If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NW Florida Daily News)   When a deputy pulls you over and asks if you have drugs in your car, your best response is: A) Ask to speak to a laywer B) Say nothing at all C) "I wish I could say 'no.'"   (nwfdailynews.com) divider line 37
    More: Florida, best response, water pipes, Niceville  
•       •       •

3987 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 9:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-16 07:24:17 AM  
Nope. No guns. No drugs. No dead bodies....
 
2012-08-16 08:32:31 AM  
He then told the deputy there was reefer and a pipe in the center console.

...daddio
 
2012-08-16 10:02:06 AM  
Just say " NO "
 
2012-08-16 10:02:13 AM  
jpgdump.com
You know who else wishes she could say no?
 
2012-08-16 10:02:27 AM  
There's something to be said for being truthful. I'm not sure what that something is, but there's something to be said.
 
2012-08-16 10:04:24 AM  
he could have at least made up another question in his mind like "am i stupid?" and said NO out loud to answer it
 
2012-08-16 10:06:19 AM  
at least by telling the truth his sentence will only be a month instead of like 10 years
 
2012-08-16 10:08:40 AM  
I respect the guy for being honest. And considering the cop was already searching the car, I don't think he had much chance of getting away with it.
 
2012-08-16 10:10:57 AM  
D) "Not as far as you know".
 
2012-08-16 10:17:35 AM  

stupiddream: There's something to be said for being truthful. I'm not sure what that something is, but there's something to be said.


This is a case where it might actually be better. Guy gets misdemeanor charges instead by being truthful versus having the cops through every charge they can imagine if they have to bring a K-9 out who "indicates" drugs.

/yeah, that is for a different thread
 
2012-08-16 10:21:36 AM  
"Marijuana's not a drug, man... it's an herb."
 
2012-08-16 10:22:57 AM  

Oliver Twisted: stupiddream: There's something to be said for being truthful. I'm not sure what that something is, but there's something to be said.

This is a case where it might actually be better. Guy gets misdemeanor charges instead by being truthful versus having the cops through every charge they can imagine if they have to bring a K-9 out who "indicates" drugs.

/yeah, that is for a different thread


Oh man, drug dogs. Those and the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test are proof that too many judges have no concern for the reliability of police evidence.
 
2012-08-16 10:24:07 AM  

sandbar67: "Marijuana's not a drug, man... it's an herb."


Chamomile's not an herb, duh it's a tea
 
2012-08-16 10:29:58 AM  
Four grams of this incredibly dangerous drug!?!! OMFG! Life imprisonment is too good for this monster! Why that amount has a street value of $22 bizillion. We have to stop these kinpins before they destroy our democracy.
 
2012-08-16 10:31:29 AM  

JackieRabbit: Four grams of this incredibly dangerous drug!?!! OMFG! Life imprisonment is too good for this monster! Why that amount has a street value of $22 bizillion35. We have to stop theseprescribe less kinpins before they destroy our democracy.


cd1.ddccdn.com
 
2012-08-16 10:37:08 AM  
Always reply with a question such as,

Why do you ask?
Am I under arrest?
Can I go now?
Do I look like a dumbazz?
 
2012-08-16 10:38:11 AM  
ossifer??
 
2012-08-16 10:48:01 AM  

whenIsayGO: I respect the guy for being honest. And considering the cop was already searching the car, I don't think he had much chance of getting away with it.


Doesn't matter if he had drugs or not. The proper response is to say nothing and decline any request to search the car. At least then he has a leg to stand on when he gets to court.
 
2012-08-16 10:52:20 AM  
i respect the honesty. when you're caught, you're caught.
 
2012-08-16 10:58:44 AM  
Reefer??? Did he buy a lid, maaaaan????

Know your rights stoney mcstone. Lock up your stash. Even with a warrant to search the vehicle they need another one to search locked items.

At least in WA state. Not sure about derpville though.
 
2012-08-16 10:59:14 AM  

gingerjet: whenIsayGO: I respect the guy for being honest. And considering the cop was already searching the car, I don't think he had much chance of getting away with it.

