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.

(Las Vegas Sun)   Nevada Supreme Court rules fingerprints on the trunk do not give police reason to search your car   (lasvegassun.com) divider line 73
    More: PSA, Nevada Supreme Court, supreme court ruling, Kent Beckman, traffic stops, unanimous decision  
•       •       •

6548 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2013 at 3:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-13 12:53:35 PM
In a case ruling Thursday, the court said "a traffic stop that is legitimate when initiated becomes illegitimate when the officer detains the car and driver beyond the time required to process the traffic offense" unless there are other circumstances to justify a prolonged stop.

I'm sure the police can come up with some reason to justify a prolonged stop, they always do.
 
2013-07-13 02:59:21 PM
The court noted there are two other cases pending that involve Trooper Pickers

No doubt.  Most cops are too stupid to handle power well.
 
2013-07-13 03:27:17 PM
Since many people use the trunks of their cars to put just-bought groceries or other recently purchased in, it's logical to assume that those trunks would also have fingerprints. And don't forget that most people keep a spare tire and the equipment necessary to change a flat in the trunk of their respective cars. Again, fingerprints will be present.
 
2013-07-13 03:33:58 PM
That cop really was stupid enough to believe that signs the trunk was recently used is enough for probable cause? Good grief.
 
2013-07-13 03:39:05 PM
A court limiting the ability of cops to search vehicles without permission on the flimsiest excuses ever?  Weird.
 
2013-07-13 03:39:14 PM
hey, they were white finger prints and the only one eating powered sugar donuts was the cop.

we need more of these rulings. lots more. in every state.
 
2013-07-13 03:41:59 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Since many people use the trunks of their cars to put just-bought groceries or other recently purchased in, it's logical to assume that those trunks would also have fingerprints. And don't forget that most people keep a spare tire and the equipment necessary to change a flat in the trunk of their respective cars. Again, fingerprints will be present.


Don't forget that most (if not all) cops will touch the trunk or the rear tail-light to put their own fingerprints on the vehicle. You can see them do it on videos of traffic stops. In case the suspect attacks or tries to leave, there's proof the cop had contact with the vehicle.
 
2013-07-13 03:42:05 PM
If finger prints are enough for reasonable suspicion, everything you use in daily life is fair game for a more in depth investigation.

Not surprising that a LEO saw no problem with this particular train of thought.
 
2013-07-13 03:42:11 PM
acting nervous when pulled over? ZOMG WAT R U HIDING! PROBABLY CAUSE!
 
2013-07-13 03:42:18 PM
Wait. Someone next to Arizona and Texas actually upheld the constitution, AND it was the 4th Amendment?!

Guys, I think I've died and it's snowing in hell.
 
2013-07-13 03:43:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: That cop really was stupid enough to believe that signs the trunk was recently used is enough for probable cause? Good grief.


Either he's a moron that got incredibly lucky or he's the next Sherlock Holmes. There was coke in the vehicle after all.
 
2013-07-13 03:44:14 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The court noted there are two other cases pending that involve Trooper Pickers

No doubt.  Most cops are too stupid to handle power well.


Might be time for the 'Gov and the state to sit down with the head of the Troopers and say, "Look, here's now much this one trooper is costing us in legal costs.  If you got rid of him, you'd have enough in the budget to hire three more troopers."
 
2013-07-13 03:44:28 PM

Testiclaw: If finger prints are enough for reasonable suspicion, everything you use in daily life is fair game for a more in depth investigation.

Not surprising that a LEO saw no problem with this particular train of thought.


Your flawed assumption is that cops get more than two days training and a pocket bible sized copy of annotated codes for their state on legal matters in many places. Some still don't even require any course work at a college level in law or criminal justice to become a recruit.

Honestly, things like this don't surprise me. And it's a case of never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. Cops are not lawyers.

It's why I tend to point out the place to argue a violation of your rights is not on the side of the road with the guy who did it, it's in a court room where you're about to get a check and a police station named after you as a settlement.
 
