Black Drivers Make up Majority of Minneapolis Police Searches During Routine Traffic Stops

[Reynolds]

So, “rudeness” is not the reason for the search, but it is an example of non-cooperation that often necessitated a search to conclude the investigation.....?

I’m sure that sounds like a distinction to you, but it really isn’t.

I’m going to address your examples.

What you stated was that if you stopped a vehicle where evidence of a crime (marijuana use) has been committed, whether or not you search the vehicle depends on the cooperation of the occupants.

That is poor police work, in my opinion. If you have PC to search the vehicle (smell of marijuana) then search the vehicle. If you don’t find anything, then accept the explanation or give them a break.

We are not going to change each other’s opinions.

Thanks for the conversation.

peace to you

Agreed, we wont change each others opinions. Honestly, I really did not care to arrest people for non felony weed. They pretty much had to try to get hooked up on that charge.

 

[canadyjd]

Agreed, we wont change each others opinions. Honestly, I really did not care to arrest people for non felony weed. They pretty much had to try to get hooked up on that charge.

Unless you search the vehicle (with PC: smell of MJ) you don’t know if it’s a felony or not.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

I fully own post 42. What you are failing to understand is that the "rudeness" as you put it, was not ever a reason for the search. It is an example of non-cooperation that often necessitated a search to conclude the investigation.

I will give you an example of two stops. Both drivers were same race.

Stop 1: Stop sign violation. Upon approaching vehicle and interacting with driver, observe shake on passenger seat and detect odor of burned marijuanna.
Ask driver, where you been tonight. Driver says "at the club." Few more raport building questions. Then ask driver if any Marijuanna is in car. Driver says "Nah man, but my bro did bun one when he was riding with me earlier tonight " Through the entire action, officer is satisfied that no significant crime is being committed and releases driver with stop sign ticket and a warning about marijuanna use.

Driver 2. Stopped for noise ordinance violation. Same circumstances. Approach vehicle. Smell burned marijuanna. See shake on the console and passenger seat. Ask driver where he has been tonight. Answer is "F... You. I aint got to tell you s.. ".
What do you think happens? Officer has visible marijuanna in car with no explanation available. Officer has plain smell of marijuanna with no explanation available. Officer must further investigate. Investigation which includes search results in arrest for Loud Music noise ordinance violation, Possession of Marijuanna, Dui Marijuanna.

Both are same race.

These stories make no sense. You are a LEO with probable cause to search vehicles. The PC is smell of MJ.

You ignore PC and make the decision to search the vehicles based upon how cooperative the driver is.

The more you speak the more I doubt.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

These stories make no sense. You are a LEO with probable cause to search vehicles. The PC is smell of MJ.

You ignore PC and make the decision to search the vehicles based upon how cooperative the driver is.

The more you speak the more I doubt.

peace to you

Just demonstrates that you think in theory and have no experience to base your abstract conclusions on.
Burned Marijuanna smell and shake. They are indicators of use. Users have small quantities. Most dealers do not smoke and roll in their cars. When I smelled Marijuanna, you bet I searched the car. There is a difference in smelling marijuanna and smelling burned Marijuanna. In fact, there is a huge difference.

 

[Salty]

These stories make no sense. You are a LEO with probable cause to search vehicles. The PC is smell of MJ.

You ignore PC and make the decision to search the vehicles based upon how cooperative the driver is.

The more you speak the more I doubt.

peace to you

So how long were you a police officer

 

[canadyjd]

So how long were you a police officer

I rather not discuss my personal life on a public forum.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

.....
Burned Marijuanna smell and shake. They are indicators of use. Users have small quantities. Most dealers do not smoke and roll in their cars. When I smelled Marijuanna, you bet I searched the car. There is a difference in smelling marijuanna and smelling burned Marijuanna. In fact, there is a huge difference.

Are you are saying your sense of smell is so sensitive you can smell MJ in plastic bags hidden in the trunk of a car?

What you say makes no sense.

I think I’m done. Thanks for the conversation.

Peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Are you are saying your sense of smell is so sensitive you can smell MJ in plastic bags hidden in the trunk of a car?

What you say makes no sense.

I think I’m done. Thanks for the conversation.

Peace to you

I have on many occasions smelled marijuanna in bags. Plastic does a very poor job of containing Marij. odor. I could tell you a few ways to hide the odor, even from a dog, but I wont.
My sense of smell is normal. I always say the only people who cant smell it are the ones who smoke it.

 

[Salty]

I have on many occasions smelled marijuanna in bags. Plastic does a very poor job of containing Marij. odor. I could tell you a few ways to hide the odor, even from a dog, but I wont.
My sense of smell is normal. I always say the only people who cant smell it are the ones who smoke it.

