Buffalo Bills: 2020-2021

[SwampD]

4 minutes ago, tom webster said:

I’m not saying that had to search it, just that they could. If I’m not mistaken, there is no right to privacy while you are in custody other then contact with your lawyer so why would your car be different? I really don’t know.

I would think it’s the same as your house. I’ts your private property. Just because you are in custody, they can’t go and search your house.

[Weave]

Just now, SwampD said:

I would think it’s the same as your house. I’ts your private property. Just because you are in custody, they can’t go and search your house.

It’s been awhile since I cared enough to search it out, but my understanding is that a warrant is needed, and the only reason that it is stuck in my head is from some of what I’ve read in regards to civil drug seizure laws and difficulties with people who have had warrantless searches performed on their cars not being able to get their property back.  But I don’t know how relatable that scenario is to a guy driving recklessly with an open container that gets his vehicle searched. I’m hoping @Indabuff responds.  I construed that he’s involved in law enforcement and would be able to explain.

[Eleven]

4 hours ago, Tondas said:

Don't even say that Eleven.  You've been keeping this board rolling through all this madness..  I look forward to your threads and posts.  

I'm not going to coexist here with a guy who starts by calling me an idiot and then escalates it to calling me a child molester.  That's just not going to happen.

[shrader]

17 minutes ago, Weave said:

It’s been awhile since I cared enough to search it out, but my understanding is that a warrant is needed, and the only reason that it is stuck in my head is from some of what I’ve read in regards to civil drug seizure laws and difficulties with people who have had warrantless searches performed on their cars not being able to get their property back.  But I don’t know how relatable that scenario is to a guy driving recklessly with an open container that gets his vehicle searched. I’m hoping @Indabuff responds.  I construed that he’s involved in law enforcement and would be able to explain.

There's a state trooper (maybe a different department, can't remember) over on the Bills board who usually chimes in on thread like this.  I might skim through their thread to see if he's said anything.  He's usually pretty interesting during these topics.

They definitely don't need a warrant.  It goes right back to the whole probable cause discussion.  There's just so much gray area there that Saul Goodman can usually walk all over it.

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I would think it’s the same as your house. I’ts your private property. Just because you are in custody, they can’t go and search your house.

It's been a while since I studied the case law on this, but I have seen distinctions made between a home being a private space, versus your person or vehicle being in public space.

They don't need a warrant to search your person, they just need probable cause that you have committed, or are planning to commit, a crime. They can't search your person unless you are being placed under arrest (and even then it's supposed to be for the safety of the officer, not for evidence, since they should already have evidence that initiates the probable cause).

So this extends to your car as well. If they see things in plain sight in the car that indicate probable cause of a crime, then they can arrest you and search your car.

BUT...they can't use being intoxicated as probable cause to search your car, because they already have the evidence they need to arrest you for being intoxicated without searching the vehicle. They need additional probable cause to search the car, which is why they like using "smelled weed", because possession is a crime and now they have a reason to look for it in the car. This doesn't work for alcohol because possession of alcohol is not a crime.

[LGR4GM]

28 minutes ago, shrader said:

There's a state trooper (maybe a different department, can't remember) over on the Bills board who usually chimes in on thread like this.  I might skim through their thread to see if he's said anything.  He's usually pretty interesting during these topics.

They definitely don't need a warrant.  It goes right back to the whole probable cause discussion.  There's just so much gray area there that Saul Goodman can usually walk all over it.

Asked a friend who is a cop. He said the open container in the lap gives them probable cause to search the vehicle. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by LGR4GM

[shrader]

13 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's been a while since I studied the case law on this, but I have seen distinctions made between a home being a private space, versus your person or vehicle being in public space.

They don't need a warrant to search your person, they just need probable cause that you have committed, or are planning to commit, a crime. They can't search your person unless you are being placed under arrest (and even then it's supposed to be for the safety of the officer, not for evidence, since they should already have evidence that initiates the probable cause).

So this extends to your car as well. If they see things in plain sight in the car that indicate probable cause of a crime, then they can arrest you and search your car.

BUT...they can't use being intoxicated as probable cause to search your car, because they already have the evidence they need to arrest you for being intoxicated without searching the vehicle. They need additional probable cause to search the car, which is why they like using "smelled weed", because possession is a crime and now they have a reason to look for it in the car. This doesn't work for alcohol because possession of alcohol is not a crime.

The couple websites I looked at for Texas law said that an open container on its own is not arrestable.  But couple with another violation, they can arrest you.  If he was in fact going that fast, there's the other violation that they need.  The open container is the crime, so they have the green light.  If those two details are true, open container + driving nearly double the speed limit, I have absolutely no problem with searching the car.  The law might saw otherwise, particularly in Texas, but we'll see.

 

edit: @LGR4GM, the beer glass acknowledgement of your post seemed too appropriate here.

