How to get away...even when you get caught...

[porque]

ona nother note... where i am, graffiti itself is an actual crime and it is a felony...it is not simply vandalism which is a misdemeanor...is this the case in other states?

[artsol]

dope thread...MUCHLY NEEDED

 

there seem to be a few weird things about this thread. LAWS CHANGE FROM STATE TO STATE is an important concept. For example, when I was in Chicago 'home of the corrupt cop', I almost got fucked on numerous occasions. It's the graf Nazis over there. It's a felony if the damage is over $100, graffiti blasters (the company that created the water/mineral based chemical that can eliminate almost all graf and at a cost of 0 to the owner of the property) are on the move and there are UC vandal squads lurking. but ...meh

 

all you need to know is that if you run and get caught (especially if you are a minority) prepare to have your ass royally stomped AND to have some trumped up lawshit set-up on you. They're even working on the legislation to register and/or monitor cats that purchase etch bath. (but on the real...that isht is pretty sheisty if you're hittin a ma and pa shop that can't afford to replace windowpanes...and it will FUCK YOU UP if it touches you)

[ASER1NE]

Originally posted by porque

 

.... if they ask and you refuse and then they say that they are going to search you anyway, there is nothing you can do to stop them from doing so, BUT if they can not prove their probable cause for searching you, nothing that they find can be deemed admisable, this is what is meant by illegal search and seizure... if such a thing happens to you ask them what probable cause they have for searching you, they MUST give you that reason... and if charges are brought up and you go to trial they must convince the judge that that reason was sufficient for probable cause... but in almost all cases the only sufficient reason is them actually witnessing you painting and then putting paint in your bag...

while that is true , it is not absolute .

you fail to realize that kids that are caught are not lawyers , and are most times more afraid than worried about their rights . cops however do know this . and WILL search you no matter what you say , boo hoo its against your rights , grow up , this is the real world not Law & Order .if you ask them about probable cause they will give you some double speak and bs response and do it anyway . and in court the judge will believe two cops with 1/2 truth evidence , over some punk who he knows is just out causing trouble who has a public defender.

any judge will take the opportunity to punish you and maybe teach you a lesson , rather than let you go bc of some minor probable cause issues . BELIEVE IT .

[hulk hogan]

good criminals dont get caught

[Dr. Dazzle]

www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police.shtml

 

Everything you need to know. This is why I said make it a sticky, but noooooooooo..........

[Guest HAL]

Stuck now that there's some real information here.

[Destruction by Definition]

Originally posted by madbomber

on the show C.O.P.S this cop was driving down the street and he looked at thease 2 guys and he said to the camera man thease are graffiti vandals. (u could just tell by looking at them)He got out of the car and started talking to them...The cop asked if he could look in the bag and the 2 guys said sure. There was atleast 10 cans in the bag along with some markers and stickers. The cop knew the guys were graffiti vandals but since the cop didnt see them painting he's well like im gonna have to let them go since we didnt actually catch them in the act. He checked there hands for paint and they were clean. Just as he was letting them go this bitch lady ran up to the police officer and said she saw thease boys putting up stickers on a sign. So then there were arrested and went back to the station...

i saw that shit....

[tassie toy]

Thanks for all the info. I've been looking for a thread like this. I still havent been caught but i am waiting for the day I do. I think the cops will search you if they want even if they are ment to have a reason to, they can easily say they saw you do a tag back there and at the end of the day the judge is going to believe the cop over a kid who says "he went to a friend place to paint his bike at 2am on a weeknight." With the gloves, I never wear them because I don't see the point. When I go bombing i usually head down streets by foot and either do throws or tags every minute or so and it's pretty awkward taking of your gloves 100 times in one night and if a cop rocks up you arn't gonna have enough time to get the glove of without them seeing anyway. I am more worried about the pigs finding out what I write, because if they catch you with paint you can always say you did some shit back in a alleyway full of graff, but if they know what you write you're fucked. One of my friends got asked to write his tag down, he wasn't expecting it and just wrote it down without thinking. he should have made up a tag on the spot, but I was wondering if you can refuse this?

