entounter with the 5-0

[rufnek05]

so i was just "detained" by the norman police. that was interesting.

[Tailwind]

for what?

[okienole3]

do telll more

[silverwheels]

It's fun, isn't it?

I like their guns.

[Turd_Ferguson]

'specially when you say you were "entountered":D

No...rentacop! You ain't candhuffin' nobody!1:D

[olevetonahill]

were tjey Hawt chicks ?

[rufnek05]

not dude, just some d-bags. they brought the dog out becasue:
cop "can we search the car"
me: "yes, with a warrent"
cop: "please get out of the car, you just gave us probable cause"
Me: "i gave you probable cause if you have a warrent from the county DA or a judge"
Cop: "all we need to search your car is you saying 'no'"
me: i didn't say no, i said 'yes with a warrent'.
cop: even that gives us probable cause
me: what ever makes you happy.
cop. plase exit the vehicle
*i get out, they search it and find nothing. after about 5 minutes they find nothing, just as they give up the k-9 shoes up, sniffs around, and hits on the front drive side.
*as soon as the dog hit they put me in cuffs.
cop: do you have any alcohol, drugs or weapons in you car?
me: yeah, there is a knife in the glove box.
cop to the other cop: lookin the glove box.
*found the knife. but the dog still hit uner my seat, they looked and look and found.
me: what am i under arrest for?
cop: nothing yet
me: then why am in in handcuffs?!?!?!?!?
cop: because the dog hit on something.
me" what did you find?
cop: nothing so far.
*after a good 10 minues of them searching my they found nothing then let me go and said you are free to go.




good thing i cleaned my car out and vacumed it out around 3 today. ****in dicks

[olevetonahill]

That aint PC thats exercising your rights !
Man I used to be a cop , and I never acted like that . From what ive seen and heard about how they are now . Id eat shat and die befor I became one again .

[OU Adonis]

not dude, just some d-bags. they brought the dog out becasue:
cop "can we search the car"
me: "yes, with a warrent"
cop: "please get out of the car, you just gave us probable cause"
Me: "i gave you probable cause if you have a warrent from the county DA or a judge"
Cop: "all we need to search your car is you saying 'no'"
me: i didn't say no, i said 'yes with a warrent'.
cop: even that gives us probable cause
me: what ever makes you happy.
cop. plase exit the vehicle
*i get out, they search it and find nothing. after about 5 minutes they find nothing, just as they give up the k-9 shoes up, sniffs around, and hits on the front drive side.
cop: do you have any alcohol, drugs or weapons in you car?
me: yeah, there is a knife in the glove box.
cop to the other cop: lookin the glove box.
nothing happened

Wow, so saying no would be giving probable cause? Thats gotta be BS.

[silverwheels]

That's it? I've had a few run-ins with the law, and they've never acted as out-of-bounds as that.

[rufnek05]

i hit enter too soon, read it again.

[pb4ou]

That is not probable cause. I'd check into that if I were you. Your civil rights were violated.

Did you at least get their names?

[silverwheels]

Were you drunk/acting suspicious? The handcuffs thing doesn't seem to weird to me, but the "if you have a warrant" = probable cause seems wrong.

[yermom]

Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that

[pb4ou]

They violated your fourth amendment right.
You could file a law suit.
It is your right to do so.

Just sayin'

[silverwheels]

Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that

I almost posted that, but edited it out so I could ask a question. :D

[yermom]

i'll be he was doing 55 in a 54 ;)

i am kinda interested in how that exchange is supposed to go

i know we have some lawyers...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Just from watchin cops for the last 15 years, I believe that when you say "no", they call in the dog. If'n he hits on something, they can go into the car and search. The cuffing is "for your protection". Anywho, Norman and Moore cops are typically dic's anyway.

[rufnek05]

yeah it was lancaser that pulled me over. i turned left off of 12th on to lyndsey and instead of going into the left lane i went to the right lane. i wa spulled over in shortstops right by The Bell. and i told them they could't search me with out a warrent since i declared it, but they told me all they need was "probable cause". i hadn't been drinking at all. i'm guessin the dog hit on some ash that was in ther

[rufnek05]

i'm thinking about declaring racial profialin due to the "RUF/NEK" sticker on the back of my car.

[Turd_Ferguson]

So, your saying you had weed ash in your car and your ****ed because the dogs hit on it?

[yermom]

they've probably been reading his posts ;)

[rufnek05]

no i didn't get **** on me because they didn't find anything even after the dog hit on it. i told them i was going lookin into my rights about the "probable cause" and got all 3 of their badge numbers. so a law suit may be in the works if i'm still ****ed about it in the morning. but all norman cops can suck my penis cus i'm clean.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I feel ya, but I'm tell'n ya when you say "no", they call in the dog's. You got weed ash/or the smell of weed in the car. When the dog hits on it, that's probable cause to search the car IMO.

