Iowa Supreme Court rules drug bust made after I-80 traffic stop not constitutional
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Nobody got shot in this story, but watch the national news some day! Plus they stole $33,000 from people that they had no right to steal from. Pretty crappy police work in my opinion and they wonder why people won't trust the police anymore. Please, they are criminals if you ask me.
They are paid to keep the peace and protect us. This cop, like most, did not do that.
Absolutely.
Where else wouldn't this be called outright theft if not done by our govt itself???
We sir find you guilty of NO crimes, oh and thank you for that $33k.
Yep...I have seen dozens of cars on I80 in CB pulled over with the contents of the vehicle being pulled out and set on the side of the road. In almost ever instance, hell maybe every instance, it was non-Iowa/Nebraska/Missouri plates.
Note to self: Don't cross into Iowa with cash, air freshener, trash and sleeping bag or risk prosecution.
Also, keep only one hand on the wheel, drive over the speed limit and stare cops down as to appear not "nervous."
Also, keep only one hand on the wheel, drive over the speed limit and stare cops down as to appear not "nervous."
Ironically? Many criminals, they often aren't worried that they did anything wrong, know the system and their rights.
Iirc like 70% of the seized money goes to the department/prosecuting agency, helluvan incentive.
I doubt it is offset in their budget either.
I doubt it is offset in their budget either.
Cops are trained to watch for guilty behaviors. This cop did his job. The court blew it
Driving appropriately is guilty behavior? Yikes.
Might be easier that this point to ask you to list what ISNT guilty behavior.
Maybe I was harsh. The LEO did do what he was trained for, and found what he is told to find.
That isn't the question, the question is whether we should be ok with how we are training them. I'm not.
Agreed! This is a good lesson in why many reasonable people do not trust the government to handle everything.
My wife was getting a recall item worked on at the dealership and it was going to take over a day so they paid for a rental for her. The rental plates were AZ and on her way home, on I80, a cop pulls beside for some time and then pulls her over. His reasoning, she was going over the speed limits (but no ticket and he wouldn't tell her by how much when asked) and she 'looked nervous' when he was driving beside her.
She told him she looked nervous bc he kept starring at her and it was creeping her out...he then verified the rental, told her to have a nice day and went on her way. Sometimes simple honesty can put people in their place.
What amazes me, though, is that biggest fear-big-government guys absolutely support Law Enforcement agencies, including these tactics (when not used on them). I don't get it.
I'm not sure where you are going with the honesty part, but this is precisely part of the problem. Her rights may have been violated, yet not likely anyone will ever find out about it.
All it would have taken was for an idiot at the rental company to mix up the search and say they can't find her and she'd be standing in the highway for the next hour while they searched.
Obviously pretextual.
The honesty was, Cop - 'you looked nervous' followed by Wife - 'you looked like some sort of creeper'.
This is an absolutely ridiculous ruling and any of you who don't understand why it's ridiculous are idiots. If this gets taken to the United States supreme court, it will be overturned. The trooper did exactly what a well trained proactive police officer would do and he made a legal, lawful arrest and seizure. But people hate cops in this country right now so this is the rhetoric that accompanies it right here on this board and in this thread. Sad sad commentary on the state of our society.
His training is irrelevant if what he did violates the Constitution and it did. If you think it was a bad ruling then please leave the country and don't come back.
I don't think this "case" was about drug interdiction at all...it was about the confiscation of the arrested's money by the state. What I read was there was a very minute amount of (MJ) involved...It was about the State confiscating the $$...the $$ found in the search of the vehicle for the drugs.
What kind of air freshener was used? I have one in my car...I just want to make sure I don't get stopped and have my $5 confiscated.
What kind of air freshener was used? I have one in my car...I just want to make sure I don't get stopped and have my $5 confiscated.
Wait, what? This is largely extending FROM a SCOTUS Decision.
You claim it is a "legal, lawful arrest and seizure", care to explain why? Just standing on the dissent? That those factors are enough for reasonable suspicion and detainment?
Nervous - plenty of cases showing not enough
lived in car - is this what you think is enough?
Air Freshener that in his "experience" is used to cover up drug smells?
I'm mostly curious about the last one, where did he gain this experience? I mean it is an air freshener, the purpose of which is to cover up stench, so what/how did he determine THIS freshener is specifically used to cover up drug smells? Did some organization scour police reports and do a statistical analysis (no, of course not, if so they would've provided the documentation supporting), has he seen it in a multitude of cases? If so, does that matter? I'll bet all drug "traffickers" carry cell phones .... is carrying of cell phone sufficient for detainment?
Also, I'm guessing, but certainly could be wrong, that you didn't read the opinion, nor the recent opinions of this specific court. They have been heading in this direction for a few years now spanning multiple cases, pulling back LE authority in the face of the 4th Amendment. So has the SCOTUS. Hell, one Justice would have even gone further finding that pretextual stops (this one admittedly was) are unconstitutional under the Iowa Constitution.
So I have two questions for you:
A) Are you ok with pretextual stops?
B) What, specifically, do you believe was sufficient evidence for his "suspicion" in order to detain him? (Or, alternatively, do you think he should be allowed to detain him even without sufficient suspicion?)