Another idea is not to carry a bag. I usually have a big ass jacket that fits two cans in it and then baggy pants with two stocking sewed into the back pockets which fit one in each so I can carry 4 cans without a bag. I think a cop would be alot more reluctant to do a body search on you then check your bag. Also try not to look suspicious. Try wearing geeky clothes and if you wanna go all out get some fake glasses. I am living in australia right now so i don't know what the laws are here. Anyone know? any way enough of my babbling.

thanks

[tassie toy]

I just did a search and found out some usefull info on www.lawstuff.org (only for australians) hopefully fellow australians will find it usefull.

 

When can I be interviewed by the police?

 

The police can approach you and ask you questions at any time. It is very important to know your rights.

 

The right to remain silent

In most circumstances you must give the police your name and address, but other than that you have the right to remain silent. You can refuse to answer questions asked by police whether you have been stopped in the street, been taken to the station for questioning or been arrested. You should refuse to answer any questions or sign any statements until you have spoken to a lawyer.

 

There are some circumstances where you must answer questions asked by police:

 

When there has been a motor vehicle accident or a traffic offence committed. The police can ask you to identify yourself and the driver of the car and describe the accident.

The police can stop, search and detain you if they have reason to suspect you have stolen something or are in possession of something illegally obtained. But, if you are searched without good reason, this can amount to an assault on you by the police.

If you are in a pub or on licensed premises the police can ask you your name, address and date of birth and ask you to show evidence of your age. If you are drinking alcohol they can also ask you who sold you the drink.

A customs officer can ask you questions about the import or export of drugs.

 

Going to the police station

You do not have to go with the police for questioning unless you are being arrested.

 

If you are being arrested you have the right to know what you are being arrested for.

 

You have the right to get legal advice at any time. You should insist upon speaking to a lawyer before you answer any questions.

 

If you are under 17 you cannot be interviewed by the police without an adult (a parent, carer or lawyer of your choosing) being present with you. You should be given a chance to talk to this person privately.

 

Your right to complain about police mistreatment

You have the right to complain to the Officer in Charge or the Ombudsman if you are mistreated by the police. You can get a lawyer to help you with a complaint.

 

Some things to remember:

Try not to panic if the police want to talk to you.

It is a good idea to give your name and address and to be polite, if you are rude and swear they may be able to charge you with an offence relating to obscene language.

It is an offence to give a false name and address to the police.

 

Fingerprinting

If you are 17 or over and you are arrested, the police can fingerprint and photograph you.

 

If you are over 10 and under 17, you cannot be fingerprinted unless you and your parent consent in writing to you being fingerprinted or a Magistrate's permission is obtained.

 

Your fingerprints must be obtained in the presence of your parent or an independent witness. At the time you are fingerprinted you must be told by police that the fingerprints could be used in evidence against you and they will be destroyed if the charge against you does not proceed, you are found not guilty or a court orders that your fingerprint records be destroyed.

[zen]

good work tassie. some good info for those in australia. any type of marking tool is possesion of a marking implement, you must have the implement on your person. there are some technicalities to do with what clasifies a marking tool but even if your marker dosent qualify you may still be busted. the cops dont have to follow the law exactly. you can be taken to court simply for hanging onto spray cans or markers. people in the good old u.s of a get it better than us. besides the fact that police beat you a whole lot more over there.

[Guest optimo]

Your rights: You have the right to refuse to let them into your home if

they don't have a warrant (4th Amendment). You can refuse to consent to a search (4th Amendment), but you can't physically stop them. You can remain silent (5th Amendment), although it is often advisable to give them your name, address, and age. You have the right to have your attorney with you while they question you (5th Amendment, I think). You have the right not to sign anything they give you, except for a ticket. Do not make a statement!

