently finds.

Here is probably the place to note that the “exclusionary rule” prevents the police and prosecutors (in most cases) from presenting evidence in court that was seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. Note that the Constitution itself does not prohibit this evidence from being presented. The courts have made up this rule, just as they have invented a lot of other laws and rules.

The U.S. Constitution generally requires Police Officers to obtain a search warrant before making searches; however, there are some notable exceptions to the search warrant rule. The exceptions are;

• Plain view –Police Officers may seize evidence of a crime, such as contraband or stolen property when the can see the items from a location where they may lawfully be. For example, you are pulled over for a traffic offense and have a kilo of marijuana sitting on your front seat.

• Search incident to a lawful arrest –Police Officer may search the person whom is arrested, the area within their “wingspan”, and the vehicle they were riding in (assuming that a vehicle was involved.)

• Inventory searches –Police Officers may search vehicle and property they lawfully seize to protect themselves from hazardous materials and to prevent false claims of lost property.

• Community caretakers –Police Officers can take property into protective custody if they find it unsecured where it is likely to be lost or stolen.

• Exigent circumstances –Police Officers can enter property and conduct searches without warrants in circumstances where they reasonably believe that the failure to do so will result in the loss or destruction of evidence, harm to individual, or the escape of suspects. For example, if a fleeing felon runs into your house as the Police pursue him, the Police do not need a search warrant before they can run in after him.

• Motor vehicle exception –The U.S. Supreme court has rules that Police Officers can conduct searches of motor vehicles without a warrant if the vehicle is “readily mobile” and the Police have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.

• Consent –Police Officers may search a person or the property under that person's control with their consent.​
In my experience, the vast majority of Police searches are conducted with consent. I am constantly amazed at the number of people who consent to having their vehicles and persons searched. Especially when the people involved know that they have illegal items hidden on their persons or property. We actually had a case where our narcotics officers pulled over a vehicle and were searching it for drugs. A friend of the person stopped drove by and saw his buddy's vehicle being searched. Being a brainless idiot, he stopped to give the Police a hard time for "hasseling" his friend. The Police asked the second guy if they could search his car and he said "Go ahead." They did. The moron had over one pound of marijuana in his trunk and was subsequently arrested.

If you are stopped while carrying your Benchmade knife, the Police Officer will probably not notice it or mention it unless you give him some other cause for concern. Even if he does notice it and checks it out, as long as you are carrying it in compliance with the laws of your state you will not have a problem. If your knife is found and is illegal, you probably have a better than 50/50 chance of being let go with a warning. If you have and illegal knife and act like a jackass, you have about a 100% chance of being arrested.

hanged.gif
 
Chris, you remind me of a teacher in the Acadamey !! Excelllant job !! I was tring to remain simple, but you covered it all in great detail. The only think I will add is that in the larger cities all police departments have some sort of "anti crime" or "conditions" units who are required to have a minium level of felony or high misdomenor arrest as a part of this units requirements. I have seen officers stop people with knives on their belt ( a NYC ADMIN CODE violation) and check to see if they are Gravity knives ( A PENAL LAW VIOLATION CLASS A misd. ) and make the arrest if they can flick them open, on the more serious Penal Law charge. Their basis for the stop was the lesser Admin Code violation......I only say this to point out that it is always best to carry a knife that complies with the laws of the area you live, work or travel in. Most people never interact with the police on anything other than a traffic stop, and then it is a rare occasion that a search will be conducted. In fact, in almost all cases the driver is the one whose actions will start a search. I did serveral years in one of the smaller NYC Police agencies, and many searches where of persons on the street, subways, and some cars. Mostly all officers would never have arrested someone just for a knife, unless your attitude or other violations existed. That being said, most new officers have never even seen a switchblade and think it is more deadly than their 9mm, due to rumors....it has always been viewed as a criminals weapon and therefore it puts you in a defensive position. I personally only would carry a knife that does not have a spear, bayonet, or double edged blade, and is not a gravity knife ( which most folders are or can be with normal use). Make sure the blade is tight and if not fix it , so it can not be flicked open.

