# Bill Requiring Cops To Get Consent For Some Searches Riles Up NYPD



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Bill Requiring Cops To Get Consent For Some Searches Riles Up NYPD « CBS New York

Why are they even thinkin about passing a bill that is already a Constitutional amendment. And the NYPD Is upest? FUBAR... They will probably spin this as a way too take away our rights too.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

> The bill covers cases when police don't have a warrant, are not making an arrest, or don't have probable cause.


No warrant, no arrest and no *probable cause*. Yet, the union thinks this will protect the criminals. This has me a bit confused. Are we all criminals, now?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

There is some justification for creating a law that supports a constitutionally protected right.
The law will provide clear punishment for violation, where the constitution does not.
Redundancy in protecting my rights is not something I can shake a fist at.


----------



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

They just search you for no reason. And yes, too them we are all criminals.


----------



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> There is some justification for creating a law that supports a constitutionally protected right.
> The law will provide clear punishment for violation, where the constitution does not.
> Redundancy in protecting my rights is not something I can shake a fist at.


I haven't looked at it that way, but still why is the NYPD getting upset because they have to have a reason too search someone?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I am all for laws that CLARIFY my rights and limit government


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Big Country1 said:


> I haven't looked at it that way, but still why is the NYPD getting upset because they have to have a reason too search someone?


Those with assumed authority don't like when their masters assert their own authority.


----------



## ntxwheels (Oct 25, 2014)

This all makes me think back some years ago. The wife and I were on a motorcycle trip and were stopped at one of those 'holiday weekend sobriety check points' in Oklahoma.
Trooper asked for my license and insurance which I provided. Then he asks "what's in my saddlebags". I said the usual necessities. He said "open them up I need to take a look". I said sorry sir, not unless you have a warrant. He said "they are in plain sight so I can look in them". I said nope, you can't because they are locked. And if you attempt to look in them without my consent or a warrant, this Federal Badge in my pocket says you are going to jail.
All of sudden he was the nicest guy in the world and wished us a good day.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

ntxwheels said:


> This all makes me think back some years ago. The wife and I were on a motorcycle trip and were stopped at one of those 'holiday weekend sobriety check points' in Oklahoma.
> Trooper asked for my license and insurance which I provided. Then he asks "what's in my saddlebags". I said the usual necessities. He said "open them up I need to take a look". I said sorry sir, not unless you have a warrant. He said "they are in plain sight so I can look in them". I said nope, you can't because they are locked. And if you attempt to look in them without my consent or a warrant, this Federal Badge in my pocket says you are going to jail.
> All of sudden he was the nicest guy in the world and wished us a good day.


Excellent!


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

ntxwheels said:


> This all makes me think back some years ago. The wife and I were on a motorcycle trip and were stopped at one of those 'holiday weekend sobriety check points' in Oklahoma.
> Trooper asked for my license and insurance which I provided. Then he asks "what's in my saddlebags". I said the usual necessities. He said "open them up I need to take a look". I said sorry sir, not unless you have a warrant. He said "they are in plain sight so I can look in them". I said nope,_ you can't because they are locked_. And if you attempt to look in them without my consent or a warrant, this Federal Badge in my pocket says you are going to jail.
> All of sudden he was the nicest guy in the world and wished us a good day.


This got me thinking..... I have leather saddle bags that secure with a buckle, no "Lock" per say, does this mean the police have the right to search them?

I assumed weather they are locked or not they are the same as the glove box in my truck (has a latch not a key and lock) which the police are not allowed to just rummage through without probable cause or a warrant.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PrepperLite said:


> This got me thinking..... I have leather saddle bags that secure with a buckle, no "Lock" per say, does this mean the police have the right to search them?
> 
> I assumed weather they are locked or not they are the same as the glove box in my truck (has a latch not a key and lock) which the police are not allowed to just rummage through without probable cause or a warrant.


Probable cause is necessary *BEFORE* a warrant shall be issued.
Somehow there's this imagined power to search just because "probable cause" exists.

"... and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."


----------



## ntxwheels (Oct 25, 2014)

PrepperLite said:


> This got me thinking..... I have leather saddle bags that secure with a buckle, no "Lock" per say, does this mean the police have the right to search them?
> 
> I assumed weather they are locked or not they are the same as the glove box in my truck (has a latch not a key and lock) which the police are not allowed to just rummage through without probable cause or a warrant.


If they are buckled, they need a warrant.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

As former law enforcement, I agree with this local legislation. We had "Terry Stop" (Terry vs. Ohio) which had restrictions, and it was a "pat down" for weapons, nothing more. Then guys started writing false paper on the "incidentals" they found, like Crack Cocaine, Heroin, stuff like that, about how it "fell out of the pocket" of the perp during a Terry Stop. BS! Nothing just "falls" uphill, and out of your pockets. But the courts accepted it. 

Then comes 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and they got a "free pass" and things went WAY TOO FAR and our rights have been abused beyond words. We saw this recently with a deputy in New York who choked then slapped a guy who refused to allow the deputy to search his vehicle. 

This is what happens when those entrusted to serve and protect, need reigned back in and have a leash put on them. I tell my students all the time, "Laws are created for two reasons; to give an unfair advantage to someone, or because people can't figure out what the right thing to do is on their own, so somebody else has to tell them."

In this case, it's because they can't figure out the right thing on their own, so somebody had to tell them. I doubt the NY City Council is saying don't be tough on crime. They're saying "You'll abuse your power and the people no more."


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

PrepperLite said:


> This got me thinking..... I have leather saddle bags that secure with a buckle, no "Lock" per say, does this mean the police have the right to search them?
> 
> I assumed weather they are locked or not they are the same as the glove box in my truck (has a latch not a key and lock) which the police are not allowed to just rummage through without probable cause or a warrant.


In my state, even in plain sight, they have to obtain a warrant to enter a vehicle, unless the evidence is in immediate jeopardy of being destroyed. There has to be exigent circumstances to seize without a warrant. Police can't even look in a backpack or a purse without one.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

ntxwheels said:


> If they are buckled, they need a warrant.


I thought so, just "they are locked" threw me off.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

As I was taught on Terry frisks..finding other stuff is perfectly admissable as long as it can be reasonably articulated what the object is thought to be. Recall one time when doing a pat down the nice cop hit a cold five pound pot roast the guy had stuffed down the front of his pants from shop lifting at the grocery store. I mean anybody who hit that would say.."hmmm thats a five pound pot roast." On plain view searches once the offending item was retrieved (normally a weapon or contraband) that was probable cause to search the rest of the vehicle and persons for more contraband and other evidence but did not extend to searching locked items in the trunk. Unlocked saddle bags within easy reach of a motorcycle operator would be fair game as being within the "lunge area". Maybe locked also depending on how handy it was for the perp to get it unlocked. Could be an exercise in creative report writing. The smell of marijuana smoke is always handy for probable cause searches.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)




----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Hmm...wonder if the **** cop just wanted to feel up the cute black guy..lol.


----------