[silverwheels]

I feel ya, but I'm tell'n ya when you say "no", they call in the dog's. You got weed ash/or the smell of weed in the car. When the dog hits on it, that's probable cause to search the car IMO.

Yeah, you ended up getting out of it with nothing. I would just let it go.

I ended up on the news at the scene with cops everywhere. Thank God it happened at like 3 in the morning and no one I knew was watching.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yeah, you ended up getting out of it with nothing. I would just let it go.

I ended up on the news at the scene with cops everywhere. Thank God it happened at like 3 in the morning and no one I knew was watching.

Oh I seen ya.....and it's on DVR:D

[silverwheels]

Oh I seen ya.....and it's on DVR:D

Hey, as long as you're not either of my parents or my grandparents, I'm fine with that. My friend that was actually in the whole thing with me told me his brother saw us on TV the next day, which is when I found out we were on the news. Good thing for us, though, is that we were innocent and it was just a misunderstanding. Still, having six Norman officers standing outside the car with guns and flashlights pointed at us is not a fun experience.

[rufnek05]

Yeah, you ended up getting out of it with nothing. I would just let it go.

I ended up on the news at the scene with cops everywhere. Thank God it happened at like 3 in the morning and no one I knew was watching.


ther was no smell of it, i had just left my friends place, no smoking no drinking, the only thing wrong i did was left turn into the right lane. and sicne it was after 11 they asked to searched the car and because i said "yes with a warrent" they took that as a "no" and called the dog in. the dog hit on something but they couldn't find anything after a good 10 minutes of searching. so they let me go with nothing but a verbal warning.


but seriously they have to have something better to do than harrass me about a "smell" from the dog. ****in dics

[Turd_Ferguson]

Next time that happens, just slowly drive off. They won't shoot...not say'n you won't have 37 tazer barbs in your back but....anywho, thats why I'm home drinkin my beer and blow'n **** up. OKC, Moore, Norman and the OHP are out strong looking for pot smokin, beer drinkin, meth cook'n dip****'s. So, stay clean and say "yes" when they asked to search your car, unless your hiding something.:rolleyes:

[Turd_Ferguson]

ther was no smell of it, i had just left my friends place, no smoking no drinking, the only thing wrong i did was left turn into the right lane. and sicne it was after 11 they asked to searched the car and because i said "yes with a warrent" they took that as a "no" and called the dog in. the dog hit on something but they couldn't find anything after a good 10 minutes of searching. so they let me go with nothing but a verbal warning.


but seriously they have to have something better to do than harrass me about a "smell" from the dog. ****in dics

It's called "doing their job". Your ****ed because the dog's smelled something that is illegal. There are plenty of cop's that "blow the bleezy" but when you say "not without a warrant", you just invited them into your ash stained car.....remember?

i'm guessin the dog hit on some ash that was in ther

[Ike]

If theres one thing I don't miss about home, its the NPD.

[rufnek05]

It's called "doing their job". Your ****ed because the dog's smelled something that is illegal. There are plenty of cop's that "blow the bleezy" but when you say "not without a warrant", you just invited them into your ash stained car.....remember?


according to my pops, who was a OHP for 22 years, saying "yes with a warrent means "ye syou cna search my car as long as you show me a warrent".

i wasn't doing anything illegal, recently. if i would have beer or something like that i would have understood, but i'm legal for that. but i didn't have **** in there, thats what i was kind of ****ed about, but what ever. i'm just glad they didn't plant some crap. or else it would have been a good thing i was handcuffed. but as soon as i got back to my place i told my roommates about it and we sparked up a B and i took 6 shots in lexss than 10 minutes, thats why i can barly type right now. praise buda for handles of captain morgan and cola!

[Turd_Ferguson]

according to my pops, who was a OHP for 22 years, saying "yes with a warrent means "ye syou cna search my car as long as you show me a warrent".
DON'T NEED A WARRANT IF THE K-9 HITS, YA HIGH MUH****ER.

Case in point below....The kids nowadays:rolleyes:

and we sparked up a B and i took 6 shots in lexss than 10 minutes, thats why i can barly type right now. praise buda for handles of captain morgan and cola!

[rufnek05]

DON'T NEED A WARRANT IF THE K-9 HITS, YA HIGH MUH****ER.

