Thin blue line car decal

[GPP]

It is darn scary that cops think trying to coerce people into giving up their rights by lying to them is just another tool given to them by lawyers. Pretty darn sad too. I hope none of the LEO's here think that way.

As usual, you bypassed a big piece. If people told us the truth, things would be quite different, wouldnt they?
I dont make It a habit to coerce people into anything. But if you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and you dont own up to it, well then what would you like us to do? Suppose the guy im coercing or bluffing or lying to just broke into your house. Would you prefer I accept himat face value when he tells me he just found a 42 inch tv on the sideof the road? And his cousin is coming to pick him up, but he cant remember his cousins name?
Id love to have you and some of the other guys on here come with me sometime. Im not talking about the door kicking, dogshooting, rights violating bullshit. Im talking the day in day out fun stuff, like the scenario I presented above. Its easy to pick the LE industry apart, because of our own blatant idiocy at times, youtube, tv etc. But the reality of it is, you havent the slightest idea how to do the job.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Bluffing may be a good technique in interrogation (the old "separate the suspects and tell each on the other confessed"), but it's heading down a slippery slope when it is used to cheat a suspect out of his rights - for example, the right not to be subject to a warrantless search except in exigent circumstances.

In the "old days" (pre-Miranda) police could bluff when the suspect asked for an attorney - "it will make you look guilty", "why - only guilty people need laywers", "that won't look good when this goes to court", etc. The courts ended that.

In some jurisdictions consent searches require a "consent form" which states that the suspect is free to decline, and that (e)he has been made no promises of leniency in return for consenting. In other jurisdictions it just takes a nod of the head to an intimidating "you don't mine if I look in the car do you?" and "If you've got nothing to hide, you'll let me look".

Interesting you are saying it is 'lawyers' who made these things legal. Shows your line or reasoning. Scary.

Most judges are attorneys. Attorneys argued the states cases when suspects objected to these techniques.

 

[GPP]

Rob I think you get the jist of it, bluffing, lying, coercing, however you want to put it, has its necessary place in the wonderful world of law enforcement.
As far as using the tactic to obtain bogus consent searches, i agree, if you have enough PC, get a search warrant. There is a metric shit ton of case law already on bad searches by LE, and we are supposed to abide by that. Most of us do.
My department has an official consent form, only we arent allowed to use it for searches that we plan on prosecuting evidence found. The thought is, you should be able to articulate in an affidavit why you want to search in the first place if youre asking for consent, so do it the right way.

 

[rep308]

View attachment 123485

The bluff game and a local small town cop that was bulldozing high school drivers rights inspired me to gather the info for my 'freedom doc', a copy of which is in each of my family cars glove compartment along with the family attorney's contact information

 

[Bonesinium]

As usual, you bypassed a big piece. If people told us the truth, things would be quite different, wouldnt they?

I didn't bypass it, you jus ignored it. Post 61.

I dont make It a habit to coerce people into anything. But the reality of it is, you havent the slightest idea how to do the job.

The reality is I don't know you and you don't know me so it is impossible for you to know that. And I hope you make it less than just not being a habit.

My department has an official consent form, only we arent allowed to use it for searches that we plan on prosecuting evidence found. The thought is, you should be able to articulate in an affidavit why you want to search in the first place if youre asking for consent, so do it the right way.

Then why have a consent for at all? Do you mean to tell me there are times when things are done the wrong way? I know you are saying this as a goo thing, but you aren't winning any confidence by telling about having an official form to search that you aren't allowed to use because it is doing things the wrong way. That itself is pretty scary. Maybe you should make a push to get rid of the form all together and replace it with one that instructs officers to get a warrant instead.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob I think you get the jist of it, bluffing, lying, coercing, however you want to put it, has its necessary place in the wonderful world of law enforcement.

This is just another reason never to talk to the police if you are a suspect, or suspected of being a suspect.

If you lie to them in an attempt to manipulate them, it's a crime.

If they like to you in an attempt to manipulate you, it's good police work.

 

[Coyote33]

View attachment 123485

The bluff game and a local small town cop that was bulldozing high school drivers rights inspired me to gather the info for my 'freedom doc', a copy of which is in each of my family cars glove compartment along with the family attorney's contact information

Interesting information to have handy.

I wonder if they would consider having this being "premeditated" something or another.

 

[mpd61]

That Freedom Doc is a great tool, and very relevant if your a suspect involved in a felony........Pretty ghey to hand to a cop during a simple CMVI stop though. Just saying

 

[GPP]

I didn't bypass it, you jus ignored it. Post if people 91.



The know areality is I don't know you and you don't know me so it is impossible for you to know that. And I hope you make it less than just not being a habit.



Then why have a consent for at all? Do you mean to tell me there are times when things are done the wrong way? I know you are saying this as a goo thing, but you aren't winning any confidence by telling about having an official form to search that you aren't allowed to use because it is doing things the wrong way. That itself is pretty scary. Maybe you should make a push to get rid of the form all together and replace it with one that instructs officers to get a warrant instead.