2013-07-13 03:44:31 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Since many people use the trunks of their cars to put just-bought groceries or other recently purchased in, it's logical to assume that those trunks would also have fingerprints. And don't forget that most people keep a spare tire and the equipment necessary to change a flat in the trunk of their respective cars. Again, fingerprints will be present.


Only criminals put illegal drugs in the trunk, again finger prints.
 
2013-07-13 03:46:45 PM
Well, it didn't say but if the finger prints were of white power that would be enough for a search.
 
2013-07-13 03:47:42 PM
The cop was tipped off about the drugs but had to make it look coincidental. Stopping a car for speeding 7mph over the limit at 7:30 on a Sunday morning is absolutely ridiculous (Yes, it was a Sunday). The excuse about fingerprints was completely ludicrous as well. I'm not sticking up for the drug smuggler as much as just lashing out against illegal cop searches and abuse of power.
 
2013-07-13 03:48:22 PM

Thisbymaster: Well, it didn't say but if the finger prints were of white power that would be enough for a search.


You disgusting bigot. Why did you have to bring race into this.
 
2013-07-13 03:49:01 PM
You folks just don't want them finding the victim in your trunk.
 
2013-07-13 03:49:21 PM

insertsnarkyusername: cameroncrazy1984: That cop really was stupid enough to believe that signs the trunk was recently used is enough for probable cause? Good grief.

Either he's a moron that got incredibly lucky or he's the next Sherlock Holmes. There was coke in the vehicle after all.


It's not luck, it's statistics. How many other vehicles did he try the exact same tactic on only for there to not be drugs? I'm guessing quite a few. A dog's alert doesn't mean shiat anymore as most of the time they're reacting to their handler's calls. If they find nothing it's "Well move along citizen. I guess the dog got it wrong."

Here's an example: From a DUI checkpoint on 4th of July

And if you happen to actually know your rights when it comes to being detained, it just seems to piss them off even more.
 
2013-07-13 03:49:22 PM

hardinparamedic: Testiclaw: If finger prints are enough for reasonable suspicion, everything you use in daily life is fair game for a more in depth investigation.

Not surprising that a LEO saw no problem with this particular train of thought.

Your flawed assumption is that cops get more than two days training and a pocket bible sized copy of annotated codes for their state on legal matters in many places. Some still don't even require any course work at a college level in law or criminal justice to become a recruit.

Honestly, things like this don't surprise me. And it's a case of never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. Cops are not lawyers.

It's why I tend to point out the place to argue a violation of your rights is not on the side of the road with the guy who did it, it's in a court room where you're about to get a check and a police station named after you as a settlement.


...and each cop is an island, without any ability to call other officers, supervisors, or reference various guides, nor do they have access to any devices in their car that can reach the web.

Two days of training and then they're cut off, with no ability to ask questions, reach out for help or continue their education for their job on their own time.

Two days, that's it, for life...so do what you're told and argue later.
 
2013-07-13 03:51:28 PM
thechubrodeo.com
 
2013-07-13 03:53:36 PM

Testiclaw: hardinparamedic: Testiclaw: If finger prints are enough for reasonable suspicion, everything you use in daily life is fair game for a more in depth investigation.

Not surprising that a LEO saw no problem with this particular train of thought.

Your flawed assumption is that cops get more than two days training and a pocket bible sized copy of annotated codes for their state on legal matters in many places. Some still don't even require any course work at a college level in law or criminal justice to become a recruit.

Honestly, things like this don't surprise me. And it's a case of never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. Cops are not lawyers.

It's why I tend to point out the place to argue a violation of your rights is not on the side of the road with the guy who did it, it's in a court room where you're about to get a check and a police station named after you as a settlement.

...and each cop is an island, without any ability to call other officers, supervisors, or reference various guides, nor do they have access to any devices in their car that can reach the web.

Two days of training and then they're cut off, with no ability to ask questions, reach out for help or continue their education for their job on their own time.

Two days, that's it, for life...so do what you're told and argue later.


Two days? Got any evidence of that or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
 
2013-07-13 03:53:49 PM

hardinparamedic: Honestly, things like this don't surprise me. And it's a case of never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. Cops are not lawyers.