Doesn't matter if he had drugs or not. The proper response is to say nothing and decline any request to search the car. At least then he has a leg to stand on when he gets to court.


i agree, but this guy was pretty much screwed.

here, the officer had already established probable cause by noticing the drug paraphernalia. the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th amendment allows an officer to search a car without warrant if he has probable cause.

so, the search was on, the cop didn't need consent.

the problem is not so much the search, now it's the confession. but, intent doesn't matter with drug charges, so he's going to get hit no matter what. harmless error (i used that term, but not as a term of art, harmless error means something other than what I said here). it probably won't even be used as evidence. in stead, they'll have the drugs and the officer's statement that he found the drugs.

either way, he should have hid the pipe apparatus, kept it from plain view. then said no to a search. had he done these things, he'd probably have driven away from the stop with a traffic ticket. unless there were other reasons to establish probable cause, or the cop felt like being a dick and called a drug dog. 

/ whatever the story, you are very vulnerable to police while in your car.
 
2012-08-16 10:59:58 AM  

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: [jpgdump.com image 500x335]
You know who else wishes she could say no?


Nice I'm glad he's catching on.
My favorite new character and catch phrase.

/You know who else tears through things?
 
2012-08-16 11:00:50 AM  

wotthefark: Reefer??? Did he buy a lid, maaaaan????

Know your rights stoney mcstone. Lock up your stash. Even with a warrant to search the vehicle they need another one to search locked items.

At least in WA state. Not sure about derpville though.


what? you need a warrant to search a car in WA? that's crazy talk. do y'all just have an army of magistrates hanging around the phones all night long?
 
2012-08-16 11:04:07 AM  

Badfysh: D) "Not as far as you know".


See also "Not to my knowledge"
 
2012-08-16 11:10:26 AM  
Sometimes you gotta know how to talk to the cops
So I'll tell you what I tell them whenever I get stopped
Look occifer I know that you're peeved
And I'm sorry about that chunk I blew on your sleeve
But I already got a DWI so why don't you make like a bakery truck and leave

butt ugly fart breath....
 
2012-08-16 11:30:38 AM  
I woulda told him to piss off!
 
2012-08-16 11:31:05 AM  

SpocksMomIsAKlepto: i respect the honesty. when you're caught, you're caught.


And it really makes no difference. There's no reason to lie. The cop can search anything that isn't locked and can search locked areas if you agree. So if you're carrying, it's going to be found.

CSB: Back in the 1970s, I was out bar-hopping with some friends. Mu buddy had a bag of pot in his glovebox. A cop pulled us over and said that there had been a robbery on the other side of town and that my friend's car matched the description of the perp's vehicle. He asked if he could search the car. My friend agreed and we all pile out. I was watching the cop as he opened the glovebox and the bag of pot rolled out and hit the floorboard. Oh shiat! Busted. A couple of minutes later the cop apologized for the inconvenience and thanked us. When I went to get into the passenger side of the car, the bag was lying on the seat.
 
2012-08-16 11:50:50 AM  
NARCOTIC:
The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations. When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation

/it's Wiki, just change the definition to suit yourself
 
2012-08-16 12:06:10 PM  
"why? what have you heard??"
 
2012-08-16 12:45:02 PM  

snocone: NARCOTIC:
The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations. When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation

/it's Wiki, just change the definition to suit yourself


A narcotic is a specific set of substances, whether legal or illegal. In legal parlance the word refers to banned substances that have addictive qualities. In most states now, marijuana is no longer considered a narcotic, but is classified as a banned substance.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:35 PM  

JackieRabbit: snocone: NARCOTIC:
The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations. When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation

/it's Wiki, just change the definition to suit yourself

A narcotic is a specific set of substances, whether legal or illegal. In legal parlance the word refers to banned substances that have addictive qualities. In most states now, marijuana is no longer considered a narcotic, but is classified as a banned substance.


a "narcotic" is anything that slows down society or people. so by making stuff illegal, we're in affect making it more harmful (more narcotic like)
 
2012-08-16 01:37:22 PM  
Ugh. When I was (unfortunately) in jail on Thursday night awaiting my release, my boyfriend was sitting outside the night court room, where people get released, speaking to some guy's dad who was also there to bail someone out (his son, obviously). Apparently, his son was in jail that night because he was stopped at a DUI checkpoint (like every other person traveling down that same road at that same time) and when the officers did their routine questioning and asked whether or not he had drugs on him, he (stupidly and freely) admitted that yes, he had a dime bag of weed on him. *SMH*

They weren't searching him, they didn't even suspect anything, really. He just very openly admitted to it. At least he was just getting processed and let out. And honestly, I'm surprised they didn't just seize it and issue him a summons through the mail. Perhaps he had a prior record though...