Edited May 20, 2020 by shrader

[LGR4GM]

Just now, shrader said:

The couple websites I looked at for Texas law said that an open container on its own is not arrestable.  But couple with another violation, they can arrest you.  If he was in fact going that fast, there's the other violation that they need.  The open container is the crime, so they have the green light.  If those two details are true, open container + driving nearly double the speed limit, I have absolutely no problem with searching the car.  The law might saw otherwise, particularly in Texas, but we'll see.

Makes sense. I still think depending on what the gun charge actually is, it will be dismissed or plea bargained down. 

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

The couple websites I looked at for Texas law said that an open container on its own is not arrestable.  But couple with another violation, they can arrest you.  If he was in fact going that fast, there's the other violation that they need.  The open container is the crime, so they have the green light.  If those two details are true, open container + driving nearly double the speed limit, I have absolutely no problem with searching the car.  The law might saw otherwise, particularly in Texas, but we'll see.

 

edit: @LGR4GM, the beer glass acknowledgement of your post seemed too appropriate here.

Right, open container isn't cause for arrest. But if you have one and they believe you're consuming it while operating a motor vehicle, that will certainly get you arrested. Then they can search your person and maybe find some weed or something that would give them probable cause to search the car (beyond what is viewable in plain sight).

But they can't look in your locked trunk, or your glove box, because you were drunk driving. They have to come up with probable cause for a new crime on top of the open container and intoxication. Like I said, that's why they like saying they "smelled weed". It gives them just enough probable cause to look for said weed, since possession is a crime.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Right, open container isn't cause for arrest. But if you have one and they believe you're consuming it while operating a motor vehicle, that will certainly get you arrested. Then they can search your person and maybe find some weed or something that would give them probable cause to search the car (beyond what is viewable in plain sight).

But they can't look in your locked trunk, or your glove box, because you were drunk driving. They have to come up with probable cause for a new crime on top of the open container and intoxication. Like I said, that's why they like saying they "smelled weed". It gives them just enough probable cause to look for said weed, since possession is a crime.

We also do not know if the gun was visible. If it was say, within view then they now have cause to search the vehicle. 

As I said, I don't know if they searched it because he is black. It just makes it more likely for the search to occur. 

[Indabuff]

28 minutes ago, Weave said:

It’s been awhile since I cared enough to search it out, but my understanding is that a warrant is needed, and the only reason that it is stuck in my head is from some of what I’ve read in regards to civil drug seizure laws and difficulties with people who have had warrantless searches performed on their cars not being able to get their property back.  But I don’t know how relatable that scenario is to a guy driving recklessly with an open container that gets his vehicle searched. I’m hoping @Indabuff responds.  I construed that he’s involved in law enforcement and would be able to explain.

I'd prefer not to publicly disclose my occupation.  Also, the laws for different agencies vary hence I chose not to get into the specifics.  What I will say is articulable facts (justifications) are typically required to escalate from reasonable suspicion to probable cause.  The more facts added, the more invasive the law enforcement process may be.  These articulable facts justify why a law enforcement process was initiated and are necessary from a legal standpoint.  

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

We also do not know if the gun was visible. If it was say, within view then they now have cause to search the vehicle. 

As I said, I don't know if they searched it because he is black. It just makes it more likely for the search to occur. 

Right, we don't know if it was found during an illegal search or not. But if you'll allow for something a little more interesting, if the search was illegal, it's possible this was done on purpose: to find things they could confiscate but prevent the individual, a young pro athlete, from being charged for possessing those things. It's sort of a slap on the wrist.

Police do have the option of exercising some discretion in their line of work, and one of those forms of discretion is conducting illegal searches as a way of "crime fighting" without causing someone additional harm. If they find, say, an illegal firearm in the vehicle, it's good that they found it. But they also found it without ruining someone's life, because that person can't be charged for that possession because the search was illegal.

This is one of the arguments that has been used in favor of things like stop and frisk. The search is inherently illegal, but if they find something in the search, then in a way they've done their job. It's harassment, a violation of civil rights, and makes law enforcement look TERRIBLE, but it's technically good for public safety.........
 

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, Indabuff said:

I'd prefer not to publicly disclose my occupation.  Also, the laws for different agencies vary hence I chose not to get into the specifics.  What I will say is articulable facts (justifications) are typically required to escalate from reasonable suspicion to probable cause.  The more facts added, the more invasive the law enforcement process may be.  These articulable facts justify why a law enforcement process was initiated and are necessary from a legal standpoint.  

From that, I think I can surmise your occupation.  ?

And if I understand correctly, there needs to be escalation beyond a couple of traffic infractions to justify search of the vehicle.  Maybe or maybe not a DWI investigation meets that requirement.  Thanks.

[LGR4GM]

34 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Right, we don't know if it was found during an illegal search or not. But if you'll allow for something a little more interesting, if the search was illegal, it's possible this was done on purpose: to find things they could confiscate but prevent the individual, a young pro athlete, from being charged for possessing those things. It's sort of a slap on the wrist.

