POLICE SURVEILLANCE!

[HuffAndPuff]

Got your attention? Good. I think it would be an excellent idea if we could all put out (pot)heads together, combine our resources, and compile whatever documents we can find that detail HOW the The MAN is doing their job. They spend countless hours and dollars on studies and training that teach them how to spot us a mile away. Generally, we don't know what they are looking for. And if we don't know, then we won't be able to cease these bust-inducing 'tells'.

It is a big topic, but I'm thinking we could break it down into categories that precede the bust and then progress through the legal system. For example...SURVEILLANCE, TRAFFIC STOPS, HOUSE BUSTS, (search/arrest)WARRANTS, ARRESTS, PLEA BARGAINING, CONVICTION, SENTENCING. I want this thread to eventually give the uninitiated a window into the collective mind(less) of LEOs- at each stage they encounter us. We probably cannot make the hunter become the hunted, overnight. As the prey we can learn to make ourselves much more difficult to catch- simply by educating ourselves as our predators have.

I think the ideal resources are government and police force releases, bulletins, what have you. Let them come straight from the pigs snout, as it were.

WHAT do they look for when they are on the roads doing interdictions, speed traps, sobriety checkpoints, etc. WHO is most likely to get popped, WHERE and WHEN are the worst places/times to drive? HOW do they employ their training to eff you in the A?

I am going to start by posting a few that I have found- mostly pertaining to traffic stuff, as I drive a lot. More often than not, with personal consumption amounts on me. Anything that says DWI, please understand that I am against drunk driving entirely. RE: Marijuana, I trust that we are all responsible enough to know how it affects us, and if one can't drive well under its effects, then one should not. I have posted these so those of us who choose to engage in a burn cruise may do so more safely, for ourselves as well as others.

[EDIT: I wondered if I should post this in the security forum, but thought we'd all be better served if it was discussed here. If this is a problem for any mods, my apologies, and feel free to move it wherever you see fit.

Whilst I respect the fact the laws/enforcement are different from state to state -let alone between countries- the kind of information I am talking about should be of use to everbody. Just because they don't do it where you live doesn't mean they won't, and it will still give us plenty of insight into how cops think and what they look for]

 

[HuffAndPuff]

LOW-STAFFING SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
Guidelines for Coordinating Sobriety Checkpoints
Ongoing Program to Deter Impaired Driving

Agencies considering implementing low-staffing sobriety checkpoints should integrate them with a continuing, systematic, and aggressive enforcement program. Vigorous enforcement and communication strategy need to be part of this program. The purpose of the checkpoint is to maximize the deterrent effect and increase the perception of “risk of apprehension” to motorists who operate vehicles while impaired by alcohol or other drugs.

Judicial Support
When officials decide to use low-staffing sobriety checkpoints, they should involve their prosecuting attorneys (district attorney, attorney general, etc.) in the planning process to determine legally acceptable procedures. The prosecutor can assist in identifying any legally mandated requirements and the types of evidential information needed to prosecute cases emanating from checkpoint apprehension. The jurisdiction’s presiding judge should be informed of the proposed checkpoints and procedures, an essential step if the judiciary is to accept their use. The judge can provide insight into what activities would be required to successfully adjudicate such cases. Prosecutors, judges, and other involved members of the criminal justice system can be invited to observe the actual operation of the checkpoint.

Existing Policy/Guidelines
Before using sobriety checkpoints, the agency must have specifically established procedures outlining how the checkpoints are to be conducted. The courts have been very clear in requiring the advanced planning of sobriety checkpoints. Failure to do so has been used as evidence that the checkpoint techniques involved unfettered discretion. The policy should also assure that the checkpoints are conducted with a minimal amount of intrusion or motorist inconvenience.

Site Selection
Planning should assure the safety of the general public and law enforcement officers when selecting an operational site. Sobriety checkpoints must not create more of a traffic hazard than the results of the driving behavior they are trying to modify. Planners should remember to select a site that allows officers to pull vehicles out of the traffic stream without causing significant subjective intrusion (fright) to the drivers (United States v. Ortiz 422 U.S. 891 [1975]) and/or creating a safety hazard, e.g., by creating a traffic backup. Furthermore, officers’ safety must be taken into account when deciding where to locate the checkpoint. The department should objectively outline criteria used in the site selection process, e.g., an unusual incidence of alcohol/drug involved crashes or driving violations, unusual number of nighttime single-vehicle crashes, or other documented alcohol/drug-related vehicular incidents. The site should permit the safe flow of traffic through the checkpoint. Consideration should be given to the posted speed limits, traffic volume, and visibility. Most jurisdictions have the capability to review the Average Traffic Volume (ATV) during the surveillance period for major roadways in their area.

Once a jurisdiction has decided on possible locations for the sobriety checkpoints, the effect on traffic flow can be determined by ascertaining how long each interview takes, then, multiply by the number of available officers, and finally, divide by the average number of vehicles that can be expected at that location. This will suggest whether all vehicles can be examined without causing a traffic build-up.