Chris is a excellant Officer and he follows the law in spirit and detail, and most officers do, however he is rare in his understanding of civilian knife ownership and respect for rights. I know after seeing several people killed or badly hurt with a kitchen knife in the normal course of duty, officers react negatively to a knife designed to do injury to others. Enough said.
 
Tom, thanks for the input on the felony squads in larger Police Departments. I failed to consider such assignments. As you might have guessed, I work for a fairly small P.D. I can proudly say, however, that my Department has ballooned from an authorized force of 49 in 1985 to a wopping 52 in 2006. :rolleyes: (Of course we are five Officers short at the moment but, hey, whose counting :( .)

BarneyKill.gif
 
Chris and tom both, I appreciate to the UTMOST, your honest and helpful advice. Thanks to you both...

Cleary
 
My few experiences have a standard (and easily misleading) question asked, "Do you have any weapons?"
Only 1 answer here (if true otherwise), "No, Sir."
Then, if they are still going to search you, politely add in a separate sentence, "I would like to advise you that I do commonly carry a pocket knife which you will find in my left front pocket/glove box/trunk/toolbox."
Despite having a (or more) knives (bladed tools) unless you answer 'Yes' to this question you will likely not have a problem. Once you have identified a knife as a weapon, the LEO must assume it IS a weapon and treat you accordingly.Time of day/night, place of incident and circumstance of search withstanding....proper attitude and polite compliance go a long way.
 
1.) Research your state's Penal Law -- know whether the knife in question is legal for you to possess and carry concealed.

2.) ALWAYS be polite to the police!!!

3.) NEVER "consent" to an improper search -- if they don't have "reasonable cause" to suspect that you have committed an unlawful act, they do NOT (usually) have the right to search you. If you refuse to consent, expect to be threatened with arrest, verbally abused, or detained indefinitely until the officer's supervisor arrives on the scene . . . many officers will suspect that you "must have something to hide" and will be unwilling to just let you walk away after refusing to consent to an improper search.

4.) Bikers are used to hassles with the police. One tactic that has been adopted by many bikers to safeguard their rights is to carry a microcassette recorder on their belt. Before the officer approaches, the biker takes out the recorder, switches it on, and sets it in plain view with the red "record" light lit.

5.) If you are carrying an unlawful knife, have an attorney on retainer, keep his (or her) card in your wallet, and follow your attorney's advice -- which will probably entail being polite to the police, refusing to consent to an improper search, not saying anything incriminating, and calling him the moment an arrest is made.


Automatic knives are impressive to many people, but there are other knives which are more durable and can be deployed just as fast . . . without being illegal.
 
I used to live in city of Dayton proper, it was difficult get the police to come out and investigate a breakin/robbery or anything that wasn't a bank robbery or shots fired. Call it understaffed or whatever you want, but unless you're doing something to draw attention to yourself I wouldn't worry.

Plus, as an aside, I always found it amusing that the monthly gunshows out at the old convention center place, no one ever asked for ID when buying an auto.
 
My feeling is that this discussion is not about a few LEO's on this site that seem to be fair guys. It is about LEO's in general. They are not fair guys.

I have experienced being thrown in the can for nothing by a cop and his report was a complete fabrication. In the end nothing came of it.

When you have a cop breathing down your neck he has the ability to do whatever he pleases and write whatever lies he needs to, to cover it up.

The citizen doesn't have a chance against a cop having a bad day or a cop that enjoys his power.

When you respectfully refuse the unwarrented search just what do you think is going to happen? That the nice officer will say OK and let you go? Hell no. You will be detained until proper authorization is received to tear your car apart. Maybe your car will be impounded while you sit in a cell and the cops search your vehicle for what you are hiding. After all, you must be hiding something if you don't want to be searched. Even if you are not.
 
Steve Poll said:
The citizen doesn't have a chance against a cop having a bad day or a cop that enjoys his power.

When you respectfully refuse the unwarrented search just what do you think is going to happen? That the nice officer will say OK and let you go? Hell no. You will be detained until proper authorization is received to tear your car apart. Maybe your car will be impounded while you sit in a cell and the cops search your vehicle for what you are hiding. After all, you must be hiding something if you don't want to be searched. Even if you are not.
Click to expand...