Police do have the option of exercising some discretion in their line of work, and one of those forms of discretion is conducting illegal searches as a way of "crime fighting" without causing someone additional harm. If they find, say, an illegal firearm in the vehicle, it's good that they found it. But they also found it without ruining someone's life, because that person can't be charged for that possession because the search was illegal.

This is one of the arguments that has been used in favor of things like stop and frisk. The search is inherently illegal, but if they find something in the search, then in a way they've done their job. It's harassment, a violation of civil rights, and makes law enforcement look TERRIBLE, but it's technically good for public safety.........
 

Also possible. As with most of these situations we freak out and go overboard before knowing the details. "We" meaning humans in general. 

[shrader]

52 minutes ago, Weave said:

From that, I think I can surmise your occupation.  ?

Can't you read?  Clearly he's in the time travel industry.

[Stoner]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Yeah - that ain't it. Whither the mods?

 

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

That’s about nine miles over the line. There should be no place for this on this board.

And what about the patriot jab. Most of us know Hank did some serious duty in wartime. That cuts pretty close to the bone.

Hank used an argumentative technique called exaggeration for effect. It was very cold and sharp, yes, but he wasn't calling Eleven a child molester. It was a point about assuming.

No one should be banned. I sure hope Eleven doesn't have enough clout to get someone kicked off.

[Eleven]

11 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

 

And what about the patriot jab. Most of us know Hank did some serious duty in wartime. That cuts pretty close to the bone.

Hank used an argumentative technique called exaggeration for effect. It was very cold and sharp, yes, but he wasn't calling Eleven a child molester. It was a point about assuming.

No one should be banned. I sure hope Eleven doesn't have enough clout to get someone kicked off.

It's not about clout.

Separately, I'm starting to really think about how non-essential this board is to my life and what I want to do with it.

[nfreeman]

FFS.

Everyone chill out in here please.  And before posting something nasty or disrespectful or accusatory, please read it, think about it, and tone it down.

I get that external stresses have made it more difficult, but it's important to converse in a friendly and respectful manner.  

The board is a place where everyone should want to come for a pleasant diversion in the form of friendly conversation.  

[That Aud Smell]

26 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Hank used an argumentative technique called exaggeration for effect. It was very cold and sharp, yes, but he wasn't calling Eleven a child molester. It was a point about assuming.

Yeah - I reckon I missed that nuance (?). I'm not sure what the patriot stuff is about, tbh. I guess so long as no one's accurately alluding to home addresses, we good?

[LTS]

I almost fear to wade into this.. but..

Is the conversation about:

whether there was probable cause for a search

OR

whether the probable cause was ignored and the search occurred because he is black?

It might be a bit of both.  I'm honestly asking.  I see debates over whether the search was justified, but I don't think that, in and of itself, would be tied to a racist act unless the follow up to that is the assumption that there was no probable cause but the search was conducted anyway.

 

[Weave]

6 minutes ago, LTS said:

I almost fear to wade into this.. but..

Is the conversation about:

whether there was probable cause for a search

OR

whether the probable cause was ignored and the search occurred because he is black?

It might be a bit of both.  I'm honestly asking.  I see debates over whether the search was justified, but I don't think that, in and of itself, would be tied to a racist act unless the follow up to that is the assumption that there was no probable cause but the search was conducted anyway.

 

From my perspective, the conversation was along the lines of, what probable cause was there, or might be typical in that scenario, that would warrant a search of his vehicle.
 

Given the fallout, I guess the entire thread is about assumptions.

[darksabre]

17 minutes ago, LTS said:

I almost fear to wade into this.. but..

Is the conversation about:

whether there was probable cause for a search

OR

whether the probable cause was ignored and the search occurred because he is black?

It might be a bit of both.  I'm honestly asking.  I see debates over whether the search was justified, but I don't think that, in and of itself, would be tied to a racist act unless the follow up to that is the assumption that there was no probable cause but the search was conducted anyway.

 

Both of those things are what we're spitballing about here. I also offered that it's possible an illegal search occurred because he is a pro athlete. I don't think anyone has explicitly voiced a strong opinion on the situation one way or another, we're just discussing the circumstances around "one of our guys" getting pulled over for speeding, maybe having an open container, and the police finding a firearm in the car.

[Tondas]

11 hours ago, Eleven said:

I'm not going to coexist here with a guy who starts by calling me an idiot and then escalates it to calling me a child molester.  That's just not going to happen.

We're all a little bit raw due to the pandemic.  But, you're a great poster, don't let the times and one post make you quit.  I, and I assure you, many others would miss you if you left.  

[LGR4GM]

It is Josh Allen's birthday

 

[That Aud Smell]

Happy Birthday, young buck.

By the way, the footage of him on the Twitter doing the red-solo-cup-magic-trick on ... Zack Moss (?) is pretty great. Without being Pollyanna-ish, it's another example of why he's got the leadership thing element firmly within his grasp.