ask a cop/jailer

[HentMas]

just something i wanted to say before my question

Here in Mexico you are guilty untill proven inocent, so, if there is an assault in the bank and the police comes in, they capture everyone in the building (and some others that where passing by) and put them in Jail, they are all charged with the assault and start being questioned (with a lawyer by they side) about what happened, they have to pay bail to get out of jail (a shitload of money in most cases and more if you want to get out earlyer and sometimes much more if for some strange reason the jailers dont like you ie. you were rude to them when they got you there)

the funny thing is, even if you are unable to prove your innocense, if the hum... prosecutor?? the guy pressing charges in court??, well, if the guy accusing you cant prove your guilt, you walk out, BUT you are not INOCENT! so you don´t get any money back AND your public image is damaged (you get records) oh, if you prove you are innocent, you dont get reccords and your bail money is returned (haha, as if!! in most cases the money is lost)

soooo!!!, in the Legal system of the United States, how EXACTLY does the "Innocent until proven guilty" thing work??

(BTW the brief description of my legal system may or may not be right, i just placed what i found reading about some cases and those kind of things)

 

[ace_of_something]

Hey, this thread is AMAZING. Best thread I've ever seen in my nearly two years on this forum.

So because I think this is the best thread I've ever read I feel like I should help contribute to it and make it more awesome, so I'm going to ask stuff:

1. How does law enforcement work with regards to prostitution where you are? Where I live (Australia) brothels seem to work on some kind of hazy semi-legal basis. Prostitution is not technically legal here as far as I'm aware (laws are different in each state though), but they do have big red lights out and everyone knows where they are, they're discreet but not VERY discreet. It would be reasonable to assume that the local police know where these places are, seeing as how I know and I don't even go to them. Assuming that brothels are technically not legal, why do they continue to operate without the police shutting them down? There's only ever been one brothel bust by police that I can think of in the city where I live. Is it a case of "if we bust this brothel another will open up down the street so what's the point" or is it "better the girls are working at a brothel than being street walkers", or lack of evidence, or something else? I guess this is in a way similar to the question in the post above this one about drug dealers.

2. What's your position on prostitution in general? How do you think it affects a community? I've heard reports in small country towns where police shut down the only brothel, and as a result violence in the community increases... not sure if that's true though.

3. I work in the music industry, which is an industry that often operates on the fringes of legality, especially where drugs are concerned. I stay away from drugs completely but I'm a rare case - most people that I work closely with are off their tits on all types of substances at any given moment. Do cops in your experience habitually stake out or otherwise keep much of an eye on the local music scene and local music subcultures with a view to busting people for drug offences?

4. You seem like a nice person from your other posts. What do you think the ratio is of people such as yourself compared to people in the force who, for want of a better way of putting it, have a "cowboyish" attitude? Most encounters I've had with police have been reasonably polite affairs (I'm very nice to cops when I have to deal with them - I find my life is easier this way) but with some of the cops I deal with (about 50%) I get the sense that they are getting off a little on the whole power thing that they have over others. Do you think this is just my skewed perception as a civilian or do you think many cops are actually like this?

5. Is it true that undercover cops staking out bars to make busts forget to change out of their police shoes, so you can tell them apart by their footwear? An ex-girlfriend told me that's how she could always tell but I'm not sure if I believe it.

Spoiler: if you think i'm texty

1. There are some laws that are enforced ?only when it becomes a problem.? For example most cities have noise ordinances (45db A Scale is the average I think) but rarely will police go out of their way to find and shut down loud events unless someone else complains. So it?s only enforced when it becomes a problem. I imagine your local constable feels the same about the brothels. ?as long as it doesn?t cause problems we won?t bug them? I?ve never had to deal with a formal brothel myself, but I can imagine it?s hard to prove without going undercover.

2. I think it?s gross and morally wrong. It cheapens and devalues the tender act of love which is supposed to be an expression of feeling between two people. Legally however, I also believe ?two adults can do what they want behind closed doors? so it?s a wash. Very few cops ?hate? prostitutes like they would drug dealers or gang bangers. Having them walk the streets is obviously more dangerous for everyone involved as well.

