I've seen lots of LEOs do that, particularly those that patrol a regular, "beat." When I was really young, in elementary school, EVERYBODY knew "Joe the Cop," the policeman who patrolled our neighborhood. He knew most of the kids and their parents, and everyone knew him. He ALWAYS said, "hi," to everyone. A great guy and someone in whom the community felt comfortable reposing their trust.

More recently, my experience living in LA, SF and Orange County is that, when I encounter a LEO on foot, e.g. waiting for takeout in a restaurant or buying coffee in a 7-11, far more often than not, I'll get a friendly nod and/or a, "hello," which I'm always happy to reciprocate. I think most LEOs realize that, without the support of the community, their job would be a lot more difficult and, further, I think that, at least these days, most LEOs become LEOs because it's an opportunity to serve their communities.

Next time you see a cop, trying saying, "Hi." I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the response you get.

I probably don't. I don't think I've ever seen one "on the street" out of the cruiser anyway. At the airport, yes.

I don't think you understood the context properly -- I wasn't inventing a hypothetical, I was relating an actual event that happened to me when I was 16. I WAS standing and holding a dark green bottle of ginger ale. Without being conscious of it, I was holding it with the label towards my body. A cop pulls up and demands "let me see the bottle", and when I look at him and shake my head, he jumps out, and says "I SAID, 'let me see the bottle'" and he grabs it out of my hand, looks at the label, sniffs it, hands it back, gets back in his car and drives off.

Exactly as you have, I said twice previously in this thread said that someone standing on a corner, COMBINED WITH some other articulable facts (such as those in your example) could create PC to have a look at the bottle. But the simple fact of having bottle in one's hand does not, in and of itself, create PC. That's "probably" one of the main reasons they call it "PROBABLE cause" and not "POSSIBLE cause". Someone holding a bottle in public is POSSIBLY breaking the law, but someone swaying down the sidewalk, singing loudly and holding a bottle in public is PROBABLY breaking the law.

I think I've made that pretty clear in about three posts now, but you amongst others want to keep arguing against views you want to attribute to me but I have not taken. Poor observation skills such as these are probably one of the leading causes of improper determination of PC.

Can't say that I do. They were useless during my three experiences as a crime victim -- once accusing me of being part of a break-in into my home as some sort of elaborate insurance ploy, another time doing nothing until I tracked down the guy who stole my briefcase myself and gave them and the prosecutors the whole case on a silver platter, and a third time when someone tried to mug me and I beat the guy up and then was assisted by some local gang bangers. So they're never around when you need them.

But I HAVE filmed them whacking people over the head with truncheons on three continents, I HAVE had them plant marijuana in my hotel room and then try to get a bribe out of me in exchange for dropping the charges (I got that guy fired), I HAVE had them harrass me for all manner of petty things, (including my ginger ale story, hitch-hiking, giving me 100 $ tickets because I didn't come to a *complete* stop at a stop sign at a deserted intersection, etc. etc.), I HAVE had them make death threats, I HAVE had them rip my press pass into shreds in front of my eyes and tell me to get lost, and I HAVE had them repeatedly threaten me with arrest at TSA checkpoints. Oh, and I had a sister who had one give her a choice of speeding ticket or a hand job.

If there are "good" cops out there, they're very well hidden.

Incorrectly done.

Now also note that what the Exclusionary Rule does is eliminate evidence in court. The officer could have done the exact same thing and, had it been a beer, made you pour it out but not cite you, take you to jail, etc. No violation occurred because no actionable charges were filed.

I've "slapped the wrist" of many people over the years and told them to cut it out. Officer discretion and all of that. And maybe I took a Constitutional liberty or two but I knew, beforehand, I wasn't going to press charges. Of course I don't recommend doing it because you may find something else out later that you have to press charges on and that evidence might be tainted (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree), but I've taken beers and joints and paint thinner (huffers), etc. away from kids without proper Constitutional due process, because I filed no charges.

