Cop FREAK'S out when guy denies him to search his car

This x 10000

 

That's embarassing for the department. I'm willing to agree that police do tend to have their mistakes amplified via the Internet. There's enough bad press out there for them, the last thing they need is another cop putting this sort of stuff online.

 

ooooooooooo RJ got trolled

by the police even haha

 

this was funny, could not believe he went off like that,I think the cop threw his license on the ground, I heard him say u can get it when I leave.

 

How did I get trolled?! haha

 

Not sure if this has been said or not but that is fake, the freakout thing cop is a working leo, the cop did it as a joke or something and got turned in to his superiors. The cop used a personal camera notice the lack of date, car number, the things telling what lights are on, etc.

 

If the police have probable cause them asking you to search is just a formality because they can search anyway.

Not sure where you got your info or where you live, but if your in the US and think a dog can't sniff your car you have been horribly misled by someone.

The Supreme Court:
The problems with dog-sniff jurisprudence began in 1983 when the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in United States v. Place. The sole issue presented in Place was whether “the warrantless seizure of [Place’s] luggage violated his Fourth Amendment rights.” Nevertheless, on her way to finding the seizure unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor took an unnecessary detour to declare, in dictum, that a canine sniff is an investigative procedure but not a search under the Fourth Amendment. According to Justice O’Connor, canine sniffs are “sui generis,” because they are uniquely “so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure.” Essentially, she assumed that a canine sniff would only expose contraband items, an assertion unnecessary to the disposition of the case and unsupported by any authority.

The Court revisited canine sniffs seventeen years later in Indianapolis v. Edmonds, when it was presented with the question of whether the police could constitutionally stop cars at a drug checkpoint roadblock. Once again, Justice O’Connor authored the opinion of the Court, which found the roadblocks unconstitutional and once again went out of her way to discuss the constitutional legitimacy of canine sniffs. Expanding on Place, Justice O’Connor declared, in dictum, that a car does not enjoy any Fourth Amendment protection from a suspicionless canine sniff. Lower courts generally adopted Justice O’Connor’s dual dicta, echoing her assertion that a canine sniff of an object or car is not a search. Fleshing out Place, those courts developed an “emanations” rationale, concluding that when anything emanating from a vehicle, bag, house, or person enters a public area, it is no longer private property and that an examination of it does not constitute a search. This
was a “plain view” analysis that asserted that dogs are merely augmentations of police officers’ own senses. More in line with prevailing Fourth Amendment doctrine than Justice O’Connor’s original rationale, the emanations theory became the strongest argument in favor of canine sniffs. One court even allowed police officers to squeeze air out of a suitcase in order to help a dog detect contraband. Then came Kyllo v. United States. In Kyllo, Justice Scalia held that law enforcement’s
use of a thermal imaging device to read the heat emanating from a
house violated the Fourth Amendment. He reasoned that the Court had previously “rejected such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Katz, where the eavesdropping device picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth.” In essence, Kyllo rejected the emanations theory. Justice Stevens’
dissent recognized the implications of doing so, pointing out that the reasoning of Kyllo would disallow “potential mechanical substitutes for dogs trained to react when they sniff narcotics.” In fact, “the use of such a device would be unconstitutional under the Court’s rule, even if the devices (like the canine sniffs) are ‘so limited in both the manner in which’ they obtain information and ‘in the content of the information’ they reveal.”

Of course, if a mechanical device that does the same thing as a dog is unconstitutional, so is a regular canine sniff. A constitutional analysis cannot coherently distinguish between two tools that accomplish the same thing. And yet the courts that considered Kyllo either ignored its necessary implications or simply refused to apply it. Thus, it became necessary for the Supreme Court to explicitly determine whether a canine sniff is a search or simply an investigation.

Conclusion:
After an inevitable flurry of challenges, canine sniffs will probably retain
the Court’s approval. Perhaps the only saving grace of Caballes is the Supreme Court’s decision to consecrate only dogs as the perfect and perfectly unique tool for detecting contraband. Canine sniff cases seem to inhabit a unique universe, subject to a unique Fourth Amendment analysis. If the Court can be taken at its word it will analyze new technologies under Kyllo and limit Caballes to canine sniffs. This would limit the impact of Caballes on Fourth Amendment doctrine but it won’t do anything to limit the thousands of suspicionless searches that Caballes will justify.

 

Just logged on after a couple days and took a look at this video. I have to say that I don't give a damn if this guy was having a 'bad day'... he should be fired--immediately. I'm sure they have enough applicants who can fill his shoes in short order. I'm a former LEO, so I know this business well. The stresses, the potential for personal injury, the long hours, the shift schedules, the mounds of paperwork scrutinized. Given all of the challenges of being an LEO, there is no excuse.

If police officers want the public at large to consider law enforcement a 'profession,' they must on all occasions, act professionally and check any behavior to the contrary--thousands of professional LEOs do it daily; why not this officer? There are no excuses one can give that will explain to me why this police officer acted in this manner. None.