3. The thing with working vice is we want big fish. We want dealers not users. And most dealers, most, are clever enough not to deal drugs in the kinds of places where people use them more frequently. So, for the most part that wouldn?t be the kind of place we steak out. Unless we have enough rumor or proof of drug dealing going on. So it kind of falls into that ?as long as it doesn?t cause problems? category. The funny thing is my Lieutenant would always ask me if the bands playing on a particular evening had a large drug following to see if we should ask the venue if they needed help/ steak it out whatever because I had the reputation for knowing that sort of thing. (Insane Clown Posse / Kottonmouth Kings was a busy day for us.)

4. Cops are like anyone else and can have a wide variety of attitudes though the job does lend itself to make you a little big headed. Some people have a hard time handling that. I?d be lying if I said I never used the ?do it because I said so? line when I was working in the jail. Sometimes it?s just easier to wield your authority like a cowboy rather than a nice guy. Especially, in emergency situations.

5. Is it true that undercover cops staking out bars to make busts forget to change out of their police shoes, so you can tell them apart by their footwear? An ex-girlfriend told me that's how she could always tell but I'm not sure if I believe it.

5. I? what? Those would have to be some pretty sloppy cops. That and the shoes we where tend to look like black boots that lots of people wear unless you look close enough to see which brand they are.
Usually, when we do any sort of undercover work you just wear your street clothes. For example I usually would wear a metal band t-shirt or hockey jersey, jeans, and black chuck tailors. The goal is to NOT stick out.

whew. Hope that covered it for ya.

 

[ace_of_something]

Is it true that those who die while serving jailtime get wrapped in tarps and tossed in the garbage chute to save money on a box and funeral?

Nope. Usually the body is sent to a hospital to be declared dead (even if it?s very very obvious they are dead) than the hospital notifies the next of kin.
If none are available it is cremated at the county coroner?s office.... I'm not sure what they do with the ashes. Possibly voodoo curses against the mayor's enemies. At least that's how we do it in this county and any other large city I?ve heard of.

edit: sometimes, especially in federal prisons the body is donated to science assuming the cause of death isn't too violent.

 

[Silver Scribbler]

Really awesome thread, actually read the whole ten pages 'cause I was finding it so interesting.

My question is this, have you any first-hand experience of jail actually working? By that I mean, do people often do a stint in jail and then not re-offend? As in, coming out a changed person after a first-time/minor offense.

Just interested really.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

just something i wanted to say before my question

Here in Mexico you are guilty untill proven inocent, so, if there is an assault in the bank and the police comes in, they capture everyone in the building (and some others that where passing by) and put them in Jail, they are all charged with the assault and start being questioned (with a lawyer by they side) about what happened, they have to pay bail to get out of jail (a shitload of money in most cases and more if you want to get out earlyer and sometimes much more if for some strange reason the jailers dont like you ie. you were rude to them when they got you there)

the funny thing is, even if you are unable to prove your innocense, if the hum... prosecutor?? the guy pressing charges in court??, well, if the guy accusing you cant prove your guilt, you walk out, BUT you are not INOCENT! so you don´t get any money back AND your public image is damaged (you get records) oh, if you prove you are innocent, you dont get reccords and your bail money is returned (haha, as if!! in most cases the money is lost)

soooo!!!, in the Legal system of the United States, how EXACTLY does the "Innocent until proven guilty" thing work??

(BTW the brief description of my legal system may or may not be right, i just placed what i found reading about some cases and those kind of things)

Wow...just, wow. That's terrible on more than one level. Basically, all of what you mentioned is used in the USA as well, but it's applied in different ways. In criminal cases in the USA, you are literally assumed to be innocent until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty. It doesn't always work like that, no system being perfect, but that's what the process is supposed to be like. Discretion is usually up to the officers on the scene, but I don't think a policeman in his right mind would even think of arresting anyone except the guys people that were actually causing trouble. They would definitely talk to everyone who was there and possibly ask them to testify in court, but that goes hand in hand with the whole 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' thing. Even though it's pretty obvious that the guys with the guns who were in the bank were up to no good, you must give them the chance to defend themselves. The prosecution has the burden of proving that the people charged are actually the ones who did the crime.