It's why I tend to point out the place to argue a violation of your rights is not on the side of the road with the guy who did it, it's in a court room where you're about to get a check and a police station named after you as a settlement.


The cops should know the laws and how to obey them, but you are right in that it is the job of the court to correct them when they fark up.  The missing piece is that the cops that are repeat offenders are not evenly corrected depending on contractual issues, corruption, and incompetence.
 
2013-07-13 03:54:10 PM
Were the fingerprints white and powdery and was there also evidence of someone trying to lick them?

Not that I'd know...
 
2013-07-13 03:57:07 PM
However, that same court has upheld the right for cops to write "Wash Me" in the dust of particularly dirty cars.
 
2013-07-13 03:57:48 PM

Testiclaw: ...and each cop is an island, without any ability to call other officers, supervisors, or reference various guides, nor do they have access to any devices in their car that can reach the web.

Two days of training and then they're cut off, with no ability to ask questions, reach out for help or continue their education for their job on their own time.


Your assumption is that this behavior is limited to cops. There are EMTs out there that will still treat everything the same way they did in 1985. There are doctors out there who will still send every kid they touch to a children's hospital hours away. You're talking about Type A personalities and people who may not have a desire to be educated beyond what they HAVE to do. Not everyone seeks to be exceptional in their job.

I'm getting the feeling you also don't think I see a problem with this because I'm pointing out, or see a problem with the system we have which allows these people to thrive in Law Enforcement.

Testiclaw: so do what you're told and argue later.


Point of order. Do you think Officer Friendly McDickbag cares about your through knowledge of your civil rights under the law of the United States and the Constitution and the fact that you're breaking it. Or do you think you can actually convince the people he calls out there that you didn't just do x-act he made up to justify beating you to a pulp because you dare questioned his authority? Again, you're dealing with a TYpe A, aggressive personality who really doesn't give a shiat about you. That was the point that was made by that statement. The side of the road is not the place to try to hold someone like that accountable, especially when you have no evidence on your side of the story. It's not a justification or an excuse, it's an observation based on the fact that at that place and time, no matter what, you're going to lose - and maybe in a big, life-altering way.

At the point he tells you he doesn't give a shiat what the 4th amendment says, and breaks into your trunk to do an illegal search, he doesn't care what you think about the matter. You bite your lip, refuse to talk, and get a lawyer PDQ.
 
2013-07-13 03:58:58 PM

bhcompy: hardinparamedic: Honestly, things like this don't surprise me. And it's a case of never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. Cops are not lawyers.

It's why I tend to point out the place to argue a violation of your rights is not on the side of the road with the guy who did it, it's in a court room where you're about to get a check and a police station named after you as a settlement.

The cops should know the laws and how to obey them, but you are right in that it is the job of the court to correct them when they fark up.  The missing piece is that the cops that are repeat offenders are not evenly corrected depending on contractual issues, corruption, and incompetence.


This is kind of what I was getting at, albeit crudely: cops are there to enforce laws, and detain those who disobey laws.

It is not unreasonable for the people to expect them to have a working knowledge of said laws. It is not a hobby, after all, it is their profession, it is why they are worth the money we spend on them and the power (force) we grant them.

Slip ups will happen, without a doubt, as they do in every profession, but LEOs have shown us time and time again that they deserve no benefit of the doubt.

Their kind is, quite literally, killing us.
 
2013-07-13 04:01:17 PM

change1211: Two days? Got any evidence of that or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?


Which department are you talking about? The one that requires a 2 or 4 year degree in Criminal Justice for recruits, or the one who's so hard up for people that they'll put someone through the minimum required POST training by their state to get them on the street right after they turn 21?

While I'm sure it's an anecdote about 16 hours, some rural departments still don't send their people to any kind of police academy or training center, and do their training OTJ and in house.
 
2013-07-13 04:03:45 PM

Testiclaw: This is kind of what I was getting at, albeit crudely: cops are there to enforce laws, and detain those who disobey laws.

It is not unreasonable for the people to expect them to have a working knowledge of said laws. It is not a hobby, after all, it is their profession, it is why they are worth the money we spend on them and the power (force) we grant them.

