And I mentioned to you, the harm that comes from meeting a bad cop is so high that every person must be on guard whenever contacted by LEO.

Further, you logic is as bad as your reading comprehension. You disingenuously claimed that as a DUI Instructor you knew no way to falsify a DUI, then when presented with stories that demonstrate how easy it is and how often is does occur, you retreat to the coward's argument of how it's the media fault.

Is it the media that sent those innocent men to death row, that beat the confession, that falsified those DUIs, that lied about the moving violations, that arrested the person just to feel good about himself, that lied to cover up the bad acts of another cop?

No, of course not. But rather than confront those problems within your force, you'd rather blame someone else. As a reporter and a lawyer I have friends serving as public defenders, as prosecutors and as federal LEO. We have had spirited discussions on why the "Thin Blue Line" exists, but never has anyone been so dishonest as to deny its existence.

Your analytical skills deducing my experience with police are simply abysmal. You are, again, clutching for an excuse to prevent critical thought. I have great respect for the vast majority who are honest and diligent. But I repeat again, because the special powers we vest in the police also allow its bad actors to inflict such harm, and because the police do not police themselves, every police officer must be treated with suspicion. Society, myself included, excuses the occasional LEO killing of an innocent man because "how did the cop know he wasn't a bad guy." If you can approach every person on the street as if he is a criminal, then we can approach you in the same manner. I'd bet that statistically speaking we're more likely to be right than you are.

But here is your biggest tell:

Yes. I expect you to do your job and to do it honestly. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Not sure how you read that out of my post. I never said (or implied) a DUI could not be falsified, nor that officers make mistakes on DUI arrests. I am definitely not retreating into anything. You seem to think that the proof regarding "dui arrests are routinely falsified" are some isolated incidents throughout the US by posting media stories. This is simply not true. Does it occur? Absolutely. Is it routine? NO. For every bad DUI arrest, I would guarantee that there are up to 10,000 good ones (nationwide). My mention of the media is simply to reinforce how you (and others) seem to think that it occurs more than it actually does. Take homicides for example. Always in the news, but they account for very little of the total crime that occurs.

Again, compared to the profession as a whole, very isolated, and incidents which I believe have seriously declined.

I have never said or implied that the blue line does not exist. Do officers cover each other's actions? yes. My argument to your posts has always been your attempt to make it greater than it actually is. One corrupt officer is one too many, but I can definitely say the same about attorneys as well, but I do not come on here telling everyone to not trust "any and all attorneys" because of a few bad ones. That's my issue with where this thread has turned. It surprises me that you are an attorney and seem to be so quick to distrust most police officers. You say you appreciate the "vast majority," but your posts seem to imply the opposite. You appreciate the few that are noble. Maybe the bad ones just run rampant in your area. I would hope not, but most officers I either work with or know, are completely opposite of the picture you try to paint here.

Well that makes me warm & fuzzy. Ever been in a life or death situation with half a second to react? Not likely, but I'm sure that most of the officer-involved shootings are the officer's fault, especially from a monday-morning quaterback's perspective. It is a good thing that juries see all the facts and evidence involved in a shooting, rather from a half-arsed perspective that you see on the tube or from third-hand information.

This is where you and I may agree to disagree. The training (as I mentioned to JMR) for DUIs has become much more stringent in my state. We put the officers through a tough class, which includes wet lab training. Aside from actual DUI detection training, the officer trainees have to submit NHTSAs SFSTs appropriatel (and accurately) to controlled drinkers and make an estimation of their BAC. We then produce the drinker's breath test results and discuss. This training along with moot court, and things "not to do" in DUI cases. Considering that the officer is normally the one to build the probable cause for arrest from the ground up, it is one of the harder arrests to make. Most arrests an officer encounters includes a witness, victim, and identifiable arrestee. Not the case with most DUIs. I will try to dig up a link to our state DUI newsletter, but convictions are on the rise because the harder training and more accurate DUI arrests are starting to make a difference, at least here. Obviously I can't speak for other states. I still disagree with JMR that DUIs nationwide are "routinely falsified." I will never believe that one.

Then allow me to say it for you: if anyone has unitiated contact with a lawyer - meaning one that is not your own - don't trust them at all! That lawyer does not represent you or your interests. S/he is there for a reason that may be counter to yours. Use caution, speak carefully (if at all), and consult your own attorney if things go past your comfort level.

We're back the reading comprehension issue. Because the harm that one might suffer from a bad cop (including generally good cops who are having a bad day), then the following advise holds:

If anyone has unitiated contact with a LEO - meaning one that you did not call - don't trust them at all! That LEO does not represent you or your interests. S/he is there for a reason that may be counter to yours. Use caution, speak carefully (if at all), and consult your own attorney if things go past your comfort level.


Hmmm, I say that we/I allow that LEO mistakes happen and that we/I forgive them due to the nature of the LEO job and you then assail me for ... what?

Again, if you want the people at large to be comfortable with LEOs in general, then weed out the ones that cause us to be suspicious. Just as I don't blame the CHiP who puts a hand on his gun when he approaches me while I am changing a tire on the side of the road, so to you should forgive me for being circumspect of his intent.