You make a good point . . . but a "bad cop" will not bother with "proper authorization" to violate your rights. Fortunately, any evidence seized as a result of an unlawful search is inadmissible in court. I used to know a deputy sheriff in Upstate NY who used to pull over folks he "knew" were transporting marijuana, then confiscate it to smoke with his burnout girlfriend. Others have done far worse.

Generally speaking, however, MOST cops are not bad. Some are jaded, many are cynical, most are overworked and underpaid. They generally will not be inclined to waste an hour tossing your vehicle unless you've got "Grateful Dead" bumperstickers or dreadlocks . . . or you said or did something to piss them off . . . or you "match the description of someone we're looking for" . . . or he thinks he observed you making a "furtive movement."

Fortunately, most cops are decent folks who tend to respect the rights of the citizenry . . . especially when they're addressed in a respectful manner. There have been numerous occasions when I came in contact with the police -- and they were well within their rights to search me, write me a ticket, or even arrest me -- but they didn't. Why? Mostly because I was polite and respectful . . . a nice change from the abuse they're subjected to on a regular basis. A good cop will cut a decent citizen slack for minor BS.
 
Watchful said:
He can't search you, however, because you "look" suspicious: there's scores of precedents where that's been thrown out...you have to act suspicious, or give the officer reason to think you might be concealing something.
Click to expand...

He has to have an "articulable reason" to detain and search. That means he must be able to describe why he did so. The classic cracked taillight safety stop. The real danger is the cop who does not have a real reason but who makes one up afterwards. Who's going to take your word over his after all; particularly after he's arrested a dangerous biker carrying a deadly weapon?
 
I'll grant you that I work in a small town and admit that there are a$$holes in every profession, including Police work. Never the less, it has been my experience that the people who claim that the cops are "harassing" them or arresting them for "no reason" are generally the ones who drive like maniacs and commit one crime after another. Smart criminals generally don't get caught. It's the idiots who openly sell drugs, beat people up in public, and/or unnecessarily draw attention to themselves that get arrested. Believe you me; there are more than enough of those fools to occupy the time of any sane Police Officer.

I will now address some comments that I find unreasonable and/or objectionable.
rant.gif
“My feeling is that this discussion is not about a few LEO's on this site that seem to be fair guys. It is about LEO's in general. They are not fair guys.”​
I am sure that I know a hell of a lot more cops than you do, and not one of them abuses members of the public. Some of those cops I like and some I don’t. Some are pricks and don’t give anyone a break, and some are lazy and don’t do a damn thing. But not one of the cops I know would knowingly make a false arrest or plant evidence. I believe it is because they are good people and want to do the right thing. If you want to be more cynical, you could say it is because they don’t want to lose their jobs, their homes, or wind up in jail because of an encounter with some jerk on the street. In either case it’s just not in the cop’s best interest to mistreat people.
“I have experienced being thrown in the can for nothing by a cop and his report was a complete fabrication. In the end nothing came of it.”​
I am quite incredulous of claims like these. If you were truly a law abiding innocent citizen who had a Police Officer invent a crime to charge you with, then falsify a report to justify it, you should make a complaint to his Police Department. If they refuse to properly investigate your complaint, you should bring your allegations to the FBI. I am 100% in favor of locking up criminals, especially if they are Police Officers.

However, it is far more likely that you were, in fact, committing a crime and are simply unhappy that you got caught. The fact that your case was later disposed of with less than a conviction does not prove much of anything. Cases are often tossed out because of technical problems with the arrest, or simply for the convenience of the prosecutor. A search that yields contraband or other evidence of a crime has still uncovered criminal activity whether or not that search is later found to be unconstitutional.

In my official capacity I have investigated numerous complaints against Police Officer. The vast majority of complaints are about the Officer’s “attitude”. However, after talking with the “victim” it generally comes out that the person did, in fact, commit the offense they were accused of, and were simply unhappy that the got a ticket or were charged.