[bigpoppa.k]

Originally posted by porque

 

...if you are searched based on the notion that you smell like weed, then they are searching you for weed...not paint...if they find paint that is in no way linked to your smelling of weed... remember having paint is not against the law (...yet?) They will ask you why you have paint so be able to come up with a good excuse...Lying is essential to getting away

 

to further prove this point think about this... let's say the police have all kinds of evidence that i am selling drugs...they spend weeks and weeks getting proff and finally have enough for the magistrate to issue a search warrant for my house... upon busting in to my house they find: a prostitution service in my living room, an illegal casino in my bedroom, a conterfeit money lab in a clost and a full out cock fight in the basement... since their warrant is for drugs they can not arrest me for any of these other crimes, because before entering my residence they had no proof of such things... Being stopped on the streeet is the same way, if they search you looking for one thing and they find something else they can't do anything about it...esspecially if what they find is not in itself illegal (paint) but only implies by assumption an illegal activity...

 

good arguement but i'm affraid you're wrong.

they smell weed on you, they have probable cause to search you. but what you're saying is that during their search if they find you're carrying a loaded gun they can't arrest you for the gun.

you should pay a little more attention to Jack Mckoy.

[bigpoppa.k]

its a bit long and only applies to U.S laws but well worth the read. get yourself aquainted with the laws...

 

Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants

While the Supreme Court stresses the importance of warrants and has repeatedly referred to searches without warrants as ''exceptional,'' it appears that the greater number of searches, as well as the vast number of arrests, take place without warrants. The Reporters of the American Law Institute Project on a Model Code of Pre- Arraignment Procedure have noted ''their conviction that, as a practical matter, searches without warrant and incidental to arrest have been up to this time, and may remain, of greater practical importance'' than searches pursuant to warrants. ''[T]he evidence on hand . . . compel the conclusion that searches under warrants have played a comparatively minor part in law enforcement, except in connection with narcotics and gambling laws.'' Nevertheless, the Court frequently asserts that ''the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that 'searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions.'' The exceptions are said to be ''jealously and carefully drawn,'' and there must be ''a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.'' While the record does indicate an effort to categorize the exceptions, the number and breadth of those exceptions have been growing.

 

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk .--Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in their presence. The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause. There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved ''patting down'' the subject of the investigation for weapons.

 

The case arose when a police officer observed three individuals engaging in conduct which appeared to him, on the basis of training and experience, to be the ''casing'' of a store for a likely armed robbery; upon approaching the men, identifying himself, and not receiving prompt identification, the officer seized one of the men, patted the exterior of his clothes, and discovered a gun. Chief Justice Warren for the Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the situation, applicable ''whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away.'' Since the warrant clause is necessarily and practically of no application to the type of on-the-street encounter present in Terry, the Chief Justice continued, the question was whether the policeman's actions were reasonable. The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to ''specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,'' would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a ''frisk'' was required. Inasmuch as the conduct witnessed by the policeman reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a ''frisk.'' Because the object of the ''frisk'' is the discovery of dangerous weapons, ''it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.'' If, in the course of a weapons frisk, ''plain touch'' reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, the officer may seize that object. Supp.3 The Court viewed the situation as analogous to that covered by the ''plain view'' doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be expanded to determine whether an object is contraband.

 

Terry did not pass on a host of problems, including the grounds that could permissibly lead an officer to momentarily stop a person on the street or elsewhere in order to ask questions rather than frisk for weapons, the right of the stopped individual to refuse to cooperate, and the permissible response of the police to that refusal. Following that decision, the standard for stops for investigative purposes evolved into one of ''reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.'' That test permits some stops and questioning without probable cause in order to allow police officers to explore the foun dations of their suspicions. While not elaborating a set of rules governing the application of the tests, the Court was initially restrictive in recognizing permissible bases for reasonable suspicion. Extensive instrusions on individual privacy, e.g., transportation to the stationhouse for interrogation and fingerprinting, were invalidated in the absence of probable cause. More recently, however, the Court has taken less restrictive approaches.