Bail money (just as a side note) is used in a different way here, basically you pay the money after you've been arrested and are allowed to go 'free' (which is the same thing you described), but the moment that you fail to show up for your court hearing that money is forfeit and a warrant will be issued for your arrest. At that point, the cash goes to the state and a percentage of it goes out as reward money should you be caught. That's why people who are a flight risk or have done really awful crimes end up with either really high amounts of bail or have it outright denied. If you show up for court on time and are found not guilty, the money is returned to you.

EDIT: sorry for the wall of text, had to contribute my learning and I got on a tangent.

 

[ace_of_something]

just something i wanted to say before my question

Here in Mexico you are guilty untill proven inocent, so, if there is an assault in the bank and the police comes in, they capture everyone in the building (and some others that where passing by) and put them in Jail, they are all charged with the assault and start being questioned (with a lawyer by they side) about what happened, they have to pay bail to get out of jail (a shitload of money in most cases and more if you want to get out earlyer and sometimes much more if for some strange reason the jailers dont like you ie. you were rude to them when they got you there)

the funny thing is, even if you are unable to prove your innocense, if the hum... prosecutor?? the guy pressing charges in court??, well, if the guy accusing you cant prove your guilt, you walk out, BUT you are not INOCENT! so you don´t get any money back AND your public image is damaged (you get records) oh, if you prove you are innocent, you dont get reccords and your bail money is returned (haha, as if!! in most cases the money is lost)

soooo!!!, in the Legal system of the United States, how EXACTLY does the "Innocent until proven guilty" thing work??

(BTW the brief description of my legal system may or may not be right, i just placed what i found reading about some cases and those kind of things)

Wow...just, wow. That's terrible on more than one level. Basically, all of what you mentioned is used in the USA as well, but it's applied in different ways. In criminal cases in the USA, you are literally assumed to be innocent until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty. It doesn't always work like that, no system being perfect, but that's what the process is supposed to be like. Discretion is usually up to the officers on the scene, but I don't think a policeman in his right mind would even think of arresting anyone except the guys people that were actually causing trouble. They would definitely talk to everyone who was there and possibly ask them to testify in court, but that goes hand in hand with the whole 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' thing. Even though it's pretty obvious that the guys with the guns who were in the bank were up to no good, you must give them the chance to defend themselves. The prosecution has the burden of proving that the people charged are actually the ones who did the crime.

Bail money (just as a side note) is used in a different way here, basically you pay the money after you've been arrested and are allowed to go 'free' (which is the same thing you described), but the moment that you fail to show up for your court hearing that money is forfeit and a warrant will be issued for your arrest. At that point, the cash goes to the state and a percentage of it goes out as reward money should you be caught. That's why people who are a flight risk or have done really awful crimes end up with either really high amounts of bail or have it outright denied. If you show up for court on time and are found not guilty, the money is returned to you.

EDIT: sorry for the wall of text, had to contribute my learning and I got on a tangent.

Nailed that one on the head. One cavet though we can legally hold someone for 24 hours without formally charging them. It's a very rare practice though (Unlike on TV) and is usually only used when we know they will be charged shortly.

 

[The87Italians]

Does your state have a "Camp Cadet" program? I graduated from the one in Pennsylvania a bit ago, I was just interested in knowing if we're the only state that has one (Troop D FTW).

 

[ace_of_something]

Really awesome thread, actually read the whole ten pages 'cause I was finding it so interesting.

My question is this, have you any first-hand experience of jail actually working? By that I mean, do people often do a stint in jail and then not re-offend? As in, coming out a changed person after a first-time/minor offense.

Just interested really.

It's interesting see when you work in a jail or as a cop you don't usually remember the guy who gets arrested once or twice and never comes back. It does happen a lot espeically with minor drug charges. The people that come back a lot are usually violent or a career criminal (burglar or drug dealer). They say something like at any given time in out jail of about 1,300 people 1,150 of them have been to jail before (according to ACA studies) the other thing is when you haven't been to jail too often you usually get a low bond. So bonding out as easy and you don't sit in there for more than a day.

Does your state have a "Camp Cadet" program? I graduated from the one in Pennsylvania a bit ago, I was just interested in knowing if we're the only state that has one (Troop D FTW).

I know what you're talking about. Not many states have that mostly 'blue states' on the coasts to my knowledge. I would LOVE to have something like that here, but sadly we do not.