Case in point below....The kids nowadays:rolleyes:


the k-9 wasn't here when i said "yes, with a warrent". when i said that thats when they put me in cuffs and called over the radio "requesting unit 472 ( or something close to that) at lyndseny and 12th"

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yes with a warrant means, no bring the dog. Capice? Also, your lucky. Requesting unit 472 usually warrants a wood shampoo....you must have stayed quiet while 472 was on scene, smart move IMO.

[King Crimson]

that kinda sucks. getting cuffed without cause is pretty lame. the NPD are weird, you see them run red lights and roll through stop signs all the time. the law apparently doesn't apply to those who enforce it. However, i did get a break from a NPD officer once when i (admit) i shouldn't have been driving after a party once. it was my birthday (which to me had nothing to do with it, but seemed to matter to the officer) and the guy didn't ticket me but followed me home under the proviso that if i ****ed up i was toast.

[rufnek05]

Yes with a warrant means, no bring the dog. Capice?


yeah i get it now, after learning the hard way. i need to tell my dad that. but i'm not going to since the dog hit. i would much rather go to jail for possesion than have say to my pops " i the cops they could search my car if they had a warrent, and they brought the dog and it found something other than beer." cus i would no longer be a member of this board, let alone alive and being able to type.

[yermom]

i need to start remembering names...

i got pulled over for the same thing once, only i was speeding too and got a warning

i had left my wallet at home, no license, no insurance, and i had an expired paper tag

NPD likes me for some reason

i have gotten a lot of seatbelt tickets though :O

[Turd_Ferguson]

that kinda sucks. getting cuffed without cause is pretty lame.
Not trying to push this, but what part of "not withour a warrant" isn't enough to detain someone. Are you hiding a bazooka, dead body, kidknapped person...or just a friggin beer or joint, etc...

Edit to add: because my fat *** ain't chasin ya for 10 blocks over a roach!

[rufnek05]

Not trying to push this, but what part of "not withour a warrant" isn't enough to detain someone. Are you hiding a bazooka, dead body, kidknapped person...or just a friggin beer or joint, etc...


i wasn't hiding anything. but acording to my dad (who has been retired for 12 years) saying "you can search my car with a warrent" is just the same as "yes you can search my house as long as you have warrent". but maybe things have changed. but jamie is bitching about me being on here and she is ready for bed. i'll be on here in the morning to answer to more questions.

[King Crimson]

Not trying to push this, but what part of "not withour a warrant" isn't enough to detain someone. Are you hiding a bazooka, dead body, kidknapped person...or just a friggin beer or joint, etc...

Edit to add: because my fat *** ain't chasin ya for 10 blocks over a roach!

i don't understand this post. you don't think people have rights? that detaining people , as you say, is something that law enforcement should exercise at will?

[Turd_Ferguson]

i don't understand this post. you don't think people have rights? that detaining people , as you say, is something that law enforcement should exercise at will?

I know people have rights. I think MOST cops exercise this with discression. If he ask to search your car because he smells something, you have glassy eyes or are acting nervous and especially if you say, "not without a warrant", most human beings are going to suspect that your hiding something. Now, he doesn't want to stick his head inside the car and see six kilos of cocaine, only to look up to see a pistol pointed at his head. This is why some cops will cuff you, and tell you "you are not under arrest, this is for my protection and yours". I see no problem with that scenario. Now, Rufnek has admitted to having pot in his car, so when the dog hit on it their going to cuff him until they figure out what's in the car. Is that more clear?

[def_lazer_fc]

you'll be surprised what they can do by even finding a marijuana seed in your car.....on high school property......it sucked. :D

[King Crimson]

I know people have rights. I think MOST cops exercise this with discression. If he ask to search your car because he smells something, you have glassy eyes or are acting nervous and especially if you say, "not without a warrant", most human beings are going to suspect that your hiding something. Now, he doesn't want to stick his head inside the car and see six kilos of cocaine, only to look up to see a pistol pointed at his head. This is why some cops will cuff you, and tell you "you are not under arrest, this is for my protection and yours". I see no problem with that scenario. Now, Rufnek has admitted to having pot in his car, so when the dog hit on it their going to cuff him until they figure out what's in the car. Is that more clear?

totally ridiculous, overstated scenario that doesn't prove your point. in your mind, the police should have access to your private property based on assumptions. you are not a Libertarian, apparently.

[jk the sooner fan]

1. i smell BS.....big time

2. it is legal to temporarily detain an individual while an officer conducts an investigaton - the handcuffs are an officer safety thing

3. if they didnt search your vehicle before the dog did a walk around, they did nothing wrong

4. they probably asked to search your car because likely you fit the profile of a stoner........you know, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck......well, its a duck

so, thats sort of what you get when you choose that lifestyle

make sure you tell your OHP dad that you had just vacuumed the seeds out of the carpet earlier - he should know the entire story before he gives you law enforcement advice

[King Crimson]

thats great jk. so you are in to profiling over the rights of an individual?