 

It took the Court some time to settle on a test for when a ''seizure'' has occurred, and the Court has recently modified its approach. The issue is of some importance, since it is at this point that Fourth Amendment protections take hold. The Terry Court recognized in dictum that ''not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves 'seizures' of persons,'' and suggested that ''[o]nly when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred.'' Years later Justice Stewart proposed a similar standard, that a person has been seized ''only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.'' This reasonable perception standard was subse quently endorsed by a majority of Justices, and was applied in several cases in which admissibility of evidence turned on whether a seizure of the person not justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion had occurred prior to the uncovering of the evidence. No seizure occurred, for example, when INS agents seeking to identify illegal aliens conducted work force surveys within a garment factory; while some agents were positioned at exits, others systematically moved through the factory and questioned employees. This brief questioning, even with blocked exits, amounted to ''classic consensual encounters rather than Fourth Amendment seizures.'' The Court also ruled that no seizure had occurred when police in a squad car drove alongside a suspect who had turned and run down the sidewalk when he saw the squad car approach. Under the circumstances (no siren, flashing lights, display of a weapon, or blocking of the suspect's path), the Court concluded, the police conduct ''would not have communicated to the reasonable person an attempt to capture or otherwise intrude upon [one's] freedom of movement.''  

 

Soon thereafter, however, the Court departed from the Mendenhall reasonable perception standard and adopted a more formalistic approach, holding that an actual chase with evident intent to capture did not amount to a ''seizure'' because the suspect did not comply with the officer's order to halt. Mendenhall, said the Court in California v. Hodari D., stated a ''necessary'' but not a ''sufficient'' condition for a seizure of the person through show of authority. A Fourth Amendment ''seizure'' of the person, the Court determined, is the same as a common law arrest; there must be either application of physical force (or the laying on of hands), or submission to the assertion of authority. Indications are, however, that Hodari D. does not signal the end of the reasonable perception standard, but merely carves an exception applicable to chases and perhaps other encounters between suspects and police.

 

Later in the same term the Court ruled that the Mendenhall ''free-to-leave'' inquiry was misplaced in the context of a police sweep of a bus, but that a modified reasonable perception approach still governed. In conducting a bus sweep, aimed at detecting illegal drugs and their couriers, police officers typically board a bus during a stopover at a terminal and ask to inspect tickets, identification, and sometimes luggage of selected passengers. The Court did not focus on whether an ''arrest'' had taken place, as adherence to the Hodari D. approach would have required, but instead suggested that the appropriate inquiry is ''whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.'' ''When the person is seated on a bus and has no desire to leave,'' the Court explained, ''the degree to which a reasonable person would feel that he or she could leave is not an accurate measure of the coercive effect of the encounter.''  

 

A Terry search need not be limited to a stop and frisk of the person, but may extend as well to a protective search of the passenger compartment of a car if an officer possesses ''a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts . . . that the suspect is dangerous and . . . may gain immediate control of weapons.'' How lengthy a Terry detention may be varies with the circumstances. In approving a 20-minute detention of a driver made necessary by the driver's own evasion of drug agents and a state police decision to hold the driver until the agents could arrive on the scene, the Court indicated that it is ''appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.''  

 

Similar principles govern detention of luggage at airports in order to detect the presence of drugs; Terry ''limitations applicable to investigative detentions of the person should define the permissible scope of an investigative detention of the person's luggage on less than probable cause.'' The general rule is that ''when an officer's observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terry . . . would permit the officer to detain the luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the investigative detention is properly limited in scope.'' Seizure of luggage for an expeditious ''canine sniff'' by a dog trained to detect narcotics can satisfy this test even though seizure of luggage is in effect detention of the traveler, since the procedure results in ''limited disclosure,'' impinges only slightly on a traveler's privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage, and does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. By contrast, taking a suspect to an interrogation room on grounds short of probable cause, retaining his air ticket, and retrieving his luggage without his permission taints consent given under such circumstances to open the luggage, since by then the detention had exceeded the bounds of a permissible Terry investigative stop and amounted to an invalid arrest. But the same requirements for brevity of detention and limited scope of investigation are apparently inapplicable to border searches of international travelers, the Court having approved a 24-hour detention of a traveler suspected of smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal.