This was an opportunity for this department to weed out a potential ticking time bomb. He obviously is not capable of controlling his emotions when things don't go his way. He's a loser with a badge, and has been granted authority he no longer deserves. He has broken trust with the public.

In my 21 years of military experience, 9+ years as an LEO (both military and civilian), I never saw a fellow officer behave in this manner--not once. We all knew the consequences of such actions, and it never occurred to any of us to be so out of control of our emotions, even during moments of much higher stress or danger. This officer showed a complete lack of self-discipline, bearing, and professionalism. In my experience, I saw individuals stripped of their commissions for far less.

Bottom line: This man has no business dealing with the community as an LEO... as their public servant.

 

^^^^..............You missed the part where the whole thing was a set up and a bad joke

 

Yep, guess I did. Disregard. Not sure why anyone would do that, but if it was real, I would stand by my statement above.

 

Where's the proof that this was a joke? Don't believe it til i see it!

 

!!!!

 

read it dude....http://westvirginia.watchdog.org/3386/watchblog-police-need-watching-too/

watch the other video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9HbtbBqwY


UPDATE: For some reason, this article is getting a lot of traffic despite being posted September of last year. Thanks for visiting. Because some seem under the impression that these videos are real, they are not. The two officers were real, but they were pranking and pulling over each other, not regular drivers. While city officials have declined to talk to any media about what actions they took against the officers, I’m told they did get in trouble and face punishment of some sort, but are otherwise still on the job.

By Steven Allen Adams | West Virginia Watchdog

CHARLESTON –This week a couple of videos surfaced showing unprofessional behavior by police officers of the St. Marys Police Department. Not sure who put the videos up, but a lesson can be learned by city, county, and state law enforcement statewide.

In the interests of full disclosure I am from St. Marys, W.Va. It was where I was raised, where I graduated high school, and a place I visit whenever I can. I know at least one of the officers in these videos.

In both videos two officers, Sal Travaglio and Nathan Boron, took turns pulling each other over and making prank videos. The first video shows Travaglio pulling Boron over talking in an exaggerated southern accent:



The second video, the more shocking of the two, shows Boron pulling Travaglio. When Travaglio refuses to let Boron search his vehicle, Boron begins cussing and yelling, telling the driver to get out of town:



Both videos are not real; they are two police officers goofing off. But when I first saw the video, particularly the Boron video, I didn’t know this. I saw an officer being extremely unprofessional to an out-of-town driver. When the prank rumor first surfaced, then I was very angry that these officers were pulling over people for nothing but their own amusement. Now we know the officers were pulling each other over.

The question in St. Marys is what should happen to the two officers. It’s true that they didn’t harass other drivers; only pranking each other. But they were using public resources to do it while in uniform and getting paid. Worse than that, thousands have viewed these videos. Over 115,896 have viewed the Boron video alone. This reflects poorly on the St. Marys Police Department and on the community as a whole.

Should the officers be fired? At least one has had problems before. Travaglio worked for the Washington County Sheriffs Department until 2009, but has worked from SMPD since 2010. I don’t think the officers need fired, but I don’t think this should be taken lightly. One officer, Boron, has made a public apology, and now supporters are circulating a survey so people can show their support for him.

At the very least both officers should have their salaries docked and face a short period of suspension. The entire department should be looked at as well, because if these types of antics are going on, then there is probably something worse happening under the surface. If someone would dig, I think they’d find all sorts of corruption in St. Marys.

Ultimately the lesson to be learned here is police need watching too. That is a foreign concept to law enforcement in West Virginia I imagine. Especially in smaller departments in remote areas I’m sure they’re used to doing what they like. The Charleston Gazette does a good job of shining the light of transparency at law enforcement, but they can’t be everywhere. It’s up to citizens to keep law enforcement honest.

How? Pull out your phone. Even if you don’t have a smartphone you probably have a camera or a voice and video recorder on your phone. You can record the police, and should as long as you’re not interfering with official business.

There are many good law enforcement officers out there, but if there is one bad officer out there that is one bad officer too many. Hold them accountable. They are not more powerful than you; they are public servants. Let’s lift up the good officers and record the bad ones.

 

^

 

lol u funny


TOLD you it was REAL !

 

hhaha! Yeah you did! And you proved it to! for you!

 

Here's a good cop video (officer Lyons of Oceanside California):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET2MnWP4YFw

 

That's freaking awesome. Every officer should have to partake in a test like this situation.

 

This may ignite a bit of controversy, but I feel that if you are carrying a gun and the police officer comes up to you, you should be required to show ID. Trust me, I realize that there is no law or statute in place saying that, but to me it just makes sense. There are SOOOO many videos on youtube of these "hot shots" parading around with a weapon and a camera. Sure, they are law abiding citizens, but how about the 1 percent or so who isn't and decides to pull the gun on the officer. I feel as if a lot of these on youtube are just trying to get attention and make a bad name for the police. The police deal with lunatics all the time, can you blame them for wanting to know who you are (making sure you are not a felon) as well as making sure their selves as well as the community is safe. Personally, I am all for gun rights and being able to carry. I just don't see the need in broadcasting the weapon on your hip for all to see.

Sorry, my rant is over lol