HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Join us for another interesting edition of Roadside Chat where Anthony Bandiero teaches law enforcement officers best practices and clarifies legal issues officers face every day. 💪
✅ Drop a like and subscribe, thank you for your support! 🥰
🚨 Do have another roadside chat question? Send it here: www.bluetogold...
Blue to Gold Training:
🔻Class Schedules - www.bluetogold...
🔻On-demand Trainings - university.blu...
🔻Free Legal Webinar Trainings - www.bluetogold...
🔻Book Store and Training Materials - www.bluetogold...
Connect with us, learn us more. We keep our updates and news posted on social media:
🔻Facebook - / bluetogold
🔻Instagram - / bluetogold
🔻Twitter - / bluetogold
🔻LinkedIn - / bluetogold
🔻TikTok - / bluetogoldtraining
#LawEnforcementTraining #PoliceTraining #LegalEducation
Love these short videos. I listen to these as I work 😂
There is no exigency when you have someone detained. It's nice that you essentially gave officers permission to search no matter the evidence available. That may not have been the purpose, but it was the result. Officers should ALWAYS question the witness first. "Did you see her put something in her bag? Did you see her take it off a shelf? Did you see what the item was? Where were you? Where was the subject? What was the object that was taken?", etc. "I saw her put something in her purse" does not create pc. She could have used some lip balm from her purse and replaced it, but the "witness" only saw the item go into the purse. Item in purse does not RAS make.
He is a cop lawyer...
Yea I agree with you. He kind of skimmed over the need to have real justified probable cause FIRST. Your investigation cannot simply be searching someone based solely on and unsubstantiated allegation from a 3rd party. And unless you want to escalate things, important to be straightforward with the suspect. "You are currently being detained. We have evidence of ______. I'm going to conduct a search of ______."
I learn something every time
A full out search or a "Safety Frisk" ?
Sounds kinda shakey without
"Probable Cause" ???
Thanks for information and time you put into all the updates!
Awesome!!! Very applicable these days
Glad you think so!
I like it. Straight to the point.
Love the content 👮
Great video Anthony! Keep these coming
So what happens if you search the purse and don’t find any evidence and don’t make an arrest as a result?
The deciding factor is if there is PC or not. If there is PC and nothing is found then the PC negates an illegal search or false arrest. In order to understand that you have to know what probable cause actually means and also be able to think of what would constitute that in your mind in a scenario. That’s what the public never know or understand. I can go up to all kinds of people in the public and ask them to give me an example of probable cause and they’ll blindly do so half the time. But they cannot actually voice the definition of it by heart and explain what it means. Once you understand all that then you’ll then understand the answer to your question. And the answer to your question is “at the end of the day they just didn’t find anything although PC was present.” PC is nothing but facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that a crime has occurred. That’s all it is. Probably cause is 99% of guilt of a crime. The other one percent has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good job
Thank you! Anthony
Thanks!
Great stuff! 👍🏼
Lol on the dollar makeup!
Great content as always! But, just to make sure, if I would typically arrest someone in a certain situation (such as marijuana possession but there's Covid restrictions), I could do a search incident to arrest even if I'm not booking or otherwise transporting them?
Think of it like this.
If you could tow his car you could search it while doing an inventory pre tow. That search is more detailed, you can not say because I could tow your car I can search it.
Custodial arrest probably require a more thorough search than a non transport arrest. Do you search people's shoes for weapons/drugs on non custodial arrest normally?
The safe approach is to understand that they are arrested and the only difference is the detail of the search.
Excellent question and one that requires you to check with your departments legal team before it becomes an issue.
The politics of drug arrests are changing in many places if your prosecutor is not going to follow up is it truly in the interest of justice or worth the liability to conduct an invasive search? Legal? Probably, ethical or moral.... Officer discretion.
There is a huge difference between understanding the laws and interpreting the laws, if lawyers that have more then 4 years of college can not understand the laws, how can we expect high school kids that barely graduated and have 12 months or less of police academy training to understand?
This is awesome, thanks
Appreciate that, thank you.
Great videos
Yes ! From ct , PC baby …
Wait, the alleged crime takes place outside the presence of the officer. If the complaintent is wrong, no evidence of a crime, what remedy does the accused have against the complaintent for the wrongful detention and search? False reporting?
I completely understand what you are saying. Do you have any case law reference to being allowed to do the search and not arrest/summons? I am just confused how I would word that in my PC if I end up not making the arrest. I'm guessing I would not want to say I conducted a search incident to arrest then not arrest the suspect.
