? about daugter getting stop/search/pat down

[LS2GTO]

I am now looking into the formal process for filing a complaint. The wife is pretty pissed and wants to take some action! Any advice??

Complaint for what? What did the cop do that was illegal/out of line?

Last time I checked, asking for content to search and a patdown does not constitute crossing the line, unless he groped the girls innapropriately? And just because they are white middle classed teenage girls does not give them a freebie when it comes to suspicion. Not all criminals are male lower class minorities you know.

I can see why you might be upset as a father of a teenage daughter, but I still think you're way over-reacting on this. The cops did nothing wrong here or harass the girls at all, what do you plan on making a complaint for? That your precious little white girl is not subject to the same rules as other people? Why do you think that just because of what your daughter is that it's harassment to conduct a patdown and search of a vehicle?

 

[ford_racer]

So, having a tail light out makes it suspicious? And 'near' is a relative term. It is very possible to have a nice quiet shopping area 1/2 a mile from crack-town. You take a wrong turn, and find yourself in a bad area.

So, what would have happened if they had refused the search? Would you tell your daughter to refuse a search if she had nothing to hide? Could she refuse the search once she realized that she must submit to the pat-down?

I think she felt intimidated and thought she would get in more trouble if shel told the guy no. I am really sorry if I an offending anyone here, but I am getting more pissed of by the minute on this one! I pay my freakin taxes and do my best to obey the laws. Cops are here to 'protect and to serve' right! I am sorry, but I just don't buy that this guy was really worried about these girls being a threat!! I am sorry!!! That is just BS.

Protect and serve has nothing to do with every police force in the country.

You paying taxes and obeying the laws has nothing to do with your child. There's nothing to be pissed off about. You're child is not exempt from laws because of her behavior or yours. It seems like you want to be upset about something, even though it's been pointed out to you that everything was legit.

 

[ifinditundrgrnd]

Complaint for what? What did the cop do that was illegal/out of line?

Last time I checked, asking for content to search and a patdown does not constitute crossing the line, unless he groped the girls innapropriately? And just because they are white middle classed teenage girls does not give them a freebie when it comes to suspicion. Not all criminals are male lower class minorities you know.

I can see why you might be upset as a father of a teenage daughter, but I still think you're way over-reacting on this. The cops did nothing wrong here or harass the girls at all, what do you plan on making a complaint for? That your precious little white girl is not subject to the same rules as other people? Why do you think that just because of what your daughter is that it's harassment to conduct a patdown and search of a vehicle?

+1, Sounds like a PO doing their job.

 

[95PGTTech]

If your daughter or her friend do not feel they were touched in an inappropriate way, I don't see why you have a problem. They were pulled over in a problematic neighborhood by a new (and probably very scared) cop and consented to a search.

The cop-nuthugging on this site is absolutely crazy, but this is one case where I think he acted in the right. Put yourself in his shoes - if you're honestly convinced that you smell pot, are you really going to hop into a van and turn your back on two people you just met when you are alone, at night, in a bad neighborhood without frisking them first?

 

[Outlaw99]

It sounds like a newbie making the stop. The stop was based on PC. The girls did not have to consent to the search. Anytime I remove someone from their vehicle I pat them down for their safety and mine. Without a patdown you do not know if they are concealing a weapon, even "middle class teenage girls." It is for their safety because with a patdown if they make sudden movements it wont cause the alarm a sudden movement would without a patdown.

How does the officer know that they are "middle class?" Being middle class does not preclude them from doing illegal activity.

Bottom line is that if you feel that the actions were inappropriate you should file an complaint with the department/agency.

spot on 100%.

 

[NyteByte]

Let that be a lesson for your daughter and friend. Make sure they know their rights and understand that they do not need to consent to a search. There is no need for them to be afraid to refuse a search and they aren't going to get into more "trouble".

 

[Outlaw99]

i never dealt with a female 1 on 1 without another female officer present, unless circumstances did not allow a female officer, which i would always try to have a witness.

when transporting females, i always called in mileage + time.

i agree, it must have been a rookie.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Is there caselaw since Terry allowing for a pat down without articulable suspicion that the individual is armed?

Terry v. Ohio is the US Supreme Court decision that allows for the stop and patdown of a person based on articulable facts related to a high crime area or criminal activity afoot.

There is plenty of case law that allows an officer to separate a person from their vehicle during a stop based on reasonable suspicion or PC and the subsequent patdown of that person for safety is permissible.

 

[FordSVTFan]

So, having a tail light out makes it suspicious? And 'near' is a relative term. It is very possible to have a nice quiet shopping area 1/2 a mile from crack-town. You take a wrong turn, and find yourself in a bad area.

So, what would have happened if they had refused the search? Would you tell your daughter to refuse a search if she had nothing to hide? Could she refuse the search once she realized that she must submit to the pat-down?