 

Search Incident to Arrest .--The common-law rule permitting searches of the person of an arrestee as an incident to the arrest has occasioned little controversy in the Court. The dispute has centered around the scope of the search. Since it was the stated general rule that the scope of a warrantless search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its justification permissible, and since it was the rule that the justification of a search of the arrestee was to prevent destruction of evidence and to prevent access to a weapon, it was argued to the court that a search of the person of the defendant arrested for a traffic offense, which discovered heroin in a crumpled cigarette package, was impermissible, inasmuch as there could have been no destructible evidence relating to the offense for which he was arrested and no weapon could have been concealed in the cigarette package. The Court rejected this argument, ruling that ''no additional justification'' is required for a custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause.  

 

However, the Justices have long found themselves embroiled in argument about the scope of the search incident to arrest as it extends beyond the person to the area in which the person is arrested, most commonly either his premises or his vehicle. Certain early cases went both ways on the basis of some fine distinctions, but in Harris v. United States, the Court approved a search of a four-room apartment pursuant to an arrest under warrant for one crime and in which the search turned up evidence of another crime. A year later, in Trupiano v. United States, a raid on a distillery resulted in the arrest of a man found on the premises and a seizure of the equipment; the Court reversed the conviction because the officers had had time to obtain a search warrant and had not done so. ''A search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest.'' This decision was overruled in United States v. Rabinowitz, in which officers arrested defendant in his one-room office pursuant to an arrest warrant and proceeded to search the room completely. The Court observed that the issue was not whether the officers had the time and opportunity to obtain a search warrant but whether the search incident to arrest was reasonable. Though Rabinowitz referred to searches of the area within the arrestee's ''immediate control,'' it provided no standard by which this area was to be determined, and extensive searches were permitted under the rule.  

 

In Chimel v. California, however, a narrower view was asserted, the primacy of warrants was again emphasized, and a standard by which the scope of searches pursuant to arrest could be ascertained was set out. ''When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area 'within his immediate control'--construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

 

''There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs--or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant.'' 

 

Although the viability of Chimel had been in doubt for some time as the Court refined and applied its analysis of reasonable and justifiable expectations of privacy, it has in some but not all contexts survived the changed rationale. Thus, in Mincey v. Arizona, the Court rejected a state effort to create a ''homicide-scene'' exception for a warrantless search of an entire apartment extending over four days. The occupant had been arrested and removed and it was true, the Court observed, that a person legally taken into custody has a lessened right of privacy in his person, but he does not have a lessened right of privacy in his entire house. And, in United States v. Chadwick, emphasizing a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in his luggage or other baggage, the Court held that, once police have arrested and immobilized a suspect, validly seized bags are not subject to search without a warrant. Police may, however, in the course of jailing an arrested suspect conduct an inventory search of the individual's personal effects, including the contents of a shoulder bag, since ''the scope of a station-house search may in some circumstances be even greater than those supporting a search immediately following arrest.''  

 

Still purporting to reaffirm Chimel, the Court in New York v. Belton held that police officers who had made a valid arrest of the occupant of a vehicle could make a contemporaneous search of the entire passenger compartment of the automobile, including containers found therein. Believing that a fairly simple rule understandable to authorities in the field was desirable, the Court ruled ''that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, if not inevitably, within 'the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary ite[m].'''

 

Chimel has, however, been qualified by another consideration. Not only may officers search areas within the arrestee's immediate control in order to alleviate any threat posed by the arrestee, but they may extend that search if there may be a threat posed by ''unseen third parties in the house.'' A ''protective sweep'' of the entire premises (including an arrestee's home) may be undertaken on less than probable cause if officers have a ''reasonable belief,'' based on ''articulable facts,'' that the area to be swept may harbor an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.  

 

Vehicular Searches .--In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant.  

 

Initially the Court limited Carroll's reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement. Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police.  

 

The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.'' '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.''' While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ''readily mobile.'' 

 

The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ''articulable and reasonable suspicion'' of traffic or safety violation or some other criminal activity. By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld. Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ''in plain view'' inside the passenger compartment. 

 

Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ''[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.'' The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee's automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings. Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner's property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court. 