"when you choose that lifestyle".

what a moralizer you are.

maybe we can all wear white socks and white reeboks like you. perfect world.

[Mongo]

keep a bunch of Beggin strips and milkbones scattered throughout your car, they will never sniff out your stash

[jk the sooner fan]

thats great jk. so you are in to profiling over the rights of an individual?

"when you choose that lifestyle".

what a moralizer you are.

maybe we can all wear white socks and white reeboks like you. perfect world.

you can call it profiling or you can call it making a simple observation

if you look like and act like a stoner, its likely because you are a stoner

its pretty simple really....it has nothing to do with morals or white socks and white reeboks, which is a really stupid counter argument

the cops pulled him over because he violated a traffic law (by his own admission).......they are supposed to make observations and notice their surroundings (again, doing their job)

i'm betting the conversation went a bit different than we're led to believe......they asked him for a consent search, he said no, so they got a dog to establish PC -

i've been pulled over by the norman police and didnt go thru all that.....probably because they had no reason to

[SoonerBorn68]

Norman cops are dicks, but jk's right. If you say no they still can detain you & let the dog do a walk around. It happens all the time in Norman.

Mongo, I was thinking of a little cayanne pepper in the floor boards. :D

[Jerk]

Can someone tell me wtf a 'wood shampoo' is?

Thanks. It's been awhile since hangin' out on the 'hood', and I'm not down with the latest 'street lingo' per say.

[jk the sooner fan]

wood shampoo likely means a rap over the head with the nightstick

[Jerk]

wood shampoo likely means a rap over the head with the nightstick

lol okay, I get it.

[jk the sooner fan]

and KC- you need to understand that profiling isnt what occurs after the stop

its what occurs before the stop

[King Crimson]

you can call it profiling or you can call it making a simple observation

if you look like and act like a stoner, its likely because you are a stoner

its pretty simple really....it has nothing to do with morals or white socks and white reeboks, which is a really stupid counter argument

the cops pulled him over because he violated a traffic law (by his own admission).......they are supposed to make observations and notice their surroundings (again, doing their job)

i'm betting the conversation went a bit different than we're led to believe......they asked him for a consent search, he said no, so they got a dog to establish PC -

i've been pulled over by the norman police and didnt go thru all that.....probably because they had no reason to



what's the point of a consent search, when they do it if you say no?

not much consent there.


who determines reason for a search? apparently your normative vision of the world does. people who look a certain way.

the white socks and white reeboks is a bad argument, but simply the inverse of the one you make.

[jk the sooner fan]

the point of a consent search is really simple.........its because its easier than getting a warrant, and because MOST people (even the ones who know the cops will find something), say "yeah sure, go ahead"..........thats why they ask

if you say no, they're going to bring the dog for a sniff to see if PC can be established......consent is no longer an issue nor an option

who determines the reason for a stop? again, really simple - the officer does.......he uses what we like to call "investigative powers"

hmmm, i see a duck.....

seriously, its not rocket science, quit taking the high ground you're on to make it seem like they were doing something other than their job

were they dicks? perhaps...maybe so, most definitely....pick whichever answer suits you best

were they doing their job? yes

are they required to be nice and sweet while they do it? no, not really

hey, if you're in to the drug lifestyle, then thats your gig.....its not the Norman Police Departments fault that drugs are against the law......they're just enforcing whats on the books......so dont take it personal.....

"people who look a certain way".......really, its called common sense.....i know in your perfect liberal world, that its really evil for people to use common sense and call a spade a spade when its plain as the nose on their face

[AlbqSooner]

Cop: "May I search your car?"
Citizen: "Do you have a search warrant or a warrant for my arrest?"
Cop: "Sir, we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
Citizen: "Oh okay, the easy way is I give up the rights that are GUARANTEED to me by the U.S. Constitution, and the hard way is you, as a police officer, abide by the law."
Cop: "I am placing you in cuffs for my protection and detaining you until we bring in a K-9 to conduct a search in order to see if we can determine probable cause."

Perhaps I have nothing illegal in my car and am not a stoner (at least for the past 30 years or so) but I object to law enforcement violating the U.S. Constitution on principle. Perhaps I have nothing illegal in the car but have some rather embarrasing pics of me and the wife, or girlfriend, or both. Regardless, to have my guaranteed rights violated because some cop is too lazy and too inefficient to ferret our crime by the numbers is simply not kosher in America.

As a law abiding citizen I have the right to expect that those who are sworn to uphold the law do so by following it, even if it makes their job a bit more difficult.