Which of course practically guarantees that the booze will be swiped by TSAholes or airline ramp employees.

Are you, or LEOs in general, genuinely surprised that their can be large-scale wariness about you from the law-abiding public?

I'll give you another datapoint. I've never had a bad encounter with a LEO. The only time I've been pulled over was on I-10 in TX where I was given a warning for doing 71 in a 70. I think the cop was fishing for something other than my speed, but I really wasn't upset by the incident. I come from a military family. I've had to call the cops a few times (accidents, vandalism, campus mischief, etc.) and not had negative experiences. I'm sure that the majority of LEOs are good and genuinely try to do their jobs well.

But I don't trust cops. I read too many news stories. Even if < 1% are bad, it's someone with a gun, a baton, and handcuffs who can ruin your day by hauling you off and charging you with disorderly conduct for doing nothing at all, and most likely get away with it. They can throw you on the ground, get you scraped up, and break your glasses, and likely get away with it. And their partner, if there is one, will likely stand up for the LEO not the citizen, even if the citizen did nothing wrong.

Cops are (understandably) trained to maintain control of a situation. But as a result, if they get any sense that they aren't in full psychological and physical control, they tend to freak out with overreactions to regain that control. Hence the guy in OH who called the cops himself and then was arrested for not showing ID (he wasn't driving a car; and OH law explicitly states that a cop can't demand ID.). Hence the guy in St Louis who had a cop threaten to make up charges; the only reason the cop was fired was because they guy had video tape. Hence the bicyclist at MSP who was thrown on the ground, had his glasses stomped on, and was charged with a bunch of stuff (and acquitted on all but one minor charge when he insisted on a trial). And the many many instances of Taser abuse. And my uncle (retired USAF Col., not speeding or doing anything odd) getting pulled over in MD and having his car and trunk torn apart by a power-tripping rookie cop. And the cops who make up rules about photography being prohibited and harass legitimate photographers.

If I need the police, I'll call the police. For the most part I think they're more honest than TSOs, but they also have more power. But I won't have friendly chats with cops and would never invite them into my home. My SO never understood that mentality until I explained to her that a cop could come into our home for an innocent chat, see her large (legal) collection of DVDs sitting on a shelf in plain sight, assume that they were criminally pirated or that there are so many that at least one must contain child porn, and get the collection seized and us charged, triggering thousands in legal bills.

As noted in another post, I backed away from routinely as its popular definition suggests more often than not, and backed it down to common, meaning frequent enough not to be unusual.

I used to spend a lot of time in court, and still routinely visit my sister to watch her in action as a PD. Allowing that most DUIs plea-out in advance of trial, leaving the marginal ones being contested, it is pure agony watching the performance of cops on the stand. DUI reports are often nothing more than a cut-and-paste from one to another. Testimony is by rote recitation - no doubt the product of "training" in mock courtrooms.

But this a thread for another day. Anyone who wants to see how common this is can simply google "falsified dui."

Perhaps you can blame Google in your next post.

No, they couldn't.

It's a little thing called "probable cause." And it's missing in your example.

True.

Also true.

No argument here.

As the old saw goes-
Be nice. Be polite. Be respectful. Have a plan how to kill everyone you meet.

What about the whole "plain sight" rule? I thought if a LEO comes into your house for unrelated reasons (looking for statements re: neighborhood crime or whatever) and you "voluntarily" consented to letting the LEO in the house, and he saw evidence of a crime (usually drugs or guns is the example used), that it was admissible.

Sure.

But how can the LEO testify that he had probable cause to believe the CDs/DVDs are pirated? A stack doesn't a pirated copy make.

The LEO has to have specific articulable facts that support the probable cause to believe that they're illegal.

A judge would laugh that warrant right out of court.....

not to defend TSA or rampers...but I routinely have had to check my hooch, as i was under 21, and even afterwards, i've had full bottles that i needed to bring back, and i've yet to have a problem

Handwritten label. Done. At least, done enough to make a search.

Oh please. I've been doing this for some time. That would be laughed out of court, just like I said. No judge is going to sign off on that. And a handwritten label isn't PC enough for a LEO to make an arrest.

Google "falsified DUIs" and google "DUI Convictions" and compare the numbers. Actually, since there are much fewer stories on actual impaired drivers, your "falsified DUIs" would probably win. Here is some interesting reading out of my state.

http://www.tntrafficsafety.org/htm/newsdui.html

I am not sure which court rooms you attend, but feel free to enter courtrooms where specialized DUI unit officers or DREs (Drug Recognition Experts) are testifying.

As far as cut & paste, I hardly even attend a preliminary hearing until at least 2 months have gone by. Do you expect me to remember a specific DUI from months ago and all the notes I took down regarding the arrest?

There are very specific guidelines outlined by NHTSA in DUI Detection and the SFSTs. Deviation from these guidelines is what gets officers in trouble, so don't be surprised if they remain consistent in their DUI testimony about specific facts regarding the clues of impairment exhibited during their observation of the vehicle, observation of the driver, and the clues in the FSTs. It may sound repetitive, but it's what keeps the offenders/killers off the road.