 

It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container.  

 

Vessel Searches .--Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, and hence had ''an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ''important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ''But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established 'avenues' as automobiles must do.'' Because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable. Dissenting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was approving ''a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without any limitations whatever on the officers' discretion or any safeguards against abuse.''

[bigpoppa.k]

Cops in the driver's seat

Dateline: 4/12/99

 

It wasn't so long ago, just two years in the past, in fact, that the Supreme Court decided that police can roust passengers from a car during a routine traffic stop, based on no suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of those passengers. That decision, Maryland v. Wilson, was supposed to make life better by reducing the risk to police officers of pulling a car over. Instead, the Supreme Court's 1997 decision turned out to be one more slip down a well-greased slope, culminating in last week's decision making the possessions of car passengers fair game for pawing and prodding on the part of police officers, with no suspicion of wrongdoing required.

 

The latest case, Wyoming v. Houghton, involved a car pulled over by a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer for speeding and a faulty brake light. At the side of the road the officer noticed that the driver had a syringe conveniently stored in his shirt pocket (not the pocket he kept his brains in, apparently), which he admitted to using for drugs.

 

At this point, backup police officers, apparently with Wilson in mind, ordered two female passengers out of the car even though they hadn't been implicated in any wrongdoing. One of the women, Sandra K. Houghton, had left her purse on the back seat, in which (to cut to the chase) was discovered drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine, and Ms. Houghton found herself in very hot water indeed.

 

Now, leaving aside my natural antipathy to drug laws, which have no business on the books, there are still problems with this scenario. Courtesy of the Wilson case is the free rein police had to order Houghton out of the car. Why? The driver was already out of the vehicle and in custody at this point. Houghton and the second passenger were not in apparent violation of any laws.

 

Then there's the search of Houghton's purse. Again, the lawbreaker in this case was in custody, the purse was identified as belonging to Houghton, not the driver, and Houghton had shown no sign of committing a crime. The search of her purse was, in fact, a fishing expedition in search of evidence of ... something. What? Don't ask the cops; they didn't know until they found it.

 

In sad point of fact, the Houghton case is the latest in a line of court decisions that are reducing vehicles to Fourth-Amendment-free zones. In United States v. Ross, back in 1982, the Supreme Court said that "[p]olice officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant." This was essentially an updated version of a finding in the Prohibition-era case of Carroll v. United States which stated that "The measure of legality of [seizure of an automobile or contraband within it] is, [267 U.S. 132, 156] therefore, that the seizing officer shall have reasonable or probable cause for believing that the automobile which he stops and seizes has contraband liquor therein which is being illegally transported."

 

With Wyoming v. Houghton, the earlier decisions are extended to passengers within cars who are not implicated in any crimes committed by the driver. Now, the only place that police may not automatically search once they have pulled over your car and ordered you into the street is anywhere on your actual person.

 

If nothing else, this should spur some more-practical women's fashions — maybe pants that actually contain pockets. The end result is that anybody traveling in a motor vehicle in the United States is subject to being ordered out of the vehicle and having their possessions pawed through if a police officer suspects (or claims to suspect) that any person in the vehicle has broken a law. As Justice Stevens indicated in his dissent, "the rule the Court fashions would apparently permit a warrantless search of a passenger's briefcase if there is probable cause to believe the taxidriver had a syringe somewhere in his vehicle."

 

Aside from its immediate implications, this latest legal abortion from the Supreme Court is further evidence that in our living Constitution, the Fourth Amendment is, at best, on life support. In a world of airport searches, metal detectors, and no-knock raids, the Supreme Court is still finding bits of protection against unreasonable search and seizure that it feels comfortable paring away.

 

And there's not much more left to trim.

[apos]

Does anybody know if the laws about cops searching bags are different in canada?

[ImOnlyMe]

Originally posted by porque

i guess it should be stated that this stuff really only applies to US i have no idea what the laws and rights are in any countries of europe...

:) Oh man..I remember seeing that episode.. Those guys didn't seem to down with their shit.