If the traffic volume precludes stopping every vehicle, a nondiscretionary scheme should be adopted, in advance, for stopping some subset of vehicles. In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that stopping all cars would be an acceptable method of conducting spot checks. In a concurring opinion, Justice Blackmun (joined by Justice Powell) added that other methods would also be acceptable, such as stopping every tenth car that passes a given point. If every vehicle is not stopped, the method used to determine which ones will must appear in the administrative order authorizing the use of the sobriety checkpoint.
The site should have maximum visibility from each direction and sufficient illumination for the safety of both the motorists and officers. If permanent lighting is unavailable, ensure that adequate portable lighting is provided. Planners should also ensure that sufficient adjoining space is available to pull vehicles off the traveled portion of the roadway. Any other conditions that may pose a hazard should be taken into consideration.

Warning Devices
Special care should be taken to warn approaching motorists of the sobriety checkpoint. Such notice can be accomplished using warning signs indicating the upcoming checkpoint, flares or fuses (if weather permits) and safety cones or similar devices for marking and/or closing lanes on the roadway, permanent or portable lighting to illuminate the checkpoint area, and marked patrol vehicles with warning lights flashing. A sign or device should be placed to provide advance warning stating why motorists are being stopped. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that visible signs of the officers’ authority generate less concern and fright on the part of lawful travelers, and is therefore less of a subjective intrusion (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 643 [1976]). The placement and types of traffic control devices used should comply with Federal, State or local transportation codes. Planners should check with appropriate agencies administering the location and placement of signing devices.

Visible Police Authority
The visibility of uniformed officers and their marked vehicles makes the police presence obvious. It also serves to reassure motorists of the legitimate nature of the activity. This is an important aspect of the sobriety checkpoint and part of the effort to reduce the intrusion to the passing motorists affected by the checkpoint. A sworn, uniformed officer should be assigned to provide on-site supervision of the checkpoint operation. This officer should be responsible for the overall operation and should be well versed in contingency planning for the checkpoint. The checkpoint should be staffed by a sufficient number of uniformed personnel to assure a safe and efficient operation, based on traffic volume, roadway size, type of location, etc.

Chemical Testing Logistics
Since impaired driving arrests are anticipated at the selected location, the logistics of chemical testing must also be included. If possible, a mobile breath-testing unit with a qualified operator could be physically located at the checkpoint. If one is not available, a system for expeditiously transporting suspected violators to chemical test sites should be established. In applicable locations, a drug recognition expert (DRE) should be available to examine subjects who may be impaired by drugs other than or in combination with alcohol.

Contingency Planning
Any deviation from the predetermined plan for stopping vehicles should be thoroughly documented and the reason for the deviation given (e.g., traffic backing up, intermittent inclement weather). Courts have allowed this as long as documentation of the reason requiring the deviation from the interview sequence is kept (United States v. Prichard, 645 F2d 854). If such an event occurs, jurisdictions ?should have prepared an alternative plan, in advance, to ?handle the checkpoint.

Detection and Investigation Techniques
An agency considering the use of sobriety checkpoints should ensure that the participating officers are properly trained in detecting impaired drivers. The use of sobriety checkpoints that allow impaired drivers to pass through undetected will not achieve the desired deterrence effect. Officers should look for the following indicators of impairment during initial contact with a driver at a checkpoint: odor of alcoholic beverages or other drugs (marijuana, hashish, some inhalants); bloodshot eyes; alcohol containers or drug paraphernalia; fumbling fingers; slurred speech; admission of drinking or drug use; inconsistent responses; detection of alcohol by a passive alcohol sensor; etc. It is highly desirable that officers assigned to conduct the sobriety checkpoint receive the DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training. Police are using the techniques taught in the SFST course to quickly detect signs of driver impairment.

Once an officer’s suspicion is raised, further investigation can take place out of the traffic lane without impeding the flow of traffic. If an officer believes it is necessary to move a suspect’s car after reasonable suspicion of impairment, it should be moved by someone other than the suspect. The officer should then continue the investigation using nonincriminating divided-attention questions (e.g., by the officer simultaneously asking for driver’s license and vehicle registration, requiring the subject to do two things at once) and the administration of the SFST battery, which includes the Walk-and-Turn test, One-Leg Stand test, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test.

After the completion of the SFST, the officer may use a portable breath-testing (PBT) device, if permissible in that jurisdiction. An evidential test to determine the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) should then be administered. If the officer determines the subject is impaired and obtains a low BAC, a DRE should be used for further investigation. If a DRE is not available, normal departmental procedures regarding drug-impaired drivers should be followed.

Operational Briefings
The success of a sobriety checkpoint depends greatly upon smooth and efficient operations. The people selected as supervisors of the operation should be briefed thoroughly on all procedures. This includes maintaining as little delay to the motoring public as possible and keeping records of any deviation from the original operational plan. People selected to staffing the checkpoint should be briefed on both its purpose and operation. To avoid subjectivity, officers should understand the necessity of asking standard and uniform questions of drivers. The use of an operational briefing is essential in accomplishing this requirement.