[jk the sooner fan]

"normative vision of the world"

im gonna be chuckling over that one all day.....lol

[King Crimson]

"normative vision of the world"

im gonna be chuckling over that one all day.....lol

you are so funny.

"common sense".

[jk the sooner fan]

maybe this one is easier to grasp

"obvious visual clue"

[King Crimson]

the appeal to common sense is all i need, thanks.

[OUinFLA]

So, if the dog hadn't had a "hit" when walking around the car, would the police have uncuffed you and said, "have a nice evening, drive safely"?

I guess Im asking does no "hit" equal no officer entry into the vehicle without a warrant?

[1stTimeCaller]

The Norman cops are dicks, pure and simple. Maybe they are dicks because 99% of the people they pull over have a friend that's in law school or going to law school and they get tired of arguing with students.

Then again, 90% of the people they pull over are in town trying to better themselves so they don't need to act like the Dallas SWAT team in Oak Cliff when dealing with college students.

Does anyone know what the Courts have deemed to be a reasonable amount of time for an officer to conduct an investigation?

[OKC-SLC]

I've got no dog in this hunt, but I would argue that the 'profiling' that KC alleges is no more than what anyone else does in any situation where his/her safety is in question. (I often lock my car doors at a traffic light in a rough neighborhood. Does that make me a profiler? Fine if it does).

Cops can be d*cks about it, that's for sure. 'Routine' traffic stops lead to a lot of important findings. In my time in Norman, I can think of at least 3 personal 'routine' traffic stops for minor violations (33 mph in a 25 at 2 a.m., for example). If I had fit a certain profile, I'd expect the cops to do what they are trained to do for that profile. Maybe they did, and that's why I got sent away after just a few minutes each time.

I don't mean to allege that you fit any particular profile, nek05. But perhaps they thought you did, I don't know.

I'm just a big defender of cops being able to do whatever they feel is necessary within reason to do their job safely and get home to their families. With respect to personal and legal rights of course.

[olevetonahill]

So, if the dog hadn't had a "hit" when walking around the car, would the police have uncuffed you and said, "have a nice evening, drive safely"?

I guess Im asking does no "hit" equal no officer entry into the vehicle without a warrant?
If the dog hadnt hit they couldnt search .
you got it .

[Scott D]

i need to start remembering names...

i got pulled over for the same thing once, only i was speeding too and got a warning

i had left my wallet at home, no license, no insurance, and i had an expired paper tag

NPD likes me for some reason

i have gotten a lot of seatbelt tickets though :O

doleo's had to do a lot of unsavory things to keep your record relatively clean...a lot. :D

[Scott D]

keep a bunch of Beggin strips and milkbones scattered throughout your car, they will never sniff out your stash

Now we're even for the milkbones

[OUHOMER]

Well, I think the cops have toughest job in the world. Having said that, I dont think the cops should be able to search without cause. Now, if the cop sees something, smell something, than yes by all means do what they have to do.

But if its just a kid with long hair, white shoes, out late, than I say No they dont have the right. ( unless hes wearing a t shirt that say's "**** yea i from texas" that would require a body cavity search).

Now, if the guy has a Arab look about him, has the Koran next to him, and has a remote control next to him. should the cops be able to search his vehicle?

[jk the sooner fan]

we're getting one side of the story, without knowing exactly what the cops saw, its really difficult to say why they asked for a consent

i can say from experience that you dont ask for consent on every vehicle stop......there isnt time

but cops have a pretty strong "sixth sense" and coupled with obvious visual clues, they normally have a pretty good success rate on consent searches

[OUHOMER]

we're getting one side of the story, without knowing exactly what the cops saw, its really difficult to say why they asked for a consent

i can say from experience that you dont ask for consent on every vehicle stop......there isnt time

but cops have a pretty strong "sixth sense" and coupled with obvious visual clues, they normally have a pretty good success rate on consent searchesI agree, the perspective from each side can always been seen 2 different ways.

[SoonerBBall]

totally ridiculous, overstated scenario that doesn't prove your point. in your mind, the police should have access to your private property based on assumptions. you are not a Libertarian, apparently.

I'm a Libertarian, but I also have a best friend who was a cop, so I don't live under the delusion that everyone in this country is an upright citizen just looking to live their lives under the wonderful, inalieable rights the Constitution provides. While I would have been ****ed if the cops did the same thing to me, I also don't think I'd have a leg to stand on about them violating my right against unreasonable search. Doing a walk-around with a drug dog after pulling over someone who looks like a stoner is not unreasonable. Hell, doing a walk-around with a drug dog on EVERY traffic stop late at night may not be unreasonable to the courts, it all has to do with your definition of unreasonable. Regardless, walking the dog around Nek's car was anything but unreasonable, given the circumstances, and when it hit, that is when they searched the car. Where exactly is the problem? That they did the walk around cause he was a stoner? Guess what, profiling works. All human beings use it every day because our brains cannot deal with the massive amounts of different information that we take in. It has to sort and catagorize the information into broader catagories to take it all in. In the same way, cops use profiling to choose their best course of action, and it works a whole lot more often than not.