[Statistics]

Man. People are fucked one way or another. If your that obvios, like they see you in the act, run like a motha fucka and hide then run then hide and stay at your boys house. And if there is no evidence, like they just wanna search you, and all they find is paint, then all they can do is take you back to your house and mabey charge u with a fine for having paint (cause u gotta be 18+ here to buy it, i dont know about being in posetion). But yea.

[porque]

big poppa...thanx for all of that info...and thanx for the distinction in my previous aguement... but i was really only referring to paint because carrying paint is not illegal...it is deffinately different if you are in possesion of something that is illegal (guns, crack, etc.)...

...if anyone didn't read all of what big poppa posted, definately do so...it could save you some jail time...

 

...i have personally never been charged with graffiti, but i have been caught (stopped) several times...i know that inevitably i will be caught at some point and this is something that i think every writer must accept...we are criminals...but that doesn't mean that what we are doing is wrong.

[Guest eessee]

quit usiong all the big words and fuck all the stuff u learned in government and deal with the fuck u git urself into....everything you do with ur life has an effect and a cause....especially consequences....so deal with this shit cops will be assholes and unless u have proof or something evidential of "illegal search" then ur fucked..even the on law breaks their law so fuck it who cares do what u have to do....:D but yes it is important to now ur rights but what will u do to the cop ...give him a lecture on all the shit u learnesd or shit that will helped u...cops are programmed to fuck u over...so fuck them:mad:

[moonstrahl]

Bigpoppa.k Thanks a whole bunch, it is good to know what is up. I am totally thrilled by your intelligence. The most important thing to remember of course is to bomb and piece everything, which means that if you have a vandal squad or some shit like that in your town, hit the car on principal...

[hbg]

BUMP

 

good info all of us can use

BUMP

[SIEK ah]

my encounter

 

Ok, this is what happened to me. i was walking solo down the main drag in town at about 2am on a monday. i had a single can in the pocket of my hoodie (the type of pocket where its just one and you put both your hands in). anyways, this cop was driving the opposite way but i heard tires behind me (like he flipped a U), and i'm like well "shit". he pulls next to me and tells me to come over. People say i look young for my age when i'm actually 19, but i get IDed all the time for anything. anyways, my hands are in my pockets and he wants you know how old i am. i say 19, and he says "got id?". i pull one hand out of my pocket and reach for my wallet. he tells me to take the other hand out of my pocket. then he spots the bulge of a can in my pocket while checking my id. He asks me what that is..."a beer?". i tell him no and he asks me what it is then. i tell him "my personal belongings". He then tells me "take out your personal belongings and place them on the curb, or i'll do it for you." Wow. i did it, he got pissed it was a can of paint...especially since hes an artist he told me (with a degree in fine arts)...aww, i got the worst cop...one with an art degree!!! anyways, i weasled my way out of everything, saying i'm new to graff and doing it to fit in wiht my friends. he lets me off, but takes my can and meanstreaks (he searched me entirely after he found the paint and detained me).

 

LONG STORY SHORT: DON'T LET COPS INTIMIDATE YOU, CAUSE AFTER YOU REALIZE WHAT THEY SAID/DONE, YOU MAY FIND OUT THAT YOU COULD HAVE RESISTED AND BE TOTALLY LEGAL IN DOING SO. THEY NEED PROOF OR PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ANY SEARCH.

[cultural me]

as not to be repatitive but your rights are you best weapon.

 

 

now lets get into the shit that people really need if they get caught. running. running cleverly. when one goes out painting it it imparitive to spot your WHOLE area out. if theirs trees, good. if theres dumpsters, good. anything you can hide in, on, or behind well is worth it. scoop your area out. a problem though is the ill spots are useully in the open, thats why their tight. but if you get caught by a cop, dont try to stand there and use your fucking rights. youll obviously feel paniced and no doubt say somthing that will dig your hole about 30 feet deeper. you have to run. if they get out of the car slowly..ALL THE BETTER! that just means more time to run. a bunch of times a cop will get outta their car slowly and come towards you and you think "oh, he's calm and just walking. maybe he DIDNT SEE ME WITH A BIG CAN IN MY HAND ON A UNFINISHED THROW UP AGAINST A BIG WHITE FUCKING WALL." all the more time to run. the key to running is get ahead. your not gonna be able to run out a who fuckin precint so just get ahead of the cop that is behind you. its worse if they have a partner to close you off or whatver. runn and get outta their sight. that is the key. stay ahead of them. just run your fucking ass off right away, sprint. dont try to run at a pace so that youll be able to keep running. just get out of their sight and hide. like hell they are gonna spend time checking around the park or block in the dark looking for a person in a black hoodie. they will try. but if you just get a good spot and stay quite. they will have no choice but assume you kept running and got away.