Communication Strategy
To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its general deterrent effect, low-staffing sobriety checkpoints should be publicized aggressively. Most drivers will probably never encounter a sobriety checkpoint, but will only learn of it through media reports or by word of mouth. These two valuable forms of public communication will greatly enhance the program and should be employed consistently throughout the duration of enforcement efforts. Checkpoints are an ideal opportunity to give educational material regarding impaired driving, speeding, child restraints and seat belt usage, as well as seasonal reminders such as when schools are opening, to people stopped at the checkpoint.

Data Collection and Evaluation
A systematic method of data collection and evaluation should be used to monitor and ensure standardization and consistency of sobriety checkpoints. This may be done by measuring the reaction of the public to the checkpoint and an administrative evaluation of collected data. Listed below are some methods for evaluation.

Public Reaction
The public’s reaction can be measured by immediate feedback received by officers at the site of the sobriety checkpoint. Also, a short questionnaire, which includes an explanation of why the checkpoint is conducted, given to drivers stopped at the checkpoint can provide data. The questionnaire may ask the driver such questions as: Does the driver believe the checkpoint is fair? Did the driver mind being stopped briefly? Did the driver feel checkpoints help deter impaired driving? The responses can be completed later and mailed to the agency. If the jurisdiction has the resources, a stamped, self-addressed postcard can be used for the questionnaire.
Evaluation?This concerns the extent to which the program’s implementation, operation, and efficiency meets targets set for the program. The following items may be addressed:
• number of vehicles passing through the checkpoint;
• average time delay to motorists;
• number of motorists detained for field sobriety testing;
• number and types of arrests;
• identification of unusual incidents such as safety problems or other concerns;
• reaction of police officers participating in the sobriety checkpoint, including degree of support and effect on morale;
• perception of the quality of checkpoint cases brought before prosecutors and judges, including special problems;
• change in number of impaired-driving arrests;
• change in number of impaired-driving related nighttime crashes;
• other information deemed necessary by individual agencies.

NHTSA strongly supports the regular use of sobriety checkpoints. They should be integrated into an overall alcohol- and drug-impaired-driving program, along with vigorous selective enforcement, public information, and education. Effective enforcement of impaired-driving laws, combined with swift and sure driver’s license removal, and provides the most important elements for reducing alcohol-related fatal- and serious-injury crashes. Roadside sobriety checkpoints have provided some of the most effective results of any enforcement program. Checkpoints are an important part of a comprehensive enforcement program designed to raise the perceived probability among potential impaired drivers that they will be stopped and arrested for DWI.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/LowStaffing_Checkpoints/pages/Guidelines.htm

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/aggressdrivers/aggenforce/maryland.html

 

[DogBoy]

Easier just to go shopping.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss...rch-alias=aps&field-keywords=police+procedure

Procedures and defenses against them are localised to the forces who enforce them, you cant have a global system. It's up to the individual to educate themselves on the local and national enemy and defend accordingly. The first stop should always be to understand their framework and intent and then counter using that knowledge. Much the same as they do to 'us'.

 

[Jack D Ripper]

good idea, but this should probably be in the security forum. Heres some ideas

1) always keep the goods in your trunk. When Im on road trips I always keep a seat down in the backseat so I can toss my stuff into the trunk when Im done then latch it shut, whilst driving.

2) dont throw evidence out in your trash. Cops can gank your trash bag at like 4 am without a warrant, and use nyhting they find to get a warrant.

3) I hear they've been planting GPS on cars a lot lately, probably becasue the technology has become so cheap (less than $50 for a GPS unit).

edit: Also, I always see signs on the interstate like "All vehicles must stop and be searched ", "drug checkpoint 500 feet ahead" the cops will have a few cars pulled over, but no intention of stopping everyone. They put these signs RIGHT BEFORE rest areas, and undercovers look for sketchy people who pull into the rest area freaking out or trying to hide lb.s of drugs.

 

[HuffAndPuff]

Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program


The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program is a transportation safety program focusing on the detection and apprehension of drug-impaired drivers. The program is managed and coordinated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The DEC Program (also referred to as the Drug Recognition Expert Program) was developed in the early 1970s in Los Angeles, California, by the Los Angeles Police Department. Due to the program's success in identifying drug-impaired drivers, it soon became an international program expanding to other states and eventually into Canada and other countries. Currently, there are 42 states plus the District of Columbia participating in the program in the United States.

The DEC Program trains police officers and other public safety officials as drug recognition experts or drug recognition evaluators (DREs) through a three-phase training curriculum that includes the following:

• Drug Recognition Expert Pre-School (16 hours)
• Drug Recognition Expert School (56 hours)
• Drug Recognition Expert Field Certification (Approximately 40 hours)

The training relies heavily upon the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST’s), which provide the foundation for the DEC Program. Once trained and certified, DREs become highly effective officers skilled in the detection and identification of persons impaired or affected by alcohol and/or drugs. DREs are trained to conduct a standardized and systematic 12-step evaluation consisting of physical, mental and medical components. (Refer to page three for the 12-step process procedures).