[OUinFLA]

I agree, the perspective from each side can always been seen 2 different ways.


So, you're saying there are 4 ways to look at a situation?

[OUHOMER]

So, you're saying there are 4 ways to look at a situation?


At least 4 ways maybe more :D

You got the cops, you got the perps, you got the bystander, you got the media

[SoonerInKCMO]

i can say from experience that you dont ask for consent on every vehicle stop......there isnt time

Yep. I've probably been stopped 8-10 times for traffic violations and have never had the police ask to search my vehicle. Prolly cause my car doesn't smell like marijauna.

[Scott D]

you people need to learn to do illegal **** when the cops aren't around only...sheesh.

[rufnek05]

i'm a honest person, and if i was doing anything illegal at the time i would be the first to admit it. my car didn't smell like anything. the only thing i did wrong at the time was turn left into the right lane, the rest was them "profiling" me as a college student with long hair, beard and sandles.
the point of this thread was to find out what my rights were in the subject of PC with out the dog. and to vent about being in hand cuffs. but i do understand the officer doing it for his saftey, i've seen those videos where they get shot by some dude they didn't put in cuff's.

[OUinFLA]

so........would you have shot him if you didnt have the cuffs on?

[Hatfield]

didn't read the whole thread, so this might have been covered.

the exercise of your rights never escalates a situation to manifest probable cause. so yes, you were siezed incorrectly under the 4th.

recent cases indicate that it is fine if they call in the dog as long as it doesn't unreasonably delay the stop for purposes other than the issue of why the stopped you in the first place. I would argue that since the violation was for making a turn into the wrong lane there wasn't enough to justify your detention for that extended period for the sole purpose of bringing in the dog to fish for something else.

[jk the sooner fan]

you'd be wrong

[Hatfield]

So, if the dog hadn't had a "hit" when walking around the car, would the police have uncuffed you and said, "have a nice evening, drive safely"?

I guess Im asking does no "hit" equal no officer entry into the vehicle without a warrant?

that is mostly correct. no hit and no consent means the officers have no justifiable reason to enter your vehicle.

doesn't mean they won't enter and if they find something then you still have to go through the time and more importantly expense of getting it thrown out.

[Hatfield]

you'd be wrong

all depends on the length of the detainment to get the dog there and why the dog was called there in the first place.

and i said i that is what i would argue...making my statement much more correct than your absolute "you'd be wrong"...which is clearly wrong. :)

[yermom]

you'd be wrong

so what is the point in asking then? why not just start with the cuffs?

[Mjcpr]

So if a cop asks to search a car that he pulled over in the middle of the night on a holiday "weekend" and some dipwad (not that I'm implying rufnek was or is a dipwad) pops off "no, not without a warrant" what should they say?

Oh, okay then....just thought we'd ask. Have a good night, hope there are no dead bodies in the trunk!!

[Scott D]

i'm a honest person, and if i was doing anything illegal at the time i would be the first to admit it. my car didn't smell like anything. the only thing i did wrong at the time was turn left into the right lane, the rest was them "profiling" me as a college student with long hair, beard and sandles.
the point of this thread was to find out what my rights were in the subject of PC with out the dog. and to vent about being in hand cuffs. but i do understand the officer doing it for his saftey, i've seen those videos where they get shot by some dude they didn't put in cuff's.

would you consider yourself to be around the smell of weed enough that you might not be able to detect the smell of it on either your clothing or vehicle? You know, kinda like how you go to someone's house and you immediately notice a smell there that isn't the same as in your own home.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Let's put it this way...the cop has the gun...you don't.

Does he REALLY NEED probably cause?

[Hatfield]

So if a cop asks to search a car that he pulled over in the middle of the night on a holiday "weekend" and some dipwad (not that I'm implying rufnek was or is a dipwad) pops off "no, not without a warrant" what should they say?

Oh, okay then....just thought we'd ask. Have a good night, hope there are no dead bodies in the trunk!!


if dipwad has done nothing wrong (other than be a dipwad) and throughout the stop there is no reasonable suspicion that anything is amiss then that is exactly what must happen. the police have no right to just search your car for no reason.