Slip ups will happen, without a doubt, as they do in every profession, but LEOs have shown us time and time again that they deserve no benefit of the doubt.

Their kind is, quite literally, killing us.


I actually agree with you on all of that, for the record.
 
GBB
2013-07-13 04:04:35 PM

basemetal: In a case ruling Thursday, the court said "a traffic stop that is legitimate when initiated becomes illegitimate when the officer detains the car and driver beyond the time required to process the traffic offense" unless there are other circumstances to justify a prolonged stop.

I'm sure the police can come up with some reason to justify a prolonged stop, they always do.


The trick is to 1st ask for the search.  When denied, take a long time to write the ticket and hope the k9 unit is close by.

But, as others have stated, the cop got everything backwards.  He wasn't interested in checking the car until he saw the prints and the nervousness of the driver AFTER he wrote out the ticket.  He asked for the search and was denied, but then thought that he had probable cause based on observation.  He didn't realize that just about anything on the exterior of the car, which is exposed to the public and the environment, is nearly always inadmissible.
 
2013-07-13 04:05:00 PM

megarian: Were the fingerprints white and powdery and was there also evidence of someone trying to lick them?

Not that I'd know...


You have an interesting hobby.
 
2013-07-13 04:05:30 PM

hardinparamedic: Wait. Someone next to Arizona and Texas actually upheld the constitution, AND it was the 4th Amendment?!

Guys, I think I've died and it's snowing in hell.


Umm.. No   But it was snowing the entire semester you took Geography.

\Texas is 600 miles away.
 
2013-07-13 04:06:00 PM
Just some info from a Nevadan: Elko is at the far, far end of our state.  If you view Nevada as having three points, Elko is on the one that's far away from both Reno and Las Vegas.  I'm not saying that every Trooper in Elko is a farkup, but if you're not a local and you get sent there it usually isn't because you're on the up-and-coming roster.  The fact that this guy has two other cases pending involving him has me shocked, SHOCKED I say.

insertsnarkyusername: cameroncrazy1984: That cop really was stupid enough to believe that signs the trunk was recently used is enough for probable cause? Good grief.

Either he's a moron that got incredibly lucky or he's the next Sherlock Holmes. There was coke in the vehicle after all.


There's no luck involved when you search every single car you stop.  The court only gets to hear about the cases where the cops found something.  It almost never hears about the times when a cop goes "you're acting nervous Sir, I'm going to detain you while I get the drug dog down here" and finds absolutely bupkis.
 
2013-07-13 04:07:16 PM

scandalrag: Umm.. No   But it was snowing the entire semester you took Geography.

\Texas is 600 miles away.


Anything touching Arizona OR Texas is not a place I'd expect to be a bastion of human rights.

You must be a hit at parties. :)
 
2013-07-13 04:21:52 PM
there are two other cases pending that involve Trooper Pickers

Guys, you don't get it. He has only two other cases pending and it clearly indicates that he's a good cop.
 
2013-07-13 04:24:03 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: Were the fingerprints white and powdery and was there also evidence of someone trying to lick them?

Not that I'd know...

You have an interesting hobby.


It's a Subaru. The commercials said it can go pretty much anywhere.
 
2013-07-13 04:24:58 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The court noted there are two other cases pending that involve Trooper Pickers

No doubt.  Most cops are too stupid to handle power well.


Most cops are either to young to weak or lack the strangth of character to do the job well.

the world needs far fewer cops. With far better training. And a yearly lesson in civic responsibility.

Also no cops under the age of 25 and gender race and sexual orientation count for nothing. If you cant physically perform the job then you need a new career.

simple steps that would solve lots of the problems the pigs currently display.
 
2013-07-13 04:26:29 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: You folks just don't want them finding the victim in your trunk.


I love when they find the victim in my trunk. That way, everyone can sit down and have a good laugh. And some blow.
 
2013-07-13 04:27:27 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Marcus Aurelius: The court noted there are two other cases pending that involve Trooper Pickers

No doubt.  Most cops are too stupid to handle power well.

Most cops are either to young to weak or lack the strangth of character to do the job well.

the world needs far fewer cops. With far better training. And a yearly lesson in civic responsibility.