Sigh...the police tell you that if you just co-operate and be honest with them, they will help you, but they never hold true to that. I didn't read the article so I don't know what drugs he had, but like the guy I mentioned above...couldn't the cops have just done what I mentioned and just seized it, destroyed it, and sent him a summons? Or even just let him go? I've heard of that happening. Hell, I saw it happen to my friend one time (though it was only half a joint). Anything you say to the police will ultimately be used to hang you, but if you don't co-operate, they will try their hardest to make your life a living farking hell, and we've given them so much legal power that they absolutely can and will destroy you.

At least in my case, the police seemed like they genuinely didn't want to have to arrest me, but because of how many plants I had, they pretty much had to...but they were as kind as they could be and did as much as they could to ensure that I would not be there longer than I had to be. The one who drove me down to the jail said that they're bound by the law and that they are paid to enforce it and that they pretty much just "follow orders" and all I could think was "you know who else was just 'following orders'?" Seriously though, there are growing numbers of police now that are seeing the futility, harm, and what a total waste of effort and money the "War on Drugs" is and has been. LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is getting a louder voice and growing numbers all the time and for good reason. It's stupid to keep ruining people's lives over stupid shiat like this.

Do you know that if I get convicted of this drug charge that I will be totally ineligible for federal financial aid and that I will lose all of my grant money to continue going to college? But that if that conviction were for say, a rape, or an assault, or larceny, I would still be totally eligible? That ONLY drug convictions prevent you from being able to access federal financial aid for college? How STUPID is that? And wouldn't you agree that college students in particular are in danger of being arrested and prosecuted for this because of the prevalence of marijuana use by college-aged young people? Seriously though...I could lose my entire ability to pay for school if I get convicted of this shiat.

Funny, I had just read that other link about there not automatically being a comment preview before you post it and I had just wound up going on a rant and typing about my own arrest and venting out the aggression and anger and betrayal I feel as a result of it, but I (thankfully) started seeing that it was becoming a wall of text and that said story was probably unwarranted and would result in someone ripping me a few new assholes for it, so I just deleted it. I'm sorry though; I can't help but think about it because it was so very recent and so very stupid and it's just like "really? farking weed? I'm getting arrested over POT in 2012?" and it's so very, very, very unjust.
 
2012-08-16 03:04:50 PM  

JackieRabbit: SpocksMomIsAKlepto: i respect the honesty. when you're caught, you're caught.

And it really makes no difference. There's no reason to lie. The cop can search anything that isn't locked and can search locked areas if you agree. So if you're carrying, it's going to be found.

CSB: Back in the 1970s, I was out bar-hopping with some friends. Mu buddy had a bag of pot in his glovebox. A cop pulled us over and said that there had been a robbery on the other side of town and that my friend's car matched the description of the perp's vehicle. He asked if he could search the car. My friend agreed and we all pile out. I was watching the cop as he opened the glovebox and the bag of pot rolled out and hit the floorboard. Oh shiat! Busted. A couple of minutes later the cop apologized for the inconvenience and thanked us. When I went to get into the passenger side of the car, the bag was lying on the seat.


Best. Cop. EVAR! If only more cops were that way.
 
2012-08-16 03:34:28 PM  
In Florida, I'm told the officer must have a "reasonable suspicion" (which is a little looser than probable cause) before conducting a roadside search. No warrant needed.

Seeing drug paraphernalia would certainly constitute reasonable suspicion.

Any young dude driving with both hands on the wheel, five miles an hour under the speed limit, in the far right-hand lane would also constitute reasonable suspicion.
 
2012-08-17 01:08:31 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: at least by telling the truth his sentence will only be a month instead of like 10 years


That's what the police would like people to think, but ask any attorney or judge and you'll find out that telling the police anything when you are the defendant or suspect will do absolutely nothing good for you in your coming trial and sentencing. They like people to think that if you cooperate by telling them things that the prosecution will be easier on you, but that's all just lies used to entice idiots to confess to things they don't have evidence to prove in a court of law.
 
2012-08-17 06:29:33 AM  
At least the guy was honest.
 
2012-08-17 09:35:19 AM  

simkatu: Jon iz teh kewl: at least by telling the truth his sentence will only be a month instead of like 10 years

That's what the police would like people to think, but ask any attorney or judge and you'll find out that telling the police anything when you are the defendant or suspect will do absolutely nothing good for you in your coming trial and sentencing. They like people to think that if you cooperate by telling them things that the prosecution will be easier on you, but that's all just lies used to entice idiots to confess to things they don't have evidence to prove in a court of law.


additionally, is there any evidence they played nice with him? he got possession for under 20 grams. the guy had 4 grams. sounds like they threw as much of the book at him as they could
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report