The DRE Drug Evaluation Process

DREs conduct a detailed, diagnostic examination of persons arrested or suspected of drug-impaired driving or similar offenses. Based on the results of the DRE drug evaluation they form an expert opinion as to whether or not the person is

1. Impaired, and if so, is the person able to operate a vehicle safely? If the DRE concludes that the person is impaired…

2. Is the impairment due to an injury, illness or other medical complication, or is it drug-related? If the DRE concludes that the impairment is due to drugs…

3. He or she determines which category or combination of categories of drugs is the most likely source of the impairment.



DREs conduct their evaluations in a controlled environment, typically at a police precinct, intake center, troop headquarters or other location where impaired drivers are transported after arrest. The drug evaluation is not normally done at roadside and is typically a post -arrest procedure.

In some cases, the person evaluated will be a driver the DRE personally arrested. However, in many cases, the DRE will be called upon to conduct the evaluation after the driver is arrested by another officer. The DRE is requested to assist in the investigation because of their special expertise and skills in identifying drug impairment.

The DRE drug evaluation takes approximately one hour to complete. The DRE evaluates and assesses the person’s appearance and behavior. He also carefully measures and records vital signs and makes precise observations of the person’s automatic responses and reactions. The DRE also administers carefully designed psychophysical tests to evaluate the person’s judgment, information processing ability, coordination and various other characteristics. The DRE will systematically consider everything about the person that could indicate the influence of drugs.


The 12 Steps of the Drug Evaluation Process

The DRE drug evaluation includes twelve major components or steps, which includes:

1. The Breath Alcohol Test

The DRE will need to know the result of the suspect's breath alcohol test, if taken. This is important to the DRE because he must determine whether or not alcohol accounts for the observed impairment. Normally, if the suspect’s blood alcohol level is above the state’s limit for DUI (.08% in most states), a DRE drug evaluation is not conducted.

2. The Interview of the Arresting Officer

If the DRE did not make the arrest, he will need to interview the arresting officer prior to the evaluation. This allows the DRE to gain an insight on the suspect’s driving, conduct at roadside, and their performance of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST’s).

3. The Preliminary Examination

During this step the DRE will perform a preliminary examination checking for any evidence of a medical complication that would warrant terminating the evaluation and requesting medical assistance. The suspect is asked a series of questions, and the DRE conducts a series of eye examinations that assists in making the decision whether the suspect is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs or if the impairment may be medically related. If drug impairment is suspected, the DRE proceeds with the evaluation.

4. Examinations of the Eyes

In this step, the DRE administers three tests of the suspect's eyes: (1) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), (2) Vertical Gaze Nystagmus and (2) Lack of Convergence.

5. Divided Attention Psychophysical Tests

The DRE conducts a series of psychophysical tests that assists in determining the suspect’s condition and if he/she is able to operate a vehicle safely. The DRE administers four divided attention psychophysical tests: (1) the Romberg Balance, (2) Walk and Turn, (3) One Leg Stand, and (4) Finger to Nose.

6. Examination of Vital Signs

The sixth step requires the DRE to make precise measurements of the suspect's pulse rate, blood pressure and body temperature. The suspect's pulse rate is measured three different times during the evaluation. During this step of the evaluation the DRE will use medical instruments, including a stethoscope, asphygmomanometer (blood pressure cuff) and an electronic digital thermometer.

7. Dark Room Examinations

During this step in the evaluation process the DRE will take the suspect into a separate room where the DRE can obtain an estimate of the suspect's pupil size in three different lighting conditions. The DRE uses a device called a pupilometer and a penlight to conduct the measurements in room light, near total darkness and direct light.

8. Examination for Muscle Tone

During this step, the DRE inspects the suspect’s arm muscles checking for muscle tone.

9. Examination for Injection Sites

Many drug abusers inject drugs. So immediately after checking muscle tone, the DRE then carefully inspects the suspect’s arms, hands, fingers, and neck for evidence of recent or past hypodermic needle injections.

10. Suspect's Statements and Other Observations

In this step of the evaluation, the DRE questions the suspect about specific evidence and observations made during the evaluation.

11. Opinions of the Evaluator

In this step the DRE documents his/her conclusions rendering an expert opinion about the condition of the suspect and the category(s) of drugs causing the impairment.

12. The Toxicological Examination

The final step in the evaluation process is to obtain a blood or urine specimen, which is sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis. The lab analyzes the specimen and reports the findings to the DRE and/or the arresting officer.

Once the drug evaluation is completed, the DRE submits a detailed report documenting the evaluation, the evidence obtained and his/her opinion as to whether or not the suspect was impaired and the category(s) of drugs causing the impairment.


DRE Drug Categories

DREs are trained to identify signs and symptoms of impairment in the following seven drug categories.

