And cops wonder why people don't trust them.

I'd say it's hypocritical that you rolled up the Constitution and smoked it, but you apparently never had much regard for it in the first place.

Whatever. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are the only bywords that matter in street enforcement. If you choose to believe otherwise, feel free to engage in whatever delusion makes your peanut butter brown.

Wow...the guy just demonstrated that he is a decent guy and treated some juveniles decently,... and you give him kaka for it. Weak.

Plainly stating in no uncertain terms that you "[take] a Constitutional liberty or two" and that "presumption of innocence means diddly-do" is not a delusion. It's a major problem that is prevelant in the law enforcement agency.

I do applaud you for not ruining kid's lives by turning them into their parents instead of filing charges.

Sir, that peanut butter is prohibited, you must throw it away.

I didn't follow all court precedent when I didn't prefer charges. If I planned on filing charges, I follow all prescribed rulings. The Exclusionary Rule only applies in court. This is to keep the government from punishing people without cause. As I didn't file charges, there was no punishment. I didn't invade their home, pull guns, etc. No force was used. It was simply telling them to empty their pockets. I didn't have RS for a search nor consent nor a warrant, so technically it was an unauthorized search. But telling some kids you know are up to no good to dump their pocket trash and then flushing their dime bags isn't abusing the Constitution, IMO. Your mileage may vary, however.

Why would I? They were just kids up to shenanigans, not gangstas. Had they been hardcore skinheads or gangbangers I would have approached the situation differently. Just dumb kids that needed to not be hanging out smoking stuff, huffing, or drinking when the popo is driving around isn't smart.

I came upon a guy smoking weed while fishing. Made him throw it in the water. Talked about fishing for a bit. Bid him a good day and off I went. I generally only deal with serious stuff. That's my attitude. Other guys are broken window policers. Different ways of thinking, neither is right or wrong, just different approaches.

Peanut butter is a liquid?

I see that as taking the attitude of "I didn't get caught abusing the Constitution, so it's okay". Had you met them in court over it, you would (hopefully) have been "caught" and they would go free, as they should.

What all that does is call into question in every single encounter whether the LEO any particular individual is dealing with is playing by the rules or not. Your position is very intimidating, especially to those ignorant of the law. That's not something to be taken advantage of. To gain the trust of the public, trust is not something that should be questioned.

*****

What would you have done if they said no?

Disagree; the broken window police are wrong. While they're writing up some poor shmo for a cracked window, a store is robbed, baby kidnapped, teenager raped, etc, etc, etc. Bad use of time.

In the case of Law Dawg using the Andy Griffith approach to kids being kids, guess what, his approach is NOT unconstitutional.

Telling a kid to empty his pockets on suspicion is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. For one the kid can turn and walk away, secondly if you really want to press it the officer has the right to search to maintain his safety once he makes contact.

Property that a person does not have the right to possess is NOT protected by the Constitution. So there is no 5th Amendment violation. Beer, weed and huffing paraphernalia in possession by a minor would fit this category.

If Law Dawg saw fit to take money or even a screwdriver from a minor you may have a 5th Amendment violation.

Time to mess with your heads.

Just because something is unconstitutional does NOT automatically mean it is immoral, wrong or otherwise nefarious. (example: line item veto)

Brother, if you think kids up to no good don't know it and aren't scared of getting caught, think again. It's not a trust issue, it's them trying to get away with stuff, like kids do. It was intimidating because they were up to no good and didn't want to be caught.

Depends. I'd need more info. C'mon man, if you were a 14 year old out getting into trouble would you tell a cop "no" when he caught you messing up? Like I said, these weren't hardened criminals.

Broken window doesn't mean the store owner's window is busted. It means if you turn a blind eye to kids breaking windows they grow up to do a lot worse. Small crimes turn into big ones kinda thing.

No, but just rollin' up on a random couple kids being all cop-like and demanding they empty their pockets is. Even law dawg admitted to "Constitutional liberties".

"I don't like the looks of those youngsters" is not reasonable suspicion.

Or even a more reasonable example was the one upthread where the cop just took the bottle form the kid to see if it was beer or not. What's wrong with taking the kid's word for it?

Hey, man, I was one of those kids once. So were you. I happened to be pretty good at not getting caught.

But kids will unwittingly bow to authority. Every time I got pulled over and the cop said in his cop-authoritative voice "Open the trunk", I did without question. Again, I happened to be clean on those occasions, but they were for sure fishing expeditions, completely unnecessary and only served to put me off to LEOs and made me better at the game.

And that's where the issue is deeper than just dealing with kids, who are far too easy to catch wrongdoing. If you're willing to trample the Constitution and prey on kids, why should I trust you now that I'm older?