 

another thing is evidence. personly when i go painting i leave any ID at home or wherever. if your about to run dont try to stuff your cans in your bag. its 10$ worth of paint. take your bag cause it is a gold mine of evidence. and just imagin droping your wallet with a picture id of you and your name. if its your school id or anything. they would know enough about you to bust your ass hard. so yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this advice is not for every situation. this advice is for if you are flat out caught with your hand spraying on a un finished peice with the same color.

[GaspOne]

just don't get caught...

[vynlone]

When they come to search your house they should not find anything to do with writing. Keeping your sketch books, paint, stickers, markers, or flics at least outside of your own room is essential. If they do not find anything at your house and you got caught painting you can use the old excuse "i just copied it off a photo I saw and you caught me the first time I did it". Always get a lawyer...the pigs try to get you to incriminate yourself in the first interview.

Also never leave your tag on walls in your house thats just plain stupid.

[porque]

...if you're ever caught in the act, always run and hide... i've found cops usually give up looking in about 30-45 minutes so i always hide for at least an hour ro an hour and a half to be safe... always wear pants...the last hing you want is to have to jump through some bushes wearing shorts and get your legs all cut up or get poison ivy...i like dickies cause they're thick and you can run through briars without getting cut...remember cops are lazy pigs, the last thing they want to do is spend all their night diggin around in some dark alley tryin to find some kid when they could be sittin in their comfortable car doin lines from the coke bust they just made...

[AE..604!]

cops can do what ever the fuck they want . you might not want to think this but its true. if they ask you to see your bag and you say no ur fucked and i suggest you run becaouse the cop is probbably still digesting his previous dunot incounter at ur naighborhood timies.. when im out bombing i ushual stash my bag a couple of times so that in case i get caout i wont have shit on me like for example i am on a fairly busy street around 2 am and i want to bomb this bus stop so i ditch my bag in a near by bush, take out one or two cans and paint it. now if a cop comes i have many advantages like, i can throw the cans to the side ,, have no bag to log around and theres also a better posibility of the cop not stopping if you have no bag..... thats some of my information. and remember cops are pigs they will do anything for food

[Guest catwash]

go "no comment" to every question, speak to your lawyer and don't grass. DON'T ADMIT ANYTHING.

[Guest -40 trooper]

"while that is true , it is not absolute .

you fail to realize that kids that are caught are not lawyers , and are most times more afraid than worried about their rights . cops however do know this . and WILL search you no matter what you say , boo hoo its against your rights , grow up , this is the real world not Law & Order .if you ask them about probable cause they will give you some double speak and bs response and do it anyway . and in court the judge will believe two cops with 1/2 truth evidence , over some punk who he knows is just out causing trouble who has a public defender.

any judge will take the opportunity to punish you and maybe teach you a lesson , rather than let you go bc of some minor probable cause issues . BELIEVE IT ."

 

belee that...and the way the system is setup is that if you're caught, you're gonna pay. what i mean by that is that if you wernt succesful in talkin your way out of gettin busted you're pretty much fucked, you're either gonna pay a big fine or come out of your pockets for some blood suckin lawyer...either way you end up blowing at least a few C notes to get out of it..wich is exactly what they wanted.

[profesa_X]

this is some hella usefull stuff but who can tell what the consiquences are when u actually do get caught and its hopeless. like are they diff. in canada and US and what if ur under age and stuff.

 

thx