(1) Central Nervous System (CNS) Depressants

CNS Depressants slow down the operations of the brain and the body. Examples of CNS Depressants include alcohol, barbiturates, anti-anxiety tranquilizers (e.g., Valium, Librium, Xanax, Prozac, and Thorazine), GHB (Gamma Hydroxybutyrate), Rohypnol and many other anti-depressants (e.g., as Zoloft, Paxil).

(2) Central Nervous System Stimulants

CNS Stimulants accelerate the heart rate and elevate the blood pressure and "speed-up" or over-stimulate the body. Examples of CNS Stimulants include Cocaine, "Crack", Amphetamines and Methamphetamine (“Crank”).

(3) Hallucinogens

Hallucinogens cause the user to perceive things differently than they actually are. Examples include LSD, Peyote, Psilocybin and MDMA (Ecstasy).

(4) Phencyclidine (PCP) and Analogs

PCP and its analogs (a similar substance) produce impairment and other observable effects on the brain and body that resemble the effects produced by depressants, stimulants and hallucinogens. PCP analogs include Ketamine, Ketalar and Ketaject.

(5) Narcotic Analgesics

A narcotic analgesic relieves pain, induces euphoria and creates mood changes in the user. Examples of narcotic analgesics include Opium, Codeine, Heroin, Demerol, Darvon, Morphine, Methadone, Vicodin and OxyContin.

(6) Inhalants

Inhalants include a wide variety of breathable substances that produce mind-altering results and effects. Examples of inhalants include Toluene, plastic cement, paint, gasoline, paint thinners, hair sprays and various anesthetic gases.


(7) Cannabis

Cannabis (substances containing Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) interferes with a person's ability or willingness to divide their attention, which is necessary to operate a vehicle safely. Examples include marijuana, hashish and Marinol (Synthetic THC).


How effective is the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program?

With the inception of the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program and the training of Drug Recognition Experts, many states have experienced a dramatic increase in drug impaired driving arrests and convictions. Two notable examples are Oregon, where drug-impaired driving arrests have increased by 150% since the inception of the program in 1995, and in Washington, where drug-impaired driving arrests have increased 200% since the inception of the program in 1996.

The overall effectiveness of the DEC Program is contingent on the support of the law enforcement administration, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office, the laboratories conducting the toxicology, and the prosecutors handling the drugged driving cases. Without these critical components, the program will not be successful.

Contact Information regarding the DEC Program

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is the coordinating agency for the DEC Program. For more information about the program, contact Carolyn Cockroft, the IACP DEC program manager, at 703-836-6767, ext. 206 or you may also contact the following persons:



Ernie Floegel
National DEC Program Coordinator
International Association of Chiefs of Police
P.O. Box 1233
Hopewell Junction, N.Y. 12533
Telephone: (845) 226-8058
E-mail: [email protected]

Darrell Cook
DRE Program State Coordinator
Department of Criminal Justice Training
306 Funderburk Bldg, Kit Carson Drive
Richmond, KY 40475
859/622-2339 fax: 859/622-5081



Chuck Hayes
DRE Regional Operations Coordinator
International Association of Chiefs of Police
P.O. Box 4597
Salem, OR 97302
Telephone: (503) 585-0055
E-mail: [email protected]

\

 

[Discombobul8]

They use bugs in lamp shades. Most surveillance techniques usually require donuts and coffee. Or even peanuts. They park outside your house with their windows wound down. If you want to disable them the best method i would recommend would be potato up the exhuast pipe, not a banana like Eddie cos it is not really effective. C-4 is also good up the tail pipe but it can cause un-necessary noise.

 

[Discombobul8]

If you live in an apartment block they generally use the glass to the wall trick, from next door. This can be avoided by having a machine that emits the correct frequency to shatter the glass in said coppers lug hole thus rendering him deaf. Hallelujah...

 

[HuffAndPuff]

JackD- Just so you know, if the cops arrest you or tow your car for ANY REASON, they can and will perform an inventory search on the vehicle prior to the tow. The cops will ask a suspect for consent to search. If they refuse, the cop has the car towed for any number of reasons and will then detain (not arrest) the suspect until he can perform this "inventory search"... ostensibly to record the vehicles contents to ensure that nothing goes missing whilst in police custody. Funny, they always start with the inventory of the ashtray... When contraband is found, the suspect is arrested and both it and the search are legally valid, assuming the grounds for the stop were.

DogBoy- Exactly.

Disco- your humor, as well as your usefulness, knows no bounds. Thank you for your helpful contribution to my thread. I was just sharing what I thought was a good idea in hopes that it might be able to educate, help, and/or prevent somebody from getting effed over. I am dealing with some shit myself and I know how frustrating it can be, and I thought, "hey here's a way we can all be a little more proactive in keeping ourselves safe!"