 

[cartzo]

a friend of mine (age 21, but i won't say his name) is currently having a really bad experience with cops, he has been remanded in custody for three weeks now, and it is totally unfair. it all started with him and his friend having disagreemants with a 40 year old smack head in their area who claims that he is ex-SAS, and he's clearly not. it is still unclear what the disagreemant started with, but thats not what matters any more. eventually it got to the point that this vial man was saying that he was going to burn him, his mum, and two sisters out of house and home (by the way they live on a council estaste).

eventually this friend of mine got a call early in the night from one of his friends saying that they were going out to the pub and would he like to join them, he ablihged but you can probably guess who they met while they were out. but this time this 40 year old smack addict had two friends with him, there was what you might call a brawl in which my friend had to punch his way out of the brawl and ran home, as did his friend.

the next day early in the morning my friend, his mother, and two sisters, where dragged out of bed (not literrally) by a fully armed swat team (i shit you not), all because after the breif brawl the smack addict went straight to the police station and said that my friend had had a gun (BOLLOCKS!) he even described it in detail, and said the name and make. fortinately the swat team was very polite and conducted themselves properly. my friend was arrested and taken to the police station and formely charged with "concealing a fire arm". their was no fire arm, the idiotic cops of sheffield have arrested and formely charged someone with "concealing a fire arm" because some smack addict sais he has a gun.

but then after the swat team left the inspectors turned up with a search warrent, and they really were unpleasant, they tried to make everything about the house seem suspicious, they were rude, and spiteful, they even commented on the state of my friends bedroom and tried to make it seem suspicious that an ipod was on the floor in a students bedroom.

back to current events, as i said my friend has been remanded in custody for three weeks now, and because the smack addict has withdrawn his statement about the imaginary gun, the charge of "concealing a fire arm" has been dropped and he has now been charged with "pretending to have a fire arm" (again i shit you not). he is still awaiting trial.

The sheffield police have arrested, charged, remanded in custody, and are currently building a case against my friend all on the basis of what one smack addict said, this is not what i call good policing.

 

[DC_Josh]

My uncle is a jailer over here in the UK. He's been doing it for decades since he left the armed forces and the stories I hear about his job make my sense of national pride eat itself like a twinkie full of tears and manure.

His cells are full every night, remarkable for a station in a small sized town. Whats more remarkable as he's seen the shift go from men in there for drunken behaviour to mostly women who try to make all kinds of comments about him. One even demanded an armchair in her cell and when he refused, she said she would sue. One threw hot coffee in his face and due to our legal system being so crap, he couldn't even use physical contact to deffuse the incident.

Either way, no questions for you bud, I just respect what you have to do and hope you yanks have a better sense of "its a fair cop" than the new criminals of today.

 

[ace_of_something]

Spoiler: text

a friend of mine (age 21, but i won't say his name) is currently having a really bad experience with cops, he has been remanded in custody for three weeks now, and it is totally unfair. it all started with him and his friend having disagreemants with a 40 year old smack head in their area who claims that he is ex-SAS, and he's clearly not. it is still unclear what the disagreemant started with, but thats not what matters any more. eventually it got to the point that this vial man was saying that he was going to burn him, his mum, and two sisters out of house and home (by the way they live on a council estaste).

eventually this friend of mine got a call early in the night from one of his friends saying that they were going out to the pub and would he like to join them, he ablihged but you can probably guess who they met while they were out. but this time this 40 year old smack addict had two friends with him, there was what you might call a brawl in which my friend had to punch his way out of the brawl and ran home, as did his friend.

the next day early in the morning my friend, his mother, and two sisters, where dragged out of bed (not literrally) by a fully armed swat team (i shit you not), all because after the breif brawl the smack addict went straight to the police station and said that my friend had had a gun (BOLLOCKS!) he even described it in detail, and said the name and make. fortinately the swat team was very polite and conducted themselves properly. my friend was arrested and taken to the police station and formely charged with "concealing a fire arm". their was no fire arm, the idiotic cops of sheffield have arrested and formely charged someone with "concealing a fire arm" because some smack addict sais he has a gun.

but then after the swat team left the inspectors turned up with a search warrent, and they really were unpleasant, they tried to make everything about the house seem suspicious, they were rude, and spiteful, they even commented on the state of my friends bedroom and tried to make it seem suspicious that an ipod was on the floor in a students bedroom.

back to current events, as i said my friend has been remanded in custody for three weeks now, and because the smack addict has withdrawn his statement about the imaginary gun, the charge of "concealing a fire arm" has been dropped and he has now been charged with "pretending to have a fire arm" (again i shit you not). he is still awaiting trial.