If they came from homes that gave a crap about them I usually told their parents, which is infinitely worse than criminal charges. :)

Also, I was not using your specific example other than to demonstrate how their is no "presumption of innocence" on the street. If that were the case no LE work would be done other than what was personally observed by the LEO. On the street, presumption of innocence means diddly-do. All that counts is reasonable suspicion and probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, so long as criminal charges are anticipated.

And cops wonder why people don't trust them. :rolleyes:

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.:D

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?

First Law Dawg said He did not state he took constitutional liberties. Taking an item that a person has no right to have is not a 5th Amendment violation.

Using no force as Law Dawg contends, and requesting someone to empty their pockets does not violate the 4th Amendment. An officer is under no obligation to tell someone that can refuse a request to search.

"I don't like the looks of those youngsters" is very much reasonable suspicion, as long as you are not being prejudiced. If you see a group of kids hanging outside the liquer store where normally kids dod not gather it is enough cause to go aver and say "howdy".

On the bottle example, the poster never claimed the officer asked him what was in the bottle. He stated he refused to show the label when asked.

Because now you are an adult and not some idiot wanna be criminal and now you can sue without Mom's permission. :p

Then why do travelers still have problems at checkpoints?
Example, Mr.Gel-Pack from PV, had gel packs keeping babies milk cold seized? How about the guy with the homemade battery pack? It was determined it was not a threat, but still was seized.

TSA seems to say one thing but does something else entirely.

And the Dancing with Stars comments does not apply. I can take a pass on Dancing, I cannot pass on TSA if I wish to fly.

If I could I would!

I take, from a trained officer of the law who knows Constitutional boundaries, "And maybe..." to be a beat-around-the-bush admission to exactly what he describes he "might" have done.

But if the officer comes up with something in that search and is asked in court why he felt compelled to ask and the answer is "Eh, just felt like asking for no particular reason." (not that any officer doesn't have an arsenal of shady reasonable suspicion excuses to draw from, true or not) does it hold up?

I agree with you when you add in the liquor store, but any random group of kids in not inherently suspect based solely on their being kids. Also, it's not just saying "Howdy." It's all in how they say it. They know they're cops and kids are easily rattled by authority. Again, that power is not something to be taken advantage of.

;) True.

I just hate feeling like I'll have to take whatever is dished out to me on the scene then fight it later at my expense, be it monetary, time or whatever.

Wow, your sense of outrage over this sort of abuse of authority is so obvious in your passionately worded, detailed response.:rolleyes:

If you have kids or have ever worked around kids, you will know most of them can not hide their "evil" intent very well. Parents are the original BDOs.

If a good cop can scare the little ankle biter into behaving I am all for it. (NOTE this does not apply to bad cops)

*****

I don't believe that the particular individual lapses* are institutional policy, but the institutional policy of using SSI to hiding the rules and SOPs make lapses like these inevitable. TSA prides itself on the poor management that allows one place or one "bad apple" to not follow the rules--it is an integral part of its Keystone-Kops unpredictability strategery. The policy grows bad apples. From the outside, it looks like TSA's sloppy management doesn't care enough to make sure its own rules are understood and followed--how can we be sure it isn't making bigger mistakes.

* Like my incident: The STL TSO supervisor pulled the gel-pack out of my baby's bag, and told me gel-packs were only allowed for medicines, not infants. At the time, I accepted that the guy knew the rules he was enforcing. After a few travel delays, 13 oz of my wife's pumped breast milk spoiled and she cried as we poured it down the drain. When I re-read the policy and saw that I had remembered what I read: Breast milk is in the same category as liquid medications. , I got mad. Bob and several TSOs apologized for the error of the "bad apple" STL TSO supervisor, but TSA really can't make us whole and replace the irreplaceable breastmilk. I'm done with crying over the spoiled milk. But in the future, why should we trust TSA with breastmilk if no one can guarantee that we can carry breastmilk safely on an airplane? (Recently, because of this incident, my wife didn't even try to save 12 days worth of breast milk from a solo extended overseas trip.)