 

[Jack D Ripper]

disco - sorry dude, I dont really endorse attacking cops or cop vehicles. maybe yo should put some booby traps out by your grow too? way to shit all over a decent thread with some very NOT funny sarcasm.

huff - I agree, cops will resort to dirty tricks to get into your trunk BUT, if you keep the cabin ( defined as "plain view") clean of any contraband it helps a lot. If a cop smells grass, they'll do everyhting they can to get to the trunk, canine or otherwise. But if theyre just searching plain view on a hunch they probably will let you go after they find nothing in "plain view"

 

[master shake]

look up Barry Cooper. ex-hi-po from texas, was one of the best dog trainers and bust officers, then he woke up. made a DVD "never get busted again" I'm sure it's been posted here before, check it out

 

[Dr.Diamonds]

I think one of the most important things to know is your RIGHTS. What a police officer can and can't do without your consent.

What I'm curious about, is what if you have cannabis somewhere inside your vehicle, but not in plain view, in a lock box perhaps. Now say, due to you having just smoked, an officer who just pulled you over, detects the odor of marijuana.
Is that odor alone reason enough to conduct a search, with or without your consent?
What if you're cool headed, firm and concise with the officer, and tell him "look officer, i understand you feel there is an odor of marijuana, but what you smell is my cigars" and point to a package of some funky looking cigarillos.

Would an excuse like that fly?

On another note, what about an officer, who has NO reason to be suspicious, perhaps is just profiling you, asks to search the car. And when you refuse, citing your rights, he starts laying on the pressure, "if you refuse ill arrest you on the spot, and seize your vehicle. ill call in k9 unit right now to look through this thing. if you have nothing to hide then lets have a look"

I guess what im asking is, on what grounds can they serve an on the spot search.

 

[Jack D Ripper]

probable cause.

If they think you've got contraband, they WILL claim to have probable cause (a grey area in court, sometimes a faint odor is enough, sometimes if they say you acted stoned its enough). Then its up to you to waste money on a lawyer and try to fight it, they have nothing to lose even if you fight it and win in court, so they will always claim to have probable cause if they think youve got drugs.

I think the secret is to make the cops second guess their hunch that you have contraband. Always be very polite until youre under arrest, and dont cite your rights unnecessarily, becasue that makes you look really guilty. Just say "I dont have time for a search, I get profiled all the time and Im in a hurry this time" or "my attorney told me never to consent to any search"

 

[HuffAndPuff]

An officer has been trained in detecting marijuana- therefore in most cases, if he smells it, it gives him PC to search. Certainly a reasonable suspicion. Once he has strung together a few "reasonable suspicions" he will have PC.

IMHO you should say exactly what you suggested you would, and leave it in his hands as to whether or not he will search on his PC, not your consent. Ususally, the cop will ask for your consent, because it is a much stronger case against you, in court. If you refuse (REFUSE!), then he may search on his PC, or get a dog. If no dog, your lawyer can ask him in court, why, if he felt he had PC all along, did he ask for your permission to search the vehicle?

In the other circumstance you give us, your lawyer will have plenty of room to work. Despite the fact that I have had a cop tell me this, and heard it from others countless times- a cop cannot tell you that he will get a dog if you refuse, but let you go, if you submit to a search that turns nothing up. This is basically coersion on the officer's part here, to induce you to waive your right to refuse consent by using fear and intimidation. People who give consent sometimes get off when it can be shown that they waived their rights because they feared reprisal were they not to do so.

A good line is always, "I am sorry officer, I would like to, but not only am I in a rush, but my lawyer told me I would have to find a new one if I ever waived any of my rights during a stop."

StaySafe
HuffAndPuff

[EDIT: I always travel with a pack of kretek (sp?) unfiltered, clove ciggies. This way, if I do get pulled over and I have been toking, I have a reasonable excuse for why someone else on the road might have thought they saw/smelled me smoking a j. If a johhny-means-well did call you in, then you should be free to go. If you're getting bagged by the cop for speeding, or because he smelled it, it is a bit trickier. In any event, it will give your lawyer something to work with when it goes to court. And I agree that refusing to submit to a search definitely sends up huge red flags. At the same time, if they are going to eff you, they should have to work for it, and encounter as many chances to violate procedure as possible. Given enough rope, they'll usually be hangable by a competent attorney.)

 

[PoppinFresh]

I agree. It's about surveilling the surveillants. Unfortunately, it's akin to organized crime. The Italian mafia were professionals in this field which is why someone basically had to snitch for them to get caught! I think we should absolutely read a few chapters in their proverbial book.

They had all the counter surveillance devices and they practiced good habits. If you are a grower then it might benefit you to invest in some "defensive" measures - IR blocking reflective stuff, perimeter cameras, intrustion detection and whatever else. The mob had white noise generators for phone calls, radio jammers, etc etc etc. Catch them trying to catch you! You can take better defensive measures if you see anything suspicious.

In the vein of Jack D's post, you would NEVER catch a mobster driving in a "dirty" car. It made zero sense to search their vehicle. They'd let the officers do it cuz there was never anything in there to find anyway.