FYI - That IS what "Drug Interdiction" is: The taking of money/property from "drug traffickers" in order to ebb their flow of drugs. It is NOT specifically about finding drugs.
They wouldn't take your $5, they would let you go on your way and pretend they never stopped you.
I presume this means the following:
1. Pull person over with out of town license plate for an amount less than he would ever pull someone else over for
2. Look inside the car for any "clues" that were in his manual he received at his 8 hour training seminar
3. Ask the person if they can search, if no:
4. Call for drug dog
5. Have drug dog "hit"
6. Search car
Here is the important part:
7. Find nothing: smile, let them go on their way, look to repeat at #1
8. Find anything (small drugs, small money): look harder, maybe cite, maybe catch/release
9. Find money: call in the crew, confiscate everything, arrest.
Feel free to challenge my assertions, but if you take these at face value, are you ok with this? What if they just skipped #1 and pulled over anyone for no reason, not even 1mph over (or too dark tint, whatever), would that be ok? A checkpoint system?
I don't think people would be ok with the latter, so why are they ok with the former when these are ADMITTEDLY pretextual stops? (Answer is obvious: "It only happens to bad guys, and preventing bad guys = good")
I mean, read this, f***:
On June 13, 2012, shortly before 9:30 a.m., Eric Vander Weil, an Iowa State Trooper, was parked on the median of Interstate 80 watching westbound traffic. He was participating in a criminal interdiction effort focused on out-of-state vehicles. Trooper Vander Weil saw a silver Toyota with California plates go past. The driver had his hand on his face and did not look at the trooper as he passed by. Trooper Vander Weil decided to follow the car.
As he approached the moving vehicle in his patrol car, Trooper Vander Weil observed the Toyota slowing down to sixty-five miles per hour, below the seventy-miles-per-hour posted speed limit. Pulling alongside the moving vehicle, Vander Weil also noticed that the driver looked over at him, then looked away and didn’t look back at him again. In addition, Vander Weil saw the driver with his hands now at the ten and two positions on the steering wheel. Vander Weil slowed his own patrol car and pulled in behind the silver Toyota.
At this point, Vander Weil saw that the top portion of the right taillight on the car was not working. He also observed the Toyota following closely behind a semi. Vander Weil noted the existence of these two traffic violations and decided to pull over the Toyota.
He followed him because he "had his hand on his face and did not look at the trooper as he passed by", then he slowed down to 65 in a 70.
Would ANYONE be ok with him being pulled over for this? FFS I hope not.
Ok, so then he "noticed" the "top portion of the right taillight was not working", and he was "following closely behind a semi".
THIS is what he was stopped for ... technically. Why "technically"? Because it would be obviously unconstitutional, pursuant to many SCOTUS/State S.Ct. rulings. So why are we ok with just pretending to stop a person for those reasons? Why are we ok with "technically"?
If this was a house would it be ok? Surely not.
On June 13, 2012, shortly before 9:30 a.m., Eric Vander Weil, an Iowa State Trooper, was parked on the median of Interstate 80 watching westbound traffic. He was participating in a criminal interdiction effort focused on out-of-state vehicles. Trooper Vander Weil saw a silver Toyota with California plates go past. The driver had his hand on his face and did not look at the trooper as he passed by. Trooper Vander Weil decided to follow the car.
As he approached the moving vehicle in his patrol car, Trooper Vander Weil observed the Toyota slowing down to sixty-five miles per hour, below the seventy-miles-per-hour posted speed limit. Pulling alongside the moving vehicle, Vander Weil also noticed that the driver looked over at him, then looked away and didn’t look back at him again. In addition, Vander Weil saw the driver with his hands now at the ten and two positions on the steering wheel. Vander Weil slowed his own patrol car and pulled in behind the silver Toyota.
At this point, Vander Weil saw that the top portion of the right taillight on the car was not working. He also observed the Toyota following closely behind a semi. Vander Weil noted the existence of these two traffic violations and decided to pull over the Toyota.
He followed him because he "had his hand on his face and did not look at the trooper as he passed by", then he slowed down to 65 in a 70.
Would ANYONE be ok with him being pulled over for this? FFS I hope not.
Ok, so then he "noticed" the "top portion of the right taillight was not working", and he was "following closely behind a semi".
THIS is what he was stopped for ... technically. Why "technically"? Because it would be obviously unconstitutional, pursuant to many SCOTUS/State S.Ct. rulings. So why are we ok with just pretending to stop a person for those reasons? Why are we ok with "technically"?
If this was a house would it be ok? Surely not.
Trooper Vander Weil advised Saccento, “Well if you don’t want to wait for the dog, and you don’t want to let me search, I’m going to detain you, and I am going to call for a dog to come sniff your car . . . . Either way I am going to run the dog.” Several minutes later, the K-9 unit arrived, and the dog alerted on the vehicle.
This is AFTER asking for permission.
And this is ignoring many of the recent studies on dog "alerts" being, well, fraudulent at worst, inaccurate at best. But we can't really study it, because they don't report when the hits are wrong, and nobody requires them to.
I digress.
This is AFTER asking for permission.
And this is ignoring many of the recent studies on dog "alerts" being, well, fraudulent at worst, inaccurate at best. But we can't really study it, because they don't report when the hits are wrong, and nobody requires them to.
I digress.
