Arrested at Foxwoods and banned for life

[MicroBob]

"they saw me make a phone call and assumed it was TJ (it wasnt). I gave them my phone after this"


Just looking at this again I'm just so blown-away still.
Mostly agree with Rika.
Although I would also be apologizing for acting like such a jack-ass in the first place and for putting them in such a position. But seriously, what is practically, "they looked at me. So I gave them my phone" just seems so weird to me.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cops don't need a warrant every time kids. I've had my car searched specifically AGAINST my permission before. Out of the car, into the back of the cruiser, search time. I was so mad about the situation I spoke to an attorney afterwards. Guess what? His word against mine. gg me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this particular officer had no understanding of the law as written? Either you're awfully wrong, or this cop was acting outside of the law and the power it grants him. Your attorney was also incompetent. Your poorly worded denial/bad luck/unwillingness to continue with a suit notwithstanding, the law does not allow for these situations, and your assumption that the resistance of said snitch would inevitably lead to other cops breaking laws is groundless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the impression that most of you are just speaking from what you learned in school and not real-world experience. It's shocking how ignorant some of these posts are. In reality, cops don't follow the letter of the law. Many are ignorant to even very basic aspects of constitutional law in the first place. Cops do violate peoples' rights. And they get away with it. And, *gasp*, sometimes shouting "I know my rights!" doesn't work when you're in handcuffs and your face is being pushed against a car hood.

[primate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just say NO, I don't want to talk to you, NO you cannot look at my cell phone. NO, I don't want you to look in my trunk. NO, you cannot come in my house. NO, I don't want to talk to you.

You see these guys on cops all the time, giving consent to search their vehicles, like complete dumb asses. The cops can be pretty darn tricky in getting the consent sometimes. It always turns out [censored] for them. I must admit it's funny to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you realise that if you start saying "NO" "No" "NO" you can't look in there that it actually gives the cops reasonable grounds for suspicion. This means that they can then look in your boot wether you like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]


I've been lurking, but I had to post so that everyone in internet-land knows how very wrong and how very stupid this sentiment is. Denial of voluntary searches and seizures is not grounds for reasonable suspicion. This is derived from The Constitution, which I hear is pretty important, and mountains of case law. Please STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very naive. The probable cause to search arises when the suspect refuses the search then suddenly becomes nervous, fidgety, sweating etc etc. (Ways and means)

But we are getting off topic.

That mobile phone was an item of evidence therefore the Police had the power to seize it. End of move on.

Cops laid it on thick and told the lad "look if you want to keep your phone tell us the name of your friend and give us your number, otherwise we take the phone and you don't see it for a very long time".

Friend thinking "wait a minute here I didn't burst an old codgers eardrums" decides [censored] it I done nothing wrong, here ya go.

What I don't get is why OP returned to the scene of the crime lol. There isn't a law about NOT making yourself available to the cops now is there.

[eastern motors]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just say NO, I don't want to talk to you, NO you cannot look at my cell phone. NO, I don't want you to look in my trunk. NO, you cannot come in my house. NO, I don't want to talk to you.

You see these guys on cops all the time, giving consent to search their vehicles, like complete dumb asses. The cops can be pretty darn tricky in getting the consent sometimes. It always turns out [censored] for them. I must admit it's funny to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you realise that if you start saying "NO" "No" "NO" you can't look in there that it actually gives the cops reasonable grounds for suspicion. This means that they can then look in your boot wether you like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely wrong in America. Maybe this is the case in whatever country you live in but making [censored] up and not stating what jurisdiction it applies in is not helpful to 2p2.

[dave88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just say NO, I don't want to talk to you, NO you cannot look at my cell phone. NO, I don't want you to look in my trunk. NO, you cannot come in my house. NO, I don't want to talk to you.

You see these guys on cops all the time, giving consent to search their vehicles, like complete dumb asses. The cops can be pretty darn tricky in getting the consent sometimes. It always turns out [censored] for them. I must admit it's funny to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you realise that if you start saying "NO" "No" "NO" you can't look in there that it actually gives the cops reasonable grounds for suspicion. This means that they can then look in your boot wether you like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez man, what country are you from? They can pull my boot from my cold dead foot, they aint looking in my boot [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Seriously though, giving consent and cooperating will never help, neither will talking. Say as little as possible, don't be a dumb ass and get all confrontational "I know my rights!" etc. just say as little as possible, and when they ask you "Why don't you want us to look in your trunk? Got something to hide?" just say "No, I just don't want you looking through my stuff."