I think she felt intimidated and thought she would get in more trouble if shel told the guy no. I am really sorry if I an offending anyone here, but I am getting more pissed of by the minute on this one! I pay my freakin taxes and do my best to obey the laws. Cops are here to 'protect and to serve' right! I am sorry, but I just don't buy that this guy was really worried about these girls being a threat!! I am sorry!!! That is just BS.

You have been provided with opinions of actual LEOs and you still choose to ignore them. Each and every stop is determined on its own merits. A taillight being out is probable cause for the stop as it is an infraction and can be cited. The stop and the location may lead one officer to inquire further and may become reasonable suspicion.

You can always withdraw your consent for a search. If the officer has gained PC already he will continue even if you withdraw your consent. Once I remove you from the vehicle you are being patted down for my safety and yours.

There is a good video of a 75+ year old man getting stopped in Texas by US Customs (prior to CBP) and he is taken into holding and not patted down because he could not walk well. He pulled out a gun and started shooting.

You never know who a bad actor, so everyone gets patted down and everyone gets cuffed in the back.

Protect and Serve is the motto of the LAPD not the mandate of police officers. Officer enforce the law.

Did you file your complaint yet?

 

[mustanginky]

I have 5 years experience dealing with law breakers. I think it's been explained what the reasons were for what happened. You have chosen to ignore them. File a complaint that will go nowhere, or try to understand what happened. Teach your daughter her rights as well. Clearly she doesn't know them, and apparently you dont either.

I think your problem is she's a little white girl from a good family. Ya well what youre saying is assuming that just because she's a young white girl she's volunteering her time at a homeless shelter. I've locked up doctors, other cops, teachers, lawyers, dope dealers, and general thugs of all shapes and sizes from all backgrounds, yes even little sweet white girls. what you're saying is go pick on the poor black males, right?

 

[silver03svt]

13 years as a Trooper. Tail light out or any other light out is GREAT Probable Cause to actually make the stop, especially if it is near a crime/drug area. Seeing the two caucasion females in a large conversion van MAY HAVE even put thoughts of prostitution in the officers mind. We have no way of knowing until we actually stop, confront, and and converse with people.
As far as what he THOUGHT he smelled, he did the right thing and asked for consent to search. I could see being pissed if he yanked the girls out, cuffed them, and then searched. Even if drugs weren't found in the vehicle doesn't mean they couldn't have been in there at some point earlier. Smells linger. And linger for a long time.
As far as the officer seeing the girls as a threat, you really need to do some online searches and see that the rising superstars in the underworlds are females. There's nothing wrong with raising kids the right way and hoping they follow what you taught them. Reality is though, is that not all kids turn out that way and at some point parents have to stop and look and say "what the hell?' to themselves. Now OP, Im not saying these girls are bad girls, or one day will be bad girls, BUT take a look at it from the officers standpoint. From an LEO standpoint, he did everything textbook. He had PC for the stop, had a 2nd officer present as a witness, asked for consent to search based upon what he "thought" he smelled, and it only took him 20 minutes to complete the search, which for a conversion van, is damned quick, and well within a "reasonable time frame".
I've been through the same when my oldest son was 17. As an LEO, I understand why the local officer stopped him, and it was a good stop. My sons friends had ben smoking cigarettes in the car with him, and although he was alone at the time and didn't have any tobacco with him, the officer searched without consent bc he had PC. The PC may be stretched, but was legit. As a parent, I had a "good kid", and now he's almost 20, he still is. But he isn't perfect, and every now and again, he does things that'll get him in a jam.
In the end, crap happens we don't like and may not agree with, but the stop and search was all valid and reasonable.

 

[ZYBORG]

You are over reacting and no offense but "religious/church" girls are some of the naughtiest freaks put there!

Whooooo whooooo!

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Terry v. Ohio is the US Supreme Court decision that allows for the stop and patdown of a person based on articulable facts related to a high crime area or criminal activity afoot.

There is plenty of case law that allows an officer to separate a person from their vehicle during a stop based on reasonable suspicion or PC and the subsequent patdown of that person for safety is permissible.

Terry v. Ohio:

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). [n23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.

Which case expanded the authority of officers to conduct a limited search for weapons to include people who the officer has no articulable reason to believe are armed?

 

[Drazga]

You are over reacting and no offense but "religious/church" girls are some of the naughtiest freaks put there!

Whooooo whooooo!

:beer:

 

[svtcop]

Which case expanded the authority of officers to conduct a limited search for weapons to include people who the officer has no articulable reason to believe are armed?

Nice try but who said the Officer had no reason? Unless you were there...