Thx for sharing
Thanks for watching! -Anthony
Something interesting here is the element of burglary is to unlawfully enter building/dwelling with intent to commit theft/crime. DA is charging trespassers (shoplifting) with burglary if they go back and shoplift again from the same store. It fits the elements of the crime.
Absolutely! PC is PC. I also charge this for thieves who go behind the register at a convenience store for cigarettes or alcohol. They usually have some sort of sign or something painted in the ground that says employees only.
I always ask the clerk how many times a regular (non-stealing) citizen walks behind the counter. They usually say zero., only the ones who are there to steal. And there’s my “reasonable” test.
A suspect has been detained by loss prevention and the observed concealed items were recovered by LP prior to PD arrival. Can the subject and purse/backpack be searched for possible additional merchandise?
I would not search for additional evidence unless you have facts or circumstances that lead you to believe more evidence is on their person.
Please keep in mind that in desperate economic times, data shows that many women buy more small items of makeup just to cheer themselves up. A person who "pinches" very cheap makeup is likely very, very poor. (You LEOs have some discretion. Just make a person give a small item back and "get on with your real job" is what I would say, having served plenty of free food and coffee to policemen at IHOP, three in the morning when they were dizzy and exhausted. Yeah, I'm old.)
Officers have discretion, but if the victim wants to prosecute, and probable cause exists, the officers can make suggestions to the victim, but the officers can get disciplined or fired for failing to arrest or issue a citation in lieu of custody if the victim demands to prosecute.
Case law?
You recently posted a video that directly contradicts this information, is this video outdated? Could you clarify please? The video is titled “search incident to criminal summons”, and you even use a shoplifting example in that video too.
Does the merchant's privilege play a role in this?
Great content
Thank you.
This doesn’t seem completely accurate….. yes there’s custodial and non custodial arrest. Search incident arrest applies to “custodial arrests”…. To search the shoplifter for evidence of the crime for a misdemeanor violation would still need some type of arrest…. Stopping someone in the area matching the description isn’t enough to search for evidence…. Pretty sure you would still need the reporting party to identify the subject as the shoplifter to confirm you stopped the right person and not someone who simply looks like the shoplifter. Whether it’s done by a cold show, or the RP pointing them out at the time of detention. The reporting party would say yes that’s them I want to make a citizens arrest or I want to press charges etc. Now at face value it more than likely would not be a search incident to arrest(custodial arrest). Now that you have PC to areest it would be an “exigency”…. Or depending on your department policy and/or under case law you’d place them under “custodial arrest” because “immediate releasal would jeopardize the prosecution of the case”, the arrest can be turned into a custodial arrest. Conduct your search incident to arrest, or exigency search, how ever you wanna label it. Now depending on what agency you work for, they’re immediately eligible to be cited and released at the scene since you’ve now recovered the stolen merchandise and the exigency is gone/immediate releasal would no longer jeopardize prosecution of case, so you’d “uncustodial arrest” them, they’re eligible to be cited and released so you’d issue them a citation and release them.
Either way, you’d still need some kind of arrest so you’re not violating some random persons 4th amendment right because they look like the shoplifter. Matching the suspect description in the area etc gives you reasonable suspicion to detain and conduct your investigation.
So for low level misdemeanor you’d place them under arrest….. seize the evidence under exigency because if they leave the scene, they leave with the evidence and it would jeopardize a successful prosecution of the case.
And if you do the search and there is nothing in the purse?
Lawsuit ?
*alleged
So an officer can search someone if they suspect them of stealing or do they have to have probable cause to search the person? or m i misunderstanding the situation entirely here
They need probable cause plus a recognized exception, like exigency.
Probable cause, not reasonalble suspicion with ras, you need a that extra push for pc like say you thinknyour girlfriend is cheating but you only see her texting someone that's ras. But if yoy see it and some one involved says that's someone dating your girlfriend too, that's pc
Unless they have me on video proving i stole something they better have a warrant first or im suing for 4th amendment violation. Just because someone tells a cop i stole something doesnt cut it.
What if the cop gets it wrong?
What were they told and did they operate within good faith? If they’re being told information from what is perceived as a credible, good father person related to the incident and they operate within good faith and within the scope of the law and his boundaries and they are immune from any prosecution or civil liabilities.
I like your videos
Thanks Dan! - Anthony
I would demand the person make the accusation in person in front of me.
This is to prevent the officer from just making stuff up.
Police are experts at lying so I don't trust anything a police says w/o supporting evidence or documentation.
Also, I want to see the policeman arrest the person for making a false statement to police for an arrest.
lmao be more boujie