During my career three Officers in my Department have been arrested for lying and a few others have been forced out for questionable behavior, usually involving womanizing. None of the people arrested did anything that hurt a member of the public. One guy crashed his cruiser during a chase and falsely claimed that an anonymous car pulled out in front of him and caused the crash. Another guy searched a kid and confiscated an illegal knife. He did not arrest the kid, but later feared he would get yelled at for not doing so. He was arrested because he eventually submitted a false report claiming that a kid from his DARE class turned the knife in to him. The third guy arrested stands accused of identifying undercover narcotics officers to his girlfriend and running the criminal histories of her ex-boyfriends. (The fact that she had multiple former boyfriends with criminal records should have been a red flag for him.) He may actually go to jail for these offenses. These examples show that it’s just not worth it for a Police Officer to lie.

“Who's going to take your word over his after all…”​
Actually, in CT they routinely ask perspective jurors whether they would take the word of a Police Officer over that of another citizen. Despite the common sense argument that Police Officers are specially selected, trained, and paid to be truth tellers, if the candidate for juror answers in the affirmative, they are excluded from sitting on a jury.

Cleary,
As I was going through the posts I re-read your initial and realized that I had not addressed one of your questions. You asked about whether your enlistment in the National Guard and lack of criminal record would lessen your chance of being arrested for carrying a switch blade. I cannot rate your chances of arrest in terms of a percentage but, while it would make a difference to me (prior Marine Corps and knife nut), unfortunately I don’t think it would make a huge difference to the Officer on the scene. Unless you were on your way to or from a drill, the fact that you were carrying a switchblade would probably outweigh the fact of your service to our country and your clean record. The court probably would be swayed by those factors, but chances are you would not get your knife back.

tyr_shadowblade, You seem to be a reasonable fellow and your posts are full of good advice but, since someone else got me torqued up and I’m on a roll, I would like to comment one of your points.
4.) Bikers are used to hassles with the police. One tactic that has been adopted by many bikers to safeguard their rights is to carry a micro cassette recorder on their belt. Before the officer approaches, the biker takes out the recorder, switches it on, and sets it in plain view with the red "record" light lit.​
According to my training, this is actually a tactic used by outlaw bikers, most notably the Hell’s Angels. These people belong to criminal gangs and presumably have to break various laws just to get into the gang. They do not get “hassled”; they just occasionally get caught breaking the law. Law abiding bikers, like most law abiding citizens, rarely get stopped by the Police other than for speeding and don’t really have a need to try intimidating the Police with tape recorders or video cameras.

I tend to think of myself as being pretty cynical and jaded from all my years as a Police Officer but, honestly, some of you people make me look like naïve teenager. The difference is that my views are probably the more grounded in reality. The people with the big chips on their shoulders need to take a good long look in the mirror. When you’re caught doing something you know is wrong, blame yourself not the person that catches you.

You know, it will be a relief when I finally retire because I will no longer have to be around the people who constantly carp about the Police. It’s usually the criminals and their appeasers (liberals) who do the most complaining. Normal law abiding citizens generally have little or no contact with the Police but appreciate their efforts to keep the trouble makers out of their lives.

Sorry for ranting but even I can only take so much.
rant.gif
 
Terry versus Ohio is case law that pertains to warrantless searches.

The case of Terry v Ohio was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States to look into the issue of police officers invading the personal space of citizens, while not having probable cause. It had been (and still) quite common for police officers to stop suspicious people on the street based on hunches. Police feel that random interrogations can deter street crime. More commonly known as the “stop and frisk”, this procedure was formally created in the following case.

In October of 1963, a police officer observed two suspicious men, one of them Terry, standing on a street corner. He had never seen the men in the area before, and his police instincts drew them to his eye. In his opinion, they were not in the right place at the right time. Due to this suspicion, the officer took up surveillance from approximately 400 feet away. He observed one of the men leave the corner, and walk past several stores. The man looked into the store windows, and continued walking. After a minute, he turned back around, and looked in the same windows again as he went back to the corner where his friend was waiting. The two then spoke for a brief period of time. Then, the man who had previously stayed on the corner then proceeded to perform the same steps as his friend had done previously. After looking into the same stores and coming back, the first man performed the same act again. The two men switched back and forth six times, always looking into the same stores. While the two men were conferring after their trips, a third man approached the first two, and engaged them in conversation. The third man then walked away, allowing the first two to continue their pacing past the stores. After another 10 minutes of this, the first two men left the corner together; following the direction the third man took when he left.