The sheffield police have arrested, charged, remanded in custody, and are currently building a case against my friend all on the basis of what one smack addict said, this is not what i call good policing.

Well, I'm not real sure how detainment (holding those awaiting trial) works in the UK. The problem with 'threats' is they're really hard to prove one way or the other and sometimes people take advantage of that. Sounds like the smacktard was threatening to hurt his family it would've been a valid course of action to let the cops know that before hand. Right now he needs to make sure his represenative counsel knows the whole story you told. He will likely have to go to trial or court for this. If he can get aquitted I'd sue the smacktard for false reporting.
This sort of thing happens when you have 'by the numbers' policing which is just looking to your 'officers hand book' and checking off the boxes of what you're supposed to do without looking at the big pictures.
I'm a detective now and I can say I've said some stupid things out loud like 'why would a teen have an iPod?" because you ask yourself about 10,000 questions as soon as you enter a crime scene even ones with duh answers. The more you think the more you find. It's a weird thought process.

This thread and people I know in the UK have told me many stories that have not endured me to my cousins in blue across the pond and they way they run things it doesn't seem very helpful to the citizens a lot of times.

 

[cartzo]

Spoiler: text

a friend of mine (age 21, but i won't say his name) is currently having a really bad experience with cops, he has been remanded in custody for three weeks now, and it is totally unfair. it all started with him and his friend having disagreemants with a 40 year old smack head in their area who claims that he is ex-SAS, and he's clearly not. it is still unclear what the disagreemant started with, but thats not what matters any more. eventually it got to the point that this vial man was saying that he was going to burn him, his mum, and two sisters out of house and home (by the way they live on a council estaste).

eventually this friend of mine got a call early in the night from one of his friends saying that they were going out to the pub and would he like to join them, he ablihged but you can probably guess who they met while they were out. but this time this 40 year old smack addict had two friends with him, there was what you might call a brawl in which my friend had to punch his way out of the brawl and ran home, as did his friend.

the next day early in the morning my friend, his mother, and two sisters, where dragged out of bed (not literrally) by a fully armed swat team (i shit you not), all because after the breif brawl the smack addict went straight to the police station and said that my friend had had a gun (BOLLOCKS!) he even described it in detail, and said the name and make. fortinately the swat team was very polite and conducted themselves properly. my friend was arrested and taken to the police station and formely charged with "concealing a fire arm". their was no fire arm, the idiotic cops of sheffield have arrested and formely charged someone with "concealing a fire arm" because some smack addict sais he has a gun.

but then after the swat team left the inspectors turned up with a search warrent, and they really were unpleasant, they tried to make everything about the house seem suspicious, they were rude, and spiteful, they even commented on the state of my friends bedroom and tried to make it seem suspicious that an ipod was on the floor in a students bedroom.

back to current events, as i said my friend has been remanded in custody for three weeks now, and because the smack addict has withdrawn his statement about the imaginary gun, the charge of "concealing a fire arm" has been dropped and he has now been charged with "pretending to have a fire arm" (again i shit you not). he is still awaiting trial.

The sheffield police have arrested, charged, remanded in custody, and are currently building a case against my friend all on the basis of what one smack addict said, this is not what i call good policing.

Well, I'm not real sure how detainment (holding those awaiting trial) works in the UK. The problem with 'threats' is they're really hard to prove one way or the other and sometimes people take advantage of that. Sounds like the smacktard was threatening to hurt his family it would've been a valid course of action to let the cops know that before hand. Right now he needs to make sure his represenative counsel knows the whole story you told. He will likely have to go to trial or court for this. If he can get aquitted I'd sue the smacktard for false reporting.
This sort of thing happens when you have 'by the numbers' policing which is just looking to your 'officers hand book' and checking off the boxes of what you're supposed to do without looking at the big pictures.
I'm a detective now and I can say I've said some stupid things out loud like 'why would a teen have an iPod?" because you ask yourself about 10,000 questions as soon as you enter a crime scene even ones with duh answers. The more you think the more you find. It's a weird thought process.