Been that way since day 1 (when there was perhaps some excuse); will be that way until day infinity I suspect.

Some screeners do understand and follow, some do not. There seems no mechanism to correct the latter.

I am not arguing what the rules are. You have been pretty straight forward about that.

The problem is how these rules are being used or not used across the country. There are way to many cases of the rules being tossed in the trash.

Take sports as an example, having a rulebook is fine but when it is not being applied in the same manner by the different teams then you cannot have a fair game. That's why the rules are standardized for the whole league.

This is a major failing with TSA. To much latitude at each airport to implement rules as that FSD sees fit, and so forth on down the line to the guy in St Louis that harassed a guy over $4,700 or the airport Mr Gel-pack transited and lost his means to cool a babies milk.

You guys have to fix these basic problems before the public who travels enough to see what is really happening will support your efforts.

Mostly because I don't prey on kids. Kids, for the most part, don't know any better. By that I mean they know what they're doing is wrong, but only because people have told them it is. They don't think it's bad.

And yeah, I was one of those kids once. And I bent the rules as a kid and yeah, I got caught. And the cops that caught me weren't nearly as nice to me as I've been to the kids. I got ran in and put in the pokie.

So when I've rolled up to kids looking shady, late, late into the night somewhere they're not really supposed to be, I've slapped their wrists and sent them on their way. But I don't browbeat them and I don't pull that "respect my authoritay!" crap. I do try and put a little fear of consequences in them, but I can only do so much.

Adults I don't cut near as much slack, but do look the other way on what I consider piddly crap. But with adults I pretty much follow the book, because with them I'm always anticipating charges being filed, and the process has to be clean.

No. That's what I've been saying - it's only really a protection against prosecution, for the most part. As in, the arrest would be valid but the charges would likely be dismissed because the evidence was tainted.

But since I preferred no charges and didn't plan on it anyway, it was a mute point. I confiscated illegal items, tried to impress on them the seriousness of the consequences had someone else found them and/or turn them over to mama's real and very physical love (if applicable) and then sent them on their way.

A cop looked at a bottle without permission. I'm not going to rank that up their with Darfur, if that's what you mean.

It was poorly done and beyond the pale. It was not a moral outrage nor a travesty. Had he beat you down to get the bottle away from you I would respond more vehemently. As it was - there are worse things that I see fairly often that warrant more of a response from me than that. Sorry.

Here is the problem. How do I know the difference between you making a friendly conversation or a fishing expedition trying to pin something on me? How do I know that I don't fit some vague description of some suspect? And, worst of all, how do I know that you are a "good" as opposed to "bad" cop who might try to shake me down? The latter did happen in a Polish community in Chicago. Cops were shaking down legal immgrants threatening to deport them.

Of course, if I know why the officer approached me, such as, say, a traffic stop, then I will be as polite as I can without being subservient. I will of course, be mindful of what I say to avoid confessing to something. However, once I detect a fishing expedition, such as a request to open the trunk, I will immediately shut up.

Law Dawg, I used to work with a guy who was on the reserve police officer force of Mesquite, Tx. One Monday, he came to work and said that he'd given a beating to a lippy hippy. I asked him what he'd attempted to do in the course of that beating and his response was "teach him a lesson." My reply to that was, "all you've succeeded in doing is to forever make him, his friends, and family distrust/hate all police officers." He pretty much stopped talking to me after that. Some police officers do commit excesses in real life that would be better left to Hollywood fantasy.

This is precisely why it is very important to take even minor excesses with the utmost seriousness. That is, we the citizens, should report them, and the appropriate levels of supervision must act prompty with proper discipline.

Without accountability, minor excesses tend to become major very quickly.

Sure. Again, I'm not saying to do or not to do anything. Just my response.

Not a bad plan.

Sure they do. No argument here.

I don't believe in broken window policing either of the populace or the police themselves.