Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcement

[UncleMike]

So "fishing expeditions" and DUI checkpoints are not a violation of rights? Is your paycheck worth more than liberty?

Uhhhh...
Whenever an officer is driving around in his Squad Car he is on a "fishing expedition" looking for violations.
Do you suggest that they park the cars and wait for someone to call in a reckless driver or a drunk driver complaint?
DUI checkpoints are the subject of much debate, even in the Law Enforcement Community.
I've personally never participated in one since they were voluntary overtime and I'd rather spend my time off with my family than get into p*ssing matches with f*ing drunks.
As I said.
"Walk A Mile In My Shoes" before you criticize my actions.
Mike

 

[rambone]

Mike, Thanks for your honesty and honest representation of the LEO side.

 

[hornadylnl]

Uhhhh...
Whenever an officer is driving around in his Squad Car he is on a "fishing expedition" looking for violations.
Do you suggest that they park the cars and wait for someone to call in a reckless driver or a drunk driver complaint?
DUI checkpoints are the subject of much debate, even in the Law Enforcement Community.
I've personally never participated in one since they were voluntary overtime and I'd rather spend my time off with my family than get into p*ssing matches with f*ing drunks.
As I said.
"Walk A Mile In My Shoes" before you criticize my actions.
Mike

Pulling a person over and citing them for the infraction you pulled them over for is not a fishing expedition. Pulling a guy over for a burnt out license plate light, asking for a vehicle search, asking the guy where he's going, where he's coming from in the hopes of busting him for more is a fishing expedition.

Why don't we just install cameras and microphones in peoples homes, cars, etc. so we can rid our society of all evil? We have cheapened probable cause so much so that it no longer has any meaning. Yes, I'm aware that a burnt out taillight has gotten some serious criminals off the street that would otherwise still be out there if not for the traffic stop. Let's ASSuME that 1 out of 10 fishing expedition stops for minor infractions lead to a much bigger arrest. What of the rights of the other 9? Them having to show their papers is just collateral damage?

If you pull me over for a burnt out plate bulb, give me my ticket and leave me the f alone. If you start questioning me and fishing, you will be met with the same verbal contempt you are giving me. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've been pulled over in my 17 years of driving and none of those were fishing expeditions so I don't have a personal axe to grind in this issue. I just value liberty.

 

[UncleMike]

Mike, Thanks for your honesty and honest representation of the LEO side.

You're welcome.
I should say that there are a lot of good LEO's out there.
The kind who do care about the well being of the Citizens that they are sworn to protect.
You may have to look a little harder to find them than you did years ago.
But they exist!!
It would be worth "some" peoples time to search them out instead of lumping all LEO's in the category of "brutal and Draconian".
It could be a rewarding endeavor.
Mike

 

[UncleMike]

Pulling a person over and citing them for the infraction you pulled them over for is not a fishing expedition. Pulling a guy over for a burnt out license plate light, asking for a vehicle search, asking the guy where he's going, where he's coming from in the hopes of busting him for more is a fishing expedition.

Why don't we just install cameras and microphones in peoples homes, cars, etc. so we can rid our society of all evil? We have cheapened probable cause so much so that it no longer has any meaning. Yes, I'm aware that a burnt out taillight has gotten some serious criminals off the street that would otherwise still be out there if not for the traffic stop. Let's ASSuME that 1 out of 10 fishing expedition stops for minor infractions lead to a much bigger arrest. What of the rights of the other 9? Them having to show their papers is just collateral damage?

If you pull me over for a burnt out plate bulb, give me my ticket and leave me the f alone. If you start questioning me and fishing, you will be met with the same verbal contempt you are giving me. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've been pulled over in my 17 years of driving and none of those were fishing expeditions so I don't have a personal axe to grind in this issue. I just value liberty.

Never mind!!
You're fixated on a single incident that p*ssed you off and no amount of reasoning will change your opinion of the Police.
If you don't like the Police, DON'T call them when you have a problem.
Just settle it yourself and take the consequences like a man.
Carry on.
Mike

 

[hornadylnl]

Never mind!!
You're fixated on a single incident that p*ssed you off and no amount of reasoning will change your opinion of the Police.
If you don't like the Police, DON'T call them when you have a problem.
Just settle it yourself and take the consequences like a man.
Carry on.
Mike

No, I'm not fixated with a single incident. What I'm talking about is the attitude of police in general.