This thread and people I know in the UK have told me many stories that have not endured me to my cousins in blue across the pond and they way they run things it doesn't seem very helpful to the citizens a lot of times.

the problem i think over here is that police dont have to be very well qualified at all to join the police. we're actually starting to think that this smackhead may have been a police informer. fortinately my friends has got a soliciter who is quite well experienced and he is actually now advising him to say that he wasn't even their, due to the fact that it is clear to the court that the smackhead lied about the gun, it has brought the entire incident into question, the friends of the smackhead will almost certainly not turn up in court and my friend is the only one who has been arrested, so the guy who lied in the first place is going to be the only person who is actually going to admit that the whole thing happend.

a case cannot be built when it is just one mans word against another, i guess.

 

[DanDeFool]

I've heard (on a video featuring a Harvard law professor and a career detective) that talking to the police when you're under suspicion of having committed a crime is a very, VERY bad idea, whether you have legal counsel with you or not.

I was wondering if you've ever seen a suspect's refusal to talk to the police used effectively in court as a means to secure their conviction.

 

[ace_of_something]

What are the laws in regards to the legal possibility of rape?

Why yes, I would like to clarify that: My ex has a massive rape fetish, and despite the fact that I was pretty sure it's perfectly fine as it would fall under role-playing, I still worry that it would still be considered illegal. Are my worries well founded, or do the laws provide a work-around for people with her particular brand of crazy?
I.A., we suck at breaking up.

Role playing is not rape. It's consensual you're fine. Lots of people have 'domination fetishes' I'm not sure but I know I've picked up somewhere it's one of the MOST Common kinds.

I've heard (on a video featuring a Harvard law professor and a career detective) that talking to the police when you're under suspicion of having committed a crime is a very, VERY bad idea, whether you have legal counsel with you or not.

I was wondering if you've ever seen a suspect's refusal to talk to the police used effectively in court as a means to secure their conviction.

Well, if you're actually guilty than yeah it's a bad idea. If you're innocent then no, it is in fact, a very good idea to talk to the police and tell them everything you know. If we've pulled you in as a suspect and not a 'witness' or 'informant' than the shit has hit the fan for you. A good detective won't bring someone in as a suspect unless A) The person is a flight risk or B) he/she has enough evidence to get it past a grand jury without you saying a word.

In summation if you are guilty you're better off not saying anything (unless it's the truth cuz that can get a very reduced sentance) if you're innocent squeal, tell, and finger other people. As long as it's all the truth it works out fine.

FYI Though you certainly can not say anything until a lawyer gets there doing so when we've specifically told you 'at this time you're not a suspect' is a bad idea. It makes us think you have something to hide.

Interviewing is a subtle ability that takes years to learn. There are no iron rules on what cops are going to do when the interview you because every cop does it different.

Me? I like to give them an out. A window of oppertunity to admit 'yes i did the crime, but that wasn't my plan' or 'the worst parts were an accident'

"I know you didn't mean to stab that lady, right? You just wanted to rob the Gas'n'Go you never wanted to hurt anyone? She just was screaming and you know it's a bad neighborhood, didn't want anyone with a gun coming in a capping you right?"

That the only trick I'm giving up here. I love interviewing it's probably one of my favorite parts of the job. It's the truest battle of wits.

 

[Pimppeter2]

A while ago, a couple of cops stopped me and some buddies, claiming that we were speeding.

They told us to get out of the car and searched us and the Car, they took my buddies Smokes (he was underage) and left.

Was it legal for them to search us and the car?

 

[ace_of_something]

Are there any Horatio Cane One liners??

Man:My wife has been hit by a car
HC Only question is:how did they get a car in the kitchen

Man: The Ice Cream Man was found dead early this morning
HC: You might say he was killed in cold blood

OT:I am 14.I have a lot of friends that take drugs e.g. Weed,Cocaine,Ecstasy e.t.c Personally I disagree with all of that and avoid most of their parties but it is accepted by everyone at times it can feel like I am the only one who is on the straight and narrow.Any advice????? and yeah i do try not to hang out with them outside of school


Note: They binge drink pretty excessively as well.Again I dont get involved.Alcohol does Bad things

I myself went to a party school and a party college and managed to avoid this sort of thing. Method the first "I will be the Designated Driver!" Most people will leave you alone and not make you try anything in that case. Most states you have to have the drug in your system to get arrested. I was at many parties with drinking as a lad but never drank myself. A couple the cops came in and MiP'ed everyone except me cause I demanded a breathalizor to prove that I hadn't been drinking. They still told my parents though.
Secondly if your school is big enough. I'd say it's time to make new friends high school is a perfect time to 'reinvent yourself' and it's not that uncommon to make new friends. Easier said than done I know.