Done the wrong way? No. Done with the knowledge that any info obtained is not going to be used to prosecute someone? Yes.
You want your 14 year old son/daughter prosecuted for rape?
You want your 12 year old daughter prosecuted for distributing child porn?
Maybe youd like your 17 year old drug dealing son prosecuted?
Maybe your 42 year old brother digitally raped your 6 year old son, and it got recorded on the nanny cam, but youre not sure you want to pull the trigger on the charges, cause after all, hes your brother..I can go on and on. About 1/5th of what comes across my desk becomes criminal complaints.
Im not looking to win your confidence, or anyone elses for that matter. Theres alot more going on besides MRAPS and door kicking and dog shooting.

And I reread post 61, I didnt see any reference to how things would be If people actually told the truth, or how youd like me to proceed if its your case im investigating.

 

[GPP]

This is just another reason never to talk to you're 7olice if you are a suspect, or suspected of being a suspect.

If you lie to them in an attempt to manipulate them, it's a crime.

If they like to you in an attempt to manipulate you, it's good police work.

Wait, the bad guy lies and tries to manipulate me and thats a crime? If youre thinking the witness intimidation statute fits that, youre mistaken.

 

[Bonesinium]

Done the wrong way? No.

You are the one who said "so do it the right way" with regards to not using said form. That seems to imply using the form is doing it the wrong way. You know, wrong being the opposite of right. I thought I was agreeing with you, but apparently not.

Done with the knowledge that any info obtained is not going to be used to prosecute someone? Yes.
You want your 14 year old son/daughter prosecuted for rape?
You want your 12 year old daughter prosecuted for distributing child porn?
Maybe youd like your 17 year old drug dealing son prosecuted?
Maybe your 42 year old brother digitally raped your 6 year old son, and it got recorded on the nanny cam, but youre not sure you want to pull the trigger on the charges, cause after all, hes your brother..I can go on and on.

???

I don't have a 12-year-old daughter, and certainly not one that distributes child porn. What are you talking about? Seriously, I'm not sure what this means.

Im not looking to win your confidence, or anyone elses for that matter.

At least your honest. I mean why should people have confidence in cops anyways, right?

Theres alot more going on besides MRAPS and door kicking and dog shooting.

There is. If your point is that the other stuff somehow justifies the not so good stuff, that is a shitty point, so I'm going to assume you were trying to make some other point. Don't know what it is, but I'm sure you had one somewhere.

And I reread post 61, I didnt see any reference to how things would be If people actually told the truth, or how youd like me to proceed if its your case im investigating.

Well you should try reading it again. I said there isn't much of an issue when actually investigating a crime. I made it bold for you so you don't overlook it thrice.

If examples like those (well, the last couple) were the only reasons, there wouldn't be much issue. But when it is used for the purpose of gaining compliance outside the law, big issues. "You must stop filming or I will arrest you, it's a felony." "You must remove that sticker or you are going to jail." Things like that. Serves no legal purpose, and actual serves an illegal one. But sadly, happens all the time. And people like below seem to think it is okay. Far different from using techniques when actual investigating a crime.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Wait, the bad guy lies and tries to manipulate me and thats a crime? If youre thinking the witness intimidation statute fits that, youre mistaken.

Isn't it a criminal offense to make a false statement to a police officer? If not that, then obstruction of justice. You're spot on about the witness intimidation statute not applying the case you cite.

I know it is a criminal offense to make a false statement to a federal agent.

 

[GPP]

Isn't it a criminal offense to make a falis e statement to a police officer? If not that, then obstruction of justice. You're spot on about the witness intimidation statute not applying the case you cite.

I know it is a criminal offense to make a false statement to a federal agent.

I get lied to for a living lol. The obstruction charge you speak of is actually part of the witness intimidation statute, and its not something I can use just because a suspect lied to me.
The federales have their own deal, I cant really speak on what they can do.
Filing a false report is completely different from lying to an officer tho, if you were thinking that was the way to go

 

[GPP]

Bones,
Those were examples of real cases on my desk, you said earlier that we dont know each other, so I certainly wouldnt know if you have a 12 year old daughter.
I guess i was trying to make a shitty point.
Here is a yes or no question.
If your house had been broken into, and exactly $212 cash and a 42 inch screen tv had been taken, and roughly 300 yards away from your house, i was questioning a 20 year old male, in possession of exactly $212 cash, and a 42 inch screen tv, but he told me he found them on the side of the road, would you like me to accept that as gospel truth and let him walk?

 

[Coyote33]

That Freedom Doc is a great tool, and very relevant if your a suspect involved in a felony........Pretty ghey to hand to a cop during a simple CMVI stop though. Just saying

Pretty sad that so many rights might be getting violated by those who are supposed to uphold the law that someone needed to piecemeal together a scorecard in order to keep track of the players.

 

[Bonesinium]

If your house had been broken into, and exactly $212 cash and a 42 inch screen tv had been taken, and roughly 300 yards away from your house, i was questioning a 20 year old male, in possession of exactly $212 cash, and a 42 inch screen tv, but he told me he found them on the side of the road, would you like me to accept that as gospel truth and let him walk?

No, I'd want you to use your freaking head and put two and two together. There are some very clear legal concepts in place already that I know you know. I'm positive a confession is not the only thing that allows you to enact an arrest. Stop playing stupid.