You can easily change my opinion on this matter. Show me where our founders would have approved of fishing expeditions. The idea of fishing for probable cause to pull a car over flies squarely in the face of the fourth amendment. I'm asking you to please show me otherwise.

Please search my 4000+ posts and show me where I've been anti LEO other than this issue. I don't disrespect any particular officer until they have disrespected me first. I ask officers or anyone to give me that same courtesy. Don't pull me over and come to my car for a traffic stop and treat me as though I've massacred 47 people or that I've got 100 kilos of coke in my trunk. You will not get my respect when you start treating me like a criminal with the first words out of your mouth.

I try extremely hard to give every individual the benefit of the doubt and my respect to that individual until they give me reason to believe otherwise. Is it to much to ask for the officer to give me that same benefit and respect on the side of the road?

Labeling any person who disagrees with a police officer as anti LEO is pure crap. I guess instead of the race card, you just threw the anti LEO card.

 

[UncleMike]

No, I'm not fixated with a single incident. What I'm talking about is the attitude of police in general.

You can easily change my opinion on this matter. Show me where our founders would have approved of fishing expeditions. The idea of fishing for probable cause to pull a car over flies squarely in the face of the fourth amendment. I'm asking you to please show me otherwise.

Please search my 4000+ posts and show me where I've been anti LEO other than this issue. I don't disrespect any particular officer until they have disrespected me first. I ask officers or anyone to give me that same courtesy. Don't pull me over and come to my car for a traffic stop and treat me as though I've massacred 47 people or that I've got 100 kilos of coke in my trunk. You will not get my respect when you start treating me like a criminal with the first words out of your mouth.

I try extremely hard to give every individual the benefit of the doubt and my respect to that individual until they give me reason to believe otherwise. Is it to much to ask for the officer to give me that same benefit and respect on the side of the road?

Labeling any person who disagrees with a police officer as anti LEO is pure crap. I guess instead of the race card, you just threw the anti LEO card.

You missed the part where I said.
NEVER MIND!!!
Mike

 

[hornadylnl]

You missed the part where I said.
NEVER MIND!!!
Mike

Supercitizen,

no problem.

Signed,
the serf

 

[JBusch8899]

There is no law that states one has to speak to law enforcement, save the standard pedigree questions.

Though, be prepared. Once can beat the wrap, but rarely the ride.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm late arriving to this party, but I have a question, Mike. Your position, as I understand it, is that if it is addressing a crime (vs. tort law), any law not overturned by the courts or superseded by the legislature must be enforced by those whose duties begin with pinning a badge on their shirt every day. If I've misunderstood you, please do correct me.

In light of the above understanding, there is a law in Speedway, often quoted hereabouts, forbidding concealed carry. This law is from 1966 and is still valid, and it is specifically excepted from the pre-emption statute because it was on the books prior to 1994.

The law of which I speak is presently not enforced. Are you saying that the entire police force of Speedway, IN is derelict in their duties because they do not enforce a law that IMHO had no business being written in the first place?

To be absolutely clear, I am not posting this in any sarcasm. I have my opinion which is probably pretty clear from my phrasing. I also have read enough other LEOs opinions to know what the general consensus among LEOs is on this issue. That said, I'm not asking for consensus here, I'm asking YOUR opinion specifically because you seem to be saying that officers do not (or should not) have discretion as to which laws they enforce.

If I have misunderstood your stated position, I would welcome the correction and in that event, I offer my apology for doing so in advance.

I recognize from your comments that you apparently are not an active road officer anymore. Nonetheless, I will close with the same thought I use with all the other officers on here, that being:

Stay safe out there.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[UncleMike]

I'm late arriving to this party, but I have a question, Mike. Your position, as I understand it, is that if it is addressing a crime (vs. tort law), any law not overturned by the courts or superseded by the legislature must be enforced by those whose duties begin with pinning a badge on their shirt every day. If I've misunderstood you, please do correct me.

In light of the above understanding, there is a law in Speedway, often quoted hereabouts, forbidding concealed carry. This law is from 1966 and is still valid, and it is specifically excepted from the pre-emption statute because it was on the books prior to 1994.

The law of which I speak is presently not enforced. Are you saying that the entire police force of Speedway, IN is derelict in their duties because they do not enforce a law that IMHO had no business being written in the first place?

To be absolutely clear, I am not posting this in any sarcasm. I have my opinion which is probably pretty clear from my phrasing. I also have read enough other LEOs opinions to know what the general consensus among LEOs is on this issue. That said, I'm not asking for consensus here, I'm asking YOUR opinion specifically because you seem to be saying that officers do not (or should not) have discretion as to which laws they enforce.

If I have misunderstood your stated position, I would welcome the correction and in that event, I offer my apology for doing so in advance.

I recognize from your comments that you apparently are not an active road officer anymore. Nonetheless, I will close with the same thought I use with all the other officers on here, that being:

Stay safe out there.

Blessings,
Bill

Nope.
When The Courts issue a ruling is has the force of law until the Legislature passes an amended law, an entirely new law, or they say "Screw it" and let the Courts ruling stand as in the case of "The Miranda Ruling".
Miranda is a Court Ruling, not a law!!
Although in 1968 Congress passed
The Omnibus Crime Control Act (Title 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 3501)
which was an attempt to over rule Miranda.
Although the Omnibus Act was passed by Congress, the Department of Justice refused to enforce it. The Department has gone so far as to say, on one or more occasion, that the statute is unconstitutional!
In a "perfect" Legal System, "Justice is Blind" and all laws are to be enforced equally regardless of the personal beliefs of the Officers.
Since our system is far from perfect some laws are "ignored"
An example would be the Indiana law from the early 1900's that stated "Every motor vehicle shall have a man walking ahead of the vehicle carrying a red lantern and shouting the warning, Car Coming."
That gem was still on the books when I was a Rookie. We ignored it!
It was eventually repealed along with several other "antiquated" laws.
As I stated earlier, some laws are so onerous that they should never have been written, much less passed into law, but until such a law is overturned by the Courts they are "supposed" to be enforced.
All of this puts LEO's in the middle of a p*ssing match between The Legislatures, and The Courts.
In short.
If you're unhappy about a law you need to argue with the Courts and the Legislature.
Not the Cops.
They don't write them. They just enforce them.
Mike

Sorry for the delay in answering. I got tied up fitting a new forend on one of my AK's.
The blue highlighted areas are the gist of the issue.
As I said, all laws are "supposed" to be enforced equally. The realities of life make that impossible so there has been since time immemorial, an unwritten codicil called "Officer Discretion." This is supposed to apply to Infractions and Misdemeanors only. This allows an Officer to make a judgment call on whether or not to take enforcement action in a particular instance. It is not, however, permission to ignore whatever laws that the Officer doesn't happen to like.
Failure to take action on a Felony is a dismissal offense. It's called Dereliction of Duty Upon his/her Oath.
I spent a good deal of time studying Statutes and Case Law just so that I would have an adequate knowledge of my duties and responsibilities.
Unfortunately not very many Officers take the time to do that. It's tedious and time consuming, but as far as I was concerned the knowledge that I gained was invaluable to the performance of my job.
In fact that knowledge kept my teat out of the wringer more than once.
I'm not sure if this answers your question but here it is, such as it is.
Mike

 

[Bill of Rights]

I know about officer discretion. That's why I used that instead of a traffic offense (infraction.) I appreciate the time you took to stay up on the law and how it affected your performance of your job, thank you.

Next question, from a recent post.

You stop next to a car, parked in the front drive of a school. The young lady (say, 22) sitting in the passenger seat is an old friend, so you chat for a few. Her boyfriend comes back with his little sister, sits her in the back, then gets in, and reaches under the seat, unlocks his lockbox, and re-holsters his pistol, making sure to move slowly and forewarn you that you're about to see a firearm. For the sake of the example, we can say that only the four people present (boyfriend, old friend, kid sister, and you) know what has or is described as about to transpire.

Even if both adults have LTCH, this was a D felony. Do you proceed to hook both adults despite no harm, no intent and the stated belief that they did nothing wrong, or is this another case where looking the other way or perhaps a kindly bit of advice to NOT let you see that firearm that you don't know is there would be the more appropriate course of action?

Note that I describe her as an old friend solely to give you a non-"fishing expedition" reason to stop and talk, not to indicate that that would give her preferential treatment, and yes, this is a pure hypothetical.

I know what the law says is your duty, but I also know that you're a thinking human who can recognize where the law exceeds sanity. (I don't plan on constructing endless hypotheticals, this simply seemed like a good example.)

Your thoughts?

Stay safe.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Eddie]

I know about officer discretion. That's why I used that instead of a traffic offense (infraction.) I appreciate the time you took to stay up on the law and how it affected your performance of your job, thank you.

Next question, from a recent post.

You stop next to a car, parked in the front drive of a school. The young lady (say, 22) sitting in the passenger seat is an old friend, so you chat for a few. Her boyfriend comes back with his little sister, sits her in the back, then gets in, and reaches under the seat, unlocks his lockbox, and re-holsters his pistol, making sure to move slowly and forewarn you that you're about to see a firearm. For the sake of the example, we can say that only the four people present (boyfriend, old friend, kid sister, and you) know what has or is described as about to transpire.

Even if both adults have LTCH, this was a D felony. Do you proceed to hook both adults despite no harm, no intent and the stated belief that they did nothing wrong, or is this another case where looking the other way or perhaps a kindly bit of advice to NOT let you see that firearm that you don't know is there would be the more appropriate course of action?

Note that I describe her as an old friend solely to give you a non-"fishing expedition" reason to stop and talk, not to indicate that that would give her preferential treatment, and yes, this is a pure hypothetical.

I know what the law says is your duty, but I also know that you're a thinking human who can recognize where the law exceeds sanity. (I don't plan on constructing endless hypotheticals, this simply seemed like a good example.)

Your thoughts?

Stay safe.

Blessings,
Bill

Back in my day I would have given them a friendly warning so that they knew they could be subject to arrest if they ran into a not so nice officer.

If my supervisor found out about it I would have been punished, probably at least a written reprimand.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Back in my day I would have given them a friendly warning so that they knew they could be subject to arrest if they ran into a not so nice officer.

If my supervisor found out about it I would have been punished, probably at least a written reprimand.

That's the kind of thing I would expect from the "beat cop", and IMHO, the shift commander is the one who needs a reprimand. There are times I think that laws need to be looked at by those who are hired to enforce them and the decision needs to be made that that law will not be enforced, (Katrina is a good example of orders that need to be ignored, just as the school I mentioned in my example is a good time to re-evaluate the law.

There was a time when "felon" meant a true threat to the safety and well-being of the citizenry at large.

Three orange jumpsuits are sitting in the cell, talking.
"Name's Scorch. I'm up for arson and murder; What're you in for?"
"Bruiser; Rape and aggravated battery, how 'bout you?"
"I'm Martha Stewart. Anyone want to know how to make a pretty set of curtains from a sheet and a pair of prison-issue socks?"

Kinda silly, huh?

I'd love to have someone think of a way to reverse this trend of people in power turning everything to their advantage at the expense of the people and our liberty.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

I snip
Note that I describe her as an old friend solely to give you a non-"fishing expedition" reason to stop and talk, not to indicate that that would give her preferential treatment, and yes, this is a pure hypothetical.
snip

Ahhh, but you can't ignore the fact that "old friend" will result in preferential treatment. This will happen for a couple reasons:

1) Cops are as human as the rest of us, and don't want to screw with good friends for no really good reason.
2) Being "old friends," the cop has pretty good reason to believe they are "good guys," instead of regarding them with suspicion as they would a stranger. Cops tend to regard strangers as potential bad guys (with good reason) and are less prone to cutting breaks for potential bad guys.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I see what you're saying, but I think my point was clear that the focus was the present situation (gun in the car, driver's exemption made moot) and not the officer being there for any arguable purpose.

Well, at least I thought it would not be arguable.

Ahhh, but you can't ignore the fact that "old friend" will result in preferential treatment. This will happen for a couple reasons:

1) Cops are as human as the rest of us, and don't want to screw with good friends for no really good reason.
2) Being "old friends," the cop has pretty good reason to believe they are "good guys," instead of regarding them with suspicion as they would a stranger. Cops tend to regard strangers as potential bad guys (with good reason) and are less prone to cutting breaks for potential bad guys.

 

[UncleMike]

I know about officer discretion. That's why I used that instead of a traffic offense (infraction.) I appreciate the time you took to stay up on the law and how it affected your performance of your job, thank you.

Next question, from a recent post.

You stop next to a car, parked in the front drive of a school. The young lady (say, 22) sitting in the passenger seat is an old friend, so you chat for a few. Her boyfriend comes back with his little sister, sits her in the back, then gets in, and reaches under the seat, unlocks his lockbox, and re-holsters his pistol, making sure to move slowly and forewarn you that you're about to see a firearm. For the sake of the example, we can say that only the four people present (boyfriend, old friend, kid sister, and you) know what has or is described as about to transpire.

Even if both adults have LTCH, this was a D felony. Do you proceed to hook both adults despite no harm, no intent and the stated belief that they did nothing wrong, or is this another case where looking the other way or perhaps a kindly bit of advice to NOT let you see that firearm that you don't know is there would be the more appropriate course of action?

Note that I describe her as an old friend solely to give you a non-"fishing expedition" reason to stop and talk, not to indicate that that would give her preferential treatment, and yes, this is a pure hypothetical.

I know what the law says is your duty, but I also know that you're a thinking human who can recognize where the law exceeds sanity. (I don't plan on constructing endless hypotheticals, this simply seemed like a good example.)

Your thoughts?

Stay safe.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, are you the guy who makes up those questions on the Law Enforcement Entrance Exam?
(I'm kidding)
Keeping in mind that my training and experiences are more "old school" than most Officers today, I would have given my best "professional" @ss chewing to the guy and explain in no uncertain terms that he could be arrested for such an action. After the smoke had cleared I would have also "reminded" the old friend that School Zones are forbidden carry areas, even for LTCH holders.
My personal belief as to whether the law in question is "fair" or not is something that I have to weigh because I'm human. (Robo Cop didn't have that problem) I made a judgment call even though the violation is a Felony. Remember, earlier I said that all Felony's are "supposed" to be enforced.
Had word of the encounter gotten back to my Superiors I could have faced anything from a "Atta boy" to dismissal for Dereliction Of Duty depending on their views and opinions of me and my overall performance.
The Public must never lose sight of the fact that Police Officers are human and subject to all of the foibles that make up the human Psyche.
I always followed these rules of Contact that I modified from several training sources.
Be aware of the surroundings.
Analyze the situation.
Inquire, in order to understand.
Maintain Professional courtesy.
Take action appropriate to the situation.
The first two are to ensure that I knew what I was getting into.
The third one is to give the parties involved a chance to give me their side of the story.
The fourth one was to ensure that emotions didn't rule the day.
The last one is the most difficult. It calls for that very human judgment call to be made.
As I stated, I'm more "Old School" Police than most Officers today.
Not that their training, discipline, or compassion, is different, but their directions from the "Brass" are not the same and the Bad Guys are more prone to violence than when I worked the streets.
The murder of the State Trooper in Decatur several years ago is a good example. A simple stop turned into a cold blooded murder.
For that, if for no other reason, I have tremendous admiration for the people who put on the uniform and risk their lives every day so that others can live peaceful lives.
Mike

 

[kabrown]

I know about officer discretion. That's why I used that instead of a traffic offense (infraction.) I appreciate the time you took to stay up on the law and how it affected your performance of your job, thank you.

Next question, from a recent post.

You stop next to a car, parked in the front drive of a school. The young lady (say, 22) sitting in the passenger seat is an old friend, so you chat for a few. Her boyfriend comes back with his little sister, sits her in the back, then gets in, and reaches under the seat, unlocks his lockbox, and re-holsters his pistol, making sure to move slowly and forewarn you that you're about to see a firearm. For the sake of the example, we can say that only the four people present (boyfriend, old friend, kid sister, and you) know what has or is described as about to transpire.

Even if both adults have LTCH, this was a D felony. Do you proceed to hook both adults despite no harm, no intent and the stated belief that they did nothing wrong, or is this another case where looking the other way or perhaps a kindly bit of advice to NOT let you see that firearm that you don't know is there would be the more appropriate course of action?

Note that I describe her as an old friend solely to give you a non-"fishing expedition" reason to stop and talk, not to indicate that that would give her preferential treatment, and yes, this is a pure hypothetical.

I know what the law says is your duty, but I also know that you're a thinking human who can recognize where the law exceeds sanity. (I don't plan on constructing endless hypotheticals, this simply seemed like a good example.)

Your thoughts?

Stay safe.

Blessings,
Bill

I apologize for being dense, but what would be the infraction in this situation?

 

[Joe Williams]

I apologize for being dense, but what would be the infraction in this situation?

I got to wondering the same thing, but didn't want to sidetrack too much. With both people having an LTCH, and the operator remaining in the vehicle, it wouldn't be hard to mount a defense that the LTCH holder behind the wheel, and thus remaining as operator, met the requirements of the exception permitting a dropoff/pickup on school property. The law does not require that the operator have physical possession of the firearm.

Edit: Reading fundamental! A quick re-read shows the lady in the car wasn't the vehicle operator, which the law DOES expressly require! Missed it my first time reading through, also.

sitting in the passenger seat is an old friend

 

[rambone]

Bill is illustrating one of many, many illogical, unconstitutional, pointless, and victimless crimes that exist that could potentially ruin someone's life if enforced.

Discretion is what separates us from robots.