A while ago, a couple of cops stopped me and some buddies, claiming that we were speeding.

They told us to get out of the car and searched us and the Car, they took my buddies Smokes (he was underage) and left.

Was it legal for them to search us and the car?

If you are doing ANYTHING outside of driving perfectly legal you can be 'suspicious' and your vehicle can be searched.
If you say 'yes' you've given them legal consent if you say 'no' that is suspicious behavior and they will search your car.
Chances are they were profiling and pulled you over as X amount of teens in the car is usually all it takes to be 'suspicious' to some people.
Far as taking the smokes it was very legal to do as well. If someone has an illegal item you can confiscate it.
Oddly enough some states, like my own have no laws about minors possessing cigarettes only laws about them purchasing them. We still have an ordinance that we can confiscate cigarettes and other tobacco products from kids though.

 

[Pimppeter2]

A while ago, a couple of cops stopped me and some buddies, claiming that we were speeding.

They told us to get out of the car and searched us and the Car, they took my buddies Smokes (he was underage) and left.

Was it legal for them to search us and the car?

If you are doing ANYTHING outside of driving perfectly legal you can be 'suspicious' and your vehicle can be searched.
If you say 'yes' you've given them legal consent if you say 'no' that is suspicious behavior and they will search your car.
Chances are they were profiling and pulled you over as X amount of teens in the car is usually all it takes to be 'suspicious' to some people.
Far as taking the smokes it was very legal to do as well. If someone has an illegal item you can confiscate it.
Oddly enough some states, like my own have no laws about minors possessing cigarettes only laws about them purchasing them. We still have an ordinance that we can confiscate cigarettes and other tobacco products from kids though.

Yea, alot of my friends said we should have said no when they asked to search us, but I was hungry and on my way to McDonalds so I didn't wanna make a big fuss. Whatever, It was kinda funny because like 3 other cop cars stopped to check what was going on, So it looked like we had done something really bad

 

[lxl_c0d3m0nk3y_lxl]

quote="Siuss" post="18.78482.978171"]Okay, what are officers views on semi-large groups (7-10) of kids in all black just hanging out at a park after dark? Cops always seem to think we're up to something, and just troll the area. It's honestly really annoying.[/quote]

You see, that's called profiling.

 

[ace_of_something]

What ever made you become or want to become a cop?

It might be different in the US, but in Britain cops are treated like shit.

[a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.78482?page=9#3081114]Here's the reasoning[/a] As far as the treated like shit thing. Yeah, most people do act pretty nasty and disrespectful but from what I understand we have a little more authority here in the states as far as dealing with unruley people, (verbal assault is a rarely used charge that results in a fine)
Plus, as I'm sure if you read my posts I mention constantly I'm 6'6" (about 200 cm) and stocky. Not many people give me lip.

why would they bring SWAT into it, it was only a scrap ... that's what i just can't believe about this story, SWAT is for like basically more important things like dealing with hostage situations and stuff like that.

I apologize. I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. Could you link me to the line or quote what you're referancing?

 

[ace_of_something]

OK, next question;

Are you ever interested in what makes criminals-both serious and minor-tick? Their histories, backgrounds, that kind of thing.

Well considering my master's in sociology with a criminology emphasis... yes. Hell, being a detective that's half my job is trying to think like a theif. I'm much better at it than I thought I was.

The restrictions on when an officer can and cannot search a person or their car are a lot more flexible than most people think, aren't they?

Like I said probable cause doesn't amount to much with automobiles. Anything 'out of the ordinary' is probable cause. Saying yes on a search or no is also probable cause.
I wasn't real big in to searching people's cars but I can say with pride I only once conducted a search without finding something 'very illegal' Meaning, open have dranken liquor containers, drugs more than 2 oz, or in one memorable case, a bunch of dead cats (animal cruelty they had all been drowned).