Also no cops under the age of 25 and gender race and sexual orientation count for nothing. If you cant physically perform the job then you need a new career.

simple steps that would solve lots of the problems the pigs currently display.


Also they need weekly drug tests. And steroids are a fireable offense.
 
2013-07-13 04:28:01 PM

megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: Were the fingerprints white and powdery and was there also evidence of someone trying to lick them?

Not that I'd know...

You have an interesting hobby.

It's a Subaru. The commercials said it can go pretty much anywhere.


Especially if you like the butch type.
 
2013-07-13 04:30:02 PM

hardinparamedic: Testiclaw: If finger prints are enough for reasonable suspicion, everything you use in daily life is fair game for a more in depth investigation.

Not surprising that a LEO saw no problem with this particular train of thought.

Your flawed assumption is that cops get more than two days training and a pocket bible sized copy of annotated codes for their state on legal matters in many places. Some still don't even require any course work at a college level in law or criminal justice to become a recruit.

Honestly, things like this don't surprise me. And it's a case of never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity. Cops are not lawyers.

It's why I tend to point out the place to argue a violation of your rights is not on the side of the road with the guy who did it, it's in a court room where you're about to get a check and a police station named after you as a settlement.


You're assumption is also wrong regarding training. Maybe it's only a couple of days where you live, but in Oregon police academy students are required to take a 640 hour Basic Police Course.
 
2013-07-13 04:32:25 PM
Wait, a judge didn't immediately side with a cop?  I sense the judge being 'caught' with a massive amount of weed and coke in his car, almost exactly the weight of what's currently in the PD's evidence locker.

/Snark
 
2013-07-13 04:35:07 PM

megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: You folks just don't want them finding the victim in your trunk.

I love when they find the victim in my trunk. That way, everyone can sit down and have a good laugh. And some blow.


thechubrodeo.com

Caption now updated to "Just kidding, there's nose candy."
 
2013-07-13 04:36:39 PM

UsikFark: megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: Were the fingerprints white and powdery and was there also evidence of someone trying to lick them?

Not that I'd know...

You have an interesting hobby.

It's a Subaru. The commercials said it can go pretty much anywhere.

Especially if you like the butch type.


UsikFark...this guy gets it.
 
2013-07-13 04:37:42 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: You folks just don't want them finding the victim in your trunk.

I love when they find the victim in my trunk. That way, everyone can sit down and have a good laugh. And some blow.



Caption now updated to "Just kidding, there's nose candy."


Alright...I laughed harder at than I'm proud of.
 
2013-07-13 04:37:50 PM

Bathia_Mapes: You're assumption is also wrong regarding training. Maybe it's only a couple of days where you live, but in Oregon police academy students are required to take a 640 hour Basic Police Course.


Where I used to live, it was on the job training and they would be sent to Nashville to take their POST exam. But that was a county of 10,000 people.

The county where I live now requires a 160 hour course basic, and you can pretty much write off getting hired without at least two years of college coursework in a Law Enforcement discipline. They're also one of the departments that requires the volunteer reserves to go through the same training as paid officers.
 
2013-07-13 04:39:03 PM

megarian: UsikFark: megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: Were the fingerprints white and powdery and was there also evidence of someone trying to lick them?

Not that I'd know...

You have an interesting hobby.

It's a Subaru. The commercials said it can go pretty much anywhere.

Especially if you like the butch type.

UsikFark...this guy gets it.


Well I'm glad somebody does. I mostly just mill about and comment on the weather.
 
2013-07-13 04:40:53 PM

megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: Agent Smiths Laugh: You folks just don't want them finding the victim in your trunk.

I love when they find the victim in my trunk. That way, everyone can sit down and have a good laugh. And some blow.

Caption now updated to "Just kidding, there's nose candy."

Alright...I laughed harder at than I'm proud of.


My work here is done.

/and none too soon, that was exhausting
 
2013-07-13 04:51:43 PM
I think they made the correct ruling.
 
2013-07-13 04:56:38 PM

Bucky Katt: I think they made the correct ruling.


This was the correct comment.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report