Reynolds,

Apparently, Canadyjd is an expert in all areas of law enforcement.
He must be the Police Chief of a large US City, you know, Chicago, Detroid, St Louis or some such city.

 

[canadyjd]

Reynolds,

Apparently, Canadyjd is an expert in all areas of law enforcement.
He must be the Police Chief of a large US City, you know, Chicago, Detroid, St Louis or some such city.

I never claimed to be an expert in law enforcement.

The poster first stated that he, as a LEO, “ Usually” searched the vehicles of Americans of African descent because they were rude to him. See post #42. That is a violation of civil rights because he had no probable cause. You don’t have to be an expert to understand that.

In repeatedly attempting to defend that statement, the poster finally gave an example where he applied his reasoning. He stopped two vehicles, both had smell of marijuana. He searched the vehicle of the driver that was rude, but gave the driver that cooperated a warning about MJ.

That is stunning to me. A LEO ignored objective evidence of probable cause (smell of MJ) and instead based his decision to search the vehicles on the subjective evidence of whether he thought they were being cooperative.

At best, that is poor police work, but it’s probably just a poor attempt to justify racial bias on the part of a LEO, in my non-expert on matters of law enforcement opinion.

peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I never claimed to be an expert in law enforcement.

The poster first stated that he, as a LEO, “ Usually” searched the vehicles of Americans of African descent because they were rude to him. See post #42. That is a violation of civil rights because he had no probable cause. You don’t have to be an expert to understand that.

In repeatedly attempting to defend that statement, the poster finally gave an example where he applied his reasoning. He stopped two vehicles, both had smell of marijuana. He searched the vehicle of the driver that was rude, but gave the driver that cooperated a warning about MJ.

That is stunning to me. A LEO ignored objective evidence of probable cause (smell of MJ) and instead based his decision to search the vehicles on the subjective evidence of whether he thought they were being cooperative.

At best, that is poor police work, but it’s probably just a poor attempt to justify racial bias on the part of a LEO, in my non-expert on matters of law enforcement opinion.

peace to you

From the original description, besides race, three factors stand out regarding the suspects: politeness, cooperation, and OK answers. The first, white, was positive on all three. The second, black, was negative on the first two, so that the third—and most important—could not be assessed without employing other means.

Your argument seems to be that had the black been impolite yet cooperative and given OK answers, his car would still have been searched. Can you demonstrate that from anything presented? Further clarification seems to demonstrate just the opposite, and that other available legal means provided non-OK answers which established probable cause leading to legal searches.

 

[canadyjd]

From the original description, besides race, three factors stand out regarding the suspects: politeness, cooperation, and OK answers......Further clarification seems to demonstrate just the opposite, and that other available legal means provided non-OK answers which established probable cause leading to legal searches.

First of all, they are not “suspects” of any crime beyond a traffic violation. The full extent of required cooperation of any driver in this circumstance is to provide ID, registration, and proof of insurance. Answering any questions beyond that is purely voluntary.

Apparently, telling this LEO that “I don’t have to tell you my sh...” means the driver fails his test of “ok” answers and, in his mind, is probable cause to search the vehicle.

From the original description, the poster clearly indicated he “Usually” searched the vehicles of Americans of African descent based on their cussing him and refusing to answer questions.

That is not probable cause that a crime has been committed. That is not probable cause to search the vehicle. To search vehicles under those circumstances is a violation of civil rights.

Peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

First of all, they are not “suspects” of any crime beyond a traffic violation. The full extent of required cooperation of any driver in this circumstance is to provide ID, registration, and proof of insurance. Answering any questions beyond that is purely voluntary.

Apparently, telling this LEO that “I don’t have to tell you my sh...” means the driver fails his test of “ok” answers and, in his mind, is probable cause to search the vehicle.

From the original description, the poster clearly indicated he “Usually” searched the vehicles of Americans of African descent based on their cussing him and refusing to answer questions.

That is not probable cause that a crime has been committed. That is not probable cause to search the vehicle. To search vehicles under those circumstances is a violation of civil rights.

How do you know the full extent of the violation without inquiry? Answer the questions or expect the officer to use other legal means to get the answers. Refusing to answer, whether rudely or politely, may not cut it.

And don’t twist words and expect to get away with it. The probable cause, if any, clearly comes from the other legal means of getting those answers, not from refusing to answer or from being rude.

 

[canadyjd]

How do you know the full extent of the violation without inquiry? Answer the questions or expect the officer to use other legal means to get the answers. Refusing to answer, whether rudely or politely, may not cut it.

And don’t twist words and expect to get away with it. The probable cause, if any, clearly comes from the other legal means of getting those answers, not from refusing to answer or from being rude.

There is no “twisting of words”. Post #42 lays out the poster’s “Usual” interaction during traffic stops. He searched the vehicles of Americans of African descent because they are rude to him.