But, at the end of the day, it's all about education as Huff is trying to give us! And, it's beyond simply knowing our rights. We've got to know more than our rights, we've got to know how they act as well so that we can possibly avoid certain things. Our rights obviously aren't going to protect us all the time when dirty cops will just circumvent them anyway. And sometimes, some of those procedures are right on the money in helping them do their job!

But, I think, to a typical stoner/small-time grower, it's not going to matter until some Bob Sapp-lookin sumbitch is turning their exit into an entry! I am trying not to end up in that position. lol. But to the big boys, I think it would make sense to invest in some of these toys and gadgets as a starter.

 

[qwerty]

Good stuff, Huff. Keep it coming.

 

[HuffAndPuff]

The Drug Evaluation Classification (DEC) Program is used by Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) officers to determine whether a suspect is under the influence of a drug or drugs at the time of arrest, and, if so, what category of drug(s). The goal of this project was to investigate the relative importance of face-to-face interactions with the suspect, physical evidence (drugs or paraphernalia found), and confessions/statements made by the suspect (or others) in making these determinations. Seventy records of DRE evaluations were selected from a database containing information from all evaluations conducted in Oregon between 1996 and 1998. Each of the 70 records represented a suspect who had either taken a drug from one of four categories (CNS depressant, CNS stimulant, narcotic analgesic, or cannabis) or who had not taken a drug.

To be included, the original DRE evaluation and the subsequent toxicology analysis had to agree that the suspect was under the influence of a drug from one of the four categories or not under the influence of a drug. Records from the 70 cases were submitted in written form to 18 Oregon DREs with statements made by suspects or arresting officers, confessions, toxicology results, and descriptions of drugs or paraphernalia found on the suspect omitted.

Based only on the written reports of direct observations, and with physiological and psychophysical test results, the DREs attempted to determine whether each of the 70 suspects was under the influence of a drug or drugs, and, if so, what category of drug(s). If the officers determined that a suspect was under the influence of a drug, their accuracy in specifying the drug category was 81% for cannabis, 94% for narcotic analgesics, 78% for CNS stimulants, and 69% for CNS depressants. Overall accuracy in recognizing drug intoxication was 95%.

These percentages indicate that although face-to-face interactions, physical evidence, and confessions/statements can be useful adjuncts to DRE decision-making, the majority of drug category decisions can be made solely on the basis of recorded suspect observations and DRE evaluation results. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.

 

[HuffAndPuff]

Explanations of the 24 driving cues
Problems in Maintaining Proper Lane Position
Maintaining proper lane position can be a difficult task for an impaired driver. For example, we have all seen vehicles weaving before. Weaving is when the vehicle alternately moves toward one side of the lane and then the other. The pattern of lateral movement can be fairly regular, as one steering correction is closely followed by another. In extreme cases, the vehicle's wheels even cross the lane lines before a correction is made. You might even observe a vehicle straddling a center or lane line. That is, the vehicle is moving straight ahead with either the right or left tires on the wrong side of the lane line or markers.

Weaving
Drifting is when a vehicle is moving in a generally straight line, but at a slight angle to the lane. The driver might correct his or her course as the vehicle approaches a lane line or other boundary, or fail to correct until after a boundary has been crossed. In extreme cases, the driver fails to correct in time to avoid a collision.

Drifting
Course corrections can be gradual or abrupt. For example, you might observe a vehicle to swerve, making an abrupt turn away from a generally straight course, when a driver realizes that he or she has drifted out of proper lane position, or to avoid a previously-unnoticed hazard.

Swerving
A related DWI cue is almost striking a vehicle or other object. You might observe a vehicle, either at slow speeds or moving with traffic, to pass unusually close to a sign, barrier, building, or other object. This cue also includes almost striking another vehicle, either moving or parked, and causing another vehicle to maneuver to avoid a collision.
Turning with a wide radius, or drifting during a curve, is the final cue in this category of driver behaviors. A vehicle appears to drift to the outside of the lane, or into another lane, through the curve or while turning a corner. Watch for this cue and stop the driver when you see it. Many alcohol-involved crashes are caused by an expanding turn radius, or drifting out of lane position during a curve.

Speed and Braking Problems
The research showed that braking properly can be a difficult task for an impaired driver. For example, there is a good chance the driver is DWI if you observe any type of stopping problem. Stopping problems include,
• Stopping too far from a curb or at an inappropriate angle,
• Stopping too short or beyond a limit line, and
• Jerky or abrupt stops.
Stopping Beyond a Limit Line
Impaired drivers also can experience difficulty maintaining an appropriate speed. There is a good chance the driver is DWI if you observe a vehicle to,
• Accelerate or decelerate rapidly for no apparent reason,
• Vary its speed, alternating between speeding up and slowing down, or be
• Driven at a speed that is ten miles per hour or more under the limit.

Vigilance Problems
Vigilance concerns a person's ability to pay attention to a task or notice changes in surroundings. A driver whose vigilance has been impaired by alcohol might forget to turn his or her headlights on when required. Similarly, impaired drivers often forget to signal a turn or lane change, or their signal is inconsistent with their maneuver, for example, signaling left, but turning right.