OP, not much else to say that hasn't already been said. If you feel the need to file a complaint then feel free. A thorough internal investigation into the matter that uncovers every FACT that you have listed will result in a finding of no fault of the Officer. He was simply doing his job.

I ask you this though.

How was the Officer to know that your daughter hadn't just bought some dope in the sketchy neighborhood? You are acting like he should have known your daughter is a God fearing princess who wouldn't hurt a fly.

If I posted five pictures of people on here...could you pick out the one hiding the gun behind their back based only on appearance?

 

[Ortiz99]

You are over reacting and no offense but "religious/church" girls are some of the naughtiest freaks put there!

Whooooo whooooo!

:beer:

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Nice try but who said the Officer had no reason? Unless you were there...

FordSVTfan states that he searches for weapons each and every time he has someone get out of the vehicle. He did not say he searches everyone who he believes is armed and/or potentially dangerous. In fact, he states:

Originally posted by FordSVTfan:
Terry v. Ohio is the US Supreme Court decision that allows for the stop and patdown of a person based on articulable facts related to a high crime area or criminal activity afoot.

There is plenty of case law that allows an officer to separate a person from their vehicle during a stop based on reasonable suspicion or PC and the subsequent patdown of that person for safety is permissible.

He seems to link the authority to seize someone with the authority to search them for weapons, activities which in Terry are clearly distinguished. So there are two possibilities. Firstly, that he is wrong on a point of law, secondly, that there has been a case since Terry in which the court has extended greater authority to officers. Since the moderator is both a policeman and a lawyer, as I recall, I presume that he knows the law and that the latter is true, and ask to be directed to that case.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Which case expanded the authority of officers to conduct a limited search for weapons to include people who the officer has no articulable reason to believe are armed?

You keep missing the point. There is a huge difference between a true "Terry Stop" and a patdown for safety during a probable cause interaction. The point of Terry is that an officer only needs articulable reasons to stop and talk and perform an immediate patdown for weapons for a person meeting the requirements of Terry. This wasnt a Terry stop.

 

[FordSVTFan]

FordSVTfan states that he searches for weapons each and every time he has someone get out of the vehicle. He did not say he searches everyone who he believes is armed and/or potentially dangerous. In fact, he states:

I said I patdown each person removed from the vehicle during a traffic stop for their safety and mine.

He seems to link the authority to seize someone with the authority to search them for weapons, activities which in Terry are clearly distinguished. So there are two possibilities. Firstly, that he is wrong on a point of law, secondly, that there has been a case since Terry in which the court has extended greater authority to officers. Since the moderator is both a policeman and a lawyer, as I recall, I presume that he knows the law and that the latter is true, and ask to be directed to that case.

This was NOT a Terry Stop, get it through your head. This was a stop based on probable cause. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that a traffic stop is NOT the seizure of the person.

It is clear you are hung up on a single construct of law and want to apply it here where it is not applicable.

Please tell me you have nothing to do with the practice of law.

 

[caveeagle]

I think your problem is she's a little white girl from a good family. Ya well what youre saying is assuming that just because she's a young white girl she's volunteering her time at a homeless shelter. I've locked up doctors, other cops, teachers, lawyers, dope dealers, and general thugs of all shapes and sizes from all backgrounds, yes even little sweet white girls. what you're saying is go pick on the poor black males, right?

I just read back through my posts and did not find anywhere that I posted the size or ethnicity of my daughter. I think your comment about the 'little white girl' says a lot about where you are comming from. I NEVER said to 'go pick on black males', that is just ignorant and RACIST. I suggested, that there is a park where you kids cannot safely play because of trouble makers loitering around and openly smoking pot. (probably other stuff to). That is zander park, which if just a few blocks away from the pizza restaurant in question. An yes, I know this because once a month, my wife and I spend the afternoon at this park volunteering. We do crafts and games with the neighborhood kids. We typically bring pizza and drinks and show these kids a little compassion. We usually stay until dusk, when all the thugs pretty much take over the place. I have yet to see any of the local cops do anything but just drive my with the windows up. So, yea, I am a little bent about that to.

My family does happen to be caucasion, but that (to me) is totally off the point. I expect my wife and daughters to be treated with respect.

I just got back in town from a week long business trip, so no action yet by me. I have asked a few local friends, and is appears that there is a local policy to have a female officer perform the pat down in cases like this. I am not sure of what most would call 'groping' but this guy 'felt around' in all the pockets of her jeans. Is that normal? (honest question).

As for the suspicious area... Like I said, they were pulling into the parking lot of very popular local pizza restaurant. They were not IN the suspicious area. I only pointed out that that IMHO, there is plenty of people openly using drugs just a few blocks away. And seriously, if just being a few blocks from a 'bad' area was contributing factor, they would have to pull over hundreds of cars each night for driving anywear near downtown winter garden.

Well thanks to some for the professional insight.