 

[BakerBingo]

No, I'd want you to use your freaking head and put two and two together. There are some very clear legal concepts in place already that I know you know. I'm positive a confession is not the only thing that allows you to enact an arrest. Stop playing stupid.

Actually it's called "probable cause", GPP's example more than meets the requirement.

As far as the freedom doc, make sure you're telling your family to provide license and registration along with that or you could be indirectly subjecting them to an arrest and/or legal search.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As far as the freedom doc, make sure you're telling your family to provide license and registration along with that or you could be indirectly subjecting them to an arrest and/or legal search.

The "do not consent to BAC test" is dangerous advice if someone has not been drinking as it will result in a 120 day loss of license. If one has been drinking, and is over the limit, not consenting means a trial where there can be no mention as to the reason for no BAC test, and the jury will be told to draw no conclusion for either side based on the absence of such a test.

This info is MA specific. In some states, the police are allowed to use force to extract a blood sample if the subject refuses to submit to a BAC test.

 

[GPP]

No, Iim quesd want you to usid your freaking head and put two and two together. There are some very clear legal concepts in place already that I know you know. I'm positive a confession is not the only thing that allows you to enact an arrest. Stop playing stupid.

And you know what? Id use my freaking head, and Id put two and two together, and make an arrest. Too easy, right? Unfortunately, things are very rarely this simple, and thats when the games begin.
I dont violate any rights when I question a suspect, I read Miranda rights from my Miranda card issued to me on 09JAN1989, and I audio and video record my interviews like im supposed to, unless of course the suspect refuses any or all of these options and doesn't say squat.
But I will use the TTPs that I am allowed to use to get answers to questions that need answering.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's called "probably cause", GPP's example more than meets the requirement.

As far as the freedom doc, make sure you're telling your family to provide license and registration along with that or you could be indirectly subjecting them to an arrest and/or legal search.

Probably cause?

 

[rep308]

The "do not consent to BAC test" is dangerous advice if someone has not been drinking as it will result in a 120 day loss of license. If one has been drinking, and is over the limit, not consenting means a trial where there can be no mention as to the reason for no BAC test, and the jury will be told to draw no conclusion for either side based on the absence of such a test.

This info is MA specific. In some states, the police are allowed to use force to extract a blood sample if the subject refuses to submit to a BAC test.

Rob, do not consent to the hand held portable units they stick in your face during a traffic stop. Ditto with the sidewalk olympics called the field sobriety test. They are both subjective and give additional evidence. Once you are at the station looking at the real BAC meter, you have a decision to make based on your drinking that day.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, do not consent to the hand held portable units they stick in your face during a traffic stop. Ditto with the sidewalk olympics called the field sobriety test. They are both subjective and give additional evidence. Once you are at the station looking at the real BAC meter, you have a decision to make based on your drinking that day.

Does MA provide to license revocation for refusing roadside tests, or only for refusing the BAC at the station?

 

[GPP]

Does MA provide to license revocation for refusing roadside tests, or only for refusing the BAC at the station?

The roadside refusal will not get you the license suspension.

 

[inerlogic]

Wow..... i just read through 4 pages of bullshit that is moot if anyone has watched the "don't talk to cops" video.....

 

[Coyote33]

Out of curiosity, I looked these up. There's a lot of different versions of these. Many are pretty goofy.

http://www.cafepress.com/+blue-line+stickers?page=2

 

[Ringworm]

Why would anybody be so ignorant as to abide by a BAC "at a station"? Sorry, cops f**k up more stuff than they will ever be credited for fixing. Demand an actual doctor...

 

[Bonesinium]

Why would anybody be so ignorant as to abide by a BAC "at a station"? Sorry, cops f**k up more stuff than they will ever be credited for fixing. Demand an actual doctor...

Because many states have laws that specifically criminalize refusals and courts accept this infringement of your rights under the constitution because 'drinking and driving is bad, mmkay'.

 

[Kisspik002]

If your a LEO today and want everyone and there brother to know your a LEO then sure put one on your car. The sticker has become so wide spread with people making them and buying them online thinking it will get them out of a ticket or not pulled over, it's ridiculous. I don't need some thug walking by my car and seeing a "LEO" sticker and thinking hmmm a cops car, I'm gonna slash his tires. It's like open carry. Why would you put it out there for everyone to see.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Why would anybody be so ignorant as to abide by a BAC "at a station"? Sorry, cops f**k up more stuff than they will ever be credited for fixing. Demand an actual doctor...

You have a right to a blood test, at your own expense, AFTER the BAC at the station. If you refuse the BAC at the station, it counts as a refusal and your license is administratively suspended. I believe the police have to notify you how to get a court admissable blood test, and where to go for it.

I suspect the chain of custody and paperwork is such that this becomes available to the prosecution no matter what the outcome - it's not a freebie of "disclose of < .08, pretend there was no blood test if >= .08').

Corrections welcome.

 

[Wendell]

Where did you get that sticker son?

The internet sir.

Here is your ticket .

 

[TRN]

Sure...I pay attention to them...and am certain to run that plate.
See them on more shady cars than not.