Signaling Inconsistent with Driving Actions
Alcohol-impaired vigilance also results in motorists driving into opposing or crossing traffic, and turning in front of oncoming vehicles with insufficient headway.

Driving into Opposing or Crossing Traffic
Driving is a complex task that requires accurate information about surrounding traffic conditions. Failing to yield the right of way and driving the wrong way on a one way street are dangerous examples of vigilance problems.

A driver whose vigilance has been impaired by alcohol also might respond more slowly than normal to a change in a traffic signal. For example, the vehicle might remain stopped for an unusually long period of time after the signal has turned green. Similarly, an impaired driver might be unusually slow to respond to an officer's lights, siren, or hand signals.

The most extreme DWI cue in the category of vigilance problems is to find a vehicle stopped in a lane for no apparent reason. Sometimes when you observe this behavior the driver will be just lost or confused, but more than half of the time the driver will be DWI-maybe even asleep at the wheel.
Back to Top

Judgment Problems
Operating a motor vehicle requires continuous decision-making by the driver. Unfortunately, judgment abilities can be affected by even small amounts of alcohol. For example, alcohol-impaired judgment can cause a driver to follow another vehicle too closely, providing an unsafe stopping distance.

Alcohol-impaired judgment also can result in a driver taking risks or endangering others. If you observe a vehicle to make improper or unsafe lane changes, either frequently or abruptly, or with apparent disregard for other vehicles, there is a good chance the driver's judgment has been impaired by alcohol.

Similarly, impaired judgment can cause a driver to turn improperly. For example, misjudgments about speed and the roadway can cause a driver to take a turn too fast, or to make sudden corrections during the maneuver.

These corrections can appear to the observer as jerky or sharp vehicle movements during the turn. Alcohol-impaired judgment can affect the full range of driver behaviors. For example, the research found that impaired drivers are less inhibited about making illegal turns than unimpaired drivers.

Turning Illegally
Driving on other than the designated roadway is another cue exhibited by alcohol-impaired drivers. Examples include driving at the edge of the roadway, on the shoulder, off the roadway entirely, and straight through turn-only lanes.

In some cases, impaired drivers stop inappropriately in response to an officer, either abruptly as if they had been startled, or in an illegal or dangerous manner.

In fact, the research has shown that there is a good chance a driver is DWI if you observe the person to exhibit any inappropriate or unusual behavior. Unusual behavior includes throwing something from the vehicle, drinking in the vehicle, urinating at the roadside, arguing with another motorist, or otherwise being disorderly. If you observe inappropriate or unusual behavior, there is a good probability that the driver is DWI.

Driving on Other than the Designated Roadway
The final cue is actually one or more of a set of indicators related to the personal behavior or appearance of a driver. These indicators include, gripping the steering wheel tightly, driving with one's face close to the windshield, slouching in the seat, and staring straight ahead with eyes fixed. Some officers routinely scrutinize the faces of drivers in oncoming traffic, looking for the indicators of impairment. If you observe a driver who appears to be impaired, the research showed that there is an excellent probability that you are correct in your judgment.

 

[HuffAndPuff]

This is a great site to lurk on that I just discovered. DO NOT link to this site from here!

http://forums.officer.com/forums/

To anyone that loves to troll here at IC, may I humbly suggest that you take your antics to this new site? And for everyone else, you should check them out if only because they have done the same, here.

Thanks a lot to you guys who posted, you absolutely get where I'm coming from with this. See Poppin- I knew we'd be back to agreeing on something, before long!

Stay Safe,
HuffAndPuff

 

[PoppinFresh]

This is a great site to lurk on that I just discovered. DO NOT link to this site from here!

http://forums.officer.com/forums/

To anyone that loves to troll here at IC, may I humbly suggest that you take your antics to this new site? And for everyone else, you should check them out if only because they have done the same, here.

Thanks a lot to you guys who posted, you absolutely get where I'm coming from with this. See Poppin- I knew we'd be back to agreeing on something, before long!

Stay Safe,
HuffAndPuff

that site frightens the shit outta me after lookin at it (didn't link from here lol). there are obviously some good cops around. but damn it, there are some true to life MONSTERS holding badges and a gun and a friggin nightstick or replacement flashlight, baton, pepper spray, backup piece. they are really feeling themselves and are highly prone to violence.

but if any officers are reading this, you do NOT deter me from our goal of legalization and i will continue using (not abusing) and growing as well! i will continue spreading whatever knowledge i consume regarding marijuana like wildfire because i know Prometheus did the world a favor! courage occurs in spite of fear. we have a higher cause! HELL YEAH!

huff, did we disagree about something? lol. if we did, one subject doesn't make any of us longterm enemies in this world. i still love everyone

 

[Guest]

**** THE POLICE

**** THE POLICE

Someone should make this thread a sticky we could end up gathering loads of information. I have some stuff I'll post later when I get more time.