[Scott D]

if dipwad has done nothing wrong (other than be a dipwad) and throughout the stop there is no reasonable suspicion that anything is amiss then that is exactly what must happen. the police have no right to just search your car for no reason.

obviously they felt there was a reason...I'm going to side with jk on this one, we're only getting one side of the story.

[1stTimeCaller]

When I was in Norman a guy I know wrecked his 300Z into a telephone pole. He was drunk and there were beer bottles in his car. He got out and went to our fraternity house and another guy gave him a ride back to his apartment. The police were a few minutes behind them. They show up at the fraternity house and start searching every room in the house. A few of us tried to prevent them from entering out rooms but we were pushed aside by the police. They then figured out that he didn't live at the fraternity house so they go to his apartment. He had since left there and gone to his girlfriend's apartment. His roommate refuses to let the police in. They shoved him out of the way and onto the floor, spread eagle while they go through their apartment. Officer P. Taylor finds a bong in his(the guy they were looking for) closet and takes it as evidence. They charged this guy with a laundry list of charges. It was all dismissed. In the police report Officer Taylor said he could see the bong in the closet from the front door and that was the PC for searching the house. Turns out there was no possible way to see inside the closet from the front door.

Point being that the NPD isn't a big fan of the 4th.
For ****s and giggles you should have the Norman PD give you a list of all complaints against all officers in the last 6 months and also a copy of any diciplinary action the PD has taken against any of the officers. It'll be pretty funny.

[jk the sooner fan]

do a little research on what a "terry frisk" is......or an investigative stop

the supreme court has ruled on these types of deals

if you've been stopped and they are waiting for k-9 to get there, i'm not sure what is considered reasonable or unreasonable, but my memory tells me that the time is longer than you'd think

lets review what happened (and before i go any farther, i agree with Scotts assertion that most potheads probably are immune to the smell of pot)...

rufnek commits a traffic violation......rather routine, and nothing overly egregious, but he commits one none the less

they approach and here is where i'll assume they smelled something, or saw something (personal behavior IS evidence whether you want to believe it or not) that led them to believe there just might be pot in the car

rufnek tells us that only hours earlier in the day, there was some form of residue at the very least, so the fact that the cops honed in on something is no great mystery here....again, its not rocket science

so they ask for a consent search.......and why? because frankly 9 times out of 10 the answer will be yes, foregoing the need to call the k-9 over from wherever they are currently at......thats why they ask, because people often say yes.........call it the "easy button" for police

so he says no......ummm, ok, so they extract him from the vehicle so they can go further in their investigaton - which started when they had reason (whatever that reason was) to ask for a consent search

they put the cuffs on him as a safety measure for both the officers .....and waited for k9 to arrive

k9 arrives and hits on the car - giving them probable cause to search further - which they do, however they dont find anything because as rufnek admitted, he vacuumed it all out

so they give him a citation for the original violation

i only did search and seizures for 15 years, so i'm no expert.......you defense attorneys can twist that 3 ways to sunday all you want, but i think the supreme court finds no problem with that whatsoever

[jk the sooner fan]

keep in mind that a search incident to apprehension includes anything within "lunging distance" - i.e. the inside of the car

and i'd also bet that ruf nek said no because maybe he wasnt sure he got EVERYTHING earlier in the day..........ya think?

[1stTimeCaller]

this is the part that baffles me and in Norman it doesn't surprise me.

cop "can we search the car"
me: "yes, with a warrent"
cop: "please get out of the car, you just gave us probable cause"
Me: "i gave you probable cause if you have a warrent from the county DA or a judge"
Cop: "all we need to search your car is you saying 'no'"
me: i didn't say no, i said 'yes with a warrent'.
cop: even that gives us probable cause

[Hatfield]

obviously they felt there was a reason...I'm going to side with jk on this one, we're only getting one side of the story.

obviously? could have been nothing more than a slow night and they felt like searching....no harm in asking right...

[Hatfield]

do a little research on what a "terry frisk" is......or an investigative stop

the supreme court has ruled on these types of deals

if you've been stopped and they are waiting for k-9 to get there, i'm not sure what is considered reasonable or unreasonable, but my memory tells me that the time is longer than you'd think

lets review what happened (and before i go any farther, i agree with Scotts assertion that most potheads probably are immune to the smell of pot)...