By now, the police officer was extremely suspicious. From his 35 years of experience, he believed that the men were “casing a job”, or evaluating targets to be robbed. He considered it his duty to investigate further. He also feared that the men may have been armed, as in his opinion they were about to commit robbery. The officer then followed the two until they met back up with the third man in front of one particular store. The officer took this opportunity to approach all three men, and identify himself as a police officer. He asked the three men their names, they mumbled incoherently. The officer then grabbed the man in the middle, whom happened to be Terry, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket, he felt a hand gun, but was unable to remove it. The officer then ordered the three men into the store, where he then removed Terry’s jacket, and retrieved a .38-caliber pistol. At that point, the officer then patted down the third man, and he found another pistol. No weapons were found on the remaining man during his pat down. The officer never felt beneath the outer clothing of the men until he had located guns on the outside clothing. Once the officer found the weapons on the two suspects, this gave him probable cause to fully search those individuals for any other contraband. He then called for backup, and took all three men into custody, and Terry, along with the other man whom had a weapon, were to be charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to one to three years. The gun and ammunition confiscated by the police offer was used as evidence in the trial. The defense had filed a pre-trial motion to have the evidence suppressed. Any evidence found as the result of an illegal search, in this case the gun, would not be admissible. However, first the search needed to be deemed illegal. The motion was denied, as the judge felt that on the basis of the officer’s experience, he had cause to conduct an interrogation, therefore not violating Terry’s fourth amendment rights. Upon the outcome of the trial, the defense appealed to the Supreme Court.

The main question the Supreme Court had was whether Terry’s right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. First, the Court decided that any time an officer restrains a person’s ability to walk away, he is seized. The Court also said that a patting of outer clothing is indeed a search. Therefore, the judgment here is as to whether or not the actions were considered reasonable. They went on to state that when practical, police must have probable cause, and a warrant to perform a search. However, during on-the-spot observations during a beat, it is not practical for an officer to obtain a warrant. Yet, good faith alone cannot be enough to determine a situation unpractical, and to override these regulations. The Court believed that the actions the officer witnessed were enough to allow the officer to reasonably suspect the men could have been armed. The search was carefully restricted to the outer clothing where a weapon may have been located. On the one man where no weapon was found, the officer discontinued his search. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction to Terry.

The outcome of this case causes repercussions that are not obvious to some. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without a warrant, or even probable cause, as long as he or she can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. Also, anything the officer feels during that pat down may then be used as probable cause, allowing the officer to complete a full search. Since Terry v Ohio, other cases have come before the Supreme Court that have extended the power of the “stop and frisk”, extending that power to “frisk” cars, for example. Whenever the judiciary “creates” law, it can and will cause controversy, and this is no exception.

from http://mo.essortment.com/terryohiostop_rorf.htm
 
I'm a 16 year veteran LEO in Ohio. Chris and shootist16 are very correct. In reference to shootist16, in Ohio we call this a Terry frisk. All the points are correct in shootist16's post and I would like to add just a little. To reitterate, the Terry frisk is for a frisk of the outer garments for weapons only and the officer must articulate why this is being done. However, during the Terry frisk if an officer places his hands on the suspects pocket and feels what he knows, from his experience and once again he must be able to articulate his experience, to be a crack pipe or other illegal object that he can readily recognized without having to manipulate it with your hand to find out what it is, it can be seized legally....FWIW...Bob
 
I still maintain that the cops can do anything they want to you. Anything else is balony or wishful thinking.

If I am lawfully or unlawfully stopped where is it written that I have to be polite and kiss the cops *ss? That is a common saying by sheeple who are precisely afraid of what the cop will do to them if they don't grovel to the omnipotent LOE. I am not advocating cursing the cop out at all. I am adament about speaking my mind and treating the cop like I would anyone else. Is there any doubt in anyones mind that treating the cop like anyone else will get you treated in an unfair manner? Then you say the only option is to grovel and be afraid because the cop can in fact do anything to you and then cover up his actions. The blue wall will back him up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top