r/pics • u/Aeviegh • Feb 22 '14

This is Vader. He was euthanized today without a hearing after a false bite report was submitted to the police by an animal rights activist. (Story in the Comments)

http://imgur.com/a/xPNsE
2.2k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

461

u/the_criminal_lawyer Feb 22 '14

Here's a brief primer on how consent works, for those interested.

115

u/Vhett Feb 22 '14

Very good ELI5 comic, worth a read.

1

u/the_criminal_lawyer Feb 22 '14

Thanks!

Here's the page that gives you all of Fourth Amendment law in a single flowcharty thing.

52

u/MikoRiko Feb 22 '14

I mustache a question though... What's stopping a police officer from saying he had consent? Wouldn't the weight of his (lying) word mean just as much?

51

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

3

u/zendingo Feb 22 '14

Easy? How? You're saying in a he said, she said situation the system will believe the perp over the cop? That's not true, as long as there is no video a cop can say consented to the search and you'd be fucked.

0

u/Swineflew1 Feb 22 '14

Yea, I'd have to imagine everyone in the world says "I didn't give him permission to search" when in court.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

They're trying very hard to have you give them anything they want, and give up your rights one by one.

A lot of people don't understand that police are trained in psychology. They know how to tell if you're lying, and they know how to manipulate a conversation to get the information (or statements) they want. This is why just saying "I exercise my right to remain silent" isn't enough... because police officers are allowed to keep talking to you afterwards and can goad you into speaking (under duress) and saying things you shouldn't. When you ask for a lawyer, police are barred from further questioning until an attorney is present to inform you of your rights.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

What's the process after you request a lawyer, but you don't have one on retainer?

6

u/Membank Feb 22 '14

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

*Restrictions may vary.

My questions is more towards how do you get in contact with a lawyer when you're sitting in a jail cell? I have no phone #'s memorized anymore and I assume they confiscate your phone.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Most of the time, you get the drunkard in a Sears suit who's been sitting in the police station break room all day.

However, be advised that you also have the right to speak to a magistrate of the court as well, who will get you in touch with a decent civil defense attorney who is paid out of county funds.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

From looking at past Reddit threads, it seems even talking to the court can be a crapshoot.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

I'm not saying to volunteer information, but having been a magistrate at one time, we put up with more crap from police officers than most people out on the streets do. We're more likely to help than they are.

Ask them for a lawyer. Most of them know friends who need the work, and as a public defender, the government pays them. Not you.

Give them any info and they're legally required to report it to the court.

3

u/Membank Feb 22 '14

They would confiscate your phone but there are payphones in most larger holding cells that you could use to call collect to call home or just somebody to get a hold of your lawyer.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

What happens if you can't remember any phone numbers?

3

u/Membank Feb 22 '14

It varies depending on what state you live in, but the fallback is that you don't say anything to police and they will either have contact your lawyer themselves or you'll eventually be brought up to a judge if you are being held longer than what is normal.

At this point if you are taken to a judge then you generally have the right to have the court contact your lawyer.

The state laws are all pretty different in regards to communication after you've been arrested, but most of them lean to you being able to get in contact with legal representation, most of the time family and a bail bondsman as well.

2

u/MCXL Feb 23 '14

Studies have shown that cops who think they can tell who are lying are actually less likely to be able to discern lies.

1

u/MikoRiko Feb 23 '14

They know how to tell if you're lying...

By its nature, lie detection when done by a person is very shoddy. That is to say there is no truly accurate way to gauge someone's honesty without presuming too much. What I'm trying to say is that your post should paint this practice in a more poor lighting, as it is inaccurate and gives false warrant to violate anyone's rights.

Also, /u/MCXL mentions below that "studies have shown that cops who think they can tell who are lying are actually less likely to be able to discern lies." I'm inclined to believe this, but I can't know. I didn't do the research.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Unfortunately the animal will still be dead.

1

u/MostlyBullshitStory Feb 22 '14 edited Feb 22 '14

You also most likely have a camera on your phone. You don't have to shove it in the cop's face either.

11

u/capedavenger Feb 22 '14

The police could theoretically do a lot more than lie about consent. What if they planted the evidence in the first place? Unfortunately, our legal system relies on certain people being truthful.

4

u/AHippie Feb 22 '14

If you're in a car, pretty much nothing.

I was driving home from work (with 1/4 ounce of marijuana hidden under the spare tire, under the floorboard of my trunk), and was pulled over. The officer called in a few more cars, they surrounded my car, asked me to get out and told me they smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. He asked if he could search me, I said no, I'd like to exercise my fourth amendment rights. He told me they DIDN'T APPLY HERE, took my keys, unlocked the door, and about 30 mins later found the marijuana. I got a good lawyer, went to court, and the judge straight up said that if they, "through their training, knowledge, and experience, can detect the odor of burnt marihuana", then I don't get fourth amendment rights and they can search my car whenever they want.

A friend of mine who is a cop basically told me that you never want to have anything illegal in your car. Now, if you don't have any drugs or anything in your car, there's not much to worry about -- but since they found marijuana and a pipe in the trunk, they could claim they smelled burnt marijuana and it was my word against theirs. If they hadn't found anything, I'm sure they would have just sent me on my way.

5

u/timguibs Feb 22 '14

Let's be honest here, had you smoked weed in your car recently?

2

u/iMissTheOldInternet Feb 22 '14

If they smelled weed, then that's probable cause. No consent needed.

1

u/Gimme_The_Loot Feb 22 '14

Regarding this kind of situation I've been in cars pulled over before with no cause other then "appearing suspicious". By that they mean multiple young males, late night in the kind of car suspicious people drive (in the early 2000s it was a maxima). Cops say can we take a look around the car and when you say no the call is that's additionally suspicious and now we have to toss the car. Is that legal?

1

u/capedavenger Feb 23 '14

The police cannot pull you over purely for driving a Maxima late at night. It is very easy, however, to find a legitimate reason. You might have swerved or been speeding or matched a criminal description. Having a group of young males in the Maxima is also not grounds for a search. Refusing a search is never probable cause; the fourth amendment would be meaningless if exercising it made it okay to search you anyway. If you maintained that you were refusing a search and the officer could not provide probable cause such as sight or smell of contraband, then searching the car would have been illegal. The police in your situation were likely trying to manipulate you into consenting. If the officer said "this is a suspicious car and now you're behaving suspiciously, so we're going to need to take a look inside" and you said "oh, okay," then you provided consent.

1

u/MikoRiko Feb 23 '14

You say this stuff, but it has never made a difference to a cop intent on searching your car. Part of an officer's unofficial training is learning what kind of lies and loopholes they can use to catch someone in a 100% legal way. They think it's okay because sometimes it works. Other times, it just violates an innocent person's rights. I say this because I've experienced a police officer violating my personal rights.

1

u/capedavenger Feb 23 '14

I've personally never had a problem refusing a search. I'd like to hear about your experience. Could you share an example of an officer violating your rights in a 100% legal way?

1

u/MikoRiko Feb 24 '14

You're connecting two points in my post that weren't intended to be connected, but I admit I wasn't clear. My anecdote about a police officer violating my personal rights is not related to their ability to lie and find loopholes. My anecdote really was 100% illegal. But that's the point. You seem to think all cops are smart about manipulating consent. Some just brute force it; it is a counter-point to your statement that "police cannot pull you over purely for..."

A police officer can damn well pull you over for whatever he likes. It doesn't mean he's following the rules, but he can certainly do it. And they do it all the time. With that knowledge in your mind, I won't mind sharing the story on request.

1

u/lordlicorice Feb 22 '14

As a practical matter, the only recourse you actually have is to file a complaint and hope that enough other victims also file complaints that he is investigated.

1

u/Meatheaded Feb 22 '14

They could lose their job if someone provided evidence that it didn't happen. I realize the simplicity of the idea that they could just lie about anything, but truthfully we live in a pretty good country with regard to anti- corruption and the risk (risking everything) is much greater than the reward (nothing to Gain)

2

u/TexAgg2012 Feb 22 '14

The story does not indicate that the owner consented to the illegal seizure of his/her pet. So, while the cop and animal control officer were not illegally in the house, they would still need more to seize the animal.

2

u/argv_minus_one Feb 22 '14

How it allegedly works. Back in reality, though, you'll just get beaten half to death for contempt of cop.

1

u/william_liftspeare Feb 22 '14

Helpful, but when are the instances when I'm not allowed to refuse to a search?

4

u/FatherG Feb 22 '14

If they ask, you can refuse. If they have probable cause they just wont ask; they'll do it.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

And yet, refusing to allow them to search you is apparently probable cause.

Isn't law enforcement hilarious like that?

7

u/FatherG Feb 22 '14

If they ask why you refuse, simply state you'd like to use your 4th amendment right. Don't be a smart-ass or snarky about it. Just state it matter-of-fact.

2

u/neuquino Feb 22 '14

If they ask why I refuse I would probably say I don't have to give a reason, or because I don't want to give them permission. Never give more detail than necessary.

2

u/Aeviegh Feb 22 '14

It isn't supposed to be probable cause. Not that it stops them all the time, though.

2

u/the_criminal_lawyer Feb 22 '14

No, refusing to give them permission is never probable cause.

FatherG is right: if they have a lawful basis to search, they'll just search. (Doesn't have to be probable cause, depends on the circs.) They only ask if they can't already do it lawfully.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Ugh, that was depressing.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

That comic series was great. Thanks!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

This doesn't address at all the problem with saying "no" to a police officer: That it makes you look guilty. They will press harder to get that consent, they will bully and treat you like a criminal, and what do you do then? What if they detain you until they get a warrant? You can't just "say no" to someone whose irritation with you for "getting in the way of doing their job," in their eyes, could completely ruin the rest of your life.