As far as knowing the “full extent” of the violation, when a LEO stops someone for speeding that violation is the full extent of what the LEO knows.

He can be observant for other violations. He can ask questions, but the driver has no obligation to answer.

Any action the LEO takes that goes beyond what he knows can be seen as harassment, and this is especially odorous when the LEO demonstrates racial bias. Any search without probable cause is a violation of civil rights.

As far as “other legal means” of obtaining answers to the questions, perhaps you could articulate what those are? If a citizen tells a LEO he will not answer questions that cannot be used as probable cause that a crime has been committed and a vehicle search is warranted.

Please articulate the “other legal means” of getting answers to the questions.

peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...
As far as “other legal means” of obtaining answers to the questions, perhaps you could articulate what those are? If a citizen tells a LEO he will not answer questions that cannot be used as probable cause that a crime has been committed and a vehicle search is warranted.

Please articulate the “other legal means” of getting answers to the questions.

Sounds like some previous explanations have been missed or are being ignored or denied, which presents an impasse. I'll just let the judges/jurors decide.

 

[just-want-peace]

Sounds like some previous explanations have been missed or are being ignored or denied, which presents an impasse. I'll just let the judges/jurors decide.

"My mind is made up.Don't confuse me with facts!"

 

[canadyjd]

Sounds like some previous explanations have been missed or are being ignored or denied, which presents an impasse. I'll just let the judges/jurors decide.

So you have no “other legal means” to obtain answers to the questions.

If a citizen refuses to answer a LEO questions there is no legal means to get answers to those questions.

For instance, per the statement in post#42, a LEO stops a vehicle for a traffic violation. The LEO advises the driver why he stopped him, asked for ID, registration, proof of insurance which is given. The LEO then asks, “where are you going” to which the driver responds by cursing the LEO, telling him it’s none of his business where he’s going.

The LEO has no other legal means to obtain an answer to that question. Refusal to answer the question is not evidence of a crime and does not give probable cause to search the vehicle.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

"My mind is made up.Don't confuse me with facts!"

I have done nothing but focus on the facts. Racial bias was articulated in post #42. The stories and explanations used to justify the racial bias make no sense in real world application.

A LEO doesn’t ignore probable cause (smell of marijuana) and then base the decision to search vehicles on whether the driver is polite or rude. That doesn’t make sense.

peace to you

 

[just-want-peace]

I have done nothing but focus on the facts. Racial bias was articulated in post #42. The stories and explanations used to justify the racial bias make no sense in real world application.

A LEO doesn’t ignore probable cause (smell of marijuana) and then base the decision to search vehicles on whether the driver is polite or rude. That doesn’t make sense.

peace to you

Again I ask, as did someone else, just to consider the validity of your opinion, WHAT IS YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE??
To just say that you don't want to talk about your personal life doesn't cut it; this is NOT about your "personal life", just whether you are qualified to make judgments about law enforcement.
Opinions are fine, but that does not translate into "INFORMED" opinions.
I know back during my working years I formed many wrong opinions due to not knowing all the facts; which I changed with new info.
Now if you are speaking from LEO experience, then I can value your opinion - I may not agree, but then more info may result in a change of mind.
I have NO LEO experience, but the explanations of posters, to me anyway, make sense, and override the simple statements of the initial post.
I know neither of us are going to change the other's mind, but I just want to clarify that I'm not condemning you, just disagreeing!!
I have noticed many of your other posts, I have agreed with, so this phase of conversation, AFAIC, is closed!!
Have a great day forward!!

FINIS!!

 

[canadyjd]

Again I ask, as did someone else, just to consider the validity of your opinion, WHAT IS YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE??
To just say that you don't want to talk about your personal life doesn't cut it; this is NOT about your "personal life", just whether you are qualified to make judgments about law enforcement.
Opinions are fine, but that does not translate into "INFORMED" opinions.
I know back during my working years I formed many wrong opinions due to not knowing all the facts; which I changed with new info.
Now if you are speaking from LEO experience, then I can value your opinion - I may not agree, but then more info may result in a change of mind.
I have NO LEO experience, but the explanations of posters, to me anyway, make sense, and override the simple statements of the initial post.
I know neither of us are going to change the other's mind, but I just want to clarify that I'm not condemning you, just disagreeing!!
I have noticed many of your other posts, I have agreed with, so this phase of conversation, AFAIC, is closed!!
Have a great day forward!!

FINIS!!

I don’t know what AFAIC means.

As I stated before, you don’t have to be an expert to see the racial bias of post #42. You don’t have to be a LEO to understand the inappropriate methodology of ignoring probable cause (smell of marijuana) and then basing the decision to search a vehicle on whether the drivers are polite or rude.

I appreciate your questions and your position. We can disagree and still be civil so thanks for that.

peace to you