The ultimate facepalm moment. Like...I don't have words.

[PT145SS]

Originally Posted by kalimus

"Probable cause" is pretty open to interpretation. I would be willing to bet, that every person reading this post would have assumed those guys to be smoking weed without Adam having to say so, just by the mention of them going outside, and coming back in stinking of body spray. In that case, I would agree with "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime" (which is what smoking weed is).

"Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Belief" are two very different things and are different enough to be defined by SCOTUS in Terry vs. Ohio. Reasonable belief, would have only legally bought the OP a chance to make legal contact with the individual and get a "Terry Pat" out of it. The OP would then only have a limited chance to gain probable cause during a very limited and short investigation which is afforded in a Terry Stop. At no point does the OP have probable cause to search a vehicle as described in the post.

Unfortunately there are no laws that I am aware of preventing LEOs from lying about what they know during an interview. There are some laws about false promises in regards to letting someone go or reduced sentences and such. But a LEO can lie about pretty much anything else.

I would agree with others, opening ones mouth....even if completely innocent... is fool hardy. Your words can only be twisted and used against you.

LEO: Do you know why I pulled you over?

YOU: Because you have an uncontrollable urge to violate my 4th amendment rights!

[bossbunny]

Seriously?!?! Idiots! I worry about people.

[AdamZ]

Originally Posted by PT145SS

"Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Belief" are two very different things and are different enough to be defined by SCOTUS in Terry vs. Ohio. Reasonable belief, would have only legally bought the OP a chance to make legal contact with the individual and get a "Terry Pat" out of it. The OP would then only have a limited chance to gain probable cause during a very limited and short investigation which is afforded in a Terry Stop. At no point does the OP have probable cause to search a vehicle as described in the post.

Unfortunately there are no laws that I am aware of preventing LEOs from lying about what they know during an interview. There are some laws about false promises in regards to letting someone go or reduced sentences and such. But a LEO can lie about pretty much anything else.

I would agree with others, opening ones mouth....even if completely innocent... is fool hardy. Your words can only be twisted and used against you.

LEO: Do you know why I pulled you over?

YOU: Because you have an uncontrollable urge to violate my 4th amendment rights!

Pulling out the case law. I love it. For a terry frisk (or as you said terry pat) I can only frisk for weapons for my safety so if I felt a baggy in their pocket or anything I could only ask him what it is. He can say a bag of candy and that would be the end of it. Even if I was sure it was dope. Unless I saw him put it there then it's forbidden territory.

You are right with probable cause and reasonable belief. I need probably cause to search a vehicle. Even with reasonable belief I can not search anything. I can however frisk for weapons just for my safety with just reasonable belief.

[swizlstik]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

I wish one worth some money would come. Like a serial killer or something

Yeah, that's what society needs more of!

[Rangore]

Originally Posted by PT145SS

LEO: Do you know why I pulled you over?

YOU: Because you have an uncontrollable urge to violate my 4th amendment rights!

That's a great way to ruin your day. A simple "No, I don't" works better IMO. Even inserting a sir or ma'am is a good idea. Some officers are bad, but many/most are normal people trying to do a hard job. My respect goes out to them for trying to do what they do.

[AdamZ]

Originally Posted by swizlstik

Yeah, that's what society needs more of!

I'm not saying we need more. Just saying it'd be nice if they'd turn themselves in and make my job easier. One less person I'd have to worry about shooting me in the face when I pull them over

[PT145SS]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

Pulling out the case law. I love it. For a terry frisk (as you said terry pat) I can only frisk down for weapons for my safety so if I felt a baggy in their pocket or anything I could only ask him what it is. He can say a bag of candy and that would be the end of it. Even if I was sure it was dope. Unless I saw him put it there then it's forbidden territory.

You are right with probable cause and reasonable belief. I need probably cause to search a vehicle. Even with reasonable belief I can not search anything. I can however frisk for weapons just for my safety with just reasonable belief.

You must have been an Ohio resident at some point or just did some research either way

Nope, never even been to Ohio. That being said Terry vs. Ohio is important to everyone in every state. I have not read Terry vs. Ohio in a very long time but I believe it also says that the LEO must be able to articulate reasonable belief. I'm not sure if I'm on that jury that I would be able to jump to the conclusion that they were smoking weed simply because they put on cologne/body spray. And it might not even hold up under the ordinary person test in regards to being able to articulate reasonable belief.

Now had it been said that "in my many , many years of on the street, it is fairly common that people use cologne/body spay for the sole purpose of cover up the smell of weed... blah blah blah, then maybe one can derive reasonable belief.