[FishSticks]

[ QUOTE ]
Them saying "we want your cell-phone to catch that guy even though you have done nothing wrong" does NOT = OMG...if I don't give them my cell-phone they will arrest me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christ almighty I'm not saying that. I'm saying they were going to find OP *anyways*, since he used his player's card and his car will be easy to identify on tape. I'm also saying I think the cops would have eventually just taken the phone anyways, if they even needed it. Of course the snitch couldn't get himself arrested. I'm also saying OP acted like a total douche and had what was coming to him.

My registration was expired, so my car was going to get towed. I had to step out, and he figured he'd have a look around in there. I objected, he didn't care. He didn't find anything, but I was pissed. There's literally just nothing I could do about it.

That is a much different situation obviously, but the point is that you guys keep saying "I know my rights" - but if a cop violates your rights, what the [censored] do you think you're going to do about it? Call the cops? Sue the state? Give me a break.

So, yah, I'm saying:

1) OP was an ass and it's really his fault, not the snitch's. Some people just seem cool with threatening to beat up an old man, throwing beer on the floor supervisor, speeding away from the scene DRUNK, etc.

2) They were going to find him anyways due to his player's card and the fact that yes they do indeed videotape the entrances and exits to the parking lots (not they even need his license given they had his name, but w/e).

3) A bunch of you carry on about your rights or whatever, and act like you have some sort of steely resolve in the face of police adversity, when the truth of the matter is that when your rights ARE infringed upon, there is usually little to nothing you can do about it.

Yah, the snitch probably caved too easily, but it's pretty irrelevant given they were going to find OP anyways, and more importantly OP IS ACTED LIKE A COMPLETE JACKASS AND GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.

This thread is tilting me, I'm done.

[SpaceJanitor]

[ QUOTE ]

I get the impression that most of you are just speaking from what you learned in school and not real-world experience. It's shocking how ignorant some of these posts are. In reality, cops don't follow the letter of the law. Many are ignorant to even very basic aspects of constitutional law in the first place. Cops do violate peoples' rights. And they get away with it. And, *gasp*, sometimes shouting "I know my rights!" doesn't work when you're in handcuffs and your face is being pushed against a car hood.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is completely irrelevant. You still don't have anything to gain from consenting to giving up your rights, and everything to lose, whether the cop respects your constitutional rights or not. I just cannot understand that line of reasoning at all.
Do what the cops tell you to do, but DO NOT voluntarily do what they want you to do. Is that really so hard to understand? It won't do you any good to make the cops' job easier when you are being interrogated!

[primate]

Heck it depends what the Cops are pulling you over for in the first place. Of course they arent just pulling over randoms and demanding looking in your boot. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. But if they suspect there might be for example dope in the car simply saying NO will not stop them looking in the car.

Again back to OP's friend. Simply saying NO would not have helped him. Cops would have jsut taken his phone if they were of the mind.

[dave88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just say NO, I don't want to talk to you, NO you cannot look at my cell phone. NO, I don't want you to look in my trunk. NO, you cannot come in my house. NO, I don't want to talk to you.

You see these guys on cops all the time, giving consent to search their vehicles, like complete dumb asses. The cops can be pretty darn tricky in getting the consent sometimes. It always turns out [censored] for them. I must admit it's funny to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you realise that if you start saying "NO" "No" "NO" you can't look in there that it actually gives the cops reasonable grounds for suspicion. This means that they can then look in your boot wether you like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]


I've been lurking, but I had to post so that everyone in internet-land knows how very wrong and how very stupid this sentiment is. Denial of voluntary searches and seizures is not grounds for reasonable suspicion. This is derived from The Constitution, which I hear is pretty important, and mountains of case law. Please STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this sounds like a very naive lawyer. sic.

[prodonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the kid didn't hand over his phone or whatever I'm sure they'd just take him to the station and make his life hell and threaten to arrest him for obstruction or impeding an investigation or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh noes, a trip to the station?!!?!?

gosh, that sure would suck. No way id waste several hours of my life like that for a friend. No way no how!

I mean I'll drive all the way across the country just to help them move, I'll waste entire weekends in 100 degree heat in the summer helping them shingle their house, i'll get the [censored] kicked out of me in a bar fight just to have their back...but [censored] all if Im going to waste a few hours getting hassled by the cops for them

[/ QUOTE ]

I gained a ton of respect for u after reading that... most people don't know what being a real friend is.

I doubt they could have even taken him to the station, they could have asked him to go.. but he did nothing wrong so he could have walked out the door whenever he felt like it.