rufnek commits a traffic violation......rather routine, and nothing overly egregious, but he commits one none the less

they approach and here is where i'll assume they smelled something, or saw something (personal behavior IS evidence whether you want to believe it or not) that led them to believe there just might be pot in the car

rufnek tells us that only hours earlier in the day, there was some form of residue at the very least, so the fact that the cops honed in on something is no great mystery here....again, its not rocket science

so they ask for a consent search.......and why? because frankly 9 times out of 10 the answer will be yes, foregoing the need to call the k-9 over from wherever they are currently at......thats why they ask, because people often say yes.........call it the "easy button" for police

so he says no......ummm, ok, so they extract him from the vehicle so they can go further in their investigaton - which started when they had reason (whatever that reason was) to ask for a consent search

they put the cuffs on him as a safety measure for both the officers .....and waited for k9 to arrive

k9 arrives and hits on the car - giving them probable cause to search further - which they do, however they dont find anything because as rufnek admitted, he vacuumed it all out

so they give him a citation for the original violation

i only did search and seizures for 15 years, so i'm no expert.......you defense attorneys can twist that 3 ways to sunday all you want, but i think the supreme court finds no problem with that whatsoever

i agree with most of what you say...but saying no you can't search my vehicle can never be used as the basis for reasonable suspicion.

(and of course all my responses are limited to as if the facts were as presented.)

[jk the sooner fan]

(and of course all my responses are limited to as if the facts were as presented.)

exactly

i'm not saying NPD are saints, or that they have a sterling reputation, but if they really said that then why did they call for the dog?

doesnt make much sense to me

[Sooner24]

i'm a honest person, and if i was doing anything illegal at the time i would be the first to admit it. my car didn't smell like anything. the only thing i did wrong at the time was turn left into the right lane, the rest was them "profiling" me as a college student with long hair, beard and sandles.
the point of this thread was to find out what my rights were in the subject of PC with out the dog. and to vent about being in hand cuffs. but i do understand the officer doing it for his saftey, i've seen those videos where they get shot by some dude they didn't put in cuff's.


You are so screwed. The NPD has now entered your name onto a list and will be pulling you over at every opportunity. They will keep doing this until they find something. It's just a matter of time now. :pop:

[47straight]

keep in mind that a search incident to apprehension includes anything within "lunging distance" - i.e. the inside of the car

That's a non-starter. There wasn't an apprehension here, only a terry frisk and cuffs for the officer's safety. No search gets to happen b/c of all that.

[jk the sooner fan]

That's a non-starter. There wasn't an apprehension here, only a terry frisk and cuffs for the officer's safety. No search gets to happen b/c of all that.

he was apprehended when the dog alerted on the car

[Harry Beanbag]

this is the part that baffles me and in Norman it doesn't surprise me.


That's the part that is kind of confusing to me too, but since nek admitted to cleaning pot out of his car earlier in the day and upon getting home after the traffic stop he immediately fires up a fatty, I don't really have any sympathy whatsoever.

[critical_phil]

That's the part that is kind of confusing to me too, but since nek admitted to cleaning pot out of his car earlier in the day and upon getting home after the traffic stop he immediately fires up a fatty, I don't really have any sympathy whatsoever.


there seems to be a lot of "norman PD are dicks" opinions in this thread, and not nearly enough "rufnek is a ****ing retard".


each are things we can all agree with. problem solved.

[SoonerBorn68]

That's the part that is kind of confusing to me too, but since nek admitted to cleaning pot out of his car earlier in the day and upon getting home after the traffic stop he immediately fires up a fatty, I don't really have any sympathy whatsoever.

Same here. But, any chance I can call the NPD a bunch of bastard a-holes, I'm gonna do it. :D

[Sooner24]

Let's see if I need help who would I call, the NPD or rufnek05......hmmmmmmmmmmmm hard to decide.

[1stTimeCaller]

was rufnek wearing a shirt that said "**** you, I'm a rufnek"?

[OU Adonis]

Let's see if I need help who would I call, the NPD or rufnek05......hmmmmmmmmmmmm hard to decide.

Rufnek would probably get there quicker, especially if you told him you just scored some good ganja.

[olevetonahill]

Let's see if I need help who would I call, the NPD or rufnek05......hmmmmmmmmmmmm hard to decide.
I dont think it would matter , By the time either showed up all they can do is help clean up the mess, and maybe find the perps .:pop:

[mdklatt]

Let's see if I need help who would I call, the NPD or rufnek05......hmmmmmmmmmmmm hard to decide.

I'd call rufnek05. He couldn't possibly be any less helpful than NPD. They suck monkey balls.

[GottaHavePride]

there seems to be a lot of "norman PD are dicks" opinions in this thread, and not nearly enough "rufnek is a ****ing retard".


each are things we can all agree with. problem solved.

Exactly. Smoke whatever the hell you want, but don't do it in your damn car. Mixing mind-altering substances and multiple thousands of pounds of machinery is bad.

[yermom]

doleo's had to do a lot of unsavory things to keep your record relatively clean...a lot. :D

he was with me

the cops don't like him near as much, apparently