[AdamZ]

Originally Posted by Rangore

That's a great way to ruin your day. A simple "No, I don't" works better IMO. Even inserting a sir or ma'am is a good idea. Some officers are bad, but many/most are normal people trying to do a hard job. My respect goes out to them for trying to do what they do.

Using "Yes Sir" or "Yes officer" with me on a traffic stop nearly guarantees your warning rather than a ticket. Now if it would be your 2 or 3rd warning than no lol. Or if you were going 90 in a 45. Or, this was my favorite yet, calling me little boy. Those 3 examples are just a few of the things that have changed my mind from warning to ticket

[PT145SS]

Originally Posted by Rangore

That's a great way to ruin your day. A simple "No, I don't" works better IMO. Even inserting a sir or ma'am is a good idea. Some officers are bad, but many/most are normal people trying to do a hard job. My respect goes out to them for trying to do what they do.

Simply saying "No i don't" could be twisted into meaning that you were not paying enough attention to your driving.

[AdamZ]

Originally Posted by PT145SS

Nope, never even been to Ohio. That being said Terry vs. Ohio is important to everyone in every state. I have not read Terry vs. Ohio in a very long time but I believe it also says that the LEO must be able to articulate reasonable belief. I'm not sure if I'm on that jury that I would be able to jump to the conclusion that they were smoking weed simply because they put on cologne/body spray. And it might not even hold up under the ordinary person test in regards to being able to articulate reasonable belief.

Now had it been said that "in my many , many years of on the street, it is fairly common that people use cologne/body spay for the sole purpose of cover up the smell of weed... blah blah blah, then maybe one can derive reasonable belief.

Yup that last bit will work. Unfortunately, I've only been on for 7 months now...so I can't use that defense yet. I didn't need any type of reasonable belief or probable cause for this. I just got them to admit it lol. If they would have denied it then I would have let them go on with their work. If they didn't show signs of use. I also could see the bloodshot eyes and they had a tad of slowed speech. I am sure if I would have checked their eyes I could have got them on vertical nystagmus also. It was all quite obvious lol. It wasn't just the body spray. That just made a better, funnier story lol.

[angie7]

Originally Posted by Rangore

That's a great way to ruin your day. A simple "No, I don't" works better IMO. Even inserting a sir or ma'am is a good idea. Some officers are bad, but many/most are normal people trying to do a hard job. My respect goes out to them for trying to do what they do.

I never say no unless I really dont know. I have a heavy foot so speeding is 95% of the reason I get pulled over. I have found honesty goes a long way. If I was speeding, Ill admit it bc I was. Caught fair and square, I deserve a ticket. Most of the time I dont get a ticket or if I do, they have always written it for less. I got caught doing 55 in a 30, wrote it for 45 in a 30. 65 in a 40 construction zone, wrote it for 55 & left off the construction zone part. Just some examples. Honesty and respect def pays off, IMO.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by PT145SS

Simply saying "No i don't" could be twisted into meaning that you were not paying enough attention to your driving.

Haha I always say "No I don't sir/ma'am", because honestly, I don't. On the few times I've been stopped, I've suspected that it was for speeding. But I was also pulled over for having my back tag lights burned out one time. I am never 100% sure why I get pulled over, so really, I'm being honest. Sounds kind of smart-ass, but I could have a tail light out that I don't know about, it could be window tint, forgetting a blinker, speeding... most likely the last one

[Rangore]

Originally Posted by angie7

I never say no unless I really dont know. I have a heavy foot so speeding is 95% of the reason I get pulled over. I have found honesty goes a long way. If I was speeding, Ill admit it bc I was. Caught fair and square, I deserve a ticket. Most of the time I dont get a ticket or if I do, they have always written it for less. I got caught doing 55 in a 30, wrote it for 45 in a 30. 65 in a 40 construction zone, wrote it for 55 & left off the construction zone part. Just some examples. Honesty and respect def pays off, IMO.

That's because your a female. I never admit to it. I am courteous and say that I don't know why I was pulled over and go from there. I believe that if I get a ticket and I'm speeding then I deserve it, but I'm not going to try and encourage it further.

[KnightRiderSS]

Originally Posted by angie7

I never say no unless I really dont know. I have a heavy foot so speeding is 95% of the reason I get pulled over. I have found honesty goes a long way. If I was speeding, Ill admit it bc I was. Caught fair and square, I deserve a ticket. Most of the time I dont get a ticket or if I do, they have always written it for less. I got caught doing 55 in a 30, wrote it for 45 in a 30. 65 in a 40 construction zone, wrote it for 55 & left off the construction zone part. Just some examples. Honesty and respect def pays off, IMO.

:tweetz: <---These help.....

[BowtieBelle]

[AZCamaroFan]

was one of the guys about 70 and he started each sentence with "Hey man..."

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

'

Minor misdemeanor drug possession. I told them to bring me the weed which they did. So I had the evidence.



You said it...they aren't too bright. I can threaten to do whatever I'd like as long as it's not killing them lol. They didn't know what probable cause/reasonable suspicion is. All they heard was "take this ticket or I will take your weed" lol

I was wondering....LMAO

I've put my hand out so many times and simply said, "hand it over. I'm not dumb, dude." And out comes the weed...

Originally Posted by AdamZ

It is quite interesting when it doesn't turn into flaming each other and actual thought is used before posting

Originally Posted by Rangore

I've seen more pot smokers lead what would be classified as unsuccessful lives vs those that do have successful lives. I've told people that smoke...look to your left and right as you pass the joint and think about what those people do for a living and if their lives would be considered a success.

As it's been said...some are...but I would guess that most pot smokers aren't successful in life.

I can't recall a "successful" pot smoker I've arrested in my last 8 years. They have all been jobless or working minimum wage, criminals with plenty of arrest history, kids who's arrest was their first, people on gov't assistance (and yes, I had to search wallets, I it's pretty damn easy to prove this), or something very similar. I can't say I've ever gone to the middle class house and arrested mom or dad for possession nor have arrested one of them from their car for smoking weed. Can't recall a single arrest...

Originally Posted by AdamZ

Pulling out the case law. I love it. For a terry frisk (or as you said terry pat) I can only frisk for weapons for my safety so if I felt a baggy in their pocket or anything I could only ask him what it is. He can say a bag of candy and that would be the end of it. Even if I was sure it was dope. Unless I saw him put it there then it's forbidden territory.

You are right with probable cause and reasonable belief. I need probably cause to search a vehicle. Even with reasonable belief I can not search anything. I can however frisk for weapons just for my safety with just reasonable belief.

^^Yep...totality of the circumstances....due to my training and experience...

Originally Posted by PT145SS

Nope, never even been to Ohio. That being said Terry vs. Ohio is important to everyone in every state. I have not read Terry vs. Ohio in a very long time but I believe it also says that the LEO must be able to articulate reasonable belief. I'm not sure if I'm on that jury that I would be able to jump to the conclusion that they were smoking weed simply because they put on cologne/body spray. And it might not even hold up under the ordinary person test in regards to being able to articulate reasonable belief.

Now had it been said that "in my many , many years of on the street, it is fairly common that people use cologne/body spay for the sole purpose of cover up the smell of weed... blah blah blah, then maybe one can derive reasonable belief.

When you do the type of stuff we do every single day, day in, day out, it's pretty d@mn easy to pick up on these types of folks, situations, etc...and pretty darn easy to explain in reports.

Picked up two agg robbery suspects today. Can't go into detail, but a couple very bad people were taken off the street. Now...to go find the third tomorrow.

[Hammer St. James]

Originally Posted by AdamZ

Yup that last bit will work. Unfortunately, I've only been on for 7 months now...so I can't use that defense yet. I didn't need any type of reasonable belief or probable cause for this. I just got them to admit it lol. If they would have denied it then I would have let them go on with their work. If they didn't show signs of use. I also could see the bloodshot eyes and they had a tad of slowed speech. I am sure if I would have checked their eyes I could have got them on vertical nystagmus also. It was all quite obvious lol. It wasn't just the body spray. That just made a better, funnier story lol.

According to the NHTSA marijuana does not affect VGN:

DEC Category: Cannabis
DEC Profile: Horizontal gaze nystagmus not present; vertical gaze nystagmus not present; lack of convergence present; pupil size normal to dilated; reaction to light normal to slow; pulse rate elevated; blood pressure elevated; body temperature normal to elevated. Other characteristic indicators may include odor of marijuana in car or on subject’s breath, marijuana debris in mouth, green coating of tongue, bloodshot eyes, body and eyelid tremors, relaxed inhibitions, incomplete thought process, and poor performance on field sobriety tests.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/r...s/cannabis.htm

[Hammer St. James]

[QUOTE=TAG UR IT;5269510 I can't recall a "successful" pot smoker I've arrested in my last 8 years. They have all been jobless or working minimum wage, criminals with plenty of arrest history, kids who's arrest was their first, people on gov't assistance (and yes, I had to search wallets, I it's pretty damn easy to prove this), or something very similar. I can't say I've ever gone to the middle class house and arrested mom or dad for possession nor have arrested one of them from their car for smoking weed. Can't recall a single arrest...[/QUOTE]


Well, I'm here to tell ya that reefer smokers are in all walks of life, much like alcoholics and prescription drug abusers; from the bum on the street to suburban moms to multi-millionaire pro athletes to caring medical professionals to attorneys and I personally know 3 cops that smoke. Even Clinton and W confessed to puffin'. Also, the highley succesful billionaire businessman and philanthropist Peter B. Lewis is a toker. I can go on but I think you get my drift

[solobaric]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Obviously, the carpet really tied the room together.

They peed on your rug Dude!!

I lost it when I read your post.

[Xedes]

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

Well, I'm here to tell ya that reefer smokers are in all walks of life, much like alcoholics and prescription drug abusers; from the bum on the street to suburban moms to multi-millionaire pro athletes to caring medical professionals to attorneys and I personally know 3 cops that smoke. Even Clinton and W confessed to puffin'. Also, the highley succesful billionaire businessman and philanthropist Peter B. Lewis is a toker. I can go on but I think you get my drift

I too know plenty of successful people who are 420 friendly. Just because they don't go around wearing hemp hoodies and playing hacky sack doesn't mean that person doesn't enjoy recreational weed. Most do it in the comfort of their own house or at parties with like minded people. Seems like most of these "opinions" of what pot smokers look and act like come from watching too many Cheech and Chong movies.

Personally I've never seen anyone get violent or destructive while high on pot. Booze on the other hand is a completely different story. A few months ago I witnessed an off duty cop get beat into a coma and alcohol played a 99% role in it (*cop was drunk and his police attitude came out and he learned the hard way that grabbing a girls boobs, that has a pretty big boyfriend, can get you in trouble even if you are a LEO).

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Xedes

I too know plenty of successful people who are 420 friendly. Just because they don't go around wearing hemp hoodies and playing hacky sack doesn't mean that person doesn't enjoy recreational weed. Most do it in the comfort of their own house or at parties with like minded people. Seems like most of these "opinions" of what pot smokers look and act like come from watching too many Cheech and Chong movies.

Personally I've never seen anyone get violent or destructive while high on pot. Booze on the other hand is a completely different story. A few months ago I witnessed an off duty cop get beat into a coma and alcohol played a 99% role in it (*cop was drunk and his police attitude came out and he learned the hard way that grabbing a girls boobs, that has a pretty big boyfriend, can get you in trouble even if you are a LEO).

The most common defense of the pot smoker is exactly this. Like I said, I know some successful people too. But MOST of them are low ambition deadbeats with no goals, other than to smoke pot. Pot smokers never seem to think other pot smokers are anything other than good, normal people.

I once heard of a guy who ate another dude's face that smoked pot... never heard that about a drunk...

[Xedes]

Originally Posted by kalimus

The most common defense of the pot smoker is exactly this. Like I said, I know some successful people too. But MOST of them are low ambition deadbeats with no goals, other than to smoke pot. Pot smokers never seem to think other pot smokers are anything other than good, normal people.

I once heard of a guy who ate another dude's face that smoked pot... never heard that about a drunk...

That was Bath Salts, a synthetic drug like Xanax. The only people I've seen pot smokers kill was Ben & Jerry's.

[wocampb]

Was this one of the guys?

[CamaroSkooter]

You show me someone who gets high on a daily basis and I'll show you that they're operating on less brain cells than the normal non-toker.

I've never smoked pot in my life, and have no desire to. I've witnessed it being used several times, and you can't honestly sit there and tell me that someone who tokes does not become impaired after use. There's no stereotype here. Every single person I've watched that either took a bong-hit or smoked a joint became less than capable of doing anything that required coordination. It doesn't take two or three hits. After that first hit, they're showing signs of being affected.

And yes, the same holds true for people who get blacked-out drunk as well. But I can drink one beer, even on an empty stomache, and still operate like a normal, functioning human being.

The problem is, you're trying to compare two "drugs" that operate in completely different ways to affect a person. Alcohol has to be absorbed into the blood stream through the digestive system to begin having any effect. And this effect is severely diminished by the natural processes of your body's ability to absorb, breakdown and dillute alcohol in your liver.

THC (the part of weed that actually affects you) is inhaled directly into your lungs with a direct path to your bloodstream. There's no filter between you consuming the pot and it getting into your bloodstream. So the effect has very little delay, with very little dillution.

Interestingly enough, when THC is metabolised in the liver, the resulting metabolite is still a psychoactive drug that can remain in the bloodstream.

Ethanol (the type of alcohol found in beverages) however is a naturally occuring chemical in the human body. Our digestive system produces roughly 3 grams of ethanol every day from merely fermenting its contents. So, our digestive system is naturally adapted to break ethanol down. Obviously, if you're consuming a crapload of beer, you're going to overload the system, but the ethanol in that beer isn